Facebook is moving into the news business, hoping to capitalise on news outlets latest refocus on social networking. It’s Edition’s project will see the networking giant face-up to Apple and Google, who are both working on project to monitise our appetite for news in real-time.
Fifteen years ago news outlets opted to make the content that had a cover-price free online, a strategy based trying to get a slice of the then large online advertising pie. Then, after putting all of it’s eggs in one basket, it faced with a severe decline in advertising revenue, forcing many newsrooms to cut their staff. Then, after much strategising some outlets opted for paywalls, a decision that to this day still causes plenty of debate in the news industry. Some outlets, like the The Times, Sunday Times, New York Times and the Financial Times delivered various options – fully restrictive or freemium services. It all appears to have provided some security for the medium-term.
Enter Facebook, who with over 750 million members has decided to move into the news business with it’s Facebook Editions – an app that allows users to consume news within it’s walls.
News outlets had been working with Apple and it’s Newsstand offering which would update subscribers news subscriptions via an exclusive App. I wrote a post about this in September 2009 about the ‘Changing And Charging TimesFor News.’ Many outlets have signed-up to Apple’s Newsstand. Others haven’t, not liking the terms set out – including a 30% fee for Apple. The Financial Times is a case whereby they have taken their content from the App Store and have developed an HTML5 site that can be accessed through iPhone, iPods and iPads. Developed by Assanka, the HTML5 app is fluid and smooth and as a subscriber I have to say that it set’s the standard.
Facebook knows that over a third of its 750 million users access the site through mobile devices, and those who access the site on a cell-phone or tablet as active than traditional desktop users. This explains why news outlets like CNN, The Washington Post and Rupert Murdoch’s The Daily are wanting in on Zuckerberg’s next project.
The fact is that the consumption of news has not diminished, it has most probably risen. Start-up’s like Flipboard show how we the consumer like our news to be gathered from trusted sources that can verify content, such as journalists, as well as from friends and peers that can deliver unverified news, enabling us to be the first for news.
The speed at which news is consumed is what the PR community is going to have to focus on as outlets compete to deliver quality content.
Burson’s Social Reputation Damaged By Facebook Work
Sunday, May 15th, 2011Global public relations and communications agency Burson-Marsteller was outted last week by a blogger for planting anti-Google stories for Facebook that would smear the reputation of the search giant.
Blogger Chris Soghoian was approached by Director of Burson-Marsteller’s Washington DC Media Practice John Mercurio to see if he would write an op-ed for a top-tier media outlet that from a PR perspective would further raise awareness of privacy issues surrounding Google’s business. Soghoian rebuffed Mercurio and published their email correspondence, which was subsequently picked up by The Daily Beast who confirmed that Burson’s client was the social networking mammoth Facebook.
The assignment raises questions not just about the ethics of PR in promoting one set of views over another, but also our industry’s understanding of the media landscape in which it operates.
Let’s not be naïve, assignments such as the one that Burson accepted does take place. It is part and parcel of what the business world. Briefings, allegations, misinformation are tactics that while they are crude, are part of certain people’s skill-set.
That said, one of the first questions that needs to be asked is that of why did Facebook deide to or even agreed to a campaign to highlight the failings of a competitor? Such campaigns, as we have seen, carry a lot or risk and can leave ones reputation severely damaged. Why didn’t Facebook embark on a communication initiative that would highlight it’s strengths, while ignoring competitors weaknesses. Strategically the answer lies within Facebook and the counsel it received from Burson-Marsteller.
All this said and knowing about the factitious relationship that exists between these two giants, questions have to be asked about the quality of Burson’s work, an agency that I must declare I did work for in 2008.
The content, structure and tone in the brief email correspondence between the two parties that Soghoian released raise a number of key points and questions:
Bearing these points in mind and from reading his email exchange with Soghoian one questions why Burson would have Mercurio work on such a project. Let me highlight the reasons I ask this:
Such work is only successful if there is an element of trust that you can work on. Approaching bloggers in such a cold manner leaves not just an agency such a Burson-Marsteller open to attack, but also the client who rightly so would expect anonymity.
Mercurio is trained as a journalist, with a background in politics. Surely he has experience on how to received leaks and how to protect sources.
From a communications perspective the whole operation leaves one questioning not just the suitability of Burson for such an assignment, but the internal understanding of how views and opinions are shaped in a world that is less media-centric. There will be plenty of internal questions within this prestigious agency given that it isn’t just Facebook’s reputation that’s been damaged.
Tags: agency, blogging, burson marsteller, communications, facebook, google, journalism, leaks, news, pr, privacy, public relations, reputation, security
Posted in comment, journalism, news, pr, reputation, social media | 2 Comments »