Of all of the lines about the media business I have ripped off over the years, the one that I seem to use the most consistently is “The ‘T’ in TV stands for ‘Today.’” In TV news, for as long as I can remember, if a story doesn’t have a “today” hook and a sense of “now,” it’s probably not going to get covered. “Evergreen” stories are nearly impossible to get covered. Now, it isn’t just TV where that applies.

The significant reduction of traditional media resources and space has caused a wave of changes in the PR business. But one of them is a a change in mindset. We have had to learn how to get used to waiting for even “good stories” to get done and then usually wait some more for them to appear.

A few weeks ago, we got a call from a reporter who had been assigned a business trend story by her editor. She thought one of the organizations we work with could be helpful. We provided information and access right away and she had what she needed relatively quickly, considering it was an enterprise story. Yet, the story took 13 days to appear online and in print.

Three weeks ago today, a TV station interviewed one of our Tanner Friedman clients for a planned “promotable” story. It has yet to go on the air because a glut of “day of” news has gotten in the way. 22 days ago, a business reporter got back to us with some follow-up questions about a possible story. That reporter hasn’t been able to get back to it since.

It’s important to remember when bringing potential news to journalists that “the news of the day” is always going to win. Everything else, even if reporters and editors like the story, is going to have to wait. That can be frustrating, but it is important to remember that it’s the new reality and something you need to condition your clients to expect.

The best way to get coverage now is either to have something that can’t wait, like an announcement that meets news criteria, or to offer an angle to a story that the media is already covering. Otherwise, it is going to require patience for you and your client. That is something we didn’t need as much in this job just a few years ago. Now, it’s an imperative quality.

Analyzing PR strategies has long been something of a parlor game inside newsrooms. Reporters and editors often do have keen insight into what’s working and what isn’t. But, when their bosses have to enter an adversity communications management situation, they often struggle.

The latest evidence of this is seen now with the Journal News in suburban Westchester County, New York – the newspaper that ignited a national controversy by publishing the names of registered gun owners in its circulation area. While the information was previously public, controversy reigns about its newsworthiness of it, along with privacy concerns and charges of gun demonization, putting the paper at the top of the list of other news outlets politicians, interest groups and ill-intentioned citizens.

In recent days, we have seen reports that journalists have received suspicious packages containing white power and the newspaper itself, along with the homes of both its publisher and its editor, are being protected with armed security. Personal information has been posted online about where journalists live, some have reportedly received threats and bloggers have reportedly encouraged readers to steal journalists’ credit card information.

From a PR perspective, the paper is reiterating its message, which stands by its story. The reporter who wrote the story that accompanied the map told the New York Times, “The people have as much of a right to know who owns guns in their communities as gun owners have to own weapons.” But, I haven’t found anything else that the paper is doing, like convening discussion about the issues or trying to take control of the dialogue in the community it serves.

There is more to PR than media relations and media outlets need to understand this. I once helped a daily newspaper convene twice-monthly community roundtables, for two years after a divisive strike. That type of tactic would help here, especially with the newspaper business in such peril. Newspapers can’t afford to be passive during a time when business preservation is paramount.

Other forms of media often have trouble when the PR is their own. Years ago, a TV station that grabbed ratings by skewering companies that wouldn’t go on camera with them after ambushes had a news reporter accused of using homophobic and racist slurs to a man on a street while out on a story, leading to a criminal charge. When asked by a print reporter about the incident, the station’s general manager ironically responded, “We have no comment, and it’s a company policy not to comment until the investigation is complete.”

Like any other business, the media business can have PR needs. Top management, like that in any other industry, should seek counsel or, at the very least, stop by the newsroom for advice.

This week, we’re seeing new reports of newspapers decimating their ranks of journalists, somehow thinking that that will help with their chances of survival. Newspapers in New Orleans and Alabama laid off half their staffs – hundreds of journalists – this week. At the same time, reports say the already skin-and-bones Detroit Free Press will cut even more. It’s very similar to what we have seen in radio, where big corporate owners have tried (and largely failed) to cut their way to success.

