Media

Even though I’m hosting “Writing Right for the Web” webinars this week, I’m working behind the scenes on the research for an upcoming University Business column about the mobile Web and other cell phone based initiatives.

Thanks to a Twitter tip from @gilzow, I stumbled yesterday on the announcement of the MU iPhone Student Competition Winners, a contest organized by the Reynolds Journalism Institute at the University of Missouri.

Launched in September 2008, this contest prompted journalism and engineering majors to create iPhone applications with a real-life purpose.

There were 2 winners for this competition: one picked by judges including ATT and Apple representatives and one picked by the people.

Both winning applications have a geolocation-based component, taping into one of the neat features of the iPhone: its GPS.

• Near Buy - the pick of the judges – is targeted to the real estate market (I’m not sure though what’s the journalism connection here). It allows iPhone owners to find home/apartment listings close to their current location – using Google’s big database. Real Estate agents can enhance their listings by including photos and get an idea of the performance of these listings by using the professional edition of the iPhone app.
• News Flash – the People’s choice – offers a local newspaper experience that can be entirely customized to the interest, needs and current location of the iPhone owner. It includes news from local sources, but also national and international news outlets.

What I found interesting in these applications is the fact they are trying to solve real problems and fill customer needs – which is always better ;-)

Apple recently celebrated its first billion of downloaded apps (a lot of apps are free, the others usually cost a buck or two), which shows there’s definitely something behind these little applications.

While many college students have developed very successful applications (including iStanford and the Duke iPhone Suite for example – both developed by the same team), most higher ed institutions seem to ignore these type of projects despite the marketing possibilities offered by these applications and other initiatives using the ubiquitous cell phones.

Is it too early?
Is it too complex?
Are the higher ed web and marketing professionals too busy getting social on Facebook, Twitter and the likes?

Why don’t we talk more about the mobile Web and its possibilities for our field? Please tell us what you think (or prove me wrong by sharing great initiatives) by posting a comment.

I’ve been following the print vs web issue for some time now – as many of you, I’m sure.

It’s a known fact that the newspaper industry is in big trouble. And, the decision for The Christian Science Monitor – a century-old paper – to go web-only, at the exception of a weekend magazine, is another proof that things are changing as explained in “Christian Science Paper to End Daily Print Edition,” an article published yesterday on the NY Times website:

Before The Monitor, a handful of small papers had shifted away from print. This year, The Capital Times in Madison, Wis., went online only, and The Daily Telegram in Superior, Wis., announced it would publish online except for two days a week.

Longtime readers “love coffee and a newspaper. So do I,” Mr. Yemma [CSM Managing Editor] said. “There’s nothing like it. But everyone, sooner or later, is going to have to make the transition, and that’s recognized.”

Announcing the transition 6 months before it happens, the Christian Science Monitor is doing a great job explaining the decision in a complete Web package including several articles, a letter to the readers from the managing editor, a video and several slide shows.

Now, the question is: will higher ed magazines and other news-oriented publications follow or is it an opportunity for them to remain the only print pieces people will receive in the mail? What do you think?

My registration deadlines are probably meant to be broken…

Once again I received an email asking if it was still possible to register for next week’s webinar series: “PR School 2.0″ (the initial registration deadline was yesterday at 9PM).

As a result, I decided to postpone the registration deadline until this Friday (October 17) at 9PM ET. If you want to survive and thrive in the world of new online PR and communication, this 3-webinar series featuring Matt Herzberger (A&M Texas University), Andrew Careaga (Missouri S&T) and Geoffrey Mock (Duke University) should help.

Institutions registered for this series include:

• Simon Fraser University
• Olympic College
• Gettysburg College
• Midwestern University
• Rhodes College
• University of Toronto, Faculty of Arts and Science
• Barcelona Management Institute
• CFHSS
• Urbana University
• North Idaho College

For more information and to register online, just go to www.higheredexperts.com/prschool20

And, if you have any problems or issues, just send me an email at karine@collegewebeditor.com

These past few weeks, I’ve seen many questions around branded YouTube channels (via the non-profit or the partner program) as well as the frustration building up in the higher community around the lack of transparency surrounding YouTube’s decision to decline either status to some institutions.

