News agencies around the world are constantly challenged with finding and keeping consumers of their published content. Content is certainly king, but the business model has been stressed for many organizations over the past decade based on the advancement of technology and changing consumer habits.

It’s still about getting the attention of readers, listeners, and watchers. But now, your news source wants you to consume their content through digital media and share it within your friends, family, and professional circles.

Consider that the traditional subscription model is based a one-to-one relationship. A consumer subscribes to a publication, and the agency pushes their content to the subscriber at a specified interval. If you want a newspaper delivered to your driveway each day, then you can have that with your paid subscription. You might share that printed paper with a single friend. But it’s not likely that you would share it with more than that one friend. In many ways, you are limited by the physical copy that you have.

Paul Grabowicz, of the Knight Digital Media Center, writes about the transition to digital journalism, stating there has been “a steady decline in print circulation and a precipitous drop in advertising revenue” in recent years. News agencies that have not adapted to technology that consumers use have filed for bankruptcy, closed their doors, or merged with competitors.

Consider that the print subscription base for the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Monday through Friday circulation was 183,415 in May 2011 down from 318,350 in November 2007. That’s a 43 percent drop in a 3 1/2 year span.

All those print subscriptions of yesteryear have been replaced with different types of digital access such as mobile applications, Internet browsers, tablet applications, podcasts, and YouTube videos.

Traditional news sources relied on an intentional decision by the consumer to receive the content of the publisher. It was an individual decision between the consumer and the news source. With digital media this can still be true. But evolution of technology and tools is leading to a new change in consumer behavior.

In recent years, social media sharing and linking has become mainstream, and the average consumer has access to share their favorite content with many people just by clicking a button. In contrast to the subscription model, that’s a one-to-many relationship and it’s beginning to have a changing effect on the mass media industry.

The consumer has become a free marketing engine for the news agency by sharing, liking, and commenting on publications. This very act replicates the content of the publication in a way that was once impossible.

Andrew Phelps, of the Nieman Journalism Lab, describes the sharing habits of consumers in his post news shows up in the least expected places. Phelps states that “A lot of readers get their news just like this — incidentally — according to a growing body of research. That is, they don’t turn to the web seeking news. The news finds them. And that has implications for how that news gets produced and distributed.”

So, just as with any industry, news and media companies will have to adjust to consumer behavior. AOL, parent company to Patch.com, understands this. A note in the management discussion section of the 10-Q report filed with the SEC on 11/2/11 states “As the behavior of internet consumers continues to change, a migration on the internet towards social networking could adversely affect usage of AOL products and services. This trend may have an adverse effect on our ability to rely on traditional sources of traffic and revenues. We seek to mitigate these potential competitive pressures by leveraging social networks to deliver our content.”

But social-sharing timelines such as those found on Facebook, Google+, or Twitter have a challenge as well. They contain an enormous amount of information that is updated constantly. In fact, there is so much information hitting those timelines that we can’t possibly process it all.

It’s what link shortening service Bit.ly calls the half life of a shared link. They define half life as “the amount of time at which this link will receive half of the clicks it will ever receive.” According the Bit.ly study, “The mean half life of a link on Twitter is 2.8 hours, on Facebook it’s 3.2 hours and via ‘direct’ sources (like email or IM clients) it’s 3.4 hours. So you can expect, on average, an extra 24 minutes of attention if you post on Facebook than if you post on Twitter.”

For discussion sake, let’s call the half life of a shared link three hours. After that, your link is considered old news. The findings of Bit.ly study have prompted some news organizations to develop a policy of re-posting their content after certain time intervals. There is no additional cost to repost the link, and it will very likely pick-up new consumers.

Enter Google to this discussion. Google shook up the digital media and search world when it posted on its blog a post entitled Search, plus Your World.

Google states “We’re transforming Google into a search engine that understands not only content, but also people and relationships.” The latest search algorithm now includes results that are personal to your Google+ and photo sharing information. Controversies aside, about the what social data is included in the search results, what this means is that sharing news links socially could give that link a second life in future search results.