But what if another familiar industry tried this approach? Let’s say you live in a city with one full-service restaurant – a venerable and trusted institution that has served generations excellent food with the highest level of service – alongside four fast-food restaurants, as the only dining establishments in town. Ten years ago, when sit-down dinner business began to fall off because customers preferred quick meals for their busy lives, the restaurant opened a drive-through. To generate interest in the new drive-through, it gave free dinners to anyone who used it.

As revenue began to slip, the family that owned the restaurant sold for cash to a corporation that owned restaurants all over the country. The former owners moved into a mansion in a city far away and the corporate owners began to cut. Ten years later, when there were not enough cooks to keep up with orders, they cut down the menu, offering fewer choices. They cut the wait staff, which for years had focused on personalized service, so there is one server per four tables. As business fell off, corporate owners ordered lesser qualities of meat, replacing USDA Prime, and doubled the price of steaks. Workers felt overworked and underpaid but were just happy to have a job. Meanwhile, the drive-through continued to give away food for free. Business continued to fall and the corporation continued to cut.

In this case, the restaurant is the newspaper. The drive-through is the Web version of the paper. The steak is the paper itself. And fast-food, well that’s broadcast (for the record, I believe there is such as thing as good fast-food). If the restaurant seems like a business nightmare, you get the idea of what’s happening in the media business.

Why would a company reduce the quality of its product, making it less valuable to customers and seem like it has no interest in growing market share? As a wise source once said, “Follow the money.”

Public media company executives don’t get bonused on how many stories their companies break or how many Pulitzers their newsrooms win. They don’t get to keep or lose their jobs because of good or bad journalism. They are like all other public corporations – it’s all about “hitting the numbers.”

While journalists lose their jobs and communities lose their journalists, executives get paid. Case in point, Gannett, which owns more newspapers than any other company. Their CEO received $32 million to leave the company earlier this year.

Without journalists, the executives of today who cash out tomorrow may have no way of knowing when the newspapers they oversaw finally cease to exist.

We are living in extraordinary times. While Dan Gilbert, Pete Karmanos and others in the business community continue to provide investment and momentum for development, commerce, downtown living and increased tax revenue in the city, Detroit’s civic leadership continues to struggle. This morning, the Editorial Page Editors of both dailies, Nolan Finley and Stephen Henderson – addressed the issue head on with necessary candor.

Opines Finley of the Detroit News: “Somewhere in the city there may be someone capable of running Detroit, but it’s not the bunch occupying City Hall. [Governor] Snyder tried a shared-power arrangement in deference to the city’s pleas to respect local control. Now the governor can see what local control looks like in Detroit. Snyder should appoint an emergency manager and put an end to this train wreck before it takes down the rest of the state.”

Anytime anyone questions the power of the press and importance of the media (including oft-maligned print), I point to columns like this or, similarly, Pulitzer Prize winning pieces that bring public corruption such as Kwame Kilpatrick’s wrongdoings to light. Outstanding journalism cannot be underestimated and should not go unappreciated as it serves as an important seeker of truth and catalyst for positive change.

We started Tanner Friedman five years ago this week, on the cusp of some of the most profound changes the PR and media businesses have ever experienced. Like our friends in the newsrooms, we have lived the changes you have noticed and read about. Sometimes, it seems a shame that we didn’t document it on camera, as history has been made in front of us more than once.

Someone, though, had the foresight to follow the superb journalists who cover media for The New York Times. The people who have chronicled the changes, while working in the epicenter of change, are the primary subjects of a documentary called “Page One.” It premiered last summer in a relatively few theaters but is now airing on The History Channel and is available via Netflix, among other providers.

Since you’re reading this blog, the subject of media change likely at least intrigues you. So, I highly recommend that you watch this film. In addition to featuring an industry, a company and a newsroom in transition, the film also captures a glimpse of the editorial process, something we as PR professionals work with every day. For PR pros who never worked in a newsroom (or haven’t lately), the interaction between reporters, editors and subjects is “must see.”

Much of the film centers on compelling reporters David Carr, whose background as a recovering drug addict and former welfare recipient makes him an ironic figure at the pinnacle of journalism, and Brian Stelter, a former college blogger who moved to the epitome of traditional media to cover media. Both are terrific reporters whose Twitter feeds I regularly depend on to keep up with what’s happening on a daily basis.

