Amidst all the hype around social media, many communicators have been quick to equate word of mouth communications solely with blogging and online social communication. But that's only one piece of the complex WOM puzzle.

According to word of mouth consulting firm Keller Fay Group, US consumers are engaging in more than 100 marketing-relevant conversations every week. And less than 10 percent of those discussions are happening online. Further proving that the water cooler is alive and well, Keller Fay suggests that more than 70 percent of WOM conversations are still face-to-face, verbal discussions.

If you're trying to spread the good word about your organization, it's critical to surround your audience with positive messages consistently across a number of channels -- mainstream media, direct to consumer, experiential, and consumer generated media.

Strong public relations programs begin with a clear understanding of the channels that matter to your key constituents, and should include creative strategies for delivering messages appropriately across these channels to drive word of mouth in many forms.

A holistic approach to message delivery helps make your company's news inescapable, and can help drive positive word of mouth (both on and offline) about your brand or organization.

While we can't fully predict the channels, devices and technologies individuals will rely on for information 50 years from now, PR practitioners need to continuously evaluate the media landscape and optimize their communications mix to reach audiences effectively.

A brief story ran on July 12, 2006, which went almost unnoticed by everyone except Stephen Colbert. The item pointed out that according to Nielsen Media Research, the first week of July was the “least watched week in history for the four biggest networks,” beating the record of the last week in July 2005.

Sure, there were a lot of explanations. It was the Fourth of July and people were outside, and the networks were airing reruns. But the reality is the four networks combined reached only 20.8 million viewers during the average primetime minute.

Given that there are almost 300 million people currently living in the U.S., that means that at any given moment 280 million people were doing something else besides watching the networks. Of course, they might have been tuned into The Sopranos, ESPN or Cartoon Network. But still, it is hard to imagine that on any given evening, less than 7% of Americans watch CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox combined.

So, what does this mean for the future? How many will be watching next year? How many in 50 years?

Given the trends, I think it is fair to say that the number is heading downhill and is unlikely to change course. The number of entertainment options for the average American grows everyday from MySpace to Mario World.

From a news perspective, the trend is even more profound. In the PR business, getting a placement on the nightly network news is normally considered the Holy Grail. However, during that record-breaking week in July, an average of only seven million viewers watched each of the three newscasts, which means 93% of the population got their information from another place or they didn’t get it at all. We all know that there are a lot of other information sources available. In fact, more than 50 million use the internet to keep up with current events. But the biggest difference is that people are increasingly accessing information in bits that they have often pre-selected based on their own preferences. The idea of families across America gathered around a television set all sharing the same stories together, night after night, would be an appropriate scene for a Norman Rockwell painting.

The reality is fewer people are consuming information as an evening meal. Rather, they are snacking all day long on bite-size morsels they pick up from a variety of sources, while they work, drive, jog and play. Is this a loss for the collective consciousness of our citizenry?

It is hard to imagine a future without household names like Walter Cronkite, Tom Brokaw and now even Katie Couric, but it will happen. Fifty years from now, the nightly news may become the weekly news compiled for people who didn’t have time to catch up on a daily basis…or more likely the every-minute news, delivered like commercials in 60-second segments all day long on TV, PCs, PDAs and cell phones. That way everyone will have an extra half hour in the evening to update their MySpace profiles.

These days it's hard to miss the growing body of evidence showing the connection between technology and the creation of new social networks.

Simply put, social networks are communities of like-minded or similarly-interested people sharing thoughts, ideas, advice and news in a structured environment.

They're not a new phenomenon — all of us can remember the basic social networks of grammar school, college sororities/fraternities, etc., which regularly occur in local communities.

What's changed in the past decade is the ease by which new social networks can be created, found, and sustained. Technology has made it a breeze to locate and engage other people anywhere in the world with similar interests or common traits: be it socio-economic background, hobbies, specific faith, or even political views.

MySpace, the social networking site targeting young men, is the best-known online social community. It has a worldwide audience of more than 95 million members, with 280,000 new profiles registered on the site each day (as Wired points out, roughly the circulation of a big-city newspaper).

But social networks aren't limited to tech-savvy males in their late teens and early 20s.

This week, traditional and online media have widely reported on the launch of a new social networking site targeting seniors.

Dubbed by many as "MySpace for Seniors", Eons.com was created by Monster.com founder Jeff Taylor as a new portal to reach 50+ year old boomers with information tailored to older Americans’ interests.

