The PR response to Americans overwhelmed by news

A recent study by the Knight Foundation showed that Americans are overwhelmed by news, particularly online, and they are adapting by picking a few trusted news sources.

Few. Trusted.

Those are the key words.

I have commented on this phenomenon before, including in a previous post where I proposed social media outlets like Facebook and others divide their content into channels to separate news from noise.

But we are arriving at something else I have predicted. In time, the allure of having so much free accessible content online will become counterproductive to both the news industry and consumers. And this recent study shows that consumers have determined the volume leads to more difficulty in staying informed, not ease.

As is often the case, industry finally changes when consumers change their own behavior. And the behavior of news consumers is a lesson and strategic insight for public relations professionals.

Consumers are self selecting fewer sources of news. Instead of gorging themselves on an open buffet of headlines in a social media stream or clicking through multiple apps and websites, they are ordering off the menu and exercising portion control in their daily diet of news.

They also want trusted sources. There is much anxiety about misinformation and disinformation from unreliable and even nefarious sources online. One example of the scope of the problem is the organized professional response, such as the Institute for Public Relations 2020 Disinformation in Society Report. So consumers are starting to weed out the nonsense and amateur punditry and look for actual news.

Here’s what this means for public relations professionals.

  • media relations rises in importance. The value of news releases and pitching stories to mainstream media was considered at least in part diminished when it was possible to do an end-run on reporters and get our information directly to publics via blogs, social posts and email blasts and other means that appeared alongside traditional media content in the user’s environment. But that may be less likely to be seen if people are only paying attention to a few sources. Or, if they do see it, they may not trust it. The old fashioned notion of “source credibility” as the primary value of earned media is returning.
  • don’t flood the market. We have to remember that even with opt-in email campaigns or engagement efforts on social media, the average person is overwhelmed. Less may be more.
  • reputation precedes content. The study shows trust matters more than ever. Public relations people who know what they are doing have always worked on building and maintaining reputation, not just awareness. Now that has to come first. People evaluate whether they read a newsletter, brochure, blog post or any other content from an organization based on reputation and trust. It does not good to simply push content without building a reputational foundation first.

The bottom line is to remember the public any PR pro wants to reach is likely overwhelmed. The strategy is not to add to the problem, but solve it by becoming among the few trusted sources of information that meets their needs, not just ours.

Government News Service for Residents: Offensive to News Media?

The Ottawa County (Michigan) government recently announced a new subscription news service to residents of the county. Being a resident, and  PR professor, I subscribed to receive by email a variety of county news releases across categories. I already have received several, and find them to be objective and informative, as government information should be.

But it didn’t take long for one paper in the county, the Grand Haven Tribune, (self disclosure: I write a monthly column for the paper as a community columnist), to take issue with the county’s new public service. The July 29, 2015 editorial (not online yet as I blog so this link is to the opinion page vs the specific editorial) cautions that the county’s news service is a “slippery slope” and the put the word ‘news’ in quotes in the headline and throughout the opinion. Their concerns are that the county may be circumventing professional media, or that in time it will be like Pravda, the Russian state media. They wonder aloud if residents feel the county will give unbiased reports of County Commission meetings and other public information.

I take issue with the Tribune taking issue with all of this.

I have a degree in journalism and practiced it for a time and still respect the role of objective journalism in democratic society. But I also have studied, practiced and now teach public relations, as well as PR ethics and law, and I commend Ottawa County for this new service. I disagree that it conflicts with the role of traditional newspaper and other news outlets, and I would assert that there are many positives to a subscription news service for residents.

Let me first address the Tribune’s complaints.

First, the Tribune needs to reconsider the arrogant posture that only it and other journalistic organizations have a corner on ‘news.’ News comes from newspapers and broadcast media, sure, but it also comes directly from organizations, institutions and individuals. Newspapers report news, they don’t create it, invent it, or own it. The Constitution guarantees “freedom of the press” to any individual to print and disseminate information, not just “journalists.” The residents or any other audience are the ones who should determine what is newsworthy.

On a related point, the communications professionals at Ottawa County are professionals. The Tribune expressed concern about the County circumventing “professional” media. But public relations professionals–whether in the government, nonprofit, or business sector–also have professional degrees and standards of practice.

What Ottawa County is doing is not new. It is good PR practice. PR practitioners have long communicated with a mix of forms of media, characterized by the acronym PESO–paid, earned, shared, and owned. Paid media is advertising or anything that must be paid for. Earned media is conventional media relations, sending news releases to journalists with the hope that the editors and reporters who receive it will do a story as a result. Owned media includes the newsletters, annual reports, brochures, web sites and anything else an organization owns and controls as a form of communication. And recently shared media is the digital forum where tweets and posts are passed along by individual users in their respective networks. If you go to the news page on the Ottawa County web site you can sign up for these news releases as well as newsletters, annual reports and other forms of information.

