For the past 20 years, Metzger Associates has been a leader in the art + science of communications. We appreciate your readership, and hope you enjoy our new blog format!

Share on Facebook

posted by Doyle

Great coverage (thanks to Jill Thompson at Metzger!) of the Boulder entrepreneur scene by CNBC. All of us at Metzger are proud to be a part of this vibrant and growing community. Take a look!

Share on Facebook

Once you’ve nailed your key messages, can repeat them in your sleep, and have mastered behavior and style points while under the hot lights of media scrutiny, you’re left with the biggest challenge of spokesmanship: fielding the tough questions – and anticipating those questions before they’re asked.

The wrong answer to a hostile, negative or misinformed question can wreck organizations and ruin careers. We spend a lot of time practicing these scenarios in media training, and take pains to avoid overlooking the toughest of the tough questions. The unexpected question can be devastating, so determining the most likely curve balls is one of the most important aspects of media preparation.

Watching how a story evolves can shed light on this potential escalation. As an example, the initial fear, shock, and subsequent outpouring of relief, gratitude and charity surrounding the recent Fourmile Fire have developed into unexpected forms of controversy. Every day, new wrinkles appear in how the media and the public perceive and understand this story, and new questions – some we didn’t anticipate even a few days ago – are on the rise:

• How are the small mountain fire districts going to maintain themselves when nearly half their tax base has just been wiped out?
• With all the requests for financial aid, where is it going?
• Individuals who lost their homes are mostly insured and affluent. Why should anyone help them?
• If some people chose not to carry insurance, isn’t that their problem?
• There is much collective appreciation being expressed – but what do those who lost their homes have to be thankful for?
• Why were some homes saved, and others lost?
• Who will stay, who will rebuild, and why?
• Isn’t it safe to assume that people will be less safe with diminished fire-fighting resources to protect them?
• Won’t insurance in these communities now cost more and cover less?
• What about the underinsured, or the retired people whose insurance claims aren’t enough to replace their homes, and now can’t get loans since they’re not working?
• Why rebuild a million-dollar home in a forest of black match sticks?
• How will people handle the loss of equity in this burned out neighborhood, in a down real-estate market?
• Who is going to clean this up? How long will restoration take?
• What about the environmental damage from ash and erosion?
• Can we trust the fire districts to do a better job next time?
• Wouldn’t these little, autonomous fire departments be better off it they consolidated?
• Can these rural fire departments remain solvent with all the debt they have on vehicles and stations?
• What is the government going to do to mitigate the future risk across all the rest of Colorado’s wildland/urban interface?
• Is this a sign that, as a society, we should choose against living in the high-risk wildland/urban interface?
• Should people be allowed to expose themselves and others to the fire dangers, the environmental risks, the threats to wildlife and the increased energy demands of this lifestyle choice?
• Is Boulder’s precious backdrop threatened by the very existence of these mountain dwellers?

It’s getting deeper, and these are tough, emotional and often very personal questions. Some make sense and are reasonable, but many are misguided and unfair – but will be asked anyway. The many communities, companies, individuals and agencies involved in this controversy (it’s not just a “story” anymore) are going to be struggling with the answers for many years to come – along with many more questions yet to be asked…

Share on Facebook

The front page of the Boulder Daily Camera yesterday proclaimed “CU-Boulder takes steps to close journalism school.” As I pondered the fate of my profession, I, a former newspaper reporter, posted the story to my Twitter feed and my Facebook page. The fact that I chose to share the information online rather than blasting off a letter to the editor should tell me enough about the future of media to not make me upset about the issue.

However, I was upset.

For starters, I have a master’s degree in journalism. Is it going to be worth anything in 10 years? I knew when I got my degree that I could make a lot more money if I went to business school, but I chose journalism because I was fascinated by how people chose to communicate information and the different ways in which they share it. It was this fascination that drove me into the newspaper business almost two decades ago and it’s what led me to build my first website in 1996, and start my first blog 10 years later. Besides, I hate statistics classes.

Journalism schools, traditionally, have been horribly inept at providing a cross-discipline approach to the trade. There’s the broadcast department, the news-editorial department, and public relations. Never shall they meet. I remember as an undergrad at Colorado State asking about photojournalism classes and getting a quizzical look from my academic advisor because I was on the news-editorial track. I reminded her that they have pictures in newspapers too.

“But someone else will do that for you,” she said, as if the subject had been exhausted. Not anymore. Reporters are expected to write the story, update the blog, create a Twitter feed and post video to the website all before the 5 p.m. deadline. No wonder the quality of the reporting has been going steadily downhill. They don’t have enough time to focus on anything that could make an impact.

