Zeno Group Blog

As a public relations professional and former journalism major, I often take it for granted that scouring a variety of news outlets each morning is part of my job description. After all, I work in an environment where I’m encouraged to express myself through this very company blog.

Maybe that’s why I was so taken aback when I came across the Washington Post article, “China Faces Backlash from ‘Netizens’ if Google Leaves” regarding Google’s threat to shut down its Chinese Web site over censorship issues.

The report included commentary from a variety of Chinese citizens.

“This will make the extent of Chinese censorship a lot clearer even to ordinary Chinese people who are not aware of it,” said Jeremy Goldkorn, who runs an Internet research firm and a Web site, which has been blocked since July.

Zhou Shuguang, a blogger who has done investigative reporting across the country, said that, “the withdrawal from China will wake up more Chinese and make more people discover that China lacks freedom on the Internet and the government has very strong censorship online. There are no benefits to people at all if Google continues to make concessions with Chinese authorities.”

According the Washington Post report, “businesspeople in Beijing were pessimistic, as were many people at Google itself, about the prospect of a crack in what is known as the Great Firewall of China.”

“China can’t lose face over this, and it’s not going to let anybody run an open search engine,” said an industry source close to Google.

The report noted that, “This week alone the General Administration of Press and Publication boasted of taking down 136,000 non-registered Web sites and more than 1.5 million pieces of bad information this week”

While some friends working in other industries have shared that their companies block a few social networking sites, I can’t fathom not being a way to freely search Google.

The current censorship issue between the Chinese government and Google makes me especially appreciative of our first amendment rights.

Zeno Group’s Digital Lifestyle team looked back at the top digital and social media stories of 2009 and recapped them in our e-newsletter, which is embedded below. We discuss the real-time revolution, the shift from advertising to engagement, the App Store and more.

You may also follow the Digital Lifestyle team on our blog (www.zenodigital.com) or on Twitter (@zenodigital) to see what’s influencing our world in 2010.

Zeno Group Digital Lifestyle: Top Stories of 2009

As the health care debate continues, women’s issues are taking center stage. Now, more than ever, women are key stakeholders and must remain engaged.

This week Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D., Md.) offered an amendment that would require insurers to cover more screening and preventive care for women, with no co-payments. According to a Dec. 1 New York Times article, “Senators Pitch to Women and Elderly on Health Bill,” Mikulsi said, “Women often forgo those critical preventive screenings because they simply cannot afford it, or their insurance company won’t pay for it unless it is mandated by state law.”

But not so fast, according to the article, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R., TX) criticized Mikulski’s proposal which would develop comprehensive guidelines recommending preventive care and screenings for women, saying it would “allow yet another government agency to interfere in the relationship between a woman and her doctor.”

The New York Times Economix blog’s November 30th post, “Sex, Abortions and Health Insurance,” by New York Times blogger and University of Massachusetts economics professor, Nancy Folbre, noted that the Stupak-Pitts amendment in proposed House legislation that would prohibit companies from offering policies covering abortions in subsidized health insurance exchanges.

Folbre included comments from Wellesley economist Phillip Levine’s recent New York Times Op-Ed which labeled the controversy a “false alarm” stating that, “If health insurance reform passed, after all, the expansion of medical services to low-income women, including improved family planning services, would compensate for the risks of paying for abortions out-of-pocket.”

Folbre stated that she was “unconvinced” noting that “neither of the bills currently before either the House of Senate mandates coverage of contraceptive services, pelvic exams or counseling for sexually transmitted diseases.”

Regardless of where you stand, one thing we can all agree on is the importance of women’s health issues. It will be interesting to see how the debate plays out and how it ultimately affects women.

It has become more than clear that the controversy with screening will not cease. This week, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force added fuel to the controversy by advising against regular mammography screening for women 40-49 years of age, provide mammograms only every other year for women between 50 and 74, and stop all breast cancer screening in women over 74. Soon after that statement was issued many including Komen, American Cancer Society and the American College of Radiology, issued statements against this new recommendation.

As I wonder why this controversy is heating up now, I wonder if it is all due to the renewed emphasis on cost-cutting measures and getting our country’s health care budget under control? Or is it that we are finally realizing that we need more research to understand why even though we have early screening guidelines for many types of cancer we are still losing many of our loved ones unnecessarily? I think that many of us can agree that we need new and improved tests to detect cancer at an earlier stage and there are many in the works but not approved yet. But until we improve on what we have are issuing conflicting guidelines by prominent health organizations really going to save lives and improve care or just create more stress that leads to even more disease in this country?  I believe the argument for delaying testing by many is that there is no proof that testing in younger patients has saved lives. But I wonder if I wait until 50 to get a mammogram, and then at that point I am told that I have cancer and its advanced, how I will feel about having waited? I personally would rather endure the yearly mammogram than have the uncertainty and regret later. This is of course a personal decision with perhaps no right or wrong answer but I am certain of one issue: creating confusion in the minds of Americans will not lead to better outcomes.

“It’s important and we will do it.” Thus spoke Thomas Abrams, head of the FDA’s DDMAC, at the end of the hearing on the promotion of FDA-regulated products through digital and social media. My head is still spinning from the speed and number of presentations packed into two eight-hour sessions.

Below, I go through the themes that stood out for me today. But my biggest takeaway from the past two days is simple: listening. It’s what the FDA decided to do by holding these hearings – and as much as everyone wanted more feedback from the panel, aren’t they doing what we always recommend? Before you engage, listen. Conduct the research, put your ear to the ground, get a better sense of the issues and then develop a plan to engage.

It’s what many of the speakers decided to do before the hearings. They listened by fielding new research, identifying information they already had on hand that would be of use to the FDA, and sharing their presentations for feedback and collaboration. It’s what interested parties did by tweeting and retweeting up a storm with the hashtag #fdasm well in advance of the hearing and through the hearing itself, creating a unique record of reactions and insights.

While I wish the hearing provided more of the patient perspective, I think there is a strong possibility that they are using this time to listen, as well, and I hope they take advantage of the FDA public docket being open through February to submit comments.

All in all, it reminds me quite a bit of Zeno Group’s namesake, Zeno of Citium: “We have two ears and one mouth, so we should listen more than we say.” And unfortunately, we have been operating in an environment where many companies have been afraid to do the essential work of listening due to uncertainty of their role and responsibility to engage. Hopefully this hearing is the first step in removing that barrier.

As promised, a few themes from the day (from a PR perspective):

• Transparency. The FDA was encouraged to develop a clear definition of sponsorship. Many presenters focused on the need for companies to be transparent when it comes to sponsorship, and ensure that consumers and HCPs clearly understand what is sponsored content and what is not.

• Responsibility. Adverse event reporting, and the level of responsibility companies have to report events found online, is such an important topic that the entire morning session was devoted to the issue. There were frequent references to an environment of paralysis with companies not knowing the level of their responsibility for adverse event reporting and off-label discussions online.

• Privacy. In developing guidance, speakers stressed the need to balance the importance of allowing companies to engage in conversation and correct erroneous information, with the importance of respecting patient anonymity and the doctor-patient relationship online.

• Clarity. The FDA was encouraged to provide clarity around the following questions by various speakers:
  • How should “sponsorship” should be defined?
  • To what extent should companies be required to track down all details about a potential adverse event report when key information such as a person’s name is missing?
  • Does AE reporting as it currently stands serve the needs of patients?
  • Should FDA’s MedWatch change its name and overall user experience to be more accessible to consumers?
  • Shouldn’t the FDA distinguish between types of digital media, with unique guidelines for forums, blogs, etc.?
  • Shouldn’t the FDA make a distinction on guidelines based on audience – consumers or healthcare providers?

Consumers now expect companies to be listening, accessible and responsive to them through social media channels. Healthcare professionals expect the same. Companies outside of the health space have set a new standard for customer service and, frankly, have raised the bar across industries. But we must acknowledge that there are ways in which the health space is unique, and respect the complexity of what the FDA must tackle in the coming months.

Today was the first day of a two-day FDA hearing on the internet and social media, or as it is entered into the Federal Register, “Public Hearing on Promotion of Food and Drug Administration-Regulated Medical Products Using the Internet and Social Media Tools.” The last time the FDA addressed this topic was in 1996, and most everyone has welcomed the hearing as the first step in a process toward more specific guidance from the FDA.

After listening to 33 presentations, it became clear that there are areas where many stakeholders agree. A few that stood out to me:

• Patients are online. A growing number of Americans are already seeking health information and interaction online (data from the Pew Internet & American Life Project was cited by multiple speakers).
• Industry has a role. The conversation is already happening and industry should be a part of it, particularly because the industry is well suited to ensure patients have access to accurate product indication and safety information.
• Links should be embraced. The internet functions differently than other media, and links are the normal method of navigation – many presenters expressed support of a “one-click” rule for this reason.
• Content ownership and responsibility. Industry should be responsible for content they develop or control; however, while industry should monitor social media, there should not be an obligation to monitor and respond to user-developed content.

We’ll report back with another recap following tomorrow’s full day of speakers. And I’ll leave you with one of the examples used by Mary Ann Belliveau and Amy Cowan of Google when demonstrating how consumers search for health information: In September, 1.6 million people searched “breast cancer” through Google. (Wow!)

Since his arrival in Chicago three years ago, WLS-TV (ABC) anchor/reporter Ravi Baichwal has become one of the rising stars of Chicago’s broadcast news scene. During the week, Baichwal reports for the city’s top-rated news team and on weekends he co-anchors the 5 and 10 p.m. broadcasts. In 2008 he won the Emmy award for best anchor in the Chicago/Midwest region.

Last year I met Baichwal when WLS covered the arrival of Porter Airlines first flight from Toronto to Chicago Midway. Having previously worked in Toronto for Canada’s top national news outlet, CTV, Baichwal was perfectly suited to cover the new connection between the two Great Lakes cities. Ravi was kind enough to share some thoughts on the relationship between broadcast journalists and public relations practitioners in this edition of “Five Questions.”

