Why Today’s NYTimes Giving Section Isn’t Good Enough
by Brian Reich | 12 Nov 2009, 10:27am
The New York Times published its ‘Giving’ section in today’s paper. I was totally underwhelmed. Here are my comments, in the form of a series of Tweets that I fired off during my commute into work this morning:
It’s refreshing to see the NYTimes Giving Section cover new philanthropy stories with different and refreshing angles (note sarcasm).
Thanks NYTimes - I wasn’t aware Target gave away 5% to charity. Causes let’s people tap social networks to raise money? Fascinating.
I am going to have to check the archives, but I am sure the NYTimes has never written up the WH Office of Social Innovation - that’s huge.
And that story about corporations having to do more than just brand themselves with a cause - I had never considered that. Thanks NYTimes
Dear NYTimes - if you want to continue to be my (or the) paper of record, you have to elevate your game. Start with your Giving section.
Dear NYTimes - why don’t you write up Lucy Bernholz’s ideas for how to re-shape the policy and governance structure behind non-profits?
Dear NYTimes - why don’t you write up the Wal-Mart Foundation’s ideas for how to end hunger, to go beyond just making donations?
Dear NYTimes - how about being a forum for the discussion about activity vs impact (and how many argue online hasn’t made it’s mark yet)?
Dear NYTimes - maybe you could tell us about the innovative mobile programs that enable individuals to volunteer while waiting for a bus?
With all due respect to the NYTimes Giving Section, there are more and better stories out there than what was in the paper today.
I came up with some (not so new, but newer than what is in the paper) better ideas for the NYTimes Giving Section on my walk to work.
Dear NYTimes - your yesterday’s news approach to the Giving Section today proves what everyone says about the print media not getting it.
Dear NYTimes - if you want ideas, or help, covering what is really important in philanthropy, let me know. I will help and others will too.
My frustration is driven by three issues:
1) There are better stories out there. The was little new ground covered in the stories offered by the New York Times as a part of their Giving Section today. Is the ‘paper of record’ not paying attention to what is going on in the world today? Do they not read the existing mainstream media coverage of nonprofits and charities, or the blogs and other sites that talk about the philanthropic community? Not only are there better stories out there - new innovations, different perspectives, approaches that are having more impact, and the like. But even within the stories that they covered - Causes, Target, the White House Office of Social Innovation, cause marketing and branding for corporations, to name a few - there are other voices and important perspectives that should have been included. The coverage was stale, incomplete — and barely worth the effort to read it.
2) The New York Times still has influence. Because people still view the New York Times as one of the leading news organizations in the country (and in some ways it still is, but apparently not when it comes to the issues related to philanthropy), their coverage in today’s Giving Section will have legs. People will read about it, blog about it, talk about it, and shape their plans based on what the New York Times says is important. But the news they offer is stale, the perspectives are incomplete, and as a result, the potential harm it can do probably outweighs the good. Nonprofits and charitable institutions continue to struggle - for reasons including (but certainly not limited to) the economy and the rapid changes in technology and how information travels. The New York Times had an opportunity to elevate the discussion, to change minds, to educate those who don’t have the luxury of being a part of philanthropic community every day, wrestling to figure these things out. But instead, the New York Times’ contribution to the discussion will do nothing to help any organization understand or deal with those issues, or the countless others that are out there, and probably will stunt the discussion somewhat, because of the need to go back and revisit issues that had, at least in my opinion, already been considered and addressed.
3) We do this to ourselves. Society has changed. How people get and share information, what we view as important, how we spend our time, energy and money have all changed. And all those changes are shifting the role and responsibility of the media as well. The New York Times (clearly) is no longer the authority on all issues - and in the case of their coverage of philanthropy, as demonstrated by today’s Giving Section, there are some areas where they are woefully behind the curve. There are all sorts of new and better sources for information, analysis and insight about the philanthropic community. And yet, for some reason, organizations still look at the New York Times as an important voice in this conversation. PR firms pitch their stories to the New York Times, even though they know that they don’t have the best examples or the greatest impact. Donors and ‘experts’ will put the groups profiled in today’s Giving Section at the top of their list of success stories, and must support organizations, despite the fact that many other, more compelling opportunities exist - and need help if they are going to break through. Bloggers, and columnists, and advocates for the nonprofit community will tweet, and re-tweet, and crow about the coverage in the Giving Section, ignoring all the other powerful examples and potentially game-changing opportunities that are out there. We do this to ourselves.
In the back of our heads, we know that the coverage in the New York Times isn’t good enough, isn’t far-reaching enough, and won’t change anything. But we let it happen anyway, year after year after year. Put another way, until the philanthropic community calls the New York Times out for not doing enough, for not covering the best stories in the best ways, the coverage will never change, and the space will never make the leaps forward it needs. So, let me do that now:
November 12, 2009
Dear New York Times:
You can do better.
I expect more of you.
Your truly,
Brian Reich
Subscriber (and someone who is active in, and concerned about, the philanthropic community and the ways in which the media covers its work - and potential).