As technology continues to simplify the way we socialize with others who share common interests, we can expect further atomization of social networks, too. In the next 50 years it’s safe to predict more formalized communities of niche groups will form, and their aggregate voices will carry more weight with companies who provide products and services for them.

Communicators need to keep a close eye on the social networks developing that relate to the organizations and brands we represent. We need to understand how these networks form, who gains power and influence, and find creative ways to become trusted contributors to these communities.

In public relations, we've traditionally focused our time and talents on talking: delivering messages through traditional media channels and by direct means.

Talking has been a key component of our craft for centuries.

But in the future, it’s clear PR practitioners must continue sharpening another skill set: the ability to listen.

I don't for a minute suggest that communications pros aren't good listeners. On the contrary, the communications function largely serves as the listening post for most organizations. Most of us pay close attention to what's being said about our companies and the clients we represent in the press and mainstream channels.

I’m simply suggesting that, in the next 50 years, we'll need to listen not only to those with the loudest voices and those with the largest followings… but we'll also need to improve the way we listen to individuals. We must become more active facilitators of dialogue.

The influence of the individual continues to grow. Want proof? Look no farther than consumer generated media such as blogs.

Just this week, David Sifry of CGM search engine Technorati issued an update on the current state of the blogosphere. And his findings clearly illustrate the growing importance of the individual's voice.

More than 50 million blogs now exist, and since 2002, the blogosphere has doubled in size every 6 months. 175,000 blogs are created every day (that's 2 new blogs each second).

And while the growth of new blog channels may eventually cool, studies suggest consumers are using their self-built communications tools to publish thoughts more frequently. The total volume of new blog posts continues to climb -- now to 1.6+ million new entries each day.

The clear implication for PR pros and the brands we represent is that the individual voice must be recognized, and relationships with unique customers and loyalists need to be cultivated more closely than every before.

Today, individuals expect and demand the companies they do business with to listen.

Earlier this year, a nine year old student in California wrote a letter to Apple Computer Chairman Steve Jobs with some recommendations for improving the company's venerable iPod.

Instead of an appreciative note back from Jobs or his staff, she received a letter from Apple's Law Department insisting that she not send "suggestions" to the company, telling her she can read the company's legal and privacy policies online if wanted to find out why.

Is this any way to build loyalty and relationships?

(Later, after local media picked up on this story, Apple reportedly changed its policies on responding to correspondence from consumers -- particularly children.)

As the cacophony of voices grows louder and louder, organizations need to pay close attention to what's being said, and look for opportunities to join and nourish the conversation.

Who knows – if we keep working at it, 50 years from now we might all be more skilled listeners. At least that's what my wife keeps hoping for.

On this day of remembrance for our nation, I've been struck with how we as a society now commemorate major events in America's history.

I won't address the topics of terrorism, the politics of our government's prosecution of the "War on Terror" nor will I share my personal memories of 9/11 here. There are many better places to look both online and off for dialogue on these topics.

Instead, I'd like to explore – just briefly – how we as a society are remembering 9/11 from a communicator's perspective, and examine how new media channels and technologies are changing the way we look back, as well as forward.

In the years following major milestones in our country's history – be it the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the assassination of JFK, or the landing on the moon—we’ve traditionally looked back and commemorated these events by sharing our personal experiences with one another (largely verbally and in person), and by replaying the public records of these events, primarily the stories which dominated the popular media channels of the day.

Do you remember the early days of space exploration through the skillful reporting of Walter Cronkite?

Or the well-known footage of the President's motorcade that fateful day in Dallas in 1963?

Or the newspaper headlines of December 8, 1941?

When I compare the way we've historically looked back at major milestones with how we're remembering 9/11 today, I see significant changes being fueled by the new ways we're sharing information and communicating as a society.

The Internet and digital communications channels have made our collective memory of watershed events more vivid and more long-lasting.

Mainstream media now makes it easy for citizen to relive events. CNN offered a full day of its 9/11 broadcast feeds to online subscribers of its Web-based video channel “Pipeline” today. Users can logon and watch minute-by-minute as the events unfolded 5 years ago from their desktops.

Consumers are playing a more active role in remembering, too. Indeed, many of the most riveting images and videos we recall from that fateful day in September came from citizen journalists—the real people who found themselves thrust into one of the most significant world events of a generation. Armed with portable video cameras and photo-enabled mobile phones, those on the ground helped form our collective consciousness. And, of course, the then-nascent bloggers found themselves sharing their experiences from Ground Zero with a worldwide audience through the click of a mouse.