For news agencies, that’s good news. It means when a link from their content is shared with others, it could create additional impressions in Google’s search engine index. That can increase the probability of additional visits to their media properties in the future.

So the race for your attention continues. But the game has changed. It’s not played with college students selling you the covenience of home delivery through a subscription, but with digital publications and the quality of the content.

You the consumer are both the audience and the marketer. Your influence, and it’s a good one, drives more people to the published content when you share or recommend it to a friend. Social is as social does.

Two musicians from the 100th Army Reserve Band depart a United flight in Chicago.

If you have taken an airline flight recently, chances are you will hear an announcement from the gate agent to invite military personnel in uniform to board early. I think it’s a gracious gesture to thank servicemen and women who have been deployed and fought in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, there’s always some character out to dishonestly take advantage of the system.

According to musicians in the 100th Army Reserve Band at Fort Knox, Kentucky – reservists who have not been deployed to anyplace but concerts in the U.S. -  the commander has ordered band members to wear Army fatigue uniforms when traveling “to remind the American people that the country is at war” and to take advantage of special airline benefits, such as early boarding and preferred seating, including First Class.

Many, many reservists in the U.S. have been deployed – some multiple times – and have made great sacrifices. They should be recognized and honored.

This is not about the Army band reservists who are police officers, educators, college students, and legal assistants who get together for one weekend each month to perform. They are only following the orders of their commander by wearing fatigues while traveling.

My beef is with the band’s commander who has given an order based on nothing apparently but his own agenda or bias. Aside from the fact that the U.S. is not in a declared war, the band commander has ordered his men to do something that is downright dishonest, in my opinion.

The band’s commander is a chief warrant officer who apparently feels entitled to make-up Army policy that I thought was only the purview of Army brass at the Pentagon.

The way I see it, the airlines and all of us salute military personnel, including reservists, who have proudly served in Harm’s way in battle. Many have been wounded and maimed. But, it is a dishonor to the military and flag for some chief warrant officer to decide what the American people need to know and to order his men to do something that is not honest, in my opinion.

Planned Parenthood sent out an alert Tuesday, January 31, on Twitter:

“Susan G. Komen caves under anti-choice pressure, ends funding for breast cancer screenings at PP health centers.”

The vast world of online social media exploded in protest over what was clearly a political move by an outfit supposedly devoted to finding a cure for breast cancer.

But … Komen remained silent. No response for more than a full day.

Then, a wooden-looking Komen founder and CEO Nancy Brinker hid behind a prepared statement on YouTube to say, with determination, that her organization would not cave to such protest. Sort of … like, how dare you!

But, WAIT! There’s more!! In quick succession, Brinker said her organization had been “misunderstood,” apologized and reversed the decision. But, the damage had been done. Komen for the Cure has been revealed as more of a political fund-raising machine than devoted to a cure for cancer.

I don’t know about you but I believe we have been betrayed and victims of fraud.

It would be more honest for Brinker to rename her politics-driven money raising machine, Susan G. Komen for the Money.

Nancy Brinker. (photo: Salon.com/AP)

There are lessons here to be observed by other not-for-profits, associations and companies.

What we are talking about is incompetence and lack of strategic vision by the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Money in pulling funding to Planned Parenthood.

Brinker, apparently realizing her organization had stumbled into quicksand of its own making, reversed directions, demonstrating how quickly a crisis can explode from lack of expertise.

It looks like all three have come crashing in on the reputation of Susan G. Komen in the span of just three days.

The Susan G. Komen organization got caught joining forces with a conservative male-driven war against women.

Komen is not recognized for having in-house strategic communications depth. Yes, they might be good at fund-raising but not managing trust, image and reputation. In other words, not enough people assigned the title of “head of communications” actually have the credentials for the job.

Komen lacks a communications strategy. Managing image and reputation in today’s world requires smart and sophisticated strategic planning and swift action, especially to avoid such politically driven decisions that will cause lasting brand image damage. It requires keen experience with how social media functions.

