The good folks over at the Pew Center’s Internet and American life project along with the Project for Excellence in Journalism conducted a survey to find out where and how Americans get their news. The results that were released yesterday and  splashed all over any website that would sit still (bravo, Pew, bravo!) won’t cause any of  us online junkies to fall out of our chair. As expected, TV is where most Americans still get their news with the Internet running a close second and more…

It’s been another exciting week in the world of all things Google. The little search engine with the unassuming primary colored logo has generated more headlines recently than American Idol and Obama combined. Let’s take a look at what the world’s most popular website has been up to.

Just yesterday, Google threw their hat back into the social media arena with the launch of Buzz. Google promises that Buzz will be the faster and easier way to share pictures and videos with friends and family who already belong to Gmail. Naturally Buzz is instantly compatible with smart phones and employs the latest in GPS location to gather information from neighboring businesses and hot spots. Its a gutsy move considering that Google has failed to nab the social marketing scene like Facebook has. From a marketing standpoint, Buzz could provide some much needed oomph to the social media marketing game. Buzz’s new features and Google-like accessability are appealing and send the mind reeling into more…

The funeral procession for the American newspaper stretched across the land from Denver to Miami as longstanding newspapers went digital, bankrupt or belly-up. Magazines faced a similar fate when publishers like Conde Naste dumped some of their oldest titles with cries of budget concerns and dwindling audiences. Thousands lost jobs as the future of traditional publishing was left up in the air. As usual, the death knell was rung a tad prematurely. Media companies always find a way to reach audiences and to change so the tears were certainly unnecessary.

The New York Times, for example, just launched the newest version of  The  Times Reader which features  seven days of the paper in its entirety  for $3.45 a week, crossword puzzle included. This digital version is compatible with Macs and PCs while providing nifty page turning and more…

When Katie Couric took over as anchor of The CBS Evening News in 2006, media watchers lined up with bats to take a whack at her like she was some sacrificial journalism pinata. The former Today show host was always thought to be too perky, too eager, and not evening news material.  Her arrival at CBS was highly hyped and endlessly promoted while Couric’s salary was rumored to be astronomical. The overwhelming consensus after two months, however, was that CBS had made a big mistake. Her ratings were awful and the reviews were unkind to say the least. So how does a television whipping post like Katie Couric wind up winning the Edward R Murrow Award for best newscast in both 2008 and 2009? Tracking the anchor’s phoenix-like rise from the ashes is valuable seminar in new media marketing, technological innovation, and good old fashioned “never give up” persistence.

Katie Couric’s morning show fan base always admired her happy-go-lucky and friendly demeanor yet this persona simply would not fly in a nightly news format where anchors are expected to be stoic like Walter Cronkite. Instead of abandoning the personality that put her on the map, the newswoman struck gold at the 2008 Democratic National Convention with original web content that featured a relaxed Couric who could be seen clowning with crew members, ribbing politicians, and offering personal insights into the event’s goings on. The popularity of the coverage lead to the creation of @katiecouric, an online news program that allowed her to let her hair down and be the Katie viewers fell in love with. The show features a looser format, frank talk and opinions, and most importantly, original content not to be found anywhere else. This week the show featured a blow by blow of the President’s first State of the Union address.

With @katiecouric, the anchor was reinventing CBS’ longstanding reputation as, ” the old people’s channel” and the makeover didn’t stop there. Couric tapped into the social media craze by supplying more original content on her Facebook and Twitter accounts. Daily updated, her social media sites promote The CBS Evening News as well as her original web content.  Moreover, she communicates directly with her viewers by asking them to send in questions for interviews, suggestions for stories, and photos from news making events.

The most important thing any struggling business can learn from Katie Couric is to never give up. Instead of quitting and opting out of her big bucks contract, Couric rolled up her sleeves and got creative.  When she famously grilled what’s-her-name from Alaska, Katie asked the questions that were on her viewers minds without apology or cynicism. The interview, in turn, has become one of the most famous political train wrecks of all time while the interviewer gained respectability for staying true to who she is.  Producing webcasts, diving into social media marketing, and tapping into your own marketable identity are tasks that virtually everyone can do. So the next time your scratching your head to come up with a new marketing plan ask yourself, “What would Katie Couric do?”

