FIOTB–Tool 1: Content Development Tool

March 13, 2006 by Liz

Because thinking outside of the box is unstructured, it can can lead to “swiss-cheese solutions”–answers that have holes in them–things that we just didn’t think of in our unstructured thinking. So I find that using structured tools relieves the stress of checking to make certain that all bases have been covered.

Content Development Tool

Ironically using boxes makes it easier to think outside the box. I use this content development tool to make sure that I have considered a topic from every direction before I start getting it ready for any audience. This tool works equally as well for planning an interview, a brand, an article, a small meeting, or a major presentation.

Purpose/Getting Attention: What does my audience want to know?

What are my main points and ideas?

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

What facts and details support them?

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

Presentation/Keeping Interest: How is it that I will show and tell them?

How will it look?

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

How will I say it with simple elegance?

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

Brand YOU/Reader Satisfaction: Why will they be glad they listened?

Analysis, predictions, interpretations

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

What value-added will leave my audience feeling satisfied?

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

Whether you’re inside or outside of the box, you need to know the what, how, and why of the information you’re offering any audience about any topic. That’s why I’m sharing this tool before we begin talking about getting ideas and solving problems.

I use it all of the time. It’s here now, if you need it.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Finding Ideas Outside the Box

March 13, 2006 by Liz

There Is No Box

There is no box. There never was one. We just got taught to think inside one. You see, it was a management issue. With so many kids to teach at once, it’s more productive to teach one way of thinking than to manage a room full of creativity. . . . So when we weren’t looking, many of us learned the fundamentals of problem-solving, how to color inside the lines, and a way of thinking about things that isn’t all that different from a mime inside a box.

Just like the box that the mime pushes and touches even though you can’t see it. The box that we think inside isn’t real. The way to get out is easy enough–just stop believing in the box.

Life Without the Box

Life without the box is so much easier. It’s as if you now can use all modes of transportation available rather than always having to walk. The resources of your brain are freed up. Even better, it’s a lot more fun, once you get used to it, because thinking outside of the proverbial box involves playing with ideas not just thinking.

DaVinci knew it. So did Einstein. Most inventors couldn’t find the inside of the box if they tried. All great thinkers–folks we call geniuses–know that there’s nothing new to be gathered by staying where everyone else is doing their thinking. So let’s get on with getting out of it.

What You’ll Find Outside the Box

Every day, I’ll offer a strategy and some ideas for approaching your business from a new direction. Each strategy will be flexible and realistic. I’ll show you how to apply it to writing, problem solving, or refining your brand.

To be useful, even thinking outside of the box needs structure, so I’ll be using a problem-solution format. Then within each solution I’ll offer three content subsets: Information, Presentation/Form, and YOU/Function. Those three subheads come directly from What Is Content that Keeps Readers?

So, if you’re ready, I am. Enough with this introduction, let’s let the games begin. Everyone can think like a genius. It only takes a little practice, and a firm commitment to throw away the darn box.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Guess What’s Coming . . .

March 12, 2006 by Liz

I had an idea once.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

DonÃ¢â¬â¢t Hunt IDEAS Ã¢â¬â Be an Idea Magnet

Edelman Aces PR, NY Times Fails Research

March 12, 2006 by Liz

Howie Kurtz writes about the nonflap the NY Times tried to stir up over Walmart and its PR company, Edelman, pitching their spin to bloggers

WhatÃ¢â¬â¢s not in dispute is that what was once dismissed as a pajama-clad brigade is becoming increasingly influential, to the point that giant companies have to worry about what they say.

Howie gives the bloggers the Times poked and prodded equal time to tell their stories (which includes the fact that the Times reporter doesnÃ¢â¬â¢t understand that a blockquote is our indication of taking an excerptÃ¢â¬Â¦ except itÃ¢â¬â¢s not something we invented, it comes from academic practices).