YouTube – Partner Program

I’ve been thinking about writing an upcoming column for University Business about this topic for a couple of months now.

I’ve tried to get in touch with YouTube’s media relations service (following the advice of Morgan Magilligan from Google PR department by emailing — via my Gmail account — press@youtube.com) without avail since last week.

So, when I saw today, on the u-webd listserv, that a member of the community posted the thoughtful and clear reply he received from YouTube, thus providing the most probable reason why so many applications have been declined by YouTube lately, I had to share it with all of you:

Thank you for your interest in the YouTube Partner Program. Our goal is to extend invitations to as many partners as we can. Unfortunately we are unable to accept your application at this time. The current level of viewership of your account has not met our threshold for acceptance.

Applications are reviewed for a variety of criteria, including but not limited to the size of your audience, country of residence, quality of content, and consistency with our Community Guidelines and Terms of Use. Please review the program qualifications (http://www.youtube.com/partners) for a complete list of our criteria.

As explained above, you got to have something pretty strong already going on with your YouTube channel to get upgraded to the branded model.

Here’s why Mike Richwalsky from Allegheny College can help you get closer to that goal (or host and promote your videos without YouTube) with the webinar he will present on September 24:

Beyond YouTube: How to host and promote your online videos on the Web
Don’t know where to host your online videos? Tried to get a branded YouTube channel for your institution without avail? Mike Richwalsky, Assistant Director of Public Affairs at Allegheny College, will provide an overview of the available options including the different types of YouTube channels, affordable and scalable cloud hosting, Facebook, Vimeo, etc. He will also share tips and best practices to promote and track the success of your videos on the Web.

This 1-hour webinar costs only $120, but places are limited.
Registration is open until September 15 at www.higheredexperts.com/beyondyoutube

If you have any questions, just email karine@higheredexperts.com

I know, I know, the Olympics haven’t even officially started yet, so my post title is somehow misleading.

Sorry, I couldn’t help myself ;-)

However, UCLA does stand a good chance of winning the gold medal in blogging.

After 5 days spent offline on a very windy beach (I’m not playing the diva here, the weather was really chilly), I’ve just found a very interesting email from Kevin Roderick, Director of UCLA newsroom in my inbox.

In his note, Kevin introduced the latest initiative of his office (I did blog in the past about one of their YouTube videos): Bruins in Beijing, a group blog written by UCLA providing an insider view about the Olympic Games.

It’s from our athletes and coaches at the Olympics in Beijing (UCLA has 38 there, including alumni.) The bloggers are encouraged to give people at home an inside view of the scene in China; we’ll also use it to report news related to UCLA’s presence in Beijing. We’ll be accepting comments unmoderated.

This blog looks like a great way to add some interesting insights to the worldwide online conversation about the Olympics while engaging the UCLA community at large.

Very smart thinking, don’t you think so?

Yes, you’ve read my headline correctly: bloggers editing and fact checking the main media outlet covering higher education in the US.

So, what do I mean exactly?

In the past weeks, two posts from two different higher ed bloggers have questioned some of the facts reported in two different articles published by the Chronicle.

• Andy Shaindlin from Alumni Futures explained in his post “Should Universities Create Facebook-Style Social Networks?” he was interviewed and (mis)quoted for a piece published in the April 25 issue of the Chronicle and titled “Colleges Create Facebook-Style Social Networks to Reach Alumni” (subscription required):

  Despite what the article claims, I swear I did not tell the reporter that “social networking is definitely hot.”

  What’s kind of funny about it is that I was also contacted by the reporter who wrote this piece. He had found information about Elon University’s DIY social networking website (mentioned in the article) on my blog. Nothing funny here, you’re thinking. Actually, what’s funny about it is that I remember saying what was attributed to Andy a bit before tipping the reporter about what Carleton College (mentioned in the article) was doing.