One of my pet peeves in working with newspapers (shared by many journalists inside newspapers) is also exposed in the film. Many news decisions are still dictated by “space in the paper,” even though the news organizations themselves are supposed to be following the customer-driven trend to digital content. “Column inches” are still driving factors even though online space works differently and is potentially less limiting.

For your media consumption, Page One should be priority one in the coming weeks. If you have seen it or if you now decide to see it, please share your comments and reaction. It’s a film that makes you think about where this is all going and the value to society of “real” journalism.

Take a look at these quotes from a Time magazine article on the state of the newspaper industry. When do you think the article appeared?

-”(Daily newspaper) competition has vanished in all but 61 U.S. cities…”
-”…(Five newspapers) are fighting for their lives. (One newspaper) is dangerously close to death).”
-”In content, the papers run heavily to features, prize contests, decollete pictures, columnists by the dozen, and other trivia.”

Something from a media critic recently, as traditional media is engulfed in change? How about July 14, 1961?

Not long ago, someone gave me a copy of the Time article from 50 years ago, as New York was at a point when it could no longer support seven daily newspapers. The reasons were familiar – consumer media consumption patterns were changing, readers were choosing relevant content over infotainment and those who could not lead were losing money. Essentially, those are the same factors that today are driving media change.

For those who still seem uneasy with the fact that newspaper circulation is dropping, realize that it is a trend that began more than five decades ago (when, according to this article, most U.S. cities became “one newspaper towns”). New York, then and now, because of its large commuter mass, is the exception to the rule.

According to this article, I saw that the seeds of the “personal media” trend began even in 1960. Price hikes that year at the less popular New York papers didn’t help them make money. Why? Consumers, even then, wanted what they wanted, when they wanted it, how they wanted it. Given the choice, consumers gravitated to the most valuable content, driving change. Just like now.

It’s interesting and perhaps telling that just as I was sitting down tonight to write this blog on newspapers, Matt published his on the same medium. Gannett’s announcement today actually fits right into what I continue to lament: the continued shrinking of local news content.

Let’s start with this dynamic in its simplest form. When I first began in PR nearly 17 years ago, one of the most basic tactics in the field involved personnel announcements – writing and distributing a press release to the hometown paper of client news/accolades accompanied by their photo. Typically, within a week or so, the release and photo would run in the “People” section of the paper. Those, of course, were the days when this particular section ran in virtually every newspaper everyday. Today, you’re lucky if it runs once a week if at all.

Similarly, I recently spent time at an event with one of the area’s finest, long-time society writers. We both lamented the fact that the society pages are often a mere shadow of their former selves. Thinner papers mean less space for news overall and that is now comprised, more often than not, of reader-sought-after content related to the automotive industry and sports.

My contention, whether for local newspapers, television or radio, is that local content should remain king. When someone’s announcement and photo appear in the paper, what is the first thing that person does? Typically, they buy more copies. And then they tell their family and friends and they may well do the same. AP wire reports on national news we can get anywhere. And, if there’s no room in the physical paper, isn’t online space virtually limitless?

I would humbly suggest to the powers that be to not lose sight of what makes their medium stand out from all others. After all, doesn’t it follow that covering more of your readers more often will encourage readership?

Another 700 journalists across the country found out today that they’re losing their jobs. It’s the latest in a series of ongoing newsroom job cuts by Gannett, the company that owns more newspapers (and their websites) than any other. This story by the well respected Poynter Institute reveals the internal communication that was used and reminds us that the company’s CEO took a seven-figure bonus and a 100% salary increase earlier this year.

This move may be good for the company’s financial reports in the short term, but it’s simply not good for its business or its industry in the long term. Fewer journalists means less local news content and less value to the people who pay the mounting bills – advertisers, subscribers and website clickers.

By cutting where the customers actually notice, news organizations just deepen their issues. We have said it before and we will say it again – Content Is King. If the generators of local news and information continue to be reduced, consumers will go elsewhere looking for that content, exploring multiple platforms, and advertisers will follow.