—Jeff Jarvis of Buzz Machine, The flack flack

Public Relations. It’s called public relations because that’s what it’s meant to do–establish relationships between companies and the public. Walmart needed some. They hired Edelman to help them tell their story by providing press releases. Edelman, as part of their effort, enlisted the help of bloggers to get the Walmart message out. Edelman belives in bloggers as a way of reaching people. In editorial, we call this creative thinking. Good firm, good strategy, good execution. Walmart and Edelman get an A in PR.

At the New York Times, however, they didn’t think of it as PR or as creativity. They were looking for a story–with bloggers involved, maybe a scandal. Would it have been a scandal if the writers were small-town newpaper journalists? I don’t think so. You’ll notice The Times tells the story of one blogger weaving in bits about a second making a pile of details sound representative of a large group–but the size of the group isn’t defined. Then sweeping generalizations come. To quote from the article, Wal-Mart Enlists Bloggers in PR Campaign, written by Michael Barbaro,

But the strategy raises questions about what bloggers, who pride themselves on independence, should disclose to readers. Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer, has been forthright with bloggers about the origins of its communications, and the company and its public relations firm, Edelman, say they do not compensate the bloggers.

But some bloggers have posted information from Wal-Mart, at times word for word, without revealing where it came from.

Some bloggers? How many is some? I wonder.

Some bloggers posted them without telling their audience was that a scandal, a mistake,or an innocent lack of knowledge on the part of someone who’s being called an amateur when it’s convenient, but not today?

As a number of people have pointed out, however, bloggers are far from the first people in media to do this. (Dan Gilmor has a good overview of the controversy.) People say all the time that Mainstream Media cover various corporations or government initiatives as if they were just reproducing press releases. What about the Video News Releases, stories planted in the Iraqi press, or a quarter million dollars for favorable coverage of No Child Left Behind?
says Marshall Kirkpatrick in his piece When pitched bloggers go bad: Walmart and the blogosphere

The question is one of knowing intent isn’t it? Knowing intent, in this case, should be considered both on the part of the blogger and on the part of the New York Times reporter–who failed to contact the numerous bloggers who had things to say such as this:

Yours truly is one of the people to which Mr. Barbaro is referring in this last paragraph. I have been “fed” some of these “exclusive nuggets” and have had topics suggested for posting. And though my blog was not mentioned in the Times article, I’d like make to make one thing clear: excluding this one, I have written 12 other posts on Wal-Mart in the last five months. I started writing them long before I knew about or heard from Wal-Mart’s PR firms.

Every one of those posts is original. That is to say, I picked the article, the theme, and everything that was written- every sentence and every word and every typo. I challenge Mr. Barbaro to find even one sentence in those 12 posts that was written first by someone else.

I also have a question or two. How is it that my blog escaped your notice? It is the number one blog in Technorati about Wal-Mart. It has a dozen highly original, detailed, and analytical posts on that firm, each of which averages over 700 words. It’s written by a former MIT professor whose dissertation and first published papers were about information technology in the retailing industry. I ask not out of concern for not having my blog included in the article but because of this: if you missed that, what else did you miss?
— David Starling, The Business of America Is Business

I have to say that the research on The New York Times article leaves a lot out there waiting to be brought forward. The story is much more fascinating than what actually made it into print–just as bloggers are.

Finally this from Rich Edelman’s own blog:

We are proud of our groundbreaking work in reaching out to blogs on behalf of our clients and proud of this work for Wal-Mart. I suspect our clients have benefited hugely from insights gleaned from dialogue with bloggers.
Here are three blog postings from people I know and respect discussing the issues raised in the NY Times article:
The first is from Paul Holmes, editor of the Holmes Report, a PR trade publication. The second is from Jeff Jarvis, a widely respected blogger considered a leader in blog standards. The third is from Dan Gillmor, author of “We The Media.” As always, I appreciate your views.

Update: Robert Scoble suggests blogging — not emailing — is the best way to reach bloggers.

