How influential is the Press?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/jun/21/national-newspapers-newspapers
This is an interesting question in the light of the ever-decreasing circulations of papers in the UK.
Though for many years papers like The Sun have loved to claim that their backing of one party or another has been pivotal in it winning the General Election, the reality, as this study shows, has not been a true positive correlation.
But despite that they’ve managed to retain their influence over the national leaders by acting as if it is true (and which leader would risk going against them in case it was?).
Whatever the truth of how much they can tip voters one way or another there are two undeniable things here — the news agenda is still set a lot of the time by stories in the Press and that the constant drip of coverage for or against parties and their leaders must have an impression, unconscious or not, on the perception of parties and leaders and that it’s that which party leaders fear most.
And when that’s going on to as many readers as the Press have daily (still an impressive number) then it’s fair to argue that while the Press in print is on its way down, its influence is still huge.
Unless and until new media separate from the Press titles establish an equivalent level or credibility and readership, the Press will remain influential, if not masters of what we think.

When the PR creates some avoidable bad PR

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/jun/15/local-newspapers-twitter
I’m absolutely amazed that this council PR, not just a junior but the body’s comms chief, tweeted what he did.
While the paper’s response had been more than a little po-faced and OTT, the initial act was at worst silly in its tone.
Maybe the PR chief got lost in the informality of a tweet. But you would expect someone at that level to think before hitting Enter.
More than that, isn’t it surely his job to build close relationships with the media so that spats like this don’t happen? If that had been the case, the reaction would have been less serious in its tone.

Transparency benefits everyone

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/jun/08/nhs-local-newspapers
It really can’t be in the best interest of any NHS trusts, and certainly not in those of the public who pay for them, for them to hold all of their board meetings in private.
There are, of course, some matters which have to remain confidential, but to not be seen to absolutely transparent about everything which isn’t confidential doesn’t do them any good.
It’s one thing to be above board, but you have to be seen to be, especially as a public body. Like Caesar’s wife, they have to be above suspicion by being as transparent as possible.

Late adopters may be more important than you think

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/st_thompson_technophobes/
I thought it worth sharing this piece by Clive Thompson on the possible role of late adopters, as opposed to the much-vaunted early type, in the success of new products.
The argument certainly seems cogent and the addressable market is pretty big.
But how do you convince the laggards that it’s time to upgrade? Find out what can you make your new thing a tipping point for them. And see if you can work out when they, as a group, last splurged on leapfrogging to the latest thing.
As he says, early adopters make up their own minds. Marketing to everyone else could do your marketing ROI a power of good if you can come up with the right sticky message and use mavens and connectors to get it to the late folks.