Lastly … and most importantly … too few CEOs and executive directors have bothered to personally recognize the importance of strategic communications. Even fewer leaders can skillfully take the reins to manage their organization’s image and reputation, especially when a crisis happens.

Komen clearly has no savvy communications leadership (aside from promoting a fund-raising machine), is not driven by strategic planning and lacks smart leadership at the top. Reversing its funding decision, capitulating to massive public outcry, only underscores a serious lack of competence at the top and in the area of communications.

Let me say that I have a personal bone to pick with the Komen outfit because this latest crisis reveals to me that they were playing politics with the $93-million they disperse annually, obediently bowing to a conservative congressman who said he wanted to investigate Komen’s funding to Planned Parenthood.

Breast cancer claimed my mother nearly three decades ago, and there still is not cure despite massive funding, including the Komen fundraising machine. The fact there is no cure is shameful.

The Susan G. Komen organization now finds itself in a crisis of trust. Its reputation may very well spiral downward, out of control, at this point. Its brand is in tatters.

From my perspective, they will see no more checks from me. I want my contributions to actually find a cure, not to pay for a roomful of incompetents to play politics.

“Hey, ya know what?” our president often says at news conferences and speeches when he begins a thought or answer to a question.

President Obama

No, Mr. President, I don’t “know what”—that’s what I expect you to tell me. Furthermore, it’s not a very “presidential” or top executive style of speaking, no matter how hard you are trying to reach the common person out there. It’s a casualness more suited for talking with guys on the golf course.

Nonetheless, “Hey, ya know what …” and the shorter version, “Ya know …” are useless junk phrases that have crept into the American vernacular, on TV, on radio, and in everyday conversation. I catch myself using them. It’s contagious.

Heck, even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has started saying, “Hey, ya know what …,” and, it sounds very out of character for a person of her stature.

While watching PBS “Newshour” one evening, I counted the number of times its correspondents or interviewees began a statement with, “Ya know.” I stopped counting at 100, and the hour-long program was not over. The phrase became tedious to hear.

Perhaps it is a conscious effort by some to sound more conversational, perhaps more “cool,” or just a bad habit, as in my case.

When I hear a newscaster, pundit, or interviewee begin by saying, “Ya know …,” I get the feeling they are either buying time while trying to think of something to say or tentative in their statements. It makes them sound uncertain, equivocating, and dodgy.

We have always been plagued by such irrelevant and useless phrases in Americanized English that often detract from clear and affirmative communication. A popular phrase a couple of decades ago was, “Sorry ’bout that.” I have no idea what that means.

Such junk words and phrases have no place in clear and effective communication, and they inhibit our ability to be more influential.

10 empty phrases to avoid:

• Hey, ya know?
• Value proposition
• Actionable
• Learning partners
• Ramp up
• Empowering
• Maximizing
• Critical path
• Envisioning
• Well, basically …

Plain language is the key, because it stands out amongst all the noise, hype, and clutter in today’s competitive world.

The late Lilyan Wilder.

For more than five decades, the late Lilyan Wilder was considered the foremost teacher and speech coach in America and guided the careers of countless celebrities, executives, broadcasters, and politicians—including Oprah, Larry King, Maria Shriver, Charlie Rose, Binyamin Netanyahu, George H. W. Bush, Tom Brokaw, and Charles Osgood.

When I was a young CBS News correspondent, the network had her coach me to correct my poor pronunciation from having grown up in the Washington, D.C., area. Her sternness scared me, but I learned.

She insisted on the use of plain language and dismissed as junk words those meaningless or ambiguous words that creep into everyday exchanges, causing confusion and derailing understanding. Ms. Wilder was emphatic that junk words must be avoided in order for any person to reach his or her full potential as an outstanding communicator.

In the practice of communication, we sometimes get lazy and use the jargon of an industry or current lexicon because it might seem more precise, clearer, and impressive than plain language. That’s too bad, because it is a trap; we forfeit any chance of gaining an edge and winning. We lose any chance at competitive differentiation and leadership.

