News Strong to News Weak

A venerable giant in our news lexicon, Newsweek shifts from print to online only.

Newsweek, an 80-year-old standard-bearer for news magazines, announced on October 18 that they would cease print operations at the start of 2013, and switch to an all-digital format.

It’s hard not to see this development as gloomy, especially for we news consumers who’ve seen daily local papers shrink or disappear, and who’ve seen dramatic changes forced on venerable outfits like the New Orleans Times-Picayune, the Christian Science Monitor, and the The New York Times Magazine.

Newsweek’s editor-in-chief, Tina Brown, makes clear in her announcement that the organization is reacting to the same demographic shifts and economic forces that downsized the Times-Picayune and compelled the Monitor to publish only online. She cites the 39 percent of Americans who say they get their news from the Web, as well as the explosive growth in tablet users, who are perhaps the ripest targets for subscription-based digital distribution. She leaves unspoken the shrinking circulation of print editions — and the commensurate shrinkage of ad revenue — but there’s no doubt these were the spurs that made Newsweek’s shift inevitable.

We’ll miss Newsweek, at least the Newsweek we’ve come to know. Brown promises no change in editorial vitality and journalistic integrity, and we have no reason to doubt her word. But still, the nostalgia…

But we’re advertisers and business people, and nostalgia pays no bills. In that respect, what does an all-online Newsweek mean to us? 

It means that marketers had better come to understand, to master, the evolutionary changes in the news industry. Consumers will still be reading Newsweek, as well as all the other digital outlets, and they’ll still be receptive to our advertising messages.

But they’ll be a somewhat different set of consumers. On average they’ll be younger, more tech-savvy, more affluent. And as tier-based subscribers, they’ll be empowered to pick and choose which marketing messages they’ll see. These are the realities that create insurmountable challenges for some 21st-century advertisers and awesome opportunities for others.

So yes, we’ll miss the Newsweek we’ve known all our lives. But we’re ready to work with the new Newsweek, and ready to thrive in this new media landscape. We hope you are too.

The C4:

1. The December 31, 2012 issue of Newsweek will be their last in print. As of New Year 2013, Newsweek will join the Christian Science Monitor and the New York Times Magazine in shifting to an all-digital format.
    
2. Grant yourself a moment of nostalgia. Think about the noble history of print news in this country. Reflect on the sad fact that the print news industry is disappearing before our eyes.
    
3. But let that moment pass, and get busy adapting. For advertisers, this new media landscape presents awesome opportunities. It’s an entirely different world, requiring different approaches and newly developed skillsets.
    
4. We’re dedicating ourselves to embracing this new world, and we hope you are too. Tina Brown would agree: it’s a matter of survival.

I Phone Home...

When I'm off the map.

Image c/o Businessweek.

The launch of any new Apple device is rabidly anticipated and treated with a level of fanfare that’s slightly puzzling to those of us who haven’t yet drunk of the Apple-flavored Kool Aid. The late September release of the iPhone 5 was no different.

However, one particular difference became evident within days as not-so-happy iPhone 5 owners began reporting surprising problems with the newly created Apple Maps, which was rolled out with the iPhone 5 as a competitor to the industry-leading Google mapping program. The specifics of the Apple Maps issues, which include incomplete and inaccurate road and route data, and even typos in place names, speak of an unready product rushed into service. Clearly not what we’d expect from history’s most successful tech company.

But Apple’s real problem is still developing: their gaffe has turned their newest product into a late-night punchline. (Example: A guy with an iPhone 5 walks into a bar. Or a church. Maybe it was the Pacific Ocean.)

Apple CEO Tim Cook has issued an apology, and fixes are reportedly being expedited. Given the still-strong sales of the iPhone 5, and Apple’s resiliently loyal fanbase, it’s likely the company won’t suffer too much for their mistake.

But that shouldn’t excuse them for the worst kind of PR disaster: the self-inflicted kind. This one began with the widely panned decision, made back in the summer, to ditch Google Maps — reportedly in retaliation for Google’s entering the mobile-hardware arena. The inside story remains to be written, but it sure seems like Apple’s habit of cutthroat competition resulted in the too-soon release of an inferior product, all at their customers’ expense.

The bottom line is that Apple’s reputation, like every company’s, is their most important nontangible asset. No company can afford to risk it needlessly. Apple will undoubtedly survive the iPhone 5 maps fiasco. But how well will they fare the next time hubris lays them low?

Do they really want to find out?

