Suzi Craig
August 28, 2009
1. Sox fan or not, if I got this email, I would check out Mr. Marsel’s goods for sure.

   Makes you think: why do we keep ourselves within our own traditional boxes of what marketing needs to be? Too much noise out there not to take chances and do something cool, Yankees fan or otherwise.

Bob Margolis
August 28, 2009
2. As a Yankees fan - I would not have opened it!

   I guess you gotta know your audience.

Bruce Kaechele
August 31, 2009
3. Or sometimes you just need to be lucky and catch people in the right fame of mind.

   I also think Suzi has it right - what made this interesting was that it was different. Most photographer emails I get only show photo samples. While I understand the logic - photos are what they are selling - all things being equal (quality, timing) why would I notice one photog over another if they all approach me in the same way. There’s that fundamental positioning question again. Do you want to stand out as different and turn some people off? Or do you want to look and sound like everyone else and not miss any opportunities? Both are viable options. The first relies on finding the small audience that shares your point-of-view. The second is playing the numbers game.

Steve Marsel
October 6, 2009
4. Bruce,

   Thanks again for your great insights and comments on this emailer. Our conversation on the phone was equally eye-opening, and as a result, I’m changing my approach to email marketing. I’ll keep you posted as the results as they come in.

   Thanks again for your time!

   Steve Marsel

Post a Comment

Bruce Barber
August 25, 2009
1. Brilliant, as always.

   Suzi, you have said it all…

Bruce Barber
August 25, 2009
2. …and I’m not just saying that because of your (all too kind) mention!

   But seriously, folks - there’s something else here.

   The Courant is a great paper with a long tradition of journalistic excellence. Their missed opportunity is an example of what all businesses need to be aware of - the need to monitor the conversations surrounding your brand.

   If management had joined the conversation from the outset - instead of getting involved the the “he-said-she-said silliness that is currently fueling the story - this could have been be an entirely different discussion.

Ed Kuryluk
August 25, 2009
3. excellent post!

   It can’t be overstated, as media evolves, the new “regime” needs to build trust with the viewers, readers, participants and advertisers. The challenge is great at the local level, where trusted regional and community papers disappear or get acquired by media companies. On the local media level, where, or how, does this trust germinate in the absence of trusted journalists like Mr. Gombossy?

   Traditional media has had editors to make sure news was presented as accurately as possible, as fairly as possible. Sure, there are editors and publishers that lean to the left or the right. But, by-and-large standards of Journalism have been followed.

   I’m seeing hyper-local news and blog sites emerging all over, but is the news coming from someone interested in exposing the truth or building traffic? Can this person keep the business side separate from the journalistic side? Ironic, this is exactly what Mr. Gombossy alleges his former employer couldn’t do.

   Yes, we are changing the rules, but we need to adhere to our standards.

George Gombossy
August 25, 2009
4. Thank you Suzi for your very generous comment. I just want to clarify one IMPORTANT point.
   This is NOT Gombossy v Courant
   This is Gombossy v Graziano, Levine, and Hazell, the three people who are destroying what hundreds of others had built up over decades and decades - a newspaper with integrity.
   I love the Courant. Other than for these three people everyone else at the newspaper deserves readers’ support. Please DO NOT stop buying the Courant - the 130 honest, ethical, smart, hard-working staffers and hundreds of other employees deserve your support.
   The Dog

Suzi Craig
August 25, 2009
5. Thanks for weighing fellas. Great chatter going on here. Let’s keep this conversation going.

   George - thanks for clarifying. It is an important point to make. Hopefully, as the story develops, those 130 hardworking staffers will not get lost in the shuffle. They deserve our support and encouragement to keep doing what they do best, despite any misguidance from the top.

Eliot Weissberg
August 25, 2009
6. So Suze,

   What you are saying is that we need newspapers? Just to be challenging… Why? As we age less and less people will “need” them. I do not read the paper and never heard of George till I read some tweets about it, then i read a blog about it, then I read your post. Now I am responding.

   I get all the newspaper stuff on-line. So do my teenage kids and when asked, they said they could NOT imagine why anyone would bother getting a newspaper. hmmmmm…

   And George is not writing for another newspaper, he is writing a blog.

   As far as the army of one stuff? Never! There will always be multiple sides to any issue or argument. The battles will always be fought on MANY fronts. There will always be winners and losers. Wounded, dead and survivors.

   So my hope is that there will never be an army of one but many ones that occasionally stand together for what is right.

   Ya know, they are not the ten suggestions…

   Respectfully, Eliot

Suzi Craig
August 25, 2009
7. I am saying that we need the people behind the newspapers - those skilled in investigative reporting, those holding up the constitution every day by ensuring our freedom of speech. For us novice citizen reporters, we need their expertise and insight. The actual form of a printed newspaper may go away (although I doubt it) and the construct of a news organization is going to - and NEEDS to - shapeshift.