• Then, Monday, Brian Niles from The Recruiting Revolution pointed out something a bit more troubling in his post “Chronicle Survey Summary Misleading”.
  Last Friday, in a post on this blog, I shared with you my surprise and doubts about the fact that podcasts were used 3 more times than email in admissions offices as a recruiting method according to The Chronicle Survey of Undergraduate Admissions Officers (subscription required). Well, Brian went a step further and contacted the Maguire Associates, the firm that conducted the survey on the behalf of the Chronicle and here’s what he found out as explained in his blog post:

  On May 2nd the Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription required) published a summary of research done by the Maguire Associates that gave the impression that only 5% of colleges in the study utilized email as a recruiting and communication tool.

  Unfortunately, this information is very misleading – in fact, grossly inaccurate.

  In an email exchange with the two researchers who did the study, I was told today that the Chronicle summarized the answers provided in an open-ended “Other” option, in which some participants listed “Email” as an answer. Email was not one of the options to choose from.

I get edited and fact checked all the time by my readers (which is very good as I don’t have an editor to do that job on this blog – wait a minute, it’s because I’m the editor here ;-), and I really appreciate it.

What’s really interesting about these 2 small incidents is that they are indicative of a bigger trend.

Today, nobody (including your college, university or even you president) can expect mishaps, mistakes or even major crises to stay hidden or unnoticed for long, because millions of eye balls (or a dozen of keen observers) are “monitoring” your institution and can share what they uncover with the world on their blogs, via facebook, myspace, twitter, etc.

With the increasing popularity of this niche blog (and it’s not just my ego speaking, the web stats and Feedburner tell me that its readership has been increasing steadily) as well as my regular gig at University Business, I’ve started to receive more and more press releases and pitches from PR professionals.

While a few are really good – more about a couple of these later this week, most of them end up in my deleted email folder. Fast. Very Fast.

That’s one of the reasons I accepted the invitation to have a look at
Perfecting the Pitch: Creating Publicity Through Media Rapport, a book written by PR veteran Benjamin Lewis. Besides the fact that its cover features my favorite color, I wanted to find out if it was worth your time (and could save some of mine by improving the quality of the pitches I get).

Now that I read this 200-page book, I can tell you it is.

While I’m not a fan of the book review genre, I understand you probably need more than my word to see if there is something for you in this book. That’s why I’ve decided to introduce and inaugurate the “1-1-1 Express Book Review” with “Perfecting the Pitch.”

What on earth is this “1-1-1 Express Book Review?”

Well, it’s a simple concept I’d like to apply to any future book related to your professional interests coming my way (authors out there, hint, hint):

• 1 thing I liked or found really interesting
• 1 thing I didn’t like that much or found really long, dumb, boring, etc.
• 1 big take-away from the book

So, let’s apply this brand new “book review concept” to “Perfecting the Pitch:”

1 thing I liked: Chapters 4, 5 & 6 provide all you really need to know to make most reporters, editors and actually bloggers totally fall in love with you as a PR professional. By clearly defining what is pitching, its rules and what role it plays in the lives of journalists (and more and more bloggers), Lewis does us all a big favor. Moreover, some of the book recommendations are based on the results of a recent survey Lewis’ agency, Perception Inc., did with more than a hundred reporters/editors.

1 thing I didn’t like that much: In this book, Lewis spends some time (and pages) on “The Foundation of the Media Rapport,” for which he apparently registered a trademark. While I agree with what he writes — i.e. message, respect, skills and pitching are the four pillars of the media rapport, I don’t get the need for the trademark thingy.

1 big take-away from the book: So, I’ll break my own rules for this first review and will give you 2 interesting take-away:

4 questions to ask yourself to test the newsworthiness of your story idea (don’t need all of them, but the more, the better):
Is it timely?
Is it unusual?
Is it controversial?
Is it relevant to the majority of the audience of the (old or new) media you’re targeting?

A piece of really good advice:
Don’t send the same pitch to zillions of journalists or bloggers, but find out as much as possible about the journalist (or the blogger) you’re trying to pitch and customize your idea to its professional interest. Remember it’s all about long-term relationships, so make them (us) feel special.