THAT’S an example of someone who “GET’S IT.”

Blogger is starting to feel like it rhymes with “second-class” citizen.

Let’s hire Steve Rubel, a VP at Edelman, and ask him to do PR for bloggers as a group. Then the NY Times can write a piece called Bloggers Enlist Bloggers in PR Campaign.

I like the sound of that one much better.

But then I would.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Tom Glocer Don’t Spin Stories to My Friends

March 10, 2006 by Liz

The Nice One

I was working for a privately-held publishing company for about 9 months. The company had been losing 10% a year for the past three years running. In the morning the Major Partner and Chief Financial Officer were coming to visit to hear our plan to turn the company around. I had been chosen to voice the plan.

That night at dinner, the Operations’ Director and close friend said to me over wine and dinner, “You know, the success of this company really depends on you.”

“You’re talking about our meeting tomorrow. That will be fine.” I said.

“No. I’m talking about the execution of the plan.”

“Elaborate.”

“You’re the only one who’s not jaded. You’re the nice one,” she said.

Why am I telling you this story?

So that I could say that my friend, Peg, said I am the nice one.

Reading the White Space?

Tom Glocer said some things to the Online Publishers in London. Almost everyone, except Scott Karp, Dave, a few others, and me, thinks he said good things. I wish I could agree with them. The truth is I can’t. I’m not sure he said anything at all that was good.

I commented on it earlier this week and was done. Then Tom Glocer said it again in this week’s Financial Times, which made more people–people smarter and nicer than me say that Tom is insightful.

I want to believe them. I just can’t. The editor in me knows better. It’s shouting out, “NO.” I worry that Tom is shaking their hands and smiling for the camera, while he’s checking their sleeves and planning his takeover.

I’m the nice one. I rarely go negative on anything. This situation is a problem for me.

Too many years in publishing has trained me to read the white space better than the words.

I went to my husband–we never agree on unimportant things. Without preamble, I asked him to read the Financial Times article. He responded the same way that I did. “Who does this guy think he is?” That’s saying something. My husband is not involved in the media or in blogging.

The Underlying Premises

Now that I’m sure that there’s a problem. I’ll lay out the basic premises before I begin. There are some things that most people, I think, aren’t considering and as the story moves on those basic facts are becoming less and less prominent. However, I find them to be very important to remember when considering Mr. Glocer’s words.

Premise 1: This Wasn’t Just Any Guy Talking

Tom Glocer is the CEO of Reuters. He didn’t get there by saying frivolous things in print. The words that he said were first said in a speech to the Online Publishers Association in London. This wasn’t some off the cuff conversation with a friend. I have no doubt that the words were carefully crafted, both what was said and what wasn’t.

Premise 2: He’s Talking ABOUT Bloggers Not TO Us

The speech that was written up in Financial Times as “Comments” was directed at the Mainstream Media not at what Mr. Glocer calls “not just bloggers Ã¢â¬â it is citizen journalists armed with their 1.3 megapixel camera phones, people “mashing” together music and images to create new music videos, kids making their own movies and posting them on sites such as Stupidvideos.com or MySpace.com.” Bloggers and citizen journalists are not being spoken to, they are being spoken about.

The Analysis

Part of my job all of these years has been learning to read what people aren’t saying as much as what they are. Editors use this information to coach authors to make sure that their message says what they mean it to. What follows is point by point what Tom said and how this editor would respond to him about the unwritten subtext.

Point 1: What Has Changed

It is important to understand what has changed. Bloggers, after all, have always been a part of history Ã¢â¬â read Daniel Defoe, Samuel Pepys or James Boswell. The same is true for citizen journalists: just check out first-hand accounts of any big historical event. The difference now is the scale of distribution and the ability to search. Because of this, we in the media industry face a profound challenge, as significant and transformational as Internet 1.0. So how should we respond to and control content fragmentation in this era of two-way flow?

