News Corp considers MySpace sale, but does it matter?

If a tree falls in the woods with nobody around, does it make a sound? If MySpace disappears, will anyone notice?

MySpace's five users should be very worried with News Corp's plan to sell the web site. That is, if News Corp. can even sell it.

I'll be shocked if News Corp. finds a buyer for MySpace. The web site is completely irrelevant in today's social media world. Consider this the death knell for MySpace.

I won't completely dismiss MySpace, though. It definitely had its place in the history of social media. It was a great way for singers and bands to get noticed. Everyone had a MySpace when I was a junior in high school (2004). It was the cool thing to have. I still even have a MySpace account, despite not accessing it for years (good luck finding it).

People filled their MySpace with lots of crazy .GIFs and loud, unmutable music greeted you on their page. Embedded flash and YouTube videos would usually freeze and crash browsers. You could be yourself or adopt a fake persona.

Facebook was always the holy grail, though. My friends and I couldn't wait until we could get a Facebook account, back when it was college only. People had to verify who they were on Facebook (via a .edu e-mail address). I'll admit I contacted my college to get my school e-mail address before freshman orientation, just so I could join my college's Facebook network. Everyone's Facebook page looked the same, creating a sense of calm against MySpace's insanity.

MySpace represented teennage angst while Facebook was maturity.

In 2005, News Corp. bought MySpace for $580 million. Seemed like a good investment based on the lack of other significant social media competition (Friendster was dying). Eventually, Facebook opens itself up for high school students, businesses and finally the world. This practically eviscerated MySpace and began its decline.

Despite rebranding, a focus on music and layout changes, MySpace is now essentially dead.

News Corp. made a good amount of money based on a Google advertising deal, so they recouped their investment. But now MySpace makes absolutely no sense for News Corp.

But who will even buy MySpace? Yahoo might since it has an identity crisis and can't figure out what direction to take. Besides Yahoo, I just can't picture any company buying MySpace. It's not exactly a good investment.

The new owner could try and reinvent MySpace, but it won't work. The MySpace brand brings back memories of bathroom mirror pictures, listening to Hawthorne Heights ("Ohio is for Lovers," to be specific), drama over who made your top 8 and some guy named Tom who always wanted to be a friend.

I'm not sure anyone wants to revisit that chapter of their life. I know I don't.

Press release structure and other pet peeves

I was browsing LinkedIn today and came across a very interesting link about press releases. Thanks to the Journalistics blog post that inspired this entry.

The author says press releases will be better if PR professionals write them utilizing the inverted pyramid article style.

YES!!!!!! (I wish the internet had a megaphone option for text, but the exclamations, bold and caps lock abuse is all I can do)

PR people, can this be universally adopted? There is nothing worse than a poorly structured release. If your lead and fact graf (nut graf) aren't compelling, your release will go unread.
While I may be in marketing and PR right now, my background is in journalism. I interned at WBBM Newsradio 780 in Chicago and my news producer threw away press releases like it was his sole job. The station got so many release it's not even funny.

When I write press releases, I make sure the lead and fact graf are compelling and succinct. I also make sure it's short and to the point. A press release looking like a wall of text, even with a compelling lead and fact graf, has a high chance of getting tossed.

I've got other complaints about press releases as well. Here is my list of press release pet peeves:

1) Wall of Text

You've seen these before. The press release is one page but only has four grafs. The four grafs contain about eight lines of text. There's nothing more frustrating than trying to read a wall of text. Journalists are short on time. If they can't skim it, they just ignore it. Structuring a release like an article, with shorter grafs, will help immensely.

2) Lack of a Lead

The release's first sentence should be the lead. Period. This is the most important part because the first sentence determines whether or not journalists read the second. If journalists can't understand what your release is about after the lead, they won't read the rest. If a lead can't be written, the PR person should question if the release has any merit.

3) Stacked Lead

Don't stack the lead.

Example: "Widget Company X, the leading maker of all digital widget technology in the hospitality and service industry, introduced today the next-generation, ground-breaking widget for handling all hotel bookings which will change the way hotel bookins occur."

See how bad that reads? If a PR person has to say how their company is so awesome, journalists automatically doubt your claim. If the company is so awesome, why can't the product speak for itself?

4) Lack of a Fact Graf (Nut Graf)

A fact graf tells a reader why the release is important and why he/she should care. This needs to be in EVERY release. If the PR person can't tell journalists why they should care, the journalists won't care. It's that simple.

5) More than One Page

Yes, PR people send releases with multiple pages. I really wish I was joking but I've seen it with my own eyes. If a company has a major breakthrough (like the cure to cancer), a multiple page release with valuable information is great. But the people who send multiple page releases are usually talking about some insigifcant product. Your new chocolate bar might be delicious, but you can tell journalists that in under ten sentences.

Also, make sure the '###' is at the end of your release. Journalists don't want to wonder if they received your entire release or if more pages are coming.

6) The About Section is Longer than the Release

If the company's description is longer than the actual release, why is it even being written?