The C4:

1. The iPhone 5 was released on September 21, 2012. Like most Apple releases, this one was treated as one of the most momentous tech happenings of the year.
2. The story quickly shifted, though, as users reported problems with the on-board Apple Maps program, which seemed to make it as useful for navigation as a demagnetized compass. Even though sales of the device are strong, the launch has turned into a PR fiasco, necessitating software fixes and a CEO apology.
3. It never should have happened. The whole sorry episode seems to be the result of Pyrrhic competition between Apple and Google, and of the unacceptable practice of rushing unready products to market.
4. In the long run, despite a hit to their reputation, Apple probably won’t suffer inordinately for their mistake. But reputation is finite. One hopes Apple has learned something from this, lest their reputation comes to be defined by it.

What You Don't Say Speaks Volumes

Processing your message.

As you may recall from either your psychology or sales classes (the concept is equally important to both), the majority of communication going on during a two-way conversation happens on a non-verbal level. That means that regardless of the words we say, our interlocutors receive the most of our message based on our facial expressions, body language, and other contextual clues. Knowing this arms us well for our one-on-one encounters; we can plan ahead and think about our postures and the nuances of our smiles, to ensure that we’re supporting our message with every non-verbal cue we give.

But it puts us in a bit of disadvantage when it comes to written communication. An email, letter, or dashed-off note is decidedly one-dimensional, without the clarifying add-ons that come with a nod, a grin, or an arched eyebrow. You might think your written missives are in constant danger of misinterpretation — unless you’re one of the millions who’ve suffered some office drama because your well-intended sarcasm didn’t translate into email format. Then you know that’s true.

The most well-reasoned defense against this is a careful, clear-eyed reading of all your output, checking for passages that can be misconstrued. It’s certainly not a bad idea, and you might consider getting into the habit.

But who wants to be stuck on defense? The best offense is a method of writing that employs the tools your word processor gave you to round out the subtleties of your writing.

For instance…the use of ellipses (…) provides a mental pause, and clues the reader that something momentous is to follow. Need to add some extra emphasis? Try italics. Even more emphasis, something like the written version of an attention-getting hand clap, is boldface.

And pay attention to your use of paragraph spacing. Setting important words and phrases all by themselves—

—like this—

—gives them weight, dimensionality, and particular focus. There are *other* tricks as WELL, probably limited only by the functions and macros available on your keyboard.

It’s a simple, handy way to help get your written message across. Just...try not to overdo it.

It gets ANNOYING, fast.

The C4:

1. In a one-on-one conversation, the majority of the conversing is happening non-verbally. Messages are emphasized, amplified, and clarified based on facial expressions, body language, and other non-spoken cues.
2. This leads to a problem with written communication. Our audience has no message to interpret other than the words we’ve composed. If there’s ambiguity inherent in them, we can sure they’ll be misconstrued.
3. So read everything you’ve written before you send it out, and try to spot and refine anything that’s not crystal clear. And use every macro, function, and special character your word processor provides, if they can help you to impart the message you mean to impart.
4. Oh, but use those sparingly, if you can. A page full of italics, bolds, and underlines can quickly clutter a page and become a visual turn-off (supplying, that way, yet another message you didn’t intend to send).

Who Should Stay At The Graybar Hotel?

A question of fairness.

Whether the financial crisis of 2008 ate a chunk of your liquidity or a goodly portion of the value of your 401(k), or even if you came away relatively unscathed, chances are you’ve been waiting ever since for justice to be served. With the trillions of dollars of wealth that disappeared, with the shady dealings of mortgage-backed securities and bundled sub-prime amortizations, surely there’s a guilty party somewhere who must be made to pay.

Four years later...and we’re still waiting. No major criminal cases have been filed, few fines have been paid, none but a handful of mid-level executives lost their jobs. If there’s a scale somewhere representing this vision of justice, then someone’s thumb must be firmly planted on one side.

So you might take heart to learn that the New York Attorney General’s office, with the blessings of the Justice Department and several other states, has filed a civil fraud suit against JPMorgan Chase & Company, alleging misrepresentation of the values of mortgage securities sold in 2006 and 2007. The case won’t result in anyone spending time in the ol’ Graybar Hotel, but it’s a start, right?

Actually, no.

Looking closer at the suit, we see that JPMorgan isn’t actually accused of any wrongdoing (nor is Chase, for that matter). Who sold the fraudulent securities? That would be the now-defunct investment bank Bear Stearns, which JPMorgan acquired at fire sale prices — $2 per share — in 2008.

