According to Sarah Hartley’s experiences here, that may well be the case. Great blog.

There seems to be a north-south divide in the uptake of social media, according to Hartley’s encounters of bloggers, tweeters and media types in London and Leeds. The overall account of the London ‘meeja’ was not entirely inspiring, in that the appearance of City journos being ’switched on’ 24-7 does not necessarily give the reality of being in touch, utilising social media for a wider purpose, or even, ultimately, demonstrating a larger understanding of social media.

The Leeds experience, however, seems to be a different story. Engaged, interactive, questioning, challenging.

Pushing boundaries. This seems to be one of the main areas where media types – particularly traditional media  – are jumping onto social media because they think they ’should’ rather than because they actually want to, or have something to contribute.

Social media is social. Obvious point? Well, put it this way: when was the last time you contributed something useful, valid and valued to the stream of social media editorial? Is it all second-hand news, no real voice, nothing authentic or genuine?

I’ve seen lots of media and marketing types observing, re-tweeting, idea-stealing and copying (for want of a better word) the work of others online and across various social media platforms. And yes, the old “nothing is original” argument is true to a point, but the copiers and plagiarisers still appear on social media spaces too. Ho hum.

It appears, at least according to Hartley’s participation in the north and south social media encounters, the northern participants are actually questioning and challenging why they are taking part in social media, rather than just being there and adding nothing of value for the increasing voices we see online. I, for one, know that social media is about what you put in, not take out.

And this is the unfortunate lesson many traditional media folk and old-school marketers are still missing. Give, give, give a bit.

The proliferation of online users and accompanying social media networks in the last three years can confuse, bemuse and excite in equal measure. Editors included. There are some basic considerations for effective social media engagement.

Here’s my Top 10 Commandments for social media:

1. Thou shalt not spam

Whatever you do, don’t spam your target markets. They won’t appreciate a barrage of poorly-researched, irrelevant and inbox-clogging spam emails. Spamming inboxes – whether it’s company email addresses, Twitter accounts or Facebook will win zero brownie points and alienate you from any further contact. Once credibility is lost, it’s not coming back anytime soon, if ever.

2. Thou shalt not steal

Stealing links to stories, news items, funky new websites, and wonderful products from another source, then passing them off as your own is a huge social media no-no. For example, on Twitter the re-tweet or RT function is an essential part of Twitequette, whilst hyperlinking and acknowledging external sources on your blog makes common sense. It engages and links you with the world.

3. Thou shalt not covet your competitor’s blog

One of the most unattractive and unprofessional social media rules to break is that of taking your competitor’s content, services, products and online offerings – and copying it. And there’s a lot of it about. After all, ideas and innovation do have a commercial value. Advice? Brainstorm and generate new products and services instead. It’s actually good fun too!

4. Thou shalt not sell – anything, ever

The whole point of social media is to attract and engage an audience – hopefully a significant one – who will them promote your business on your behalf. Your audience are NOT there to sell to. They are there because they value your content, insights and advice. If you sell directly to them via your social media channels, you’ll lose them. Instantly. Play it smart – give, give, give. Never sell.

5. Thou shalt not kill

Nothing is quite as bad in social media-land as an account which is established and then sits there. Dead. No content. Nothing contributed. Setting up a social media space, such as a Facebook fan page, Twitter feed, or company blog, and then not adding content to it regularly is a sure-fire way of killing your social media credibility in front of a global audience. Add content. Add value. Just add!

6. Thou shalt not take the name of social media in vain

Remember that despite the fact social media can seem quite light-hearted, harmless and fun, your inputs on social media networks are on the web for Time Immorium. So be careful what you post. Add value, contribute to the flow of conversation. Think carefully before you post anything, anywhere, anytime, which can be viewed as an attack or negative comment in your industry.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery

Social media adultery can be committed without thinking, but the effect and long-term damage is hard to recover from. Because many social media networks operate on an informality level which standard marketing does not recognise, the rules of engagement are still the same. Remain professional, polite and polished at all times. Remember your social media content is your legacy.