The speed and ease by which historical events can be shared and relived is amazing. Truly, the Internet has transformed the way we remember into a sort of “digital consciousness” stored on hard drives, web sites, blogs and photostreams which will live in perpetuity.

For professional communicators who manage the reputations of organizations, this societal memory has far-reaching implications, too. Companies who find themselves in the midst of scandalous events – be it accounting irregularities, products malfunctions, etc. – find it harder than ever to move beyond missteps and erase the collective memory of society in today’s digitized world.

Our founder, Al Golin, talks a lot about trust. In the future, it will be increasingly important for companies to consistently build trust with constituents through honest dealings and socially-responsible business practices. In our digitized world, past sins may be forgiven but they’ll never be forgotten.

So too will we never forget the horrible events of 9/11/01. They’re only a click away and embedded into our “digital consciousness”.

My son Tommy turned six months old yesterday, and much like the blogosphere, he seems to be growing at an unimaginable rate. He’s not crawling or walking or talking yet, but he is very plugged-in.

• He has his own Web page—so grandparents hundreds of miles away can see the latest pictures from his photocast.

• He has his own software—a program called AlphaBaby that flashes a shape, letter or number on the screen of my Mac when he taps (slams his baby fists on) any key. AlphaBaby includes age appropriate colors and sounds that will follow him through newborn to toddler developmental stages.

• He seems to know what a cell phone is—at least he smiles wide and bright whenever I talk on it—maybe he prefers my professional voice over my baby voice. How soon until Firefly offers phones for infants?

I’m probably going to buy an iCrib. This product aimed at the “new-parents-will-buy-almost-anything” market is a dock for an iPod that includes a multi-colored nightlight and timer to help soothe baby to sleep as he listens to custom built playlists--Tommy likes the Beatles, Orbital and Sufjan Stevens.

As he grows—and I race to keep up with the ever expanding interactive landscape—I can’t help but wonder when the little guy will pass me up.

How soon until he is nuts over a video game that looks like the holograms in the original Star Wars? When will I demonstrate parental uncoolness by naively asking about the hottest kid trend? What age will he be when his knowledge of technology passes mine? I’m guessing about age 10.

Regardless of what future embarrassment I may unleash upon my son, one thing is for certain: Today’s iBaby generation (let’s roughly define it as those born from 1999 to 2014—the babies of Gen X’ers) will be more plugged in—and even less aware of it than even today’s most cutting-edge techno-geeks.

And it won’t be about MySpace, YouTube or SecondLife. By the time Tommy is five, those sites could be as passé as a cell phone with a cord or my old ColecoVision. The iBaby generation will grow up with tools that some of us fumble with today. Technology will be more pervasive—which also means it will be less a shiny new tool and more a normal part of every day life.

The realities of atomization and social networking won’t be a trend for iBabies--it will be how they live and communicate. The ever present use of multi-tasking technologies will be as natural to them as their great-grandparents dialing a rotary phone.

Why should Tommy buy a record when he can simply get the songs he wants and criss-cross genres of his own choosing? Why would he watch an entire 60 minute news broadcast when he could get just those video bytes that match his tagged preferences delivered to his hand-held plasma Nintendo DS5?

The iBabies being soothed to sleep on customized playlists of Beatles and Sufjan on their iCrib are being reared into an era where they will choose from deconstructed multiple messages over various electronic mediums at blink speed—and they will be too plugged-in to tolerate it any other way.

As we look forward to the next 50 years of communication, many in our industry are trying to predict which channels and information sources audiences may trust most in the years ahead.

Will mainstream media be obliterated by "citizen journalists" who self publish their thoughts on a whim -- and who don't always subscribe to conventions of journalistic integrity such as rigorous fact-checking and multiple sources commonplace in mainstream media?

And will online/digital sources of information replace the stalwarts of the media world today? Or will the biggest names in news simply keep evolving their product offerings into new formats?

The answer is probably somewhere in between.

Today, LexisNexis unveiled the results of a new survey asking consumers about the kinds of information channels and sources they trust most today for critical news (such as pandemics, looming weather events, etc.), and which sources they'll likely rely on in the future.

A few of their key findings:

* Today, consumers still trust "traditional" media most for critical news -- "traditional" defined as professional journalists from newspapers, television and radio (and their related Web offerings)

* Emerging media including citizen journalists (eg, bloggers), Web-only news outlets, and direct to audience communications tools like podcasts took a distant second in trust for "breaking" news.