Here’s an easy, three-step checklist to help you authentically communicate using plain language:

1. Think and talk outside of yourself. Consider how others may perceive your use of common clichés. Does it make you sound more credible, or just contrived? Train yourself to speak in positive statements that get straight the point. Do not equivocate.
2. Talk in crisp sound bites, not elevator speeches. A sound bite communicates your message or describes your endeavor, precisely, in one breath—about 16 seconds—while using words that are understandable, credible, engaging, exciting, and memorable. You don’t have time for junk words. An elevator speech, although popular, takes too long, particularly if you are headed up to the 44th floor.
3. Avoid junk words.  Jargon, acronyms, buzzwords, and trendy clichés. Few phrases lead to more communication confusion and misunderstandings than the prefabricated and empty clichés of business, management consultants, or just lazy users of our language.

Photographers - professional and amateur - face censorship, despite the U.S. Constitution.

At first, I thought what I was experiencing while taking photos was my own paranoia. But, then, friends in the news media have been sharing countless stories of being stopped, blocked, questioned, detained and arrested by police across the country … police who clearly are overreaching First Amendment rights, all in the name of fighting terrorism.

TV and newspaper photographers are now stopped all the time by overzealous police or security people, some demanding to see and delete the photos.

The paranoia is not us, I suggest, but them.

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I never thought I would be on the same side of the fence – sort of – with veteran newspaper columnist George Will but his piece in The Washington Post – A snapshot of our times - squarely nails the growing threat to First Amendment rights. It’s a good piece.

George Will, conservative columnist.

Will writes of two fellows in Los Angeles, both avid photographers, who have not only been prevented from taking photos while in public places but have had their names and information entered into a “Suspicious Activity Report program. The federal government encouraged local law enforcement agencies to adopt its guidelines for gathering information ‘that could indicate activity or intentions related to’ terrorism,” Will writes.

From the chance that potential bad guys might take photos of targets, the feds surmise that photography of anything related to the country’s infrastructure could be an indicator of terrorism. Hence, photographers are suspect when taking pictures “with no apparent aesthetic value” (words from the suspicious-activity guidelines).

A close friend reminded me that looking back over history, governments have often created bogeymen to keep people fearful, hateful, on edge and/or obedient. Today, it’s “in the name of fighting terrorism” which translated means justifying big budgets and control of power by playing the fear card. Not unlike, really, how Hitler blamed Jews for everything wrong and vile.

Here’s more on the First Amendment to the United States Constitution from Cornell University Law School – http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment

“I’ve been surrounded by phenomenally talented people for years … people I admire, people who have mentored me,” he says.

He knows the competition. So, he works harder, pushing his natural talent farther and farther. Long, exhausting hours of rehearsal.

He has labored in the fields of operatic song for decades, but has only in the past year risen to the starring role for which he long prepared himself.

After years of determination and practice, usually as a backup opera tenor, Jay is taking to the stage of The Metropolitan Opera in the starring role of Siegfried in Richard Wagner‘s formidable opera, Götterdämmerung or Twilight of the Gods.

Tenor Jay Hunter Morris ... the genuine "Ziggy."

He is starring with soprano legend Deborah Voigt who plays Brünnhilde. The operatic performance is a staggering five hours long and is the conclusion of Wagner’s fabled, four-epic Ring Cycle about treachery, death, deception, mythical gods, magic swords, love, hate, dense forests with strange creatures and dragons.

Jay got his big career break late in 2011. He was called in to replace the original tenor for “Siegfried,” who had become ill. Jay knew the part, and his performance at The Met in New York was spellbinding. Audiences – whether at The Met or watching HD telecasts around the world – were thrilled. Critics called his singing and acting, “A genuine triumph.”

Words like “genuine” and “authentic” are easily used to describe Jay Hunter Morris, whether watching him sing, perform or just visiting over dinner.

The Met's newest star tenor gets prominent billing.

It has been a long road for Jay since growing up in Paris, Texas, where his father – who died when Jay was age 12 – was a Southern Baptist music minister, and his mother a church organist. But, the humble and real roots and dreams of his upbringing firmly ground him, even today.

