I retired from personal blogging in July 2008.
But you can find me over at http://blog.xero.com.
Posted by rod@drury.net.nz in TechBiz at 10:03 am on Tuesday, 22 April 2008
Congrats to Grant on his deal with Axon.
Axon acquires content expert Office Automation Software
When I saw the announcement in ComputerWorld I noticed a new advertising device they had used. Quite clever.
The image that looks like a feature story is actually a paid link (I assume) to the press release on the Axon site.
Good to see some marketing innovation in NZ.
blog
I’m not so sure - might just be co-incidence. Computerworld has (in the past, anyway) had a habit of regurgitating press releases, so it may just be “chance”. I dont get the same ads from here.
either way - good one grant!! :)
A link to “read the full story” on a news site that in fact links to a press release isn’t that clever imho. It’s quite misleading and tricks people into a click. “read the full press release” would have been better.
Hi Nic, as a former editor of Computerworld can I just cry “bollocks” and unleash editorial hell on you? I think I can.
CW has had a policy of never using press releases, much to the pain and anguish of the PR industry. We had something of a reputation for being prickly, difficult and unwilling to put up with things like non-disclosure agreements (if you don’t want me to know don’t tell me), embargoes and press releases in general.
For a while IDG (the publisher) did run a site called pressroom.co.nz which was excellent because PR folk could send in their releases and we could put them online and never have to read them. It was choice.
Anyway, now that I’m in PR I shun such things and think it a foolish policy designed to make reporters work too hard. Far easier if they just write what I tell them.
But Computerworld has never “regurgitated” press releases.
Cheers
Paul
“Hi Nic, as a former editor of Computerworld can I just cry “bollocks” and unleash editorial hell on you? I think I can.”
My god, PLEASE do. I’d love to be proven wrong on this one. The feeling of “just enough research to fill the column space” is what stopped me even opening the CW package, let alone reading it. The number of times I called “BS” on stuff in CW was part of it too, and I wasn’t exactly doing it for a living.
But, I think “regurgitate” might have been a bit strong. So, to all current and former CW people (you and Juha especially :) ) I apologize.
BTW, if you read this (which is most likely): drop me an email offline (nicw at fast chicken co nz etc) re the flat rate internet thing we were talking about a while back. I’ve been keeping an eye on it over here in the UK, and have some comments which you may be interested in. While I’d love to see NZ change, I’d HATE to see NZ go the same way as it is here.
Or, I could just blog it (www.fastchicken.co.nz). :)
Hi Nic, I sure will…
I’d have another look at CW if I were you. Sure, there’s offshore copy which doesn’t necessarily have the same degree of non-PRishness, but the local copy tends to be All Our Own Work (or it did. I’ve moved on of course).
I do remember one editor wondering how we came up with the stories we did and wanting to know which PR agency was feeding us the stuff we ran. He was quite stunned when I said we didn’t follow PR leads at all but instead devoted our time to coming up with our own ideas as to what was news and what wasn’t. He couldn’t quite grasp the idea… which made our job a lot easier of course.
I’ll drop you a line.
Cheers
Paul
No offence guys, but it looks like an advertisement. It screams advertisement. This isn’t innovative, it’s just an ad which looks like an ad. Maybe this is a generational thing, but to a gen-y viewer, all I see is an advertisement. Now I’m just repeating myself…
I’m with Paul Brislen on this one, as ex CEO of IDG I spent much of my time dealing with companies who thought that if they booked an ad they would expect us to print their releases. This from people who should have known better. Often this was a result of them simply not being aware of how the media worked or the needs of the readers and the fact that the loyalty of any good journo and publiaction is to their readers not their advertisers.
The Axon thing is a paid for boom box. Readers/vistors should be made aware of the difference between independent editorial and paid for space. In the old days of print this sort of thing would have carried the word advertisement, the web allows for the waters to be muddied somewhat. Nice PR stunt but one the media should be very careful with.