It is the spread of web-based information that is, ironically, leading to this need for better journalists. Increasingly, people are overwhelmed with information via online, on television and in print. In this overwhelmed state, they are developing more and more channels of information. “I’m a mom. Tell me about stuff I care about.” Enter the mommy bloggers. “I am passionate about politics.” Enter MSNBC and Fox News. These are just channels though, microcosms of information that provide no context or perspective. It’s more like a stream of consciousness.

Now, more than ever, we need people that can tell us what is important, why it’s important and explain it to us in a way that we can understand. As one of my old journalism teachers used to say, “Don’t just tell me what happened. Tell me why I should care!”

Despite my concerns, I think it can be a promising and very smart move for the University of Colorado to create a school of information if done correctly. You can’t deny the power or the influence of the Internet and social media in particular. If you stop looking at journalism in the silos of television, print, and public relations — and start looking at it as information sharing — then you get to the heart of what journalism really is.

I shared my thoughts with Sandra Fish, a journalist and journalism instructor at the University of Colorado who specializes in politics, government and interactive reporting. She wrote me back this reply:

“I think the potential to create something new that melds journalism and technology is exciting but we also need to keep in mind that journalism, no matter what the form or platform, is essential to our democracy.”

“What about ethics?” I asked. “And GRAMMAR?!”

Learning to understand and accept my own biases but not letting that overshadow my reporting was one of the most important things I learned in journalism school. I also learned people tend not to take you too seriously if you don’t know the difference between “there,” “they’re” and “their.” I see very little of either proper grammar or ethics on the Internet.

These are all issues that have to be taken into consideration when deciding what the future of journalism will look like. People still need information. Maybe we’ll need more “citizen journalists” who can bring an entrepreneurial culture to journalism and make money blogging, posting videos and podcasting. If that’s true, maybe there will be a need for some of those dreaded business statistics classes.

I can’t wait to find out. The fascination continues.

Share on Facebook

One of the great aspects of social media is the ability for far more people than ever before to get involved in communications, but this represents a fundamental change for newspapers. Instead of printing a few letters to the editor each day, representing a tiny fraction of the readership, nearly every online story on most newspaper websites features the ability to comment. Individual stories often receive dozens or even hundreds of comments, even in smaller markets.

That’s usually a good thing–but it can be a bad thing. Sadly, it seems our own Boulder Daily Camera is an example of how this is becoming a bad thing. This problem isn’t limited to the Camera, but because the paper is in our town and I try to read it every day, I’m throwing down the gauntlet: I’m challenging you, Camera: clean up your comments.

Simply, you’ve lost control of your own living room. The comments are often more ridiculous than valuable. It’s time to kick the serial smartasses out of the party and see if your community is able to conduct itself in a better way.

I’m not talking about profanity, threats or other egregious violations. If those things are happening, they do seem to be getting shut down. And I’m certainly not talking about honest, open and respectful disagreement. That is the very best part of an open forum. It’s the myriad of feeble attempts at comedy coupled with mean-spirited comments that don’t further the conversation, but ruin it.

Here are some recent examples:

The Emich sisters, former owners of Boulder’s Trilogy Wine Bar, are looking at opening a new business combining wine, yoga and other elements. Comments like this (taken from the Camera website) are just plain ridiculous:

“There are already too many yuppie Yoga places, coffee shops, and health clubs for egocentric stay home moms. Boulder men need to put down their man purses and run these wenches out of town.”

Or:

“What about tofu, granola bars and bean sprouts? Got to get all that no-MSG, all natural, range-fed, no artificial coloring, all organic, unsalted, no sugar, no preservatives food in order to survive in a world that will soon be crowded with windmills and solar machines. Haight-Ashbury, 1968. Bleeeeeeech!”

This is just a sampling of the mostly critical comments following this story. Are these thoughtful or an extension of a good discussion? The story talks about three women (full disclosure, friends of mine) who ran a business in Boulder, paid rent, employed people and contributed to the local economy for nearly 10 years, and you’d think from the comment thread they were planning to open an Opium Stand outside of a local grade school.

The point? I certainly don’t get it. Disagree with the concept, comment on the service–good or bad–once it opens or ask an honest question. But to just jump on and tell the world you hate something–to be clear, something that doesn’t even exist yet!–is narcissism at its worst.

Comments following the coverage of how cancer recently claimed rock legend Ronnie James Dio were mostly respectful. But Xenu007 (who seems to think none of the rest of us in Boulder can enjoy any story without his pithy input) left this gem:

“Who?”

Perhaps if you would have read the story (which is from the Associated Press) you wouldn’t need to ask. But really, it’s a waste of electricity to even fire up the computer and type that.

A June 25 article on the mosquito problem at a city softball facility has attracted 27 comments so far. Twenty-seven comments on mosquitos! Most of them are nothing more than snarky remarks, some even criticizing the players and the sport they choose. Bottom line: not much worth reading. Certainly not the best our community has to offer.