We recently sat in a New York restaurant, bragging about our respective wives, children and personal things that matter most in our lives.

“My voice hurts, my brain hurts, my body hurts … I hurt all over,” he said, slumping for a moment in our booth at Lincoln. Why?! He has just finished another eight-hour day of rehearsing on stage with The Met’s orchestra and the other singers. But, all of his energy and sparkle returned when he talked about his actress-wife Meg and son, Cooper Jack. Grounding on what’s important to life and a shared knowing that pretension gets us nowhere.

I think that one of the many things that thrilled audiences about Jay’s performance of Siegfried – whether they watched in person at The Met in New York or in theaters globally on live HD television – was his believability, he accessibility. He brought the character to life. Most audiences had never seen or heard him before but his Siegfried was dramatic, exciting and the stuff of which makes for overnight legend.

Watch Jay Hunter Morris: A New Siegfried for the Ring on PBS. See more from SundayArts.

Heck, I don’t care whether you enjoy opera or not, Jay’s “Ziggy” (as he calls his character) reminds me a little of Johnny Depp’s Jack Sparrow in “Pirates of the Caribbean,” with his own style of sparkle, energy and thrilling voice. I also believe it’s only a matter of time before Jay Hunter Morris develops a crossover second career as motion picture star.

How does he muster the stamina for such a demanding operatic role?

“It’s storytelling,” Jay says. “I know this story so well … I’ve sung it so many times that when the stage lights come on and the orchestra begins, I just find myself in Ziggy and sing the story.” With a lot of passion, I might add.

Not since the late Luciano Pavarotti have I found a tenor’s voice so captivating, so rich, so passionate. On stage, he is all charisma. Similar to Pavarotti’s magic but all his own.

Tickets to be there at The Met to witness Götterdämmerung are sold out. But The Met’s live HD global telecast of Götterdämmerung is Saturday, February 11, and probably showing in a nearby movie theatre. It is something not to be missed.

Connect with Jay Hunter Morris on Twitter.com – @JayHunterMorris

And then, the video – complete with music score, of course – dances into a perfunctory and predictable interview with the head of Amtrak’s police force, John O’Connor (who really needed coaching to be on-camera), and a completely irrelevant segment on the care and feeding of police K-9 dogs.

Why? What’s the purpose? What’s is the basis for the scare video? And, yes, that’s what it is … a SCARE video.

Well, nothing more timely than Amtrak working hard to spend $1-billion in funding and an apparently groundless Homeland Security report that claims there is growing worry over Amtrak’s vulnerability to terrorism.

While there have been specific security concerns for the country’s transportation infrastructure, the geniuses at Homeland Security strung together a series of “what-ifs” after visiting four (out of 500) Amtrak stations and took several years to prepare a report that your Amtrak regional train may be a prime terror target.

Huh, what?! Amtrak did nothing about security for years after the 9-11 attacks … NOTHING … but now, it’s duck and cover everybody!

What does all this new emphasis on terror equal? Well, the obvious message is that government bureaucrats believe scare tactics are the best way to assure people who ride trains, and that Amtrak’s security people saw a chance to hire their own army. I know it may sound … well, dumb, counter-intuitive and a waste of money … but, hey, they’ve got 1-billion taxpayer dollars to spend.

Yet … and, this is what really bothers me … for Amtrak to play the “Fear-Terror-Scare” card on the public is downright sleazy and dishonest, in my opinion. And, that’s what they’ve done. There is nothing wrong with Amtrak takinig an about-face from its lethargic norm and start an effective security program in the background, where it belongs. But, what they are doing sure seems more like “security theater” to justify a fat cop budget. Don’t know about you but I’ve seen that cheap show before.

What Amtrak needed, I believe, were professional communicators to work with them to develop a clearer and more ethically grounded purpose for their campaign, other than producing what no doubt was an expensive video that sends the wrong messages. But, heck, in the Amtrak stations I visited – New York, Philadelphia and Washington – no one seemed to pay attention to the multiplex of TV screens … except me, wondering, why?