Neither of these two conclusions should come as a big surprise. But it's important for professional communicators to read between the lines here: The method by which information is published or shared isn't nearly as important as the credibility of the source and the journalistic integrity behind the information. New media channels such as Web-based news outlets are among the most trusted information resources, so long as they're authored by someone who can be trusted to tell it to you straight.

It's also important to note that this survey speaks primarily to breaking news -- like the live reports from the shores when a hurricane is coming in -- not more "niche" news that's specific to an individual's interests. Other studies clearly show that consumers rely on the Web for finding more in-depth information and dialogue about sharply-defined topics of interest. While the Today Show or MSNBC.com may cover a myriad of technology-related stories, Apple loyalists may find more news and opinions specific to their interests on The Unoffical Apple Weblog (TUAW).

The Internet has made it easier than ever before to get news on demand any time of the day, on any particular topic. And as consumption of "traditional" (print newspapers, magazines, TV) continues to decline across many demographic sets, more and more individuals are feeding their growing appetite for news -- particularly news specific to topics of interest -- by going online. As consumers get more comfortable with getting specific news online, you can bet that they'll get (and trust) more of their "breaking" news from online sources too.

Lexis-Nexis went on to ask survey participants about how their media consumption habits are likely to change in the future.

The key take-away? Most consumers say that, in the future, they'll be a bit more "inclusive" in their media consumption, relying on both traditional/mainstream/established media channels and more "emerging" channels such as bloggers and direct-to-consumer sources like podcasts.

As we continue to evaluate the right channels for communicating with our target audiences effectively, it will become increasingly important to understand which information sources, channels and technologies they trust most. And adapt the way that we tell our clients' and organizations' stories accordingly.

At GolinHarris, we're investing a great deal of intellectual capital in preparing for the changes already underway. We're refining (and in some cases, building anew) the processes and tools that allow our teams to move quickly with changing consumer media habits and build creative campaigns that reach audiences effecitvely in the myriad of channels they trust.

One such example of this is Dialogue -- our approach for delivering client messages across relevant channels whether online, offline, or even experiential. For each client's unique communications challenge and audience, we devise a creative strategy and deliver messages appropriately through the right mix of channels that matter to the people we're trying to reach.

50 years from now, it's hard to imagine exactly what the landscape of influential media might look like, but it's safe to say those with a track-record of accuracy and balance in reporting will come out on top. Whether it's online or off.

On a recent visit to our office in Taiwan, our staff there complained about a disturbing trend in their market. Due to declining revenues from shrinking readership and viewership, Taiwanese newspapers and TV news programs have begun selling news coverage to local businesses. The segments which are hardly distinguishable from the real news are sold like advertising, then inserted into the news broadcasts with the unpaid news stories. In print, the purchased content even carries the byline of a regular reporter.

Not surprisingly, our people are troubled by this trend. In some cases, their clients are asking them to develop the content for the "fake" news stories rather than pay for a PR campaign. In other cases, they are questioning the value of even conducting a media relations campaign when they can get guaranteed results by simply buying the coverage.

Aside from the business issues, the new development presents deeper ethical issues. The controversy in the US over the unidentified use of VNRs pales in comparison to the idea of paying the stations to get a preproduced segment included in the news. Could such a trend ever surface in the western media?

It sounds unfathomable but in the future as media outlets search for new revenue sources it is not impossible that selling editorial will seem like a reasonable business strategy.

I’m often asked if there is a single, simple, universal “litmus test” evaluation and measurement question that captures the most important thing (albeit not everything).

There is no silver bullet for our ADDriven, quick-fix fascination with 30 second management, instant insights, and snap solutions, but one question comes pretty darn close.

If you had to ask one and only one question that can be adapted to fit myriad situations, it would be:

“Would you recommend ____________________to family, friends, neighbors or co-workers, if they ask your candid and honest opinion?”

(e) Definitely Not

A nifty article from Business 2.0, courtesy of Fred (see link below), gives some of whys and wherefores. But the best thing to do is give it a shot yourself.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2005/09/01/8356514/index.htm

The line between mainstream media and consumer generated news is about to become more blurred.

The New York Times reports that beginning tomorrow, both Reuters and Yahoo will begin a renewed push to solicit and integrate reader submitted content into their news products both online and off.

CNN and other major news organizations have already been romancing their audiences to play a contributing role in news reporting through products like CNN Exchange, in which citizens all over the world who witness newsworthy events can upload photos and video to help tell more balanced, authentic stories.

