... But Journalists Can Do Without Bells and Whistles
Generally speaking, it might not be worth the time or expense of including newspaper and magazine reporters on your bells-and-whistles distribution list. It's not that they don't have access to the technology, they choose not to use it.
"It's a pain in the ass," says Jon Van, computers and high-tech staff writer for the Chicago Tribune, referring to the higher-tech press kits that PR professionals and marketers are eager to use.
The hard work of preparing an elaborate, multimedia CD-ROM presentation is done and you've mailed it to the top newsrooms across the country. Now you can sit back and listen to the praise from reporters and editors.
His view is a fairly accurate summary of PR NEWS' informal survey of 10 leading media outlets. In fact, three of the 10 respondents used the same phrase as Van.
Reporters at every newsroom in our survey have at least nearby access to a CD-ROM drive (see chart). But that doesn't mean writers are spinning your latest marketing presentation.
"Actually our reporters do use [their CD-ROM drives]," says John Coston, senior director of publication management for the Wall Street Journal. "They plug in their headphones and listen to the Eagles while they're writing."
"Generally speaking, sending CD-ROM files to the average reporter is not a good idea," says Terry Schwadron, editor of information and technology for the New York Times. "Let's just say the skill and interest levels vary widely. Most often, they're not going to take a look."
Similarly, most major media outlet reporters can tune into Webcasts, a strategy popping up more often in PR campaigns.
But like CD-ROMS, odds are journalists won't take advantage of the tools at their access to pick up the presentation.
"We can pick up Webcasts with some difficulty," says John Burgess, technology editor for the business section of The Washington Post. "But really, it's something that hobbyists do."
Not everyone who works in a newsroom is a curmudgeon who would prefer to clack away at an old Remington typewriter.
"Everyone here likes the benefits of the new technology," says Lavinel Savu, assistant managing editor of Cosmopolitan. "Our company has a firewall so things don't always come through like they're supposed to... But if it comes through in its entirety, I think everyone appreciates it."
Newsweek was the most technologically advanced of the respondents, and reporters there actually use the tools at their disposal.
"It doesn't bog me down to get high-tech communications," says N'Gai Croal, associate editor. "That's the way we work."
Others are willing - and have the technology - to adapt should they need.
"Right now, very few people here actually use their advanced capabilities," says Brian O'Neill, editorial assistant at the Boston Globe. "But I guess if we move that way and more people start doing Webcasts, for example, we'll be able to do that."
Then he proceeds with a familiar chord.
"For now, it's not really that helpful or useful if someone sends something high-tech," he says. "The fax works fine."
It still will be a while before journalists pop in a CD-ROM or tune in a Webcast as part of their normal research at the country's major media outlets, and considerably longer for mid-size and small publications where technology may lag behind. No great loss, according to the Times' Schwadron.
"If you have a multimedia extravaganza explaining the Republican position of the import and export of bananas, that's getting to be a lot more trouble than it's worth for your average reporter," he says. "Funny, but words are still the best way of getting across a message."