If you are ever visiting Hawaii’s Big Island when one of its volcanos is erupting, there’s a chance you may see Mick Kalber in action with his incredible Sony HDW-F900R HDCAM CineAlta High Definition Camera.

That's Mick in the white t-shirt, perched precariously on the side of a volcano as molten lava flows by.

In a conscious life-change, Mick moved to Hawaii 30 years ago and reinvented his career from that of TV news photographer to the world’s leading “volcanographer,” a term he coined.

His story underscores and brings to life the ever-increasing demand for unique video, even from an island in the Pacific with no television stations.

As a volcanographer, he has captured film and video images of volcanic eruptions on Hilo that we have seen on TV news, documentaries and motion pictures. It’s a far cry from his former life.

“I wanted an adventure. I had visited a friend on the big island and fell in love with the place and wanted to find another line of work,” he says.

[[Show as slideshow]]

While Hilo has no TV stations, it has volcanoes – active, incredible, picturesque and dangerous volcanos. Mick bought a video camera and started capturing spectacular images of eruption like no one had ever before seen … up close.

His luck began with the high-fountaining eruption of Kilauea – red-hot molten lava shooting 1,200 feet high. He was there to capture the action, and TV news stations were ready to pay for his video.

“I’d never seen anything remotely like that! The landscape looked like the moon … and here was incandescent liquid rock doing what rock is not supposed to do … jetting into the air nearly as high was any building in the world … the sight boggled the mind!

“That activity lasted less than a day … not long enough for other photographers to get to Hilo. But it occurred every three to four weeks, like clockwork. Thus began the last 30 years of my documenting the world’s most active volcano.

“The massive 2,000 degree eruption gave way to a fissure, the formation of a lava lake, which fed flows to the communities of Kapa`ahu and Kalapana, destroying several dozen houses in late 1986 and entering the ocean for the first time in ten years. I knew then I had a story to tell.”

That historic eruption of Kilauea led to Mick’s first documentary, “VolcanoScapes … Pele’s March to the Pacific.”

Since then, his stock footage has appeared in the Hollywood movie, “Volcano,” TV commercials, and countless programs not only on TV news but The History Channel, Discovery and National Geographic. He found that the volcanos have given him a new and prosperous career. But, there have been dangers, too.

“I’ve had methane (gas formed by organic material that decomposes w/o oxygen) explosions go off under my feet. There are two types … one with a flame and one without. Fortunately the one that went up my pant leg had no flame. Scared the bejesus outta me though.

“I’ve melted countless pairs of shoes, tripod legs, video recorders … and have singed my eyebrows and hair any number of times. Burns on my arms and face have been minor … kind of like a mild sunburn.

“I do not wear protective clothing when shooting the lava flows. The main reason is that if it’s too hot for me to be there, it’s definitely too hot for my gear.

“Stood at the Pu`u `O`o Vent (active bent of the current eruption) and shot straight down into the throat … some 400 feet. I had to be right at the edge with crumbling cinders continually breaking off. To get there, I stepped over cracks a foot or more wide to stand somewhere I know will no longer exist at some point … but hopefully not while I’m standing there.

“Had I not been shooting, I probably wouldn’t have had the nerve to do it, but the camera functions kept me distracted from the dangers. And, I got shots of a 60 foot high undulating dome of lava unlike anything I’ve seen before or since. But for the longest time afterward I was thinking, What the hell was I doing up there!”

Mick says his greatest pleasure in documenting Kilauea is not making money from selling stock footage or DVDs but rather witnessing “one of nature’s most amazing spectacles, and to be able to share those sights and sounds with people around the world.”

A career reinvented … passion and pleasure in his work … success in a specialized business … and, volcanos that keep erupting and keep him in business. That’s Mick Kalber’s recipe for happiness.

Check out Mick’s websites – VolcanoScapes.com and www.tropicalvisions.com.

Special thanks to Ann Kalber for the photos.