But fair is fair. When you buy a company you also buy its liabilities, including responsibility for its criminal wrongdoings. That’s clearly why JPMorgan is on the hook here.

Maybe so. But as long as we’re introducing the concept of fairness, let’s give JPMorgan a fair shake. If you cast your mind back to those dark days of March 2008, you’ll recall the impending failure of Bear Stearns was sending shockwaves throughout the entire financial system, bringing it to the very precipice of collapse. JPMorgan certainly wasn’t looking for acquisitions just then; they were pressured into it by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, with the argument (which still holds up in hindsight), that the economy just might depend on it.

We want justice too, and if justice is served by criminal and/or civil prosecution of the Big Banks, then we’re all for it. We just don’t think justice — or even common sense — is served by going after JPMorgan in this case. Because all JPMorgan is guilty of, in this case at least, is saving our collective necks.

The C4:

1. The financial collapse of 2008, which has been convincingly tied to the housing bubble and the introduction of sub-prime mortgage-backed securities, has to date resulted in very little in the way of criminal prosecutions or civil liability.
2. This has led to an understandable, yet not-always-rational yearning for justice. We get that. We’d also like to see the guilty punished. We just want to make sure the innocent aren’t swept up as well.
3. Is that what’s going on with the civil fraud case against JPMorgan? The suit alleges fraud committed by Bear Stearns, which JPMorgan acquired after the fact. The law is clear: a company is liable for the transgressions of any entities it acquires.
4. But sometimes fairness is more important than the law. Our nation’s financial regulators begged JPMorgan to buy Bear Stearns, and when JPMorgan did, they just might have saved our economy. Should they be punished for it? We don’t think so, but we’d love to hear your opinion. Please log in and let us know.

Are You Complaining About The Complainers?

Be careful when responding to online reviews.

How do you deal with an unhappy customer? Unfortunately there’s no one right answer for that. Factors like your business model, their specific complaint, even the current economic climate all go into determining how you can best put the gruntle back into the disgruntled.

But there are plenty of wrong ways to do it, and plenty of object lessons in how not to behave.

Not surprisingly, these lessons are all Internet-related. There’s danger inherent in the Internet, in that illusory degree of separation and in the way your impulsive typing-and-clicking can spread ‘round the world, and never be taken back.

Customers complain online. We have to accept that fact. Services like Yelp and Epinions make it as easy as can be for consumers to log their good and bad buying experiences. Alas, it’s been proven again and again they’re far more likely to talk about the bad than the good. And as bad as that might seem, it’s often the merchants’ reactions that really do the damage. Consider the evidence:

A one-star Yelp review for a Chicago-based wine-paring class resulted in dueling blog insults, and finally a half-million dollar defamation suit against an internationally renowned oenologist. In an email he accused his customer of acting like a child, but the resulting publicity hurt only him.

In Canada, a restaurateur responded to negative reviews by creating a fake sex site profile for the reviewer. She’s just been convicted of two counts of defamatory libel and will be sentenced later this year.

And perhaps the worst: the owner of an online eyeglass retailer has just been sentenced to four years in prison for stalking, harassing and intimidating critics. He would routinely email and even telephone reviewers, threatening them with his knowledge of their personal information such as home addresses. Amazingly, he was apparently courting bad feedback, under the theory that any online mention at all result in higher search-engine rankings.

How shortsighted. In business, your only real currency is your reputation. Your reputation utterly depends on how you deal with the most challenging situations. Can you win back every unhappy customer? Probably not, but you can certainly extend the effort to try to make things right. In the most extreme cases you can just ignore them. But engaging in a very public war of words (or worse)? That’s something you can’t win, and can never undo.

The C4:

1. Try though you might, you can’t make every customer happy. Unhappy customers complain, and in our digital age there’s a very good chance they’ll complain online. Do yourself a favor and accept that fact.
2. Resist the urge to engage. Yes, it burns inside to see your business publicly disparaged, especially if you don’t agree with the reviewer’s version of facts. But do you want to play “he said/she said” with the whole world watching?
3. Instead, consider your alternatives. Can you turn a negative into a positive? Can you swallow your pride, say Mea Culpa, and make some kind of public effort at reconciliation? It might not feel good, but it’ll look good.
4. Failing that, just walk away. Readers of online reviews are willing to take outlying gripes with a grain of salt. Prove your critic wrong by giving stellar service to everyone else who walks through your door. If you engage and say the wrong thing you’ll be tarnished forever. Treat your reputation as currency, and never risk it on a sucker’s bet.