   I am calling for an army of one to stand up together and fight for integrity. Not an army of one to have one voice. An army of one that does what we’re doing right now - taking on a topic with many voices and challenging each other, while keeping each in check too.

steven yanicke
August 25, 2009
8. Just in the same was as radio was eclipsed by TV – newspaper has been eclipsed by the internet. I don’t think anyone here debates this. What we could debate would be A) Do we still need newspapers? B) How else can media be generated? C) Will these new models be able to support high powered, award winning teams of media correspondents?
   One of the roles of newspapers has traditionally been to be the head watchdog of corporations and governments. Due to media conglomeration and the pressures of advertising this is no longer the case and more and more often whole sections of newspapers are being cut or outsourced. International reporting costs a lot of money… who knew?
   With decades of journalistic experience and rapport, even if the sources can be replicated, the type of information will change, and probably be more diverse, which is a good thing. So long as we don’t see this as the death of information, I don’t think we need to be ‘scared’ of the death of newspapers as we know them.
   So long as there isn’t a government sponsored Baill Out and good papers with good people are allowed to fail. These good people will continue to do the work that has driven them in their life for someone else. An out of work journalist doesn’t become a nurse – they become authors - Look at Jeremy Scahill (author of BlackWater) or John Perkins (Confessions of an Economic Hit Men) both are breaking news in print (Books and Essays) outside of the newspapers and being recognized with rave reviews and financial incentives in the form of more book deals. As they are free agents they can appear on any platform they want to broadcast their message (NPR for instance). People want news that matters and if they don’t get it from the newspapers they will get it from somewhere else.
   I heard a bit on NPR not so long ago with a guy talking about New New Media collectives. He made similar points. He had more numbers than I, but was saying that some of these small collectives with under 50 people operate with roughly the same profit margin as the hay day of newspapers – around 30%. It’s a smaller pie (~30 million annually instead of 800 million, but the 30% margin is still there if the C-level execs are open to new ways to generate income and maximize the networks that they already use.
   It’s a brave new world, and as net/information people we’re on the front lines. Just as we work to open the streams of information others (telecoms such as Comcast and ATT) are working just as hard to close these streams down (Net Neutrality for instance). I hope we win.

Suzi Craig
August 25, 2009
9. I hope so too Steve - thanks for chiming in.

   However the channels of information looks 5, 10 years from now we just can’t predict. But the need for accurate information from trusted sources will never go away. We will always push our entrusted sources to the top - it will take more work on the part of individuals, but it will happen.

Eliot Weissberg
August 25, 2009
10. ok - stupid question - but likely an old question..

    How do you tell who is telling the truth and who is just renderering a total BS opinion in order to spread fear or hate etc..??? E

Suzi Craig
August 25, 2009
11. You can’t. You need to rely on the crowd to call out the fakes.

    How can you rely on anyone? A book author makes up a story, writes a best selling book and gets on Oprah. Someone in the crowd said, “hey, that guy’s a fake” so the truth came out.

    Alternatively, Wikipedia is guarded with its life by the editors who work like crazy to ensure accuracy.

    It’s the same process. Propaganda and inauthentic information has been around since the ages. The channels are just different.

Derek Beere
August 25, 2009
12. Great post Suzi! You certainly got the conversation off and running here!

    The sad thing is that advertising dollars are starting to dictate editorial coverage. As a public relations professional, I can’t tell you how many times I run into editors, reporters, TV producers, you-name-it who are becoming more and more hesitant to giving a client editorial coverage if they’re not an advertiser. Sure, there still is integrity, and good reporters still exist, but the trend for quite some time now has been leaning toward the almighty dollar. No pay, no play.

    I won’t name any particular media outlets and shows here that are charging for in-studio air time. This applies for outlets in markets across the country, not just Connecticut.

    It’s a slippery slope, and I give George a big pat on the back for challenging this and “barking” about this. Kudos.

    Best,
    Derek

Louisa Handle
August 25, 2009
13. As a former newspaper reporter, I’ve been watching with interest this trend toward citizen journalism. It’s certainly a democratization of the newsmaking process, but it can never entirely replace newspapers and other organized media outlets and the role they play in society.

    Why?

    As Suzi alludes to, part of it is a question of “whom can you trust?” It’s more than that, though. It’s just as much about what stories wouldn’t be told if we lost our professional story tellers.

    A plane goes down in the Hudson? No one can better capture it in the moment than the bystanders with their iPhones at the ready. But what about the mundane city council meeting, the one that no one in their right mind would be attending if they weren’t getting paid to be there? Those of us with day jobs - even those of us who are keenly interested - don’t go to these things because we’re too busy with the rest of our lives. We rely on the media to cover - and uncover - corruption and keep our elected officials honest.

    Reporters used to go into journalism because they believed it was a career where they could “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” With the advent of media monopolies, it is the media itself that had been getting too comfortable. The web has changed that, turned it into an ugly struggle for survival that at times goes against the very heart of what journalism is all about - or should be.

    I, for one, hope these established media organizations can figure out a way to be true to the original mission of journalism, otherwise we’ll be losing something we can’t replace.

Post a Comment

John Marchiony
October 13, 2009
1. Hi Brent,

   Met Suzi briefly at IMS last weekend and made my way to your Not for Profit page. I’m fascinated by Tango, both for business (New Enterprise Factory) and for the NPO for whom I’m on the Board, Land’s Sake (LandsSake.org).

   I love seeing support for the Tangos and Taproots of the world. Thanks for illuminating it for me.

   Cheers,

   John

Brent Robertson
October 14, 2009
2. Thank John!

   We have high-hopes for the organization and really enjoy its members and partners. Great to share such a terrific resource for those who need it most.

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

Bruce Kaechele
August 14, 2009
1. Truly sorry to see you moving on, Bob. Thanks for this beautiful last piece of insight. I only hope that I am able to honor my parents with the same courage, honesty and sense of humor that you shared at your dad’s service.

Jenn Ford
August 14, 2009
2. Bob, I am so sorry for the loss of your father. I’m also sorry to see you leave Fathom - you will be greatly missed. To your point about your father, I think YOUR sense of humor is what we’re going to miss the most about not having you around every day!

Post a Comment

Suzi Craig
August 11, 2009
1. Right on Bruce!

   We are so used to being proud of ourselves when offer up something for free, but here you had an experience of a freebie that was unexpected and guess what?

   You’re talking about it for them. And on the greatest blog ever!

Post a Comment