What's unique about these new offerings is that consumers who submit content and serve as defacto journalists can actually benefit financially from their efforts (albeit it in a small way at first). Reuters will pay consumer journalists when their photos or videos are syndicated to Reuters clients.

With incentives in place, it's safe to assume more "casual journalists" will get involved in shaping the news we consume every day.

Companies and brands who have the most loyal followings have the best chance to benefit from this new model of news reporting. Imagine a mainstream article about the launch of a new car being supported by consumer-submitted video showing a happy customer driving off in their new wheels talking about the great buying experience and love of the new model.

And with all individuals being potential journalists, companies will need to focus harder in the future to ensure better customer service and consistently satisfying experiences. One consumer with a bad experience and a mobile phone has access to a global audience with unimaginable ease. Small slip-ups can have a huge impact.

As communicators, we'll need to stay on our toes to identify opportunities for encouraging our clients' loyalists to tell their own positive stories and to stay watchful for potentially damaging stories contributed by individuals.

Our jobs in PR are about to get a lot more interesting.

As we keep a close eye on the devices, technologies and channels consumers use to get information and entertainment, today's announcements by Apple, Inc. should help give us a better indication of how audiences might get information in the future.

It's all about convergence.

Today, Steve Jobs -- the pop culture icon credited with ushering in the personal computer revolution and bringing portable media to the masses (via the iPod), announced a handful of new products aimed at making it easier for consumers to make information portable and shared between the devices at their fingertips.

While not entirely unexpected, Apple's big announcement today centered around the iPhone -- a handsome all-in-one device that melds together the ease of use of the iPod, with a high resolution screen, a quad-band mobile phone, and the ability to get email, download and listen to music, movies, television shows, take pictures and surf the Web. All from a slim micro-device that syncs up to your PC or Mac and shares information seamlessly. This isn't the ROKR -- quite clearly, a bungled rushed-to-market iPod/phone MESS developed with Motorola in years past. It's a full-fledged Apple device, running their UNIX-based OS X operating system and completely controlled by a novel new touchscreen system called Multi-touch that lets you navigate everything on the device with your fingers. No keyboard. No stylus. All interaction is dictated by the software and based on how you need to input data. Elegant and easy.

Great-- yet another gadget to buy. But if history is an indicator, this device might mark the beginning of an even bigger shift for the masses. The mobile component of a fully-integrated digital lifestyle.

The second piece of this converged media puzzle discussed today was Apple's new set-top-box device, dubbed Apple TV. The idea is simple: a hard-drive based, wirelessly-networked box that connects to America's big screen televisions and makes all your media available (from up to 5 computers on your home network) in your living room. That's right -- the place where we now watch local news and interest-specific cable shows.

The third piece of the puzzle, Apple's already had in existence: the personal computer. It's the piece that goes with you to the office, adorns your den, and helps manage your personal and professional lives. It now stores your photos, holds your entire digital music library, downloads time-shifted newscasts in the form of audio and video podcasts, and even lets you grab full-length motion pictures.

All these pieces will now work together, fairly seamlessly. As with all new technologies, widespread adoption is largely a function of ease of use. And Apple's hallmark is taking complex technologies and making them user-friendly.

The big shift here is that the control and flow of information is entirely in the consumers' hands. You download a new album from U2 or a video podcast from Disneyland, and it's automatically available to view on your PC, your iPod or iPhone, and now your television with Apple TV. You choose what, when, where and how to consume the information.

The gatekeeper of this information becomes Apple. Make no mistake about it -- they're a media company now, not a computer manufacturer (which explains why they've officially changed their name to Apple, Inc., from Apple Computer). Consumers who purchase these interconnected devices will get their information directly from the source, so Apple's control over what people see will grow exponentially.

These new technologies have a number of implications for those of us who are tasked with telling our clients' stories ... A few considerations:

1.) Traditional media relations isn't dead. In fact, it may see an uptick in importance. How many times have you made it home from work too late to see NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams? Now, just subscribe to NBC News' video podcasts and you can watch it when you want. On the train, in your living room, on your laptop. It doesn't matter. Placements in these trusted, mainstream media channels which increasingly make their content available on demand will gain importance in the future.

2.) We need to build relationships with the content distributors, like Apple. A few years ago, we were calling on their iTunes managers to discuss how to build visibility for clients' podcasts in the iTunes Music Store. As Apple and other information distributors play a bigger role in deciding what you can choose to see on your devices, we communicators need to be able to work closely with these distributors to get our clients' messages out through their digital pipelines.