Interested in the book?
Well, since I liked it, I asked if I could get an extra copy for the winner of a drawing among interested readers of this blog. And, I got it.
To get a chance to win this copy, just post a comment below. Why not share a story about your experience with pitching (you don’t have to if you haven’t any)? I’ll announce the winner this Friday and will get the book mailed to him or her.

Last week I read 3 interesting posts written by 3 different higher ed bloggers, but couldn’t find the time to post about these.

• Paul Baker (Education PR) shares a great story that shows the power of Web 2.0. A year ago, while he was attending a conference in New Orleans, he took some great photos of post-Katrina classrooms and uploaded them to Flickr. A few weeks ago, he was contacted by a publication that asked permission to use one of his photos.

  Magazines are always looking for convenient and affordable solutions to illustrate their articles. By making some of your institution photos available on Flickr, you can help editors find them and… get more press clips to show.

• Patrick Berry (Institutional Knowledge) has been playing with Twitter lately to post automatically portal usage updates to his office blog. In his post, Patrick explained that Twitter is the perfect platform for sharing casual information.

  In this line of thought, Twitter might be a good (cheap) tool for folks in charge of Student Life to share their calendar of events on a very short notice or for cafeterias to promote the special of the day or let their campus customers know when they run out of apple pie… ;-)

• Mark Greenfield will experiment with Presentation 2.0 at HighEdWebDev this year. Scheduled to present a session titled “Higher Ed Web Development Gets Flattened or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the New World Order,” Mark has invited readers of his blog to take an active part in the creation of this presentation.

A while ago, LinkedIn, the social networking website targeted to professionals, launched a feature allowing members to ask open questions to the members of their network (their direct connections as well as the connections of their connections).

On several occasions, I’ve seen questions from reporters or freelancers looking for sources pop up in this section of my LinkedIn homepage (I do have a few connections in the media industry so that might also explain why I see them on a regular basis).

However, a post written by Penelope Trunk, “10 Ways journalists can use LinkedIn,”, confirms this trend by the type of advice it gives:

5. Find an expert fast
The advanced search feature is the most powerful tools you can use on LinkedIn. You can search for any combination of keywords, job title, company, location, industry, and you can sort by “degrees away from you” to find people close to you in your network. This is a great way to find experts in almost any field or subject matter. You can also track down executives at companies.
[...]
7. Get responses to queries from non-PR types
Often, if you send a query to a place like PRLeads, you get mostly public relations people answering you. This works fine in most cases, but sometimes you need something different – for example a quote from a type of person who would not typically hire a publicist. LinkedIn’s Answers service allows you to ask questions to the network and get answers from a wide range of people. Answers are tied to the professional profile of the person who responded so you can quickly assess credibility and determine whether to contact the person.

Obviously, you should suggest this move to your experts who are used to deal with the media as you risk to be kept out of the loop.

If you are in charge of PR or media relations at your institution should also set up a profile and develop your own LinkedIn network. This will help editors, reporters or freelancers, who have started to use the social networking for their research, find you more easily.

Are you on LinkedIn? How do you use it?

In a previous post titled “Professor Wesch from KSU featured in a great video report from The Chronicle,” I raved about the first online video report produced by Jeffrey Young, Web Editor at The Chronicle:

Produced by Jeffrey R. Young, the video report does an excellent job presenting Professor Wesch’s work at KSU as well as his famous YouTube video about Web 2.0.

So earlier this week, after watching his second online video report about Case Western’s SecondLife campus tour, I decided to email him to see if I could learn, for you my dear readers, more about about this new initiative from The Chronicle and… I just got a reply from Jeff!

How do you produce your online video reports?

Our video reports attempt to use the latest easy-to-use Web and multimedia tools to tell stories in ways that we can’t do in print. We’re using screen-capture software, Web cams, and digital recorders connected to the old-fashioned telephone to collect information — editing it all together in iMovie or Final Cut Express.

What type of topics could PR professionals working in universities and colleges pitch to get a chance to see their institution featured in one of these online video reports?

We’re looking to do more of these on a variety of topics, though for now technology is the main focus. The goal is to choose topics that benefit from showing and telling, and that are focused enough in scope that they can be addressed in 5 to 7 minutes.