So, again we find the BBC dominating the headlines for reasons of controversy. Unless you have been doing a Rip van Winkle impression this past week you will have seen the news that both the BBC and Sky have refused to air a DEC (Disasters Emergency Committee) appeal for aid to help the people of Gaza, following the Israeli withdrawal last week. ITV, Channel 4 and Channel Five all aired the appeal on Monday.

Without getting too embroiled in the politics of the appeal, it is worth considering the implications for the media. BBC has argued that to show it would impinge on their impartiality. It could be suggested that not showing it does this even more so. Tony Benn, appearing on BBC News 24, voiced his disapproval vociferously and defied the host’s wishes by reading the address of the appeal a number of times.

The BBC position, as voiced by the host, was that there could be no guarantee that the money would get to those it was intended for, i.e. that Hamas would use it for military purposes against Israel. This is a dubious reason at best and one which could be used against any appeal to a war ravaged region. Michael Palin, for example, did an appeal regarding Rwanda for the BBC in 1994 and that was ok.

The BBC has left itself open to the criticism which has followed this decision. As recently as November 2008 the BBC aired a DEC appeal for the Democratic Republic of Congo, fronted by Juliet Stephenson, which begs the question: Why did this appeal not impact on the BBC’s impartiality?

Further more, does the BBC, as the national broadcaster, not have a responsibility to show this type of appeal, regardless of the politics of the situation? And does this say something fundamental about those in charge of the mainstream media?

Let’s hear what you have to say on the issue and the fallout…

Echoing the results of question 1, no participant believes regional papers will be online only within the next two years either. However, only a third of respondents believe we will always have a print version of regional papers. Almost a third expect regional papers to go online only within five years reflecting the dire financial predicament regional publishers currently face. 

The thrid question asked where people expect to source their news in the future. Almost two-thirds of Measurement Matters readers still expect to use established media brands, like the BBC and Wall St journal, to receive their news. These big media providers have a strong position to work from and how they continue to develop and integrate their brand with online and mobile technologies will be crucial to their future success or failure.   

This poll has now closed but you can continue to take part in the future of news discussion through Paul Hender's new post on News 2.0. 

Amid last night’s awards and celebrations, media commentator Roy Greenslade gave a fantastic keynote speech which balanced nostalgia for print journalism with the realities of a modern media world: “Even those of us with print in our veins” must recognise that newspapers are doomed, as print is a “dying business model”. While the basic premise of the speech was simple – that newspapers are a dying medium – the speech drew on many wider issues to support its conclusion. 

 The current economic climate can only expedite rigor mortis in the industry with revenue streams drying up at an alarming rate. As Greenslade, rather bluntly, put it: “[Visual advertising] has gone off a cliff in the last six weeks”. 

With the growth of citizen journalism and interactive media channels we are currently in a “transition” period. Traditionally top down news reporting, for example, is being challenged by the growing force of bottom-up citizen journalism. No longer do we (the audience, the citizens) passively accept those accounts fed to us by publishers but, enabled by technology, we choose to publish our own accounts ourselves. This ‘new media’ is eroding the “mini-god-like status” the press formerly held. 

Significantly, Greenslade did not stop with his frank assessment of the status quo, but went beyond to illustrate two ways in which news brands can adapt and thrive in the modern world where everyone is, or can be, a journalist.

First he spoke about ProPublica – the philanthropically funded, non-profit newsroom – which describes itself as providing ‘journalism in the public interest’ or, as Greenslade put it, writing stories “of moral force”. Notable is the fact that newspapers can use resources like this to offset overheads in the face of lower revenues. 

Each story we publish will be distributed in a manner designed to maximize its impact. At the outset, at least, that means that many of our “deep dive” stories will likely be offered exclusively to a traditional news organization, free of charge, for publication or broadcast.

The second is Spot.Us, which allows people to promote stories they deem important. Like ProPublica, Spot.Us is funded through public donations allowing a small pool of journalists to generate news which can be used across the media world.