So what do I recommend? Let me stress again: differing opinions should be encouraged, not squelched, but there’s a difference between differing opinions and random ridiculous remarks. Honestly, an occassional, very clever quip can further the conversation, but I see precious few of those. Here are a few thoughts:

Eliminate anonymous comments. Nearly every newspaper requires that letters to the editor be signed. Occasionally the identity of the writer will be withheld from print, but such a decision is made with the consent and consideration of an editor and typically only when there is some sort of serious issue (whistleblowers still working at the target or similar). Allowing people to completely hide their identity behind names like Xenu007 (his/her avatar is a photo of John Travolta) practically encourages bad behavior.

Moderate more strictly. Let’s not just wait for profanity or the report of another user. Let’s use your skills as editors and reporters. Comments like “let’s run these wenches out of town” simply don’t have a place on the Daily Camera’s website. To wait until something really bad happens is a bit like pulling over speeders in a school zone only after a child is injured.

Set up a system to alert you to users that comment constantly, and watch their content. Readers leaving several comments on several stories every day are certainly engaged in the community, but are they good comments or simply random snark? It’s easy to jump on and leave a derogatory remark for nearly any story, and that seems to be activity of many of your most active users. Five good, conversational comments are far better than 50 dumb remarks. Encourage people to engage with quality content, not simply quantity of content.

Engage your community to help. I realize you’re facing shrinking revenue and lower payrolls, and here I am recommending additional work. Perhaps volunteers from the community could serve as a frontline defense. Try putting something inappropriate on Wikipedia and an army of volunteers will have it down in minutes. Again, the goal is not to squash disagreements, but to allow discussions of all kind to flourish in a respectful environment. I’ll bet there are many members of the community that would volunteer to monitor the posts and remove the stupidity.

Shut down comments on stories that get out of hand. When a string runs amok on any given article, shut it down and remove the offending string. This will make it clear you’re serious and will help strings stay on focus. I remember one string about a domestic incident resulting in death in Boulder that started out thoughtful and interesting and devolved into a running commentary on the couple’s tattoos. Shut that stuff off when it happens and before long it won’t happen near as often.

Some stories simply shouldn’t have comments available. Do we really need to accommodate the potential for issues with every single story? Turning off comments on certain sections would eliminate the need to monitor them. Take Milestones, for example. Do we need to open up potential problems for the announcement of an engagement or, worse, a death? This would allow you to focus on areas that deserve comments but require moderation.

Spell out the rules, and stick to them. You’re inviting people to your house. Insist on respect in your terms of use and eliminate those who don’t follow the rules. Set forth your behavior parameters and, just like a bouncer at a bar, remove the patrons that want to ruin it for everyone else.

The comments are far enough out-of-hand now that I carefully consider recommending to a client that we contact the Camera for a story, and that’s pretty sad. Your reporters are good to work with, and the coverage itself is often beneficial. I’m more than happy to have a thoughtful discussion about my client’s story follow–even if the comments are not all favorable. I’m not willing, however, to subject my client to thoughtless, often stupid comments from the most obnoxious among us.

Your thoughts, Daily Camera? I’d love to get this discussion started. I just ask that we all treat each other with respect in the conversation.

Share on Facebook

Here’s a good piece on Read/Write Web that profiles some great Boulder personalities and companies. Great shout-out to Natty and Nate at Everlater and Micah Baldwin at Graphic.ly, among others.

Working in Boulder is an outstanding opportunity, as noted in this article, to be a part of a dynamic and growing community. The support and available talent for tech companies, start-ups of all kinds and business in general is truly second to none.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Elaine Ellis

Share on Facebook

Have you submitted to speak at Ignite Boulder yet? Ignite Boulder will be on Sept. 16, and you can buy your tickets for $10 here. You can submit your topic here. There is something to be said for having to get up and speak in front of 700 people and put on a 5-minute presentation where the slides move every 20 seconds. Whether you’re ready or not.

This is my favorite presentation from last time (no, it wasn’t my own).

Share on Facebook

Investor Day puts these ten companies in front of incredible investors. But the real story is how far these companies come in three months. As David noted, Next Big Sound told him day one of TechStars that they had completely changed their business idea. The momentum is astounding, and as Ari Newman of Filtrbox noted last year, the program serves as more of an accelerator than an incubator. You succeed or fail that much quicker.

These teams more than burn the midnight oil, they’re way past midnight. And the mentors are going the extra mile with them whether it be providing feedback (again and again), helping make connections and asking some tough questions. And sometimes in the case of Jason Mendelson, free sushi too.

Rocky Radar has a great write up of the teams if you’d like to see what the 2009 teams have accomplished. If the last two year’s teams are any indicator, they’ll continue to grow at phenomenal rates in the next year.

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook