Media

How do Startups Capture the Spotlight?

By Mark Evans in Startups 1 Comment Tags: , ,

In working with many startups, one of their key objectives is capturing the attention of customers, bloggers and reporters, partners and investors. The problem is many of them have little idea about how to do it other than writing a press release, and then crossing their fingers that it will somehow catch someone’s attention.

At a basic level, the big challenge is creating stories that resonate with target audiences. For any company, particularly startups with no track records, a good story is crucial because it gives someone a reason to be interested or care. The story could be about the company itself, consumer or industry trends, or how the service/product is unique or meeting a need in a different way.

Truth be told, good storytelling is difficult to do because it means stepping away from simply telling the world what you do and the wonders of your service or product.

So how do startups get the love and attention they desire? Here’s a few tips:

1. Think big. One of the biggest mistakes made by startups is they focus on what they’re doing, which, in the scheme of things, is relatively small. In a very small number of cases, their product or service might be newsworthy but it’s a long shot. Instead, startups need to focus on how they fit into the big picture. How is their product/service part of an overall trend that is capturing the attention of consumers? It means creating a big picture story in which the startup plays a role as opposed to being the star of the show.

2. Leverage your data. For startups that collect data about what their users are doing or what’s happening in their market, data can be a powerful marketing vehicle. A good example is Sysomos (a client), which created mini-reports on social media activity such as the behaviour of Twitter users around the world. These reports contained enough data goodness that bloggers were all over them. As a result, Sysomos got tremendous coverage and lots of attention.

3. Build relationships. “Cold pitching” a story to a reporter or blogger isn’t a formula for success unless you have an amazing story. Instead, startups need to identify their target audiences, and then build relationships over time. It’s an investment that takes time but it creates a more receptive audience that can be leveraged when needed. Building relationships can involve meeting people for coffee, sending them tips or insight about industry developments or news, seeking them out at conferences, or leaving a comment on their blogs.

4. Timing is everything. Too many startups try to capture the spotlight when they have nothing to talk about other than how they have launched a service. It may be interesting news to the startup but it’s “meh” for everyone else. Instead, startups should wait until they have something interesting to talk about. It could be a major industry development that impacts them or their business. In other words, it’s okay to wait until the time is right rather than trying to force it.

5. Success is sexy. Nothing gets people more interested than success stories. For startups, being able to show people what you’re doing is resonate with customers is a compelling story. It could be getting 10,000 users or striking deals with high-profile partners. It demonstrates that what you’re doing is interesting to customers so, in theory, is should be interesting to other people too.

6. Don’t think that hiring a PR is recipe for success. PR agencies can offer  value but it is hard for them to perform miracles if they don’t have a good story to tell. Too many companies hire a PR company, only to discover there is no return on their investment. Startups should start by hiring a PR agency on a contract basis to see how they perform. It’s also important for startups to provide PR agencies with marketing collateral and draft pitches so a lot of money isn’t spent on preparatory “grunt” work.

Want to Capture the Spotlight? Be Successful

By Mark Evans in Blogs, Media, Social Media 1 Comment Tags: , , ,

Over the past two years, I have worked with a lot of start-ups looking to establish themselves and attract media and blogger coverage. After all, what better way to jump-start your business than quality coverage from high-profile newspapers and bloggers.

The problem is there are dozens, if not hundreds, of new start-ups looking to capture the spotlight each and every day. Even if you have created a better mousetrap, it doesn’t guarantee coverage. It can be a frustrating because there are start-ups with amazing technology and innovative services that fail to get even a sniff of attention.

The problem is there is too much digital noise and competition, which makes rising above the crowd challenging.

The start-ups that do get coverage in the New York Times and blogs such as TechCrunch are anomalies. For whatever reason, they have the right story at the right time, and it has little to do with the quality of their technology, service or the excellent pitches crafted by PR agencies.

So how does a start-up attract media and blogger coverage? The answer is simple: be successful.

It’s not enough to have an innovative product or service; what really matters is if you can attract enough users or customers to validate that what you are doing is interesting or, at least, newsworthy.