7) Bad/Stupid Quotes

Quotes add more depth and make a release stand out. Make sure the quote is relevant and appropriate. Let's continue with the candy bar example:

"This new candy bar is fantastic, it really adds depth to our product offerings" - Bad
"It took a lot of testing to make sure the new candy bar added something different to the table, we really wanted to go outside the box and make something different" - Good

See the difference? The second quote is more compelling. You might have to prod people for better quotes, but it will make a huge difference. I'm seeing more news organizations simply copy and pasting press releases onto their web site with changes. If your release reads like an article with good quotes, it will be much easier to put on a web site.

8) It's Pointless

If the release isn't newsworthy, why is there a release? No one cares if a company just installed a new air conditioner at corporate headquarters. If a journalist constantly sees pointless releases, he/she won't read the others sent by the same company.

The release also has to be truthful. At my internship, I went with a reporter to cover a story we got via a press release. Basically, an organization against junk mail went to picket outside a store that sent a lot of mailers out. The release stated people would be dressed up as junk mail and have oversized pieces of mail. The story seemed interesting and had great visuals. I was there to record video.

The people who organized the event were late, the costumes were pieces of newspaper and the oversized junk mail was much smaller than we were led to believe. Seriously, it looked like a high school craft project. The station still covered the story, since a reporter was sent out, but the it got little play. I'm pretty sure the station hasn't covered anything from that organization since then.

Agree or disagree? I'd love to hear what others think!

Social media monitoring is necessary in a crisis

As you know, I've been following the Qantas/A380/Rolls-Royce engine debacle since it began. I noted Qantas had a pretty bad crisis communications response. It didn't utilize its social media channels (ignoring customers who tried to contact them through it) and allowed the media to guide the conversation.

Rolls-Royce, in my opinion, got off easy in the mainstream media outlets. Besides frequent flyers and airline industry people, the average consumer doesn't understand engines come from different suppliers. Say Rolls-Royce engine to your best friend and he(she)'ll think you're talking about a car. Now, on the business side with airline executives and airplane manufacturers, Rolls-Royce needs to cover its bases.

Well, it appears Rolls-Royce is monitoring the social media conversation during this crisis. Windfall Media, of London, seems to be compiling mentions of Rolls-Royce. How do I deduce this? One of the referring links to my blog came from a sub-domain of Windfall Media, aptly named 'Rolls-Royce.' According to Windfall's web site they, "help companies manage opportunities, risks and threats to their brands online."

Now I can't say with 100 percent certainty this is exactly what Windfall Media is doing for Rolls-Royce, but it seems very, very likely.

Rolls-Royce, you get a thumbs up from me for monitoring the social media conversation. It's clear you're serious about your reputation want to be on the ball. A lot of companies doubt the power of social media and end up destroyed (Cooks Source anyone?). Rolls-Royce has a lot on its plate now, since Qantas says 40 engines need replacement. Singapore Airlines and Lufthansa will probably need replacements too, since they use the same engine on their A380s. That's several million dollars down the toilet.

I want to see how Rolls-Royce and Windfall Media use their social media monitoring in this crisis. Let's see what happens next.

Engines need to stop picking on Qantas

As if things weren't going bad for Qantas already, birds took out an engine on one of its planes today. Talk about unlucky.

Commit or quit: Blog frequently or don't blog at all

I know, I know.

This post is already hypocritical just by reading the title. How can I tell others to blog frequently when I haven't followed the same advice? Well, I'm an entry-level individual and am bound to make mistakes.

What a lame excuse, right? This time is different. I'm actually writing down ideas for future blog posts. When I get inspiration, I make sure I text or e-mail it to myself. My alma mater is the inspiration behind this topic.

If you can't commit, just say no

Loyola University Chicago's School of Communication (SOC) is fantastic. No, this isn't an advertisement for the school. Almost every professor has professional experience. There are very few pure academics. Professors come from large newspapers, television stations, ad agencies and PR firms. Clearly they know their fields and have a ton of knowledge to share. These professors would make great bloggers.

The SOC started a blog last year. It got off to a strong start, but now it's essentially dead. The only post made this semester advertises an event. It looks like the SOC succumbed to bloggeritis.

Yes, bloggeritis. I'm coining this new term. Bloggeritis is when a person or organization starts blogging and then inexplicably stops. Perhaps blogging is too much of a chore. Maybe it got too boring. Whatever the reason, bloggeritis is bad.

When a person or organization stops blogging it looks unprofessional. If they can't keep up a blog, do they have an issue with commitment? Do they run out of ideas? Will they give up on me? How can the SOC be viewed as a group of communication experts if they don't communicate?

If a blog stops receiving regular updates, just remove it.

The bottom line

Everyone seems to believe starting a blog is a great idea. It is, if done correctly. My company is considering creating a blog with our own industry experts. If we can't get our experts to commit to constant updates, the blog would only serve to embarrass not only our organization, but the experts too. Why would anyone listen to an expert who rarely dispenses advice or insight?

I really hope the SOC either starts updating their blog or gets rid of it. It looks bad when communication experts can't consistently update a blog. Blogging has the potential to be a very powerful platform, but it's a dud for the SOC.