Editorial notes:
1. It sounds as if you are saying “We can no longer ignore that bloggers are here to stay. They are, in fact, gaining ground.”

2. It appears that you are trying to show you respect bloggers by tying it to great men in history. However, this doesn’t work given your earlier definition of people mashing music and StupidVideos.com. In fact, it’s more likely that fans of Daniel Defoe et.al. should be insulted to be grouped into your aforementioned definition of blogger.

3. An operative phrase here is “we in the media face a profound challenge.” This phrase is excluding in nature, particularly since it is followed by the question of how the media should control things.

Point 2: Seeder of Clouds

. . . media companies need to be Ã¢â¬Åseeders of clouds”?. To have access to high-value new content, we need to attract a community around us. To achieve that we have to produce high-quality content ourselves, then display it and let people interact with it. If you attract an audience to your content and build a brand, people will want to join your community. This is as true for traditional “letters to the editor” as for MySpace.com.

Editorial notes:
1. It appears you are saying “Only the media can provide quality content. If we don’t get a community around us soon and hold onto it we will become irrelevent.”

2. Operative phrase: “let people interact with it.” Let us? Allows us to? Let implies control. Invite would have been a better word.

3. Operative example here is MySpace.com Why choose what’s primarily a teen hangout as an example rather than something mainstream readers might easily relate to, such as TomPeters.com or Slacker Manager? This seems to continue the stereotype that blogs are online journals–unorganized, undocumented information, and therefore “less than” mainstream media.

Point 3: Provider of Tools

. . . we need to be Ã¢â¬Åthe provider of tools”?. This means promoting open standards and interoperability, which will allow a diverse set of consumer-creators to combine disparate types of content.

Editorial notes:
1. You appear to be saying “If we don’t open the doors to new ideas, they will EXCLUDE US.”

2. Provider of tools? This is total spin, using big words to cover it. Bloggers already have the tools that they need–bloggers are teaching corporate how to use them not the other way around.

Point 4: Filter and Editor

. . . we must improve on our skills as the Ã¢â¬Åfilter and editor”?. Media have always had these functions. The world will always need editing: consumers place value in others making decisions about what is good and what is not.

Editorial notes:
1. False premise–media has NOT always been filter and editor.

2. Unstated assumption–the audience wants the mainstream media to choose for them. This is not spin. This is just a faulty and telling premise on the part of media.

This is proof that Mr. Glocer DOES NOT as they say “get it.”

Synthesis

Editors know that the words and examples writers and speakers choose show how they think. Mr. Glocer, you use words of control and superiority. Your examples reinforce that view. This speech has voice of congeniality, but the subtext is a defensive posture. You speak as if you are strong, but your words betray weakness.

The paragraphs that follow those that I quoted go on to say how the professionals should work with the amateurs. That leaves me wondering how you define those two words. Corporate job, you are one and no corporate job, you’re the other?

As any four-year-old might say, “Mr. G., I’m sorry, but you’re not a dictionary. YOU DON’T GET TO PICK.”

A blogger is an entrepreneur by definition. That’s why the corporate rules aren’t working.

Some Folks DO Get It

Some in the “Mainstream Media” do “get it.” They are learning not teaching, and there are plenty in my neighborhood. OnMilwaukee is a thriving online magazine that boasts major advertising accounts. The suburban newspaper, The Chicago Herald has recently started Beep, a blog Network for 21- to 34-year-old professional. The Chicago Tribune has Metromix that’s Tribune Interactive–both print and online.

The idea is to let go of what you think should be in favor of making content that readers find relevant.

Got that Mr. Glocer? . . . I thought not.

Call me. Let’s talk. I promise I won’t call you an amateur.