As the proliferation of digital media as a source of information has swelled in the last couple of years, more and more people are turning away from traditional news media and powering up their computers to get the latest scoop. A recent poll conducted by Sacred Heart University suggests that average Americans don’t care much for newspapers and traditional news outlets to get their unbiased fix of reporting.

Newspapers and traditional news organizations have done a poor job protecting their reputations by creating an environment where profits override content. But hey, everybody needs to make a living, right? News agencies are giving their audience what they want by delivering info-tainment, rather than what they need; unbiased reporting of events that effect us all.

Over the years, traditional news has become more of a business and less of a public service which has lead to a proliferation of news outlets that cater to sensational headlines and buzz, which in turn is good for the bottom line. Greed may be good for business, but it is not necessarily good for news. So what to do?

Recently, Senator Ben Cardin suggested a bill that would give newspapers non-profit status so they can deliver news without the worry of raking in a profit. But does changing into a non-profit going to encourage readers? Will that change the quality of the content? Believe it or not, quality content can be had on the internet by individuals who are doing the reporting more for the love of the craft than the need to profit. And readers are taking notice. As audiences flock to these writers, they will become more attractive destinations for news. In a recent interview of Tom Fenton, former senior correspondent for CBS news and author of “Bad News: The Decline of Reporting, the Business of News, and the Danger To Us All” believes that the answer to low-quality news content will depend on whether or not there is public outcry for better news. But I think it will be less of an outcry from the public, and more a slow turning away to better alternatives. For more on Tom Fenton’s take on the state of traditional news, click on the video below.

According to the 2009 State of the First Amendment Survey, most Americans prefer getting their news from traditional media.   In a recent press release, Gene Policinski, vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center said,

“…while new forms of obtaining information, including Twitter and social media are much discussed and growing in use, most Americans continue to rely on the same news organizations — including the news reports picked up by online news providers — on which they have relied for decades.”

This is not surprising since the majority of overall advertising budgets are still spent on traditional media, and only a fraction goes to new media. Wherever the most eyeballs go, so goes the budgets. But that small fraction continues to expand and will continue to grow as more people turn to the Internet for their information and entertainment needs. Some traditional media outlets have radically changed their models and have incorporated digital strategies like social media and blogging as part of their news network and are working with bloggers and tweeters to better take advantage of the digital frontier. However, some media sources, like AP News, are trying to regulate their content by putting forth strict guidelines designed to control how their stories are spread across the Internet. Last year, popular site TechCrunch announced it would ban articles and information coming from AP news in response to actions taken by AP News against a popular news aggregate which used their content without permission. More recently, TechCrunch wrote an interesting article titled,  “Behind The A.P.’s Plan To Become The Web’s News Cop”.  Also, in a recent ibrandcasting post, I wrote about popular bloggers in Germany who released a manifesto that appears to directly challenge traditional news outlets like AP News and promotes the free flow of information. The role of traditional media in the digital landscape is still a bit blurry. Whether traditional media embraces new technology or tries to mold it as they see fit, one thing is for sure; in the card game of news, traditional media still holds a pretty decent hand.

Fifteen of Germany’s most prolific bloggers have stirred up quite the hornet’s nest by releasing what they are calling “The Internet Manifesto. How journalism works today. Seventeen declarations.”  According to TechCrunch Europe,  just hours after the release, servers got slammed by an onslaught of visitors and the site shuttered. The instant attention it gained was a magnificent example of how powerful a medium the Internet can be. The manifesto appears to be a direct shot across the bow of traditional media and aims to further challenge news and media outlets to adapt or change the way they think about this brave new world. I found the second tenet of the manifesto most interesting. It says,

2. The Internet is a pocket-sized media empire.
The web rearranges existing media structures by transcending their former boundaries and oligopolies. The publication and dissemination of media contents are no longer tied to heavy investments. Journalism’s self-conception is—fortunately—being cured of its gatekeeping function. All that remains is the journalistic quality through which journalism distinguishes itself from mere publication.”