Additionally, the SOC recently established the Center for Digital Ethics and Policy. If they can't keep their blog or their site updated, why should anyone take them seriously?

Qantas update

Wow, November is just an unlucky month for the Australian airline, Qantas. ABC News reports that not only did the engine on their A380 fail, but so did several other systems on the aircraft. Today, smoke filled the cockpit of a Boeing 747. The PR team at Qantas definitely has their work cut out for them. If I was scheduled to fly internationally on Qantas, I'd be pretty shaken up.

As for Rolls Royce (the engine maker)? Well, besides two press releases, the company doesn't seem to be doing much. Reports say Rolls Royce will fix all affected engines.

It'll be interesting to see if other problems develop, but right now Qantas is getting all the flack. Why? Well, the average person thinks engines on each plane are all the same. Only those who understand the aviation industry know there are different engine suppliers. Qantas loses while Rolls Royce stays in the background (though don't think for a moment top management at the airlines aren't concerned with Rolls Royce).

Twitter is not your RSS feed (or) Why I don't follow Mashable

I have a message to those who treat their Twitter accounts as a RSS feed:

STOP!

I'm glad I got that out of my system. It's been brewing for quite a while.

I could name a dozen offenders off the top of my head, but one of the worst is Mashable. As a site dedicated to social media, Mashable's Twitter account is pretty bad.

And it's not just because of Pete Cashmore's picture staring daggers at me.

I followed Mashable for about two months until I had enough. Every tweet linked to an article on its site. No retweets. No user interaction. Article links only. The Twitter account basically serves as a way to generate traffic to the web site. Since I already visit the site regularly, the account just clogged my feed.

Now, linking to their site isn't bad at all. In fact, I do it whenever I make a blog post. Moderation is key, though.

How can Mashable call itself a social media news source when it doesn't follow social media best practices? Sure, the account has over two million followers. But I highly doubt any of them are engaged. Web 2.0 and social media are all about interaction and engagement. Tweeting links to your web site over and over again is not engagement. It's simplistic and, quite frankly, annoying.

Why do people follow Mashable? I have no clue. I don't find much value from their Twitter account. While the actual site is great, the Twitter account leaves much to be desired.

Mashable, please stop being a bad social media example.

Crisis Communications: Why is it so hard?

Whenever I read an article where crisis communications is poor, I sigh. Is it really that hard? Are honesty, transparency and timeliness impossible during a crisis?

There are companies that actually do crisis communications right (hello Tylenol circa 1982). I'm just shocked at the recent string of poor communication from companies during major problems. First Toyota, then BP and now Qantas.

For those who don't know, Qantas is the national, and largest, airline of Australia. Last week, one of their new Airbus A380 planes had an uncontained engine failure and made an emergency landing in Singapore. An uncontained engine failure basically means the problem with the engine is not, well, contained within that engine. So parts of the engine were falling onto the ground and damaged the plane's wing. This had the potential for catastrophe.

Luckily, the plane landed safely with no passenger injuries. Qantas felt this problem with the engine might be prevalent on the other A380 aircraft and proceeded to ground the entire A380 fleet out of caution. Better to be safe than sorry.

So how did they have poor crisis communications?

Well, grounding the entire A380 fleet means customers can't get to where they are going. Surely the airline has spares planes, right?

However, the A380 is the largest passenger plane in the world. It has room for over 400 passengers, much more capacity than any other aircraft out there. A fully booked A380 means you need two large aircraft as a replacement. Qantas doesn't exactly have a ton of spare jumbo jets waiting in the hangar. This stranded people across the world.

Qantas didn't use their social media channels to communicate with passengers. Tweets requesting information went unanswered. The Qantas web site just said there would be major disruptions to service. The Facebook page left a link to their web site. No constant updates, no special number for passengers to call; just the barebones information. Reports on the web also seem to say stranded passengers received conflicting information on when they could reach their destination.

It also didn't help when another jumbo jet experienced an engine problem shortly after the A380 issue. When it rains, it pours.

Compare this to the runway overrun of an American Airlines plane in Jamaica almost a year ago. I witnessed the reaction unfold in real-time. Despite the accident happening after business hours, American provided Twitter and Facebook updates and constantly updated their web site with new information. The airline established a special number for passengers or family members to call for information.

If Qantas has a crisis communications plan, clearly social media is not part of it. In the world of web 2.0, a company needs to be on the top of its game during a crisis. Lapses in communication only serve to disconnect and frustrate customers. Even if Qantas had little information, updating would show they are paying attention to the issue.

Oh, and the airline just got fined for, "fixing air-freight tariffs." A whopping 8.8 million euros. Talk about a rough week.

Luckily for Qantas, the problem seems to be with the engine manufacturer (Rolls Royce). The airline's poor communication response will be put on the back burner. Hopefully Rolls Royce has their crisis communication plan in motion, especially since Singapore Airlines just grounded some A380s which use the same engine.

(I'll definitely update this blog more. Stay tuned!)