How USA Today Collaborated with Readers to Cover the iPhone

The launch of Apple's iPhone was certainly a momentous event. Like thousands, I thrilled in giving my local Apple Store employees high-fives as I ran through the store Friday to get my phone (I was as #38 on line). This was followed by 40 hours of agony as I tried to get it activated. Now, thankfully all is working.

This post, however, is not about the device or even the buying experience. Rather, it's about how one publication covered the launch of the iPhone by opening up the editorial process and the ramification of such practices for PR.

USA Today like everyone else was all over the iPhone, particularly as the weeks waned down to 6 p.m. June 29. In one of their stories, I spotted a small link that said: "We need your help." The link encouraged readers to respond to a Surveymonkey survey that gathered insights into interest into the phone. I filled out the questionnaire.

Within a few days I received an email from a reporter, Jim Hopkins, who was working on the next iPhone story. He asked survey respondents to watch the 20-minute iPhone video on Apple's web site and respond to a simple question - does it make you want to buy the phone more or less? Consumers aren't used to being asked these questions by journalists. He also gave us the opportunity to opt out if we wanted to.

I didn't respond but I was curious, so I remained on the email thread. In the next message he asked people who were willing to wait on line last Friday  to take photos of what they saw and e-mail them in for possible publication.

Like the BBC, USA Today has truly revolutionized how it reports stories. These changes go deeper than the publication simply turning its web site into a social network. The collaborative thinking appears to be ingrained in the culture and editorial process. And it all starts with four little words - we need your help.

For some reason the journalists have no trouble using these four little words with their readers. Sure, it took awhile, but Dan Gillmor's vision of reporters saying "my readers know more than me" often is now a reality at USA Today and elsewhere. Good for them.

I wish I could say the same for PR professionals. Very rarely do I get an email pitch that says win-win. Most are trying to ram a pitch into this blog, which I won't let happen.

Journalists are leading the way to becoming more open and collaborative with their customers. They view their readers/viewers as partners. USA Today isn't alone. Beth Comstock from NBC calls her audience viewsers.

Meanwhile, most public relations professionals haven't adapted. We need to start taking the same kind of open approach to what we do as the journalists have adopted. My CEO Richard Edelman calls this "open advocacy." Should we fail, some of PR's value will be eroded.

I am hopeful this kind of change can happen, bit I am beginning to feel the journalists are way ahead of us. That's good for them, but not for us. Time to hurry it up.

Comments

[Paul Levinson]

Good post. I was delighted with all the iPhone coverage - been waiting for this to happen for a long time - I predicted the iPhone in 1979...

[James]

It's pretty sad that USA Today said "your" when they meant "you're" (Let us know if your planning to buy an iPhone...)

[Amanda Mooney]

Steve-
I really enjoyed this post and I agree that, clearly, the old "pitch" model doesn't (and shouldn't) work in today's new media. As a wide-eyed intern, I have studied social media and the communicators leading conversation in the space with great passion. I have followed your blog and the research lead by Me2 and Edelman. As excited as I am to implement what I have learned, I have found, however, is that this open communication that thrives on the web is met with a lot of understandable resistance and fear by clients. I and, fortunately, my mentors in the PR industry understand the value of opening brand conversation on the web rather than pushing messaging but how do you help your clients to feel comfortable really inspiring and joining the online conversation? I see why advertising is the marketing of choice for some brands when entering the online space; Putting up a banner ad on MySpace is a considerably easier sell than starting an unpoliced customer forum.

Do you have any advice for new professionals in the industry?

Amanda Mooney
Emerson College Senior
Marketing Communications

[Anthony Hamelle]

Steve,

Thank you for this very interesting post on the way journalists more and more understand their work as the mediation of collective insight rather than the assertion of individual opinions. Yet, the Washington Post treatment of social media also shows a very kindred spirit towards external opinions inasmuch as as they go as far as displaying links to influential blogs that cover the same topics as those of the newspaper. I actually wrote a post on the same subject yesterday (for your French speaking readers ;-)
http://www.pr2peer.net/2007/06/des-mdias-15-au.html
As far as our industry is concerned, we most certainly have to continue our efforts in persuading our clients that communication ought to be done differently...

[Starr Million Baker]

Steve, I heard you speak at a recent PRSA conference so have started reading your blog and am learning so much. This post was especially eye-opening as to how it's not just "new" media that's changing, it's established media and PR right along with it. Keep 'em coming and thanks for sharing.

[Pat Coyle]

It's important to know your "audience," and also to know the power of words. What you call someone conveys and influences what you think of him or her. For the Colts, I've been on a campaign to stop using the word "fan" in the marketing department. Fans are too easy to take for granted. "Customer" would be better. That being said, you're right...our PR dept will not allow customer-bloggers into the press box anytime soon :-)

[Mark Buford]

Steve, I'm a PR professional and I'm intrigued by the concept of 'open advocacy.' I think I understand what you're proposing in general, but is there a more specific definition available somewhere?

[Dan Schawbel]

Thats pretty smart of them to collect responses about the iPhone the way they did. I'm interested to see how the first shipment is.

[Leonidas]

And it is very smart for them to ask the readers to take photos (naturally, for free, a good photographer is so much harder to come by).
Readers normally don't know anything about jurisdiction in the first place, so they don't care, take and send in photos. And - at least in germany - if the photo gets published and a motif complains - the reader will be sued. (See the Bild-newspaper for a likewise model.)

So this nice new model of journalism essentially just keeps cost down. Why bother hiring a competent (and more expensive) journalist when you can get content on this topic for free via a mediocre journalist from the "collaborating" readers? Web 2.0 at its finest.

[marshal sandler]

It is wonderful to see USA Today and Also The Times Select ,+The BBC ! There is no content that is
average it is either good or bad ! The new Media has sent the old Media to a place next to General Custer! My Local Paper could not have produced ! Below
How USA Today Collaborated with Readers to Cover the iPhone.

[Erik]

Here's some iPhone market research powered by GMI recently: http://www.gmi-mr.com/gmipoll/release.php?p=20070702