Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Media & Communications Corner: Breaking Down the Media Database Market
If you are in marketing/public relations, you know media databases are invaluable tools when it comes to doing business. But you're probably equally aware that nothing in life is perfect, especially these online media lists. With the world of journalism in constant flux and turnover rates on the rise at publications across the country, it's a challenge to keep records updated and accurate. For those who step up to that challenge ask for a significant amount of cash to tap into their services, with agencies dishing out bills that range from $50 a month for minimal access to $100,000-plus for a year's worth of full service and access to archives of A-list reporters. But what exactly are we paying for? And how do these media databases operate, define themselves, compete and evolve? I set out to answer these questions and others by surveying different agencies and using their services. While these companies may not be household names, you likely hear about them daily in your workplace, whether it be praise or disgust. Among the companies I reached were Cision, MyMediaInfo, Gorkana, BurrellesLuce, MEDIAtlas, MeltWater, The List and Media Finder.
The Method Behind the Madness
You've done your homework and prepared your pitch; now it's just about getting your message before the right audience. The last thing you want is a grumpy reporter on the other end of the phone yelling, “Woodward's gone! Our paper no longer covers that beat,” shortly before hanging up on you. So how do media databases earn their paychecks and make sure their records are accurate, relevant and functional?
Most of the media database companies I contacted boasted research departments and staffers who contact news outlets daily, speaking directly with reporters to confirm they are still at the publication and that their beats haven't changed. On top of that, some say they send out questionnaires or set up systems for publishers to update their own accounts. For the most part, databases are updated constantly, with one company boasting 20,000 updates each day. Meanwhile, depending on the agency, circulation numbers may be updated quarterly, semiannually or annually.
With sites hosting anywhere from hundreds of thousands to up to 1.5 million contacts, it's tough to ensure each journalist will be open to a pitch via phone or e-mail. So another step all the companies I contacted take to help ensure your e-mail or call won't be unwelcome is to allow journalists to remove themselves from databases. It typically just takes a phone call from a reporter/editor to have their name taken out. Some also let journalists indicate whether they would prefer to be contacted by e-mail or phone so you know the best way to reach them. All the agencies said they are open to receiving corrections and consistently make updates based on feedback from clients and journalists.
What's the Difference, Anyway?
With numerous media databases out there, all vying for big bucks from top firms, it's important that they distinguish themselves from the competition. How do they accomplish this? Answers varied from cost and ease of use to number of sources and how often materials are updated. One company emphasized the importance of establishing actual relationships with reporters as well as their clients, describing their competitors as an “IT solution.”
Some companies said it's not only the service they're offering but who's running it. For example, one agency said their company was built by PR professionals who understand the daily challenges of their clients
and the evolution of the industry. For others, size does matter, as they emphasized how big their research team is and its reach across the world. Another said it has its ear to the ground for the most promotional opportunities.
Just as revealing as what companies claimed to be their best features was what they said were their
competitors' shortcomings. One company that flaunted its customer service skills remarked that some of its competitors mislead customers by using a single media contact in different areas to inflate numbers in a search query result. Another agency said some of their competitors don't understand the job of a journalist, and thus can't provide them useful information, while another said the competition lacked the in-depth analytics that puts them above the rest.
After using most of these services and chatting with those who help run them, I noted some features that set each service apart. (See Chart 3, below.)
An Evolving Species
Even before the Internet entered every home and office, public relations and marketing professionals looked outside their rolodexes to find just the right contact. Media directories and manuals have been around for decades to link journalists and sources. But the only way to update those telephone book-sized catalogues was to print a new edition. That's all changed.
While we may all have our complaints about usability of different media databases, there's no question online features make them more versatile and helpful than their print predecessors. Many of the organizations we contacted have websites that came out of previously printed media directories. Websites allow for ongoing updates of contacts and content as well as new ways to get feedback from clients and journalists. But with technology always advancing, these agencies are also looking toward what their next steps are.
Several agencies said adding contacts who have impact via social media is coming into focus, and that they are adding new blogs/bloggers and others with online influence. Another area online media databases are improving in is offering more relevant data for websites, including adding online circulation, online ad rates, online subscription rates and numbers of unique website visitors. After all, eyes are eyes, and the number of views a Web page gets is becoming just as important as how many people are flipping the glossy pages of a magazine or bending back the fold of a newspaper.
But when it comes down to it, we really just want to be able to find out how to reach those we're looking for. I logged into most of these databases with a seemingly simple task: finding Wall Street Journal reporters stationed in California. Here are some observations I made in hunting down the info. (See Chart 1 below.)
If the Shoe Fits
There is no one service provider that will be perfect for all public relations and marketing professionals. If you're looking to subscribe to a service or change providers, you need to weigh all the factors aforementioned, such as cost, ease of use and your company's need. For example, if you're only looking to contact U.S. journalists, you likely don't need a contact list that spans the globe. One thing that's good to note is most of these providers offer trial subscriptions, so don't hesitate to shop around until you find a shoe that fits. (See Chart 2 below.)