Q: What goes into the daily decision making process at WLS in choosing which stories the team will cover?
A: The key questions we ask of ourselves focus on what’s of greatest importance to the most people. That’s why weather and crime are often in the lineup. Our job is to tell the stories of interesting people doing interesting things in the world we all share. Where we can find those stories, and where the impact or implications from those narratives hit home with wide swaths of people, that’s where we tend to direct resources. And we try to focus on events that are somehow out of the ordinary – where the video is exceptionally good, and the story in the visual medium is easy to tell. That’s why television news is especially suited to emotional, people-based stories rather than process stories. Our medium just conveys the message in the pictures that much more effectively than anything else.

Q: When PR people have a segment idea, what’s the best way to pitch that story to your news team?
A: Find individual reporters and build a relationship with them. Do this by offering stories that are arresting visually. Any pitch from a PR agency is going to engender suspicion in a newsroom. It has to; that’s just in the nature of our journalistic duty to be skeptical. That said, knowing that the PR person you are dealing with is an honest broker who understands how a TV story gets put together helps. We want to know that you know what deadlines are, how important it is to offer local experts and b-roll opportunities, and that if we can’t do it, you don’t take rejection personally.

Q:What separates “good pitches” from “bad pitches?” What types of things are you looking for in a pitch that will make it a story you’d cover?
A: A good pitch has to have good video that is at the core of the story’s appeal to broad spectrum of people. It is amazing how many interview “opportunities” I am offered for satellite interviews with people pitching products that I just don’t care about. The principal in the story has to be in Chicago otherwise I can tell you it is highly unlikely the story will be covered.

Q: When you’re on location shooting a segment, how can PR people best assist you and your team?
A: If you are working with a big company on a breaking story, making spokespeople available is number one. Having background statistics that are relevant and help us develop context is good, too. This is especially helpful on big public policy stories involving such subjects as health care and community development.

Q: What’s your most memorable story or experience as a broadcaster?
A: There are so many. The time when my son was born and I was anchoring Canada’s number one national broadcast for the first time and I went on air with no sleep for nearly 48 hours comes to mind. That was a special broadcast for a lot of reasons. Our lead story that night was word that a cult in Quebec had succeeded in cloning a human being. The story was subsequently debunked, but I am sure my son will get a laugh out of it in the years to come!

A recent post on Bad Pitch Blog explored why bloggers tend to criticize bad pitches more frequently than journalists, and how it comes down to different motivations. However, if you’re on Twitter, you have probably noticed an up-tick in journalists sharing public relations approaches via Twitter. For example, just this week, CNBC pharmaceuticals reporter Mike Huckman had the following tweets:

“Please don’t take this as a “Don’t you know who I am?” ego rant, but the outside PR firm rep for Talecris didn’t know I cover pharma @ CNBC.”

“Nearly 6 hours (6 hours!) after Sanofi $SNY issued PR on H1N1 vaccine study corp comm gets around to emailing me the PR. What’s the hurry?”

It’s important to keep in mind that what may once have required too much effort or trouble for the media – calling out bad pitches – is now made quite easy through Twitter. And this is true of both journalists and bloggers.

The good news? It’s an excellent reason to step up our game.

Zeno Group’s Digital Lifestyle practice is now producing a monthly report titled The Social 7, which will highlight the latest digital and social media news and stories that should be on your radar.

The September 2009 issue is embedded below and may also be found on The Social 7 blog.  Follow the ongoing conversation on Twitter: thesocial7

Zeno Group Digital Lifestyle-TheSocial7 Sept.09

Answer: This television news anchor appeared on a popular game show to win money for charity and in the process damaged the credibility of his network. Question: Who is Wolf Blitzer?

OK, “damaged the credibility of his network” might be an overstatement, but surely CNN executives were wincing last Thursday as they watched one their most visible personalities completely fall apart during an episode of Celebrity Jeopardy! Blitzer didn’t just finish a distant third to Tonight Show sidekick Andy Richter and actress Dana Delany, he stumbled home with a deficit of $-4,600 after Double Jeopardy. Not surprisingly, the blogosphere had a field day with the poor showing by the host of The Situation Room.

When the three contestants were first introduced, I’m sure I wasn’t alone in thinking Blitzer would cruise past the Desperate Housewife and Conan’s cohort. And while he struggled through the opening round, I was willing to chalk it up to a man who was simply slow with the buzzer. But when Wolf started to chime in late in the game, confusing fettuccine with mostaccioli and making an absolute mess of the “E Times 3” category, it was clear that this test of random knowledge was not for him.

So was the Blitzer blowout a black eye for CNN? It certainly doesn’t help. While there are no shortage of TV news personalities who are hired to be a pretty face that reads a teleprompter, Blitzer comes across as an intelligent man with thoughtful insights. That intelligence betrayed him during a 30-minute game show appearance. For a few weeks, many CNN viewers will see Blitzer and be unable to shake the comical image below. As time goes on, the incident will fade into a mere mention on his Wikipedia bio. But don’t expect CNN to encourage Anderson Cooper or Larry King to join Alex Trebek on the Celebrity Jeopardy! set anytime soon.