That’s it. Now, get to work.
TAGS
: Causes Giving Section New York Times Philanthropy Target White House Office of Social Innovation
3 comments
Go Blue!
by Brian Reich | 31 Dec 2008, 3:15pm
The economy is tanking. Investments are shaky. Fundraising is slowing. These are tough times. So, nobody is going to blame a university for hoarding its cash and slowing its growth. And many of them are. Not the University of Michigan (my alma mater) No, the Maize and Blue is growing, expanding, and investing for the future.
From today’s New York Times:
An army of ironworkers, masons, carpenters and laborers are swarming the campus of the University of Michigan these days, as the university undertakes a construction campaign budgeted at $2.5 billion, ranking it among the largest university building programs in the United States.
Nine major buildings for science, medicine, health, art, business, sports, food service and student housing are in various stages of construction here. They encompass nearly three million square feet, at a cost of about $1.66 billion. Five others are in the design stage.
This comes after the completion in the last two years of 10 other buildings — for biomedical research, cardiovascular treatment, science, technology, engineering, public health, public policy and drama — covering 1.7 million square feet at a cost of $836.4 million. The square footage in the new and renovated buildings comes to the equivalent of 105 acres.
There are obvious benefits that these investments will provide to the students and faculty who enjoy them directly. There are benefits to those who aren’t on campus every day as well. The jobs created by these building projects will help support struggling families and spur the economy in Michigan (and don’t forget, many say that as Michigan goes, so goes the economy). The research these buildings produce will help cure disease and advance our understanding of the future.
They are just buildings, I realize that, but they represent a forward looking commitment that the University of Michigan has that all of us should embrace. Michigan’s football team may not be playing in a bowl game this year, the first time in more than three decades — but there is much to be excited and proud about in Ann Arbor as we blaze into 2009. Go Blue!
TAGS
: New York Times University of Michigan
leave a comment
What Attracts A Click Doesn’t Matter
by Brian Reich | 3 Dec 2008, 12:50pm
The New York Times reports this morning that advertising folks are changing their strategy — focusing more on things like color and font instead of ideas and messaging to get a user to click through an online ad. The article begins:
Online advertisers are not lacking in choices: They can display their ads in any color, on any site, with any message, to any audience, with any image.
Now, a new breed of companies is trying to tackle all of those options and determine what ad works for a specific audience. They are creating hundreds of versions of clients’ online ads, changing elements like color, type font, message, and image to see what combination draws clicks on a particular site or from a specific audience.
It is technology that could cause a shift in the advertising world. The creators and designers of ads have long believed that a clever idea or emotional resonance drives an ad’s success. But that argument may be difficult to make when analysis suggests that it is not an ad’s brilliant tagline but its pale-yellow background and sans serif font that attracts customers.
The advertising world is still missing the point. First, people don’t like advertising - at least not when it is presented as an interruption (something that will take you away from whatever you were reading/watching online). It doesn’t matter what color or font style that ad features, if it distracts from the user’s activity online, their likelihood of clicking on it will be low and their interest in the brand/organization/advertiser will be even lower. Second, the click-through is actually the easiest part of the process, and the least important when it comes to delivering value to your audience/consumer/customer or completing a transaction. The real challenge begins once you get a user to click-through, in terms of how you present information on the landing page and how you develop a relationship going forward.
I’m glad to hear that advertisers are trying to figure out how to increase the effectiveness of online advertising. I just wish they would think more about the user/audience and how to enhance their experience. And my experience would suggest that font and background color aren’t the way to get there.
TAGS
: Advertising New York Times
1 comment
Citizen Media’s Breakthrough Moment(s)
by Brian Reich | 15 Feb 2007, 2:00am
When we look back and try to identify the breakthrough moment(s) when citizen generated media found its way into the American consciousness, the credentialing of bloggers to cover the perjury trial of Scooter Libby, and the subsequent recognition by traditional media of their efforts, should be right near the top of the list.
The New York Times profiled the bloggers at firedoglake, the liberal collective that has been providing online coverage of the trial since it began in today’s paper. There is actually nothing new about bloggers covering trials – there was terrific newspaper blogging of the Enron trials by the Houston Chronicle for example – but the independence of these bloggers has made it very different. The firedoglake bloggers, and their conservative counterparts, are introducing a whole new perspective and new energy to otherwise traditional coverage. From the article:
Even as they exploit the newest technologies, the Libby trial bloggers are a throwback to a journalistic style of decades ago, when many reporters made no pretense of political neutrality. Compared with the sober, neutral drudges of the establishment press, the bloggers are class clowns and crusaders, satirists and scolds.
“They’re putting in a lot more opinion and a lot more color than the traditional reporters,” said Mr. Cox, adding that the bloggers were challenging “the theory of objective journalism.”