8. Thou shalt honour thy audience

Simple really – without an audience, your social media inputs are little more than an exercise in commercial vanity. Without followers, readers, commentators and fans of your social media content, being there is effectively a waste of your marketing budget and time. Make sure you cater for your audience’s requirements, needs and wants. It is, unfortunately, all about them. Always.

9. Thou shalt not forget the Sabbath Day

So, you think social media is a Monday to Friday exercise? Afraid not. In our 24/7, always-on, on-demand culture, social media plays an essential part of the online marketing mix, and your inputs need to cover the full seven days of the week. The good news is that you can pre-schedule posts, tweets and social media content using established tools to maintain an ever-present presence.

10. Thou shalt not worship any false Gods

What this means, essentially, is that just because an individual or company has oodles of followers or friends on a social media network, it doesn’t make them God. Challenge them, make them think, debate their content, get involved. This adds to your credibility and also hooks you into the audiences of the big players. Think of it as a subtle way of piggy-backing for exposure.

Not sure, but it’s looking like the traditional PR providers are on their death knoll, according to recent reports.

Such as this article from PR Twitterati and non-traditionalist Mark Borkowski, highlighting that tools such as Sidewiki are pushing the Ab Fab brigade to the brink of extinction. Not that he cares of course – his kind of PR is contemporary.

Then there are the new breed of PRs, such as We Are Social – instigators of the Innocent Drinks Twitter feed and much, much more. I can imagine traditional PRs reading this new kind of PR delivery and quite literally crapping themselves when a client mentions the words ’social’ and ‘media’ in the same sentence. Great work, and totally audience-focused for Innocent.

Wondering what a traditional PR looks like? Check out Rubella Pymley-Bowles from Ostentacious PR for a few clues. Awful.

Let’s face it – editors are pulling sources of news and articles from a multitude of areas now, including social media channels. The availability of news, comment, and public interaction means that the Press no longer ‘relies’ on PRs to fill up empty spaces offline and online when deadlines draw nearer. That’s right, PRs – the Press don’t need you, even if newsroom numbers have been cut.

Another important fact for those buying PR is this – the “It’s who you know” argument – so often rolled out by PR firms to newly-signed clients – is less and less relevant: let’s be honest, most media contacts are shifting weekly at the moment, let alone staying put on a publication or news site online for months on end. Those days are relegated well and truly to pre-Recession.

So, the death of PR? Maybe the end of a certain type of PR. As an editor, I’m not sorry to see it go. I welcome in the new and say a goodbye to the bad old days when up-their-own-arse PRs controlled far too much content supply into the British media.

My predictions? More and more media channels will open up, leading the Press to work with fast, reliable, non-pretentious distributors of information. Contemporary PRs have nothing to fear. Old school Ab Fabs? Time for a career change, I think.

At least, that appears to be the case according to this story recently concerning the drastic drop in profits for magazines.

As the downward slide continues for offline publishers, it is clear from the statistics presented in the Paid Content report that if you’re in editorial in the magazine sector, unless your publishers have online versions of the print edition, it’s lean times indeed ahead for you as we slide into the pre-Festive season. And to think journalism has been in this position for nearly two years now.

Incredible.

No tangible support or respite for the journalists, section editors, editors and senior editorial employees who’ve been cut, cut and then cut again from the heart of poorly-managed newsrooms. Dammit, stop the rant before the soapbox bends and breaks.

Couldn’t it of been seen coming?

I know from the colleagues I have worked with and spoken to in the last 12 months, we all knew magazine and newspaper editorial staff needed to diversify, re-train, get upskilled, and even consider another sector to work in.

The fact that we’re still seeing no assistance for the flailing British magazine sector is appalling.

And the message from the number-crunchers is still the bloody same – sorry, got to lose editorial, too costly to keep all the journos. Oh, the sales department? No, they’re all still there. Twiddling their fingers and talking about football results. Nice.

Once again, I wonder why it is such a bed idea to not simply consider letting senior editorial manage the business of managing newsrooms as business entities, including forward planning of news diversification, digitisation and online expansion.

Let’s face it – they couldn’t do a worse job than the inept neolithic management teams have done on their behalf to date. Ahem.