In other words, journalism is becoming less a platform for making money, and more a platform for spreading ideas, information and news. This implies that the days of paying for your news and information are slowly winding down. The manifesto has thus far been translated into nine languages and will continue to spread on the Internet. This puts the concept of journalism on the world stage where people of different cultures can take part. Where else can you do that? And you can expect traditional pulp based news to carry the story in addition, gaining even more momentum. In Europe, it’s already shown up in ink of the non-digital ilk. When was the last time some copywriting gained the attention of the entire world? OK, maybe The Bible falls into that category, but even that took a few thousand years to get take hold.

I came across two articles on IKEA this weekend. The Swedish mega-brand is known for their propensity to attach umlauts to furniture names and also for their acumen in advertising and marketing. So is it just serendipity that I came across two related articles on the Swedish home furnishing manufacturer this weekend while perusing the news? Or is it a well-crafted PR maneuver? Or could it be something else entirely? When researching Blog material, I get to spend countless hours perusing news and entertainment stories from traditional sources like magazines, newspapers, press releases and news wires as well as non-traditional outlets like other blogs, micro-blogs and online videos. I’ve also noticed that news articles on specific topics (like IKEA, for example) spike the interest of journalists at the same time. Journalists often reference recent stories and craft their own spin on the news piece. For example, in today’s Los Angeles times there was an IKEA related article referencing how IKEA is able to garner a billion impressions over the last year by keeping in the news. A few days before, I was reading the paper edition (yes, I still read the pulp) of the New York Times and came across an article discussing IKEA’s recent typeface change to their catalog. Today I did a quick search and found similar stories on TIME, NPR , CBS News and ABC news just to name a few. The reason for the flurry of IKEA activity? Often times these stories are coming from the same source like a news wire. Back in the old days, news would  come in on a ticker tape-style machine that newspapers had hooked up in their offices and they would use those stories to fill the pages of their editions, or they would use them as a jumping off point for a new story. Today, you can get the same kind of news experience on any number of newsfeed services with the click of a keyboard mouse. While you may think this creates the same content over and over, it does more than that. In the case of the Los Angeles Times article mentioned above, it comes at the story from a local angle. While the story opens with a reference to the “typeface change”, the LA times gives it a localized stance and they do their own research and interviews to make the story a rich reading experience. You can say one story begets another with a different perspective. I think this is a good thing. People like me come to the LA Times for the local perspective and want to see the world through the lens of an Angelino. While some may argue that news with a perspective is opinion, I would reply that you cannot extract perspective from anything. Even in the history books, we are reading accounts from an individual or a group of people who had the perspective of the event that would later become history. Or we are getting the readers perspective. Having the ability to have multiple points of perspective allows the reader to sift through the content and come up with their own perspective. And so on.

Walt Mossberg, personal technology columnist for the Wall Street Journal reports on a new kind of online venture that attempts to blend journalism, advertising, entrepreneurship and social networking all into one big ball of digital wax. The company is called True/Slant and is being helmed by Lewis DVorkin, who previously held the senior VP of programming title at AOL. True slant is home to over 100 contributors, or “Knowledge Experts” who are given a plot of digital real estate where they can plant their best reportings, posts and opinions. But that’s not all. Each “Knowledge Expert” has the authority to manage and promote their own page and are even expected to interact with and manage their own readers and advertisers alike, hopefully forging bonds with a large crowds of hungry fans which will in turn attract advertisers who are willing to shell out the dough for ad space on the site. These “Knowledge Experts” become in effect mini-publishers who have a real stake in shaping their online property. The contributors get paid to write stories, but also share in ad revenues generated on their page and if they’re good enough, may even get equity shares. Not a bad business model.  But is it a good idea to mix advertising and journalism? Some think it raises ethical questions. I think it pushes the envelope and may give newspapers some ideas on how to actually get paid for what they do. It’s a fresh and new approach to journalism, and what better time to try something that’s never been done before.