While I think that including independent bloggers in the coverage of federal trials is a tremendous step forward — and a necessary one — for both the legal and news industries, I worry that critics will seize on the fact that the bloggers are partisan (or worse, in the case of firedoglake, liberal) to diminish their contribution. I also worry that all citizen media will be framed by this one, high-profile situation and that the non-traditional conventions of the contributors to firedoglake (such as nicknaming Vice President Cheney “Shooter”) will give other organization pause when considering granting bloggers full access to cover events in the future. Everyone, most importantly the traditional media folks (newspapers, TV, radio, and established online journalism sites) should fight these stereotypes with all their energy.
There is such tremendous opportunity for citizen media practitioners (read: people) to provide perspective and color to the coverage of all sorts of events that furthers the cause of journalism and helps to inform society. The work that firedoglake and others are doing at the Libby trial is just one example of how this can work, but its a great model and a huge step forward for the cause of citizen media.
TAGS
: Citizen Journalism Journalism New York Times
leave a comment
I want XM and Sirius to merge
by Brian Reich | 20 Jan 2007, 2:00am
I really want XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio to merge.
Why? I want to hear Dave Niehaus, the best color man in baseball, call Mariners games for me every night. I want live happily in Boston and know how my Seahawks and Sonics are playing without stalking the crawl on the bottom of ESPN2 each night. I want to follow NASCAR without having to sit in front of my television for six hours on a Sunday. Its not just about sports though, I want to hear what Oprah and her friends have to say about eating healthy and decorating my house. I want to get public radio coverage from around the country without having to sit by my computer and stream it. I could go on.
All that is available to me, of course, but only if I subscribe to both XM and Sirius. I have come close to choosing before. I received Sirius as a Christmas present two years ago and never activated it - mostly because because the football season was already winding down and I didn’t want to wait until next season to start getting full value out of my subscription. I have gotten all the way to the checkout screen on the XM Satellite Radio website three times in the last few months, in anticipation of another exciting baseball season, only to bail out in hopes that the rumors of a merger will soon come true.
If XM and Sirius merged, I could buy one good piece of hardware and one subscription and get everything I wanted. I would pay good money for it. I would enjoy it thoroughly. I don’t think I would be alone.
Simply put, I don’t think my desire to hear a variety of different types of programming from one source is unreasonable. And I think it is well past time when the two satellite radio giants, and the government, got in line with my thinking.
Joe Nocera writes in the New York Times today (Times Select subscription required) about the possible merger between XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio. While most of his column is about the regulatory aspects of the proposed deal and whether the FCC would support the creation of a single satellite radio giant, he does get to the heart of the matter - and seems to be in agreement with me.
[The two companies] also compete, of course, for content. Most famously, Sirius has Howard Stern, who signed a $500 million five-year deal with the company and moved his shtick to satellite radio at the beginning of last year. (Last week, the company announced that Mr. Stern had earned an $82 million bonus, claiming that he brought in far more revenue than he cost the company.) XM has an Oprah Winfrey station. Sirius has professional football and has pried Nascar away from XM. XM has Major League Baseball — and took the National Hockey League away from Sirius. Both have loads of news and talk and music channels, but XM’s channels tend to be more eclectic than Sirius’s.
On the face of it, this all sounds terrific for consumers. “Choice is always a good thing,” said Ryan Saghir, who blogs about satellite radio at Orbitcast.com — and opposes the idea of a merger. But it is not quite as terrific as it sounds. For one thing, what if you are a fan of both baseball and football? What kind of choice is it to have to decide between them? Or what if you like both Howard Stern and Oprah? (Well, O.K., that’s not a good example.) It is hard to think of another technology that forces subscribers to make that kind of choice.
Joe Nocera wants to listen to baseball and football on the same device, and the same subscription, as well. His column sounds like a desperate plea from a radio junkie like me to make it happen. Hey, Sirius and XM… hey, FCC… if you won’t listen to me, will you listen to Joe Nocera?
I can understand why the FCC might be nervous about giving the green light for a merger of this size. But with appropriate monitoring and regulation - to ensure that a merger betwen XM and Sirius wouldn’t drive prices for consumers out of proporition with the market (something Nocera seems to argue isn’t likely because of the continued influence of free radio) - the potential benefits to consumers far outweighs the risks. And I can understand why XM and Sirius are both believers in their product so much that they would rather compete to the death than cede control of their operation to their arch rival. But really, would you all think about the consumer for a moment?
Rather than forcing customers to choose betwen services (a fact that I believe is actually driving down interest in satellite radio, and probably radio in general), the FCC could bless the creation of something that would provide a far better radio product than what is available today. XM and Sirius could create the ultimate radio programming center, pitting their efforts against folks like Clear Channel who have sucked all the feeling out of radio in their quest to dominate the airwaves everywhere. The merger would force traditional radio stations to compete with better programming and an alternative business model (advertising instead of subscription — a mix which I think is totally possible if you do it right). And, best of all, I wouldn’t have to live without access to the programming I want because I find it unreasonable to have to buy/subscribe to two services instead of one.
Please FCC? Please XM and Sirius? Do it for Joe Nocera! Do it for me!
TAGS
: Advertising Free Advice From the Trenches New York Times News Radio
leave a comment