While it’s easy to blame current company management, they must share that blame with their predecessors. While the need to innovate was staring them in the face, they, like their counterpart in many industries, continued “business as usual,” taking their salaries and bonuses into retirement, kicking the glaring problems to the next generation of management.

One Gannett journalist not affected by today’s cuts boldly put a rhetorical question on his personal Twitter page tonight, “So just how do layoffs help a newspaper deepen its public service journalism and improve local news?” That pretty much sums up a sad day for journalists and the communities they hope to serve.

If you know me well you know that I’ve been talking about getting back to San Antonio for a visit for some time now.  Last week I made it happen. And though  I won’t tell you the exact year when I was last there, let’s just say it was some time ago and they were still holding World’s Fairs. A lover of both history and mystery, I especially wanted to return for a visit to an iconic monument; one which portends lessons on news, fame and myth vs. legend: The Alamo.

Though I was not born in time to experience first hand Disney’s 1950s branding/merchandising of Davy Crockett through television, actor Fess Parker’s later TV portrayal of a coonskin capped predecessor, Daniel Boone, coupled with John Wayne’s rendition of Crockett on the silver screen had me hooked (and soon sporting both a fur hat and play rifle from Disney World). I was far from alone. Crockett in Texas was portrayed as a patriot – there for the sole purpose of fighting for freedom.

In later years, I have read much of the trials of Texas’s revolution and eventual separation from Mexico, fueled and inspired by the sacrifices of 200 men against an army of more than 2,000.  I learned even more on this trip. It is quite interesting to compare and contrast the transmittal of news then (1836) and now.  Through the 13 day siege prior to the final assault, Alamo commander William Travis, just 26, was able to deliver via courier, several letters to Sam Houston on the state of the situation. Many were published verbatim in area newspapers and an army was eventually raised, although not in time. It would take nearly a week for the General to hear of the Alamo’s fall.

At 49 years of age and following two terms in Congress, David Crockett was easily the Alamo’s most famous defender. He was, in fact, one of America’s first true celebrities, immortalized in books and plays of the day and covered in the paper – the mass media of the day. In the wrong place at the wrong time (he came to Texas, despite legend, not to fight but to stake claim to land and reinvigorate his political career), his exact fate – whether perishing in battle or executed afterward – continues to be hotly debated to this day.

At the time, Crockett’s whereabouts were questioned in newspapers across the country days, weeks and even months after the March 6^th battle.  Some had him back hunting bear in his native Tennessee, others confined to a life of slavery in the Mexican mines. Eventually, eyewitness accounts from survivors settled the debates.

For me and no doubt any history lover it is all quite fascinating: from the dedication of men destined for immortality, to how the story was originally told and reported, to how it continues to be reexamined and oten retold more than 175 years later.

This past week provided another opportunity for Tanner Friedman to speak on communications – this time at the request of the Detroit Regional Chamber as we helped inaugurate their “Elevate” business series.

What was different about this presentation was that rather than focusing on a particular platform or tool, I was asked to go over “the basics”; specifically, what is PR, marketing and advertising (and how one can utilize all for a well-rounded, multi-tiered approach). By the way, I had about 20 minutes to do this!

When we talk about strategic communications (our firm’s tagline), we are describing what we do for our clients, namely, helping them to “tell their stories.”  Thus, public relations is a medium that allows you to do this, using a range of tools,  including:

-Traditional media: TV, radio, newspapers, magazines (and their online counterparts—another presenter went through social media). Like no other medium, PR provides ‘third party credibility.’

-Marketing: Website, e-blasts, (e)-newsletters direct mail, brochures, sales materials, conferences/trade shows, association involvement. We look at these marketing avenues, in fact, as ideal ways for clients to “tell their own stories” in light of shrinking news holes while also leveraging traditional media coverage,  beyond original air and publications dates.

-Advertising: Finally, when discussing this avenue, we went through how various ad venues present particular advantages for audience targeting. Cable TV and billboards, for example, allow for pinpointing potential customers geographically, while, radio is better suited for honing in on demographics related to age, gender and income.

For the complete powerpoint on “The Basics” via SlideShare click here.