I’m the nice one.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Why MSM Are Afraid of Blogs–and Should Be

March 6, 2006 by Liz

They say the blogosphere is about the conversation. Well, an interesting business conversation has been going on since Thursday. That’s when Mr. Tom Glocer, CEO of Reuters gave the Keynote Address in London to the Online Publishers Association. According to the Guardian UK, Mr Glocer warned the “old media” that they needed to know their own worth and be prepared to change or they’d lose out of the online pie. Mr. Glocer’was quoted.

I believe the world will always need editing,” he said. “Just because everyone has the potential to publish their own blog, doesn’t mean they’re all worth reading. The role of companies like ours is to edit and filter, and provide open tools for the audience. The good stuff will float to the top.

Nothing patronizing there, Mr. Glocer. I’ve worked for a few publishers. Your experience seems to be different from mine. Where I worked, as a rule, the good stuff was many places besides the top.

The Reuter’s CEO, Mr. Glocer, went on.

Protectionism doesn’t work, but neither does total surrender. As media companies, we now have access to a rich world of sources. Let’s not turn away from the potential of all of this, but understand it and unlock it.

Gee, that makes me feel all grown-up and warm inside. I didn’t know the Old Media owned the keys to the world. Could I have a quarter to buy a candy bar?

Mr Glocer went on to say that the role of old media should be that of content facilitator, tools provider, editor, and go-between providing structure to the information between supplier and the consumer–even if they are the same people.

I guess that’s because we can’t figure out how to talk to each other.

In other words, Mr Glocer, you’re happy to let blogs have a space in the media world as long as everyone understands that old media will still run the show?

Richard MacManus on Next Generation Web and Media at first found this speech left him breathless, and then came back to earth because of Eran Globen’s post, which said that the old media has always been seeding clouds; we don’t want them interloping; and the editing will take care of itself in time.

Jeff Jarvis of Buzz Machine says Reuters gets it, and to Jarvis’ credit, he was there. But . . .

Scott Karp of Publishing 2.0 completely disagrees with Jeff Jarvis and everyone (and there were lots of everyones) saying that Tom Glocer has fooled them into thinking he is on their side. Mr. Karp points out, rightfully I think that Glocer’s points are a formula for more of the same–old media as it already exists. Perpetuating the entrenchment, that’s he calls it. Scott Karp is 100% right.

Scott Karp goes on to add that blogging has two out of three parts–Media+Web longing for a economic paradigm that includes Advertising/Audience. He’s upfront about not knowing how to build the rest of this economic model, but again he’s right. This is the key to where things need to go.

At the same time this conversation was going on, a man I like to think of as a friend was writing this.

Part of what makes the blogsophere such a perplexing challenge for mainstream media is this: it is not easily amenable to analysis using standard strategic management theories and analytical frameworks. Consider, for example, the problems that arise when one uses the most widely taught strategic management framework, Michael PorterÃ¢â¬â¢s Five Forces, to get a handle on the competitive threat posed by blogs. . . . that the determinants of profitability in an industry are explained by five “forces”- the power of suppliers; the power of buyers; barriers to entry; the degree of rivalry among incumbents; and the presence of substitutes.

When I say that blogs are perplexing, it is not just because they don’t fit neatly into any one of those five classes of determinants. The real problem, as I see it, is that they fit into all of them, at the same time. Blogs are new entrant, substitute, complement, and rival. They offset much of the power the MSM has traditionally had over its both buyers and its suppliers. Were blogs just any one of these things, they could be easily be squashed, co-opted, or marginalized. But they are not. Incumbent firms donÃ¢â¬â¢t see challenges and challengers like this everyday.
–David Starling, The Business of America is America

All of those people I read following the links on all of those blogs. Most of them weren’t doing more than passing on what had been said. . . . Two people brought something startling new to the conversation–Scott Karp and David Starling–they’re on opposite sides of the world and weren’t even responding to the same thing.

Boy, do I wish I could be in a room with the two of them.

How did the rest of them miss what Glocer was saying? Is this another elephant standing in the room?

–ME “Liz” Strauss