Aggregation journalism is fairly controversial. Merely repeating what others say has dubious value in the eyes of many. Of course, if an editor can bring a story that someone else wrote to their audience who may not have seen that story, there's value in editor-as-filter. That's why people follow bloggers and Twitter, after all.
So the question becomes, how can editors take an article they found elsewhere and add value for their specific readership. I put together the following tip sheet for our editors, and so I share it with you now. Warning: Much of this will seem obvious to seasoned Internet gurus who are the likely readers of this blog; keep in mind, this isn't for you, it's for the editors in your company who, unlike you, are likely on a very different spot on their Internet learning curve.
1. Make the headline compelling to entice readers to click. It's surprising how many print-centric headlines still make it to the Web. A Web headline has to work much harder than a print headline does, both because it needs to entice action, and because it is often encountered as a link by itself without the luxury of a surrounding two-page spread with photos, captions, call-outs, etc. We've recently started writing two headlines for each story--one for print and one for Web.
2. Don't merely regurgitate or summarize. Add your own perspective borne of the expertise you've acquired covering your beat. In this way, you take someone else's article, refract it through the lens of your expertise, and make it something unique and special to your audience.
To show an example, consider the following. One of our editors found an article on a consumer-oriented Web site about misleading food labels. Our editor wrote:
The FDA is cracking down on labels that deceive consumers. But at a time when money-strapped consumers are demanding honesty in their brands, doesn’t it make good sense for CPG companies to be policing themselves?
The first sentence summarized the article he found on the consumer site. But the second sentence came straight from him and was specific to his audience of consumer-packaged goods (CPG) companies. He took something that on its face wasn't meant for his audience, and made the connection to his readership.
3. Use active, verb-based phrases for link text when linking to other articles. This is such a common convention on the Web that it may seem crazy to have to even mention it here. But I have found that for editors who aren't experienced in selecting the appropriate text to link to another article, this takes some getting used to. They tend to want to link to the name of the publication of the Web site. So take this sentence:
A report in Causecast notes that the Food and Drug Administration is taking renewed interest in food labels that exaggerate or falsify product claims.
A lesser experienced editor may choose to link the word "Causecast" because that's the Web site containing the article in question. Our editor who wrote this actually first chose "food labels" as the link, because that's technically the subject.
But a better choice would be to link the words "labels that exaggerate or falsify product claims" because that best captures what the original article was about, plus it's anchored around a verb (or two verbs, and compelling ones at that).
4. Help the reader see connections to other issues that aren't immediately obvious. Notice I didn't say help the reader see connections to related issues--that would tend to be obvious. Continuing our example, our editor wrote:
It’s ironic that such labeling missteps continue to occur at a time when consumers are looking to simplify their lifestyles and reconnect with others and with the brands they love, seeking to develop honest and real relationships.
The entire sentence is new, and wasn't even mentioned or hinted at in the original article on Causecast. The link in the text above is a link to an article our editor ran on his Web site. In other words, he made a connection to a specific piece of original content that we published.
I think this is highly original and ingenious. Think about it: The article he's writing about is the FDA is cracking down on false food labeling claims. The obvious thing would be to draw connections to whether or how FDA is cracking down on other related things affecting consumer packaged goods companies, or perhaps how other governments are looking at food labeling claims.
But our editor saw something else: a connection between falsification and consumer trust, and how that impacts the brand. This particular editor writes about package design strategies that grow marketshare for branded, packaged products, so not only was this connection bringing some new value to the table, it was specific to his editorial mission and audience. (Yes, yes, I know the linked web site above is crappy, it's undergoing a redesign. If you must click the link, please squint your eyes first.)
5. Inject personality into the writing. This can be the toughest to trade journalism editors who've spent a career reporting just the facts. Let's face it. The writing in most trade magazines is, well, boring. And the Web is teaming with boring, warmed over pablum from the B2B press. People are attracted to writing that has authority and opinion. To quote a former editor I knew back from my Cahners days, be an "Island of authority in a welter of what". (And that was before the Internet happened.) Be opinionated without being shrill or polemic. Mix it up a bit. Let your hair down. Remove the tie. Say what you think.
Again, much of this is obvious to most readers of this blog, but revelatory to editors and reporters that we support, who are trying to jump across the digital divide. Our ship sinks or swims with their efforts. So to editors and writers, I say: If you consistently follow these five tips, you will have a leg up on your competition--both at your current publication, or when going for your next job interview.
0 comments:
Post a Comment