A third point is the fact that not all news is covered. Even though journalists call themselves the watchdogs of government, they have limits in what they can cover. There is a volume of information available from Ottawa County and I doubt the Tribune has the capacity to cover all of it. They have to make decisions as to what is of must value to their readers and the community at large. The county subscription service doesn’t compete with newspapers, it complements them and allows small groups of individuals to subscribe to very specific information of particular interest to them which may not get any attention in mainstream media.

Finally, the Tribune should acknowledge that Ottawa County exists in the same media environment that conventional newspapers do. Just as the Tribune has expanded online and into the social media landscape, so must all institutions. Digital media enables interaction, individually tailored information across multiple platforms and formats. If newspapers do this, why not the government? The county will likely garner an assortment of small audiences for various forms of information. The Tribune will still be needed to bring the most relevant and important information to broad audiences who would not otherwise seek it. And if the county does fall into the temptation to control information like Pravda, that’s where the watchdog role comes in. I’m sure that the Tribune staff will still be sitting in on open county meetings and reporting on them, going beyond what the news releases say.

Meanwhile, there are many positives for the county’s information subscription service. They do not pass over the conventional media, they merely offer specific and direct delivery of information to their constituents–a laudable goal. They are providing more transparency and accountability. They are staying up to date with technology. They are serving their constituents. Sounds to me like good “news.”

In fact, the county did make the news recently for winning another award for its website. I’m not concerned, I’m grateful. In time I think the Tribune will be also.

Millennials and Media: Barometer of Future PR

Two recent studies show some trends among the millennial generation and their media use that may be a barometer of things to come in the larger population in years ahead.

One study reported in the current issue of the Journal of Communication Inquiry  offers interesting perspective about teen news consumption based on interviews with 61 racially diverse high schoolers. It’s easy to parrot the complaint that young people don’t pay attention to news like they should, but this study shows a more nuanced understanding of youth and the news.
The fact that teens are not reading traditional newspapers and tuning in to conventional television news programs does not mean they are indifferent to news. Rather, they are skeptical about the notion of “objectivity” in the news, both in the sense that it isn’t always so objective but also that objectivity does not necessarily inform them fully. For example, they prefer Facebook and social media, where they are exposed to links from “friends” as well as multiple comments. In interviews, teens said this better enables them to hear real pros and cons on issues and not the obtuse glaze of objectivity (the words “obtuse glaze” are mine:-) ). The young people interviewed probably don’t realize they are embracing the old concept of a public sphere of dialog about issues but that’s what they are doing. It’s the peer discussion more than the formal presentation format of news that excites them. As others have said, news is now a process, not a product.
For the same reason, teens gravitate to blogs, fake news shows like Jon Stewart, talk radio, and opinionated current events shows because they feel the discussions that ensue are more substantive and the implications more evident than in conventional news sources. 
One note of evident critical thinking from the teens: they criticize news sites for content that seems more entertaining than informative. In other words, they notice the appeal to reach audiences for advertisers can overwhelm a public interest motivation. 
Meanwhile, another study in Australia, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald in late November (hat tip PR professor colleague Tom Watson who shared this on Twitter), showed that 61% of Facebook users aged 18-29 feel they spend too much time on the social media site. This sentiment among the young people was nearly double that of the 753 Australian Facebook users surveyed in the study. What’s more, 47% in that 18-29 age group considered disliking Facebook for good because of feeling that it has become a time waster.
Could it be that the young are starting to think of Facebook as “so five years ago?” 
Well, probably not. They also said they would feel left out if they disconnected altogether. My sense is the reason that the young are more likely to say they spend too much time on Facebook is because they young actually DO spend way too much time on Facebook. As the study concluded, users will probably keep their Facebook (and other social media accounts) but usage will probably go down in the future.
The take-away for PR pros about both of these studies is that we should pay attention to “leading edge” studies like this. There may be contradictory studies, since generalization is always a matter of degree. But these studies could be a barometer of a change in news and social media use in the future. People may  use social media less, and when they are there, it will be for more substantive and functional reasons than what has been the case for many in the past. 
So PR people will have to consider:
  • the reach of publicity is not based on subscribers and viewers, but on shares and comments;
  • the comment sections of news sites are not an after-thought to the article, but the place where the real PR action is;
  • providing content that is specifically relevant and genuinely substantive is more important than catching eyeballs with anything that titillates;
  • allowing for not just dialogue, but debate if the content put forth is about contemporary issues;
  • public relations is once again about the “public sphere.”