Spot.Us is a non-profit project of the Center for Media Change. We are an open source project, to pioneer “community funded reporting.” Through Spot.Us the public can commission journalists to do investigations on important and perhaps overlooked stories. All donations are tax deductible and if a news organization buys exclusive rights to the content, your donation will be reimbursed.

These sites outlined are excellent examples of how bottom-up journalism can be effectively leveraged to have a positive impact on publisher’s bottom lines.

In conclusion, Greenslade very simply stated: “New media is the future”. The challenge for us all is to find new and better ways to use it.

  *Photograph of Roy Greensldae by Johnny Greig (http://gallery.johnnygreig.com/)

Last week, while at the PRSA International conference, Richard posted on the Christian Science Monitor's decision to publish online only from April 2009.  This is an exciting move within the media industry as there is an increasing amount of evidence that audiences are looking to the internet for their daily news fix.  Paul Hender will be sharing some of that data on Metrica's Measurement Matters in the next couple of days so watch this space.

From an evaluation perspective, Metrica has been helping its clients to adapt to this shift for some time now.  We have been working with them as their PR plans have incorporated online media outlets and social media.  

We would love to know your views on the subject.  Let us know what you think about the CSM's decision.  Is it the beginning of an inevitable trend which will spell the end of blackened fingers, as the good ol' fashioned paper gets phased out?  Or will the big national papers always retain a hard copy?  Does the same hold true for regional papers?  Or will declining ad revenue force the smaller regional publications to rein in costs by going online only? And will the proliferation of web technology and online interaction change the entire way which we find our news?

Sorry, this poll has closed, but you can find the results here. 

Here at Metrica we are always eager to recommend to our clients, effective alternatives to AVE as a way to measure their PR activity. As Richard pointed out previously, we don’t take much notice of AVE for our own press coverage, so why would we promote it to others?

Taking this a step further, Claire recently wrote about how PR can move out of the shadow of advertising to take a more prominent position in the marketing sphere. With that in mind, isn’t it another timely reminder that PR ought to stop measuring itself against advertising?

PRs often cite AVE being a measure their board understands, which is all well and good, but how do you explain what a drop in AVE means in relation to your PR?  As Peter Preston points out, in yesterday’s Observer, “ads cost what you feel like paying” and advertising rates are subject to the “mysterious world of the 'rate card’”.

During an economic slowdown – such as the one we are in now – editorial is the cost-effective alternative to advertising. Good work by PR teams is going to help companies to thrive during these challenging times, so why devalue that hard graft with falling ad value equivalents.

Look at the good work you are conducting in terms of message penetration, ownership of coverage and increasing brand awareness. Examine how these metrics relate to your sales trends, customer enquiries and website traffic.

These are the outcomes which will have a real impact on your bottom line and with minimal effort in terms of input, we can help show you how they correlate to your PR efforts.

There’s so much value in PR at this stage of the economic cycle, so let’s prove it. 

There has been plenty of discussion on Measurement Matters in recent months, much of which has explored the ever-changing media landscape and the emergence of consumer generated media. Jeff Jarvis at Buzz Machine has recently undertaken the task of summing up of these shifts in attitude and behaviour. Particularly useful is his use of simple, direct charts to show the evolution of the 'news' from the traditional press to what he describes as the "press-sphere".

There are a number of graphs in his article but two of them resonated strongly. They illustrate the shift from a 'top down' press model, in which we the reader were told things and that was it (save for those eager souls who insited on writing letters to the editor, which then may or may not have been printed). 

In his summation Jarvis hits on the key point as it relates to the world of media analysis and PR. There are "fundamental shifts in how news and the world around it is constructed. It’s bigger now. It’s more complex. It moves over time. It’s more about process than product. It has no limit of sources and handlers and distributors and curators and perspectives...When we rethink this ecology of news, we’ll be in a better position to plan for what’s next".  And therein lie the golden rules: Think and Plan.