The Spin Cycle, 7/2

A round-up of recent happenings in the world of PR, marketing, and other things I find interesting.

Dewey Beats Truman: The erroneous reporting by Fox and CNN that the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down the Affordable Care Act has provoked a justifiable backlash about media chest-pounding over getting scoops, particularly when said scoop is now measured by mere seconds:

But worrying about being first on reporting something that is handed to you and everyone else? By 24 seconds? To borrow the Gail Collinsism, I think I speak for everyone when I say, it's really not important.

Worse than that, it's dangerous. The health care decision is a complicated piece of business. It's worth taking the time required to fully understand it before reporting on it. It's that rush to be first or almost first that leads to world-class mistakes like CNN and Fox News made this morning, when they reported the health care law had been overturned.

Twitter Does Mobile Right: Twitter says most of its ad revenues comes from its mobile platform, in contrast to rival Facebook which has struggled to offer users a compelling mobile experience, let alone generate significant ad revenues there. The simplicity of Twitter no doubt sets a lower bar for creating a good mobile experience, but unlike Facebook, I find using Twitter's mobile interface to be more user-friendly than its web platform.

I Don't Like You Like That: The great Brian Solis reminds marketers that a "like" on Facebook is not a license to drown your followers in boring content. It's not an "opt-in":

The difference between Like and other direct response triggers is that the Like is an act of fleeting value that must be earned over and over again. Often, it’s an “in the moment” action that expresses affinity, interest, alignment, and sometimes endorsement. And as an expression, Likes are a form of social currency and their value goes up and down with each engagement.

In other words, you have to earn that "like" each and every time you post something on Facebook.

Bad for Hacks, Good for Flacks: An Australian publicist finds herself in hot water over an online article in which she notes that recent newspaper downsizing is good for the public relations industry. Know what? She's right. The only problem is she comes off as callous toward so many people losing their jobs, and her thoughts more properly belonged in a trade publication, or as a presentation at a PR conference. Know your audience.

Free advice for Rupert Murdoch

I haven't been following the News Corp. scandal as closely as some, so I can't fairly say whether accusations that Rupert Murdoch's American media properties have been soft-pedaling the controversy are accurate for the most part.

What I can say is that, were I doing public relations for Murdoch, the last thing I would want would be for News Corp. outlets such as Fox News and the Wall Street Journal to be giving Murdoch a pass. This scandal isn't about, say, some financial impropriety at the corporation; it's not about insider trading a la Martha Stewart. The accusations against News Corp. reporters and editors strike at News Corp.'s core business, and it feeds a long-held narrative that Murdoch cares only about amassing power and little about journalistic integrity. The best thing Fox, the Wall Street Journal, and other Murdoch news outlets could do now is to aggressively pursue the story, where ever it leads, as proof the corporation has some journalistic ethos.

The last thing I would want if my job was to safeguard the company's image would be to get up in the morning and read editorials like this one, with its everybody-else-does-it, why-is-everybody-always-picking-on-me tone. It's certainly the last thing I would want to read if I actually worked at the Wall Street Journal, which at least in my estimation still has a very good brand as a news-gathering organization and as the source of thoughtful conservativism, a brand that is sure to suffer because of its association with its wounded corporate parent.