It is a reality in our fast-moving, digital-driven world that words matter. And, certainly in the field of communications where new uses and more precise usage of words and phrases play a key role in determining such essential factors as competitive differentiation, authenticity and value. Take, for example, online “newsroom” versus “news site.” There is a big difference.

A few months ago during a meeting with Gary Shapiro, CEO of the giant Consumer Electronics Association and someone I greatly respect, he observed that many CEOs and business leaders see little asset value in most online newsrooms.

Everyone has one, Gary said, and they all look and feel pretty much the same … resting places (or “graveyards,” as I have previously labeled them) for press releases. That’s true.

The common perception of online “newsrooms” is one of an archival place for news releases … and, while some news releases may contain some information that could be ferreted out as news, most tend to be more self-promotional and one-sided.

As a long-time journalist and author, I’ve heard the complaint for years from those in the news business about the use of obtuse news releases for marketing purposes. As a result, most reporters and editors ignore a great many press releases.

Fortunately, that traditional approach to handling news online is changing through brand journalism and “news sites” which are far more open, transparent, interactive and balanced in presenting legitimate and real-time news. Online news sites work make your organization or business a trusted news resource. They are an authentic and valuable asset.

News sites are embraced by corporations and organizations that recognize that the best approach to managing news in today’s online world is to become the center of all news about your industry sector or area of focus. And, all news might not be all good. But, having the confidence to lay it all out there and be the center of news, a company or organization earns respect and trust.

News sites, however, require a lot more work and need people with accomplished journalistic skills. It’s not promotion or marketing but rather news that captures attention in today’s world.

Think of it this way …

• Online “newsrooms” are more one-sided, self-promotional, static and dull.
• Online “news sites” are balanced, trusted, engaging interactive and result in far more visitors and control over how your brand is trusted and respected … and, talked about. Real news in real-time.

Online “newsroom” or “news site” … there is a big difference.

Here are some examples of what I consider to be good online news sites:

University of Rochester’s Futurity

Imperial Sugar Company’s news site

Louisiana Seafood News

Cisco

Boeing (actually, this borders on being a personal commentary blog but newsy)

Radio Free Europe

Stratfor's holding page.

Stratfor’s website was hacked and taken down on Christmas Eve. In unconfirmed online postings, the alleged hackers claim to have stolen not only the company’s website and backup but all of the company’s email records and unencrypted files that include customer names and all of their credit card data.

Today, ten days later, Stratfor.com is still offline with nothing more than a static holding page.

During those ten days, Stratfor has not been consistent, timely, respectful or transparent in its communications to subscribers who pay a pricey fee – starting at a base of $400 a year – for various levels of the intelligence reports. Quite the contrary, the company’s communications – mostly on their Facebook page – have been sparse, at best.

On December 28, Stratfor posted on Facebook:

“As part of our ongoing investigation, we have also decided to delay the launching of our website until a thorough review and adjustment by outside experts can be completed.

We expect this to take approximately a week, but it might take longer – please bear with us as we recover from this unfortunate event.

In the meantime, we will not be deterred from doing what we do best: providing our customers with top-notch geopolitical analysis.

Therefore, while our website is being tested we will be sending geopolitical analysis to our members via email.”

While that update was posted on Facebook, it was not emailed to Stratfor’s subscribers, many of whom no doubt never follow Facebook. The company is in the business of emailing reports to subscribers but failed to provide this important update.

Furthermore, as any Stratfor subscriber knows, the “top-notch geopolitical analysis” emails have stopped. The lack of any updates or timely and substantive updates from the company could be interpreted as an outfit in serious trouble, true or not.

In today’s lightning-fast online digital era – a time in our lives when corporate brands can be damaged in a nanosecond by information, accurate or not – crisis communications mandates:

• Openness to the point of vulnerability … which enhances credibility and customer support.
• Timeliness and responsiveness in communications even if a company doesn’t have all the facts.
• Consistency without wavering … and, fulfilling what is promised.

In the case of high profile Stratfor, the company has failed in all areas to date, and has made itself a case history of how not to manage corporate brand and reputation in a crisis situation.