If you want to do a little research on your own, here are a few links to trial subscriptions or other offers to get you started:
Nicholas Gaffney, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, is a lawyer and former journalist. Nick manages Infinite Public Relations' San Francisco office and can be reached at [email protected] or 415-732-7801.
If you are in marketing/public relations, you know media databases are invaluable tools when it comes to doing business. But you're probably equally aware that nothing in life is perfect, especially these online media lists. With the world of journalism in constant flux and turnover rates on the rise at publications across the country, it's a challenge to keep records updated and accurate. For those who step up to that challenge ask for a significant amount of cash to tap into their services, with agencies dishing out bills that range from $50 a month for minimal access to $100,000-plus for a year's worth of full service and access to archives of
The Method Behind the Madness
You've done your homework and prepared your pitch; now it's just about getting your message before the right audience. The last thing you want is a grumpy reporter on the other end of the phone yelling, “Woodward's gone! Our paper no longer covers that beat,” shortly before hanging up on you. So how do media databases earn their paychecks and make sure their records are accurate, relevant and functional?
Most of the media database companies I contacted boasted research departments and staffers who contact news outlets daily, speaking directly with reporters to confirm they are still at the publication and that their beats haven't changed. On top of that, some say they send out questionnaires or set up systems for publishers to update their own accounts. For the most part, databases are updated constantly, with one company boasting 20,000 updates each day. Meanwhile, depending on the agency, circulation numbers may be updated quarterly, semiannually or annually.
With sites hosting anywhere from hundreds of thousands to up to 1.5 million contacts, it's tough to ensure each journalist will be open to a pitch via phone or e-mail. So another step all the companies I contacted take to help ensure your e-mail or call won't be unwelcome is to allow journalists to remove themselves from databases. It typically just takes a phone call from a reporter/editor to have their name taken out. Some also let journalists indicate whether they would prefer to be contacted by e-mail or phone so you know the best way to reach them. All the agencies said they are open to receiving corrections and consistently make updates based on feedback from clients and journalists.
What's the Difference, Anyway?
With numerous media databases out there, all vying for big bucks from top firms, it's important that they distinguish themselves from the competition. How do they accomplish this? Answers varied from cost and ease of use to number of sources and how often materials are updated. One company emphasized the importance of establishing actual relationships with reporters as well as their clients, describing their competitors as an “IT solution.”
Some companies said it's not only the service they're offering but who's running it. For example, one agency said their company was built by PR professionals who understand the daily challenges of their clients
and the evolution of the industry. For others, size does matter, as they emphasized how big their research team is and its reach across the world. Another said it has its ear to the ground for the most promotional opportunities.
Just as revealing as what companies claimed to be their best features was what they said were their
competitors' shortcomings. One company that flaunted its customer service skills remarked that some of its competitors mislead customers by using a single media contact in different areas to inflate numbers in a search query result. Another agency said some of their competitors don't understand the job of a journalist, and thus can't provide them useful information, while another said the competition lacked the in-depth analytics that puts them above the rest.
After using most of these services and chatting with those who help run them, I noted some features that set each service apart. (See Chart 3, below.)
An Evolving Species
Even before the Internet entered every home and office, public relations and marketing professionals looked outside their rolodexes to find just the right contact. Media directories and manuals have been around for decades to link journalists and sources. But the only way to update those telephone book-sized catalogues was to print a new edition. That's all changed.
While we may all have our complaints about usability of different media databases, there's no question online features make them more versatile and helpful than their print predecessors. Many of the organizations we contacted have websites that came out of previously printed media directories. Websites allow for ongoing updates of contacts and content as well as new ways to get feedback from clients and journalists. But with technology always advancing, these agencies are also looking toward what their next steps are.
Several agencies said adding contacts who have impact via social media is coming into focus, and that they are adding new blogs/bloggers and others with online influence. Another area online media databases are improving in is offering more relevant data for websites, including adding online circulation, online ad rates, online subscription rates and numbers of unique website visitors. After all, eyes are eyes, and the number of views a Web page gets is becoming just as important as how many people are flipping the glossy pages of a magazine or bending back the fold of a newspaper.
But when it comes down to it, we really just want to be able to find out how to reach those we're looking for. I logged into most of these databases with a seemingly simple task: finding Wall Street Journal reporters stationed in California. Here are some observations I made in hunting down the info. (See Chart 1 below.)
If the Shoe Fits
There is no one service provider that will be perfect for all public relations and marketing professionals. If you're looking to subscribe to a service or change providers, you need to weigh all the factors aforementioned, such as cost, ease of use and your company's need. For example, if you're only looking to contact U.S. journalists, you likely don't need a contact list that spans the globe. One thing that's good to note is most of these providers offer trial subscriptions, so don't hesitate to shop around until you find a shoe that fits. (See Chart 2 below.)
If you want to do a little research on your own, here are a few links to trial subscriptions or other offers to get you started:
Nicholas Gaffney, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, is a lawyer and former journalist. Nick manages Infinite Public Relations' San Francisco office and can be reached at [email protected] or 415-732-7801.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.