Only then will your story start to resonate with reporters and bloggers. It really boils down to what reporters and bloggers like: success or failure. If you’re wildly successful, that’s interesting. If you explode and make millions of dollars in venture capital disappear, that’s interesting. If you’re a start-up with an innovative service but few users, that’s not interesting or newsworthy.

Does this mean start-ups with few users give up on trying to get media and blogger coverage? Probably not. What it does suggest, however, is having realistic expectations about how much attention you will attract when there are few people using your product or service.

Rather than being disappointed when the world doesn’t beat a path to your door, a better approach is focusing on improving your product or service, and growing the business. Don’t worry about attracting attention from reporters or bloggers. If you’re business becomes a success, you can hit them again with a much more interesting story.

Bottom line: If you’re a start-up with no or few customers or users, getting media or blog coverage is a major challenge. It doesn’t mean what you’re doing isn’t interesting; it just means that it’s not newsworthy until more people endorse that what you’re doing is worthy writing about.

BCE’s Puzzling Stab at Convergence

By Mark Evans in Media 1 Comment Tags: , , ,

Over the past couple of days, I’ve been reading and thinking a lot about BCE’s decision to acquire of all CTV – a decision apparently inspired when BCE CEO George Cope watched Canada’s women’s hockey team win Olympic gold on his wireless device – a moment he described as when the “penny dropped”.

It’s a move that obviously has convergence written all over it based on the idea that owning CTV will let BCE exclusively distribute content to its wireless, IP-TV, satellite and Sympatico.ca customers. This is yet another strategic makeover for BCE, and something that bleeds of competitive scrambling, if not desperation.

In theory, this will achieve three things:

1. It will make BCE’s distribution channels more valuable
2. It will give BCE a golden opportunity to squeeze more dollars from its customers
3. It will help BCE customers who want CTV content away from Rogers, Videotron and Shaw, as well as keep its own customers who have been fleeing to Rogers and Videotron in Eastern Canada.

On the surface, it may seem like a solid strategic approach but my take is the same flaws that doomed the original convergence movement will inevitably doom Convergence 2.0.

The biggest problem is consumers want content neutrality. Consumers want to get content when, where and how they want it. They don’t want to have to be a customer of a certain carrier or cableco to get content. Instead, they want to pick and chose their content – be it from Hulu, Netflix, CTV, CBC, NBC or Apple.

What consumers are willing to pay for – and even pay a premium to get – is a high-speed connection so they can access the content they want. It’s one of the reasons why high-speed ISPs have been able to raise prices and create different tiers of service with little resistance from consumers.

This is particularly true in Canada where high-speed competition doesn’t exist. In most markets, there’s friendly competition between the carriers and cablecos. While speed is often used as a competition differentiator, price is something that rarely, if ever, comes into play, probably because the margins on high-speed are so sweet that the carriers or cablecos don’t want to kill the golden goose.

Given this oligopolistic landscape, BCE didn’t need to purchase CTV. But George Cope probably believed he had no choice given his many of his major rivals own content: Shaw owns Globe TV, Rogers owns SportsNet, CityTV, Omni and a stable of radio stations and magazines, while Videotron has access to Quebecor’s media portfolio.

If anything, it speaks volumes about Canada’s media and telecom landscape in which cross-ownership has been allowed to thrive even at a time when the Internet has let more content than ever be available to any one with an Internet connection. At the same time, Canada’s digital border is alive and well, which explains why we still don’t have access to services such as Hulu and Pandora.

The only losers in this growing content contest between the cablecos and carriers are consumers, who may be forced to dance with specific partners as opposed to have a dance card that lets them choose whoever they want.

Media is Changing. But How?

By Mark Evans in Media 1 Comment Tags: , , , ,

I was fortunate to be invited by the Digital Journal to participate on a panel last night about the future of media – a subject that attracts a lot of attention as traditional media valiantly scrambles to stay vibrant and viable.

For the most part, the panelists were well behaved and provided some great insight into how the media world is changing. In particular, it was interesting to hear from Anjali Kapoor from the Globe & Mail and David Skok from Global News about how their organizations are evolving and embracing change. Polar Mobile’s Kunal Gupta provided some great insight into how mobile devices are changing content consumption, while Facebook’s Elmer Sotto talked about the role that Facebook is playing as a distribution platform.