…from Adam Westbrook’s blog today concerning journalism new ventures – an essential checklist to consider.

I particularly liked point 8 on Westbrook’s checklist for start-up success: ‘Would it be fulfilling for journalists to work for?

This got me thinking. When was the last time as a journo or Editor you really, truly, completely loved working in your current newsroom? Are you fulfilled, challenged – and rewarded – every day? Is your obsession to keeping deadlines noticed? Ever?

Maybe an additional point to go on your checklist, Adam, should also be: ‘Is it run by Editorial and not Advertising managers?’ This would certainly tip the scales for me, having seen many, many Editors de-motivated and ground down by the money-men and number-crunchers. A journalism start-up run by the writers for the absolute benefit of the readership? A novel idea indeed.

Interesting statistics here today highlighting the rise of older audiences engaging across a range of social media platforms.

Interesting, in particular, for journos as this indicates that the ‘faddish’ nature of social media as initially discussed by traditional newsroom management is not accurate.Not accurate at all, in fact.

It appears that the age range of tweeters bloggers and facebookers is aligned closely to the age range of newspaper readerships – except these same readerships are now accessing free news content online, unfortunately, rather than via paid printed news.

Another area of concern for media-land could well prove to be the fact that platforms such as Twitter anticipate leading the news agenda within the next 12 to 18 months: look at the pick-up on Stephen Fry’s publicly-aired near-step-down from tweeting this week.

The fact that this tweetathon made National news headlines surely points the way which journalists are being forced to source and share news items. After all, if social media is making the news, surely engaging with social media is also a must?

Unconvinced?

Where will traditional newsrooms be in 18 months? If they’re continuing to bury their collective heads in the sand, the future will be bleaker than the last 18 months. And God knows, that’s been bad enough for 1000’s of journalists in the UK already.

As I’ve said before – stop moaning, start upskilling, and embrace digital. Either that, or a career change. Choice is yours. Enjoy.

…from Freelance Unbound here.

Apparently, readerships in the States have issues with news accuracy – or lack of accuracy from journalists.

Less than 30% of readers polled felt confident in the facts presented to them by reporters in American newspapers – shocking statistics, or an indication of the lack of trust in traditional media? Is online reportage, via bloggers and tweeters, becoming the new journalism in which the masses will gravitate towards? Only time will tell, but the early indicators are not positive for the old-school Hack, according to the facts highlighted in this excellent media blog.

Personally, I think if News-gathering doesn’t wake up and embrace the variety of tools and techniques available, readerships will continue to move away from traditional newsroom reporting and more towards the sources of news in the places where they want it – ergo, audiences looking for news will find it where they want it. This usually also includes the most trustworthy sources for them, as they see it at that time.

So, to build trust, what to do? How about engaging your readership, in the medium they want, when they want it, and in a style they can relate to? This is perhaps the biggest lesson regional UK media managers have failed to learn in the last three years.

Great post here on the importance of fact-finding, fact-checking and why trained journalism still offers something the increasing army of citizen journalists, bloggers and forum commentators can’t give. The upshot? Trained journalists represent the reinforcement of fact-checking at its best: the power and credibility of a balanced, thorough and fact-checked editorial item.

Of course, the initial news value from a tweet, blog post, or forum item can lead journos towards a valuable investigation of an issue, but it’s the fact-checking process, the collation of facts and the trained execution of facts which makes the difference between an amateur piece of citizen journalism and a well-rounded, informative and thought-provoking piece of journalism.

One of the most concerning elements, for me, of untrained editorialists as I call them, is the rise in commentaries and the lowering in quality content. It seems that everybody’s got something to freakin’ say online these days. Progress?

The thing which makes a difference for me, as one who sits firmly in the ‘trained’ editorial camp, is that without the correct and professional usage of fact-collation, fact-checking and fact-integration into an editorial item, we’re left with a shabby represntation to the readership. At best, conjecture. At worst, fact-less content. Propoganda, as it used to be called.

Terrifying prospect, huh? Without the trained, fact-orientated journos in place, how can content remain at a premium?