The question everyone in the room wanted to know, of course, is what the future holds for media. Everyone involved in the media business or interested in the media is looking for insight about what’s over the horizon. What they got from the panel was that everyone recognizes that things are dramatically changing but no one knows what exactly is going to happen.

For example, there was an animated discussion about how mobile users are consuming lots of content. Kunal talked about how mobile users consumes 100 pages of content on Time.com’s wireless application, compared with 14 pages of content for Time.com’s Web site. There was also a healthy discussion about the iPad and whether it could be the saviour for the newspaper and magazine businesses. And we talked a little about how location-based services might be an interesting opportunity.

That said, you could sense the frustration in the audience. They’re not looking for glimpses of the future or tidbits about what’s currently happening; they’re looking for tangible information about what’s coming. They want insight about the bleeding-edge technologies or services that will impact media.

As much as no one wanted to disappoint the audience, the truth is no one really knows. If we did, one of us would probably be working for a red-hot start-up focused on revolutionizing the way media is created and consumed.

Instead, people have to live with the fact the media world continues to be a volatile and evolving environment. The good news is that a growing number of media companies have embraced the fact they need to change or die. It means there’s a lot of self-analysis happening, as well as a growing willingness to experiment.

To me, the future of media and who ends up surviving all this upheaval hinges on who creates the best content. As a former reporter, I truly believe that story telling is as important, if not more important, than ever. Whether it’s a video, newspaper or magazine article, Facebook update, blog post, photo or tweet, content is still King. How we economically create this content and how we consume content is still very much in the air, which leaves lot of room for more panels on the future of media.

I’m Tired of Twitter

By Mark Evans in Social Media 2 Comments Tags: , , ,

Don’t get me wrong, I love Twitter as a way to share and consume information but I’m tried of the coverage lavished on Twitter as a revolutionary entity.

The latest breathless article appeared in the Toronto Star earlier this week in which the author, Antonia Zerbisias, talked about how Twitter was used during the G20 meetings, and how a digital divide is being created between people who get their news via Twitter, and those receive it using traditional media sources.

It’s yet another example of how Twitter is getting far too much credit than it really deserves. Yes, Twitter is an exciting new communication tool but the praise being bestowed on it as a “game breaker” is unjustified.

It’s not just political coverage that are getting people excited about Twitter. It’s healthcare, entertainment, sports and business. As a long-time Twitter user, it seems strange to see Twitter hailed as such a breakthrough service given how the tremendous technology advances that have happened in recent years.

The fascination with Twitter may have to do with how it is rapidly emerging as more than just a niche service. With more than 100 million users, Twitter is big enough that there are fewer blank stares from people unaware of it. That said, it’s still a new and shiny toy for many people just starting to get on the Twitter bandwagon. This explains the articles that gush over how much Twitter has changed the world as we know it.

Personally, Twitter is a valuable tool for personal and professional reasons but, come, it’s not the greatest thing since sliced bread. While I don’t have Twitter Fatigue, I am tired of seeing so much adoration for it.

Pay-Per-Play Newspapers Coming Soon

By Mark Evans in Media No Comments Tags: , , , , ,

Maybe I’m alone in the woods but it seems like it’s only a matter of time before newspapers – at least world-class newspapers – start charging for more of their content.

Case in point is the Financial Times, which plans to introduce a pay-per-view system for online content next summer, while exploring whether FT.com content should stay free. (The Guardian has more details on how the FT’s subscription model could evolve.)

It’s becoming obvious – at least to me – the online pendulum is swinging away from free. It may not swing all the way back to paid, but the free buffet is going to over soon because newspaper owners such as Rupert Murdoch have realized their investments aren’t viable under the current free system.

That said, not all newspapers are going to be able to charge for content, and newspapers will only be able to charge for certain content.

The newspapers that could implement pay-per-play would the FT, Wall St. Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, the Guardian and Telegraph.

And the chances of fee rather than free being successful would be enhanced if they climbed on the bandwagon at the same time.

Would you pay for online newspaper content, particularly if it was columns, features and in-depth stories?


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
1 2