3.) We must remain dedicated to creative storytelling. In addition to content providers selected by distributors, most of these new media technologies allow consumers to get information directly from 3rd party sources. iTunes, for example, let's anyone with an audio or video podcast submit it to their directory for potential consumption by consumers. But only the best, most creative, most valuable content gets regularly downloaded and enjoyed.

As I bang out this blog entry on my Macbook, I'm excited about what the future might hold for converged media. Today's announcements marked another big step.

Now if only I can figure out how to convince my wife to spring for these new devices.

The writing is on the wall (and in this blog). The traditional news media is in decline and even the affable cuteness of Katie Couric can't stop it. So where are the citizens of the future going to get their information? Who is going to be the next Walter Cronkite who will keep them informed of the events impacting their world.

How about Bart Simpson? Or Lara Croft? Or maybe SpongeBob SquarePants?

According to a recent story in the Wall St. Journal, a new online show called "News at Seven" is allowing viewers to choose their news and their newscaster, too. This service utilizes an automated computer program to comb online news outlets and combine them with visuals from Google and YouTube to create personal newscasts for users who choose the topics they are most interested in. They can also select an avatar to deliver the news and the backgrounds they stand in front of.

Although this new news channel is in its infancy, imagine the possibilities. While you are at work all day, your own virtual news crew is assembling segments on topics that are specially chosen just for you. When you come home, you turn on the screen anytime you want and your handpicked avatar delivers these highly relevant stories in a style and tone customized for your eyes and ears. Maybe an animated Laker Girl tells you about the day in sports. Or a virtual Donald Trump relays the day's business news. Or maybe the newscaster looks just like you!

So in 50 years, we may not need Matt Lauer anymore becuase we will all have our own "Today" shows -- personalized just for us. The ratings might be low (an audience of one) but the whole world could be watching.

Much has been written about the impact of "Citizen Journalists" -- bloggers who comment about the news and even create their own. But anyone interested in the future of journalism and therefore PR should read David Carr's column in the March 19 edition of the New York Times.

Mr. Carr talks about a new experiment between Wired.com and an NYU journalism professor that plans on tapping into a broad group of netizens to report on specific topics. The professor who started the project at zero.newsassigment.net calls it "pro-am journalism" where ordinary people will produce work that will be iterated and edited by experienced journalists. It is a little like applying the principles of Wikipedia to the practices of traditional journalism.

Given the growth of consumer generated media, consumer generated news makes perfect sense even if it radically alters the concept of a newspaper or a magazine. In the beginning, experiments like this may only produce a few "crowdsourced" articles that actually get published. But the potential for the future is staggering.

Today Wikipedia is the #1 online source for information. Why couldn't the same idea work for news? If it does, the PR business will change dramatically as the number of "reporters" explodes and we become only one of many resources that journalists rely upon.

The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics & Public Policy at Harvard University just issued an interesting report on "Young People and News". Based on a random sample of 1800 teens, young adults (ages 18 to 30) and older adults (over the age of 31), they have concluded that frequency and depth of exposure to news is dropping dramatically.

We have reported here on the decline of newspaper readership every year. But it might be surprising to know that only 16% of those between 18 and 30 and a mere 9% of those 12 to 17 read the news daily. In fact, the report states that nearly half of both of these groups say they rarely if ever read a newspaper. Two-thirds of those that do read the paper say they usually “skim through the news sections” versus “reading quite a few stories.”

The idea that fewer younger people are reading the newspaper is not new. But there is a general belief that instead they are switching to the internet as their primary source of information. But only 20% of teens and 22% of young adults report getting news from the internet on a daily basis, which is about the same for adults (20%). One-third of the teens and almost half of the young adults surveyed said they rarely get news from the internet. And the majority of those who do are not seeking it out but “just happen to come across it.”

So where are young people getting their information? Despite the growth of hours spent online, it appears that TV is still the main source of news for all ages. 31% of teens and young adults say they watch the national news everyday and local TV is about the same. The numbers are almost double for adults. But the attention span of the younger audience is shorter, with about 60% of teenagers and young adults saying “they watch for a while and switch.” Overall, 28% of teens and 24% of teens said they pay almost no attention to the news regardless of the source.

So what does this all mean? On one level, it means that communicators can’t rely on traditional or even digital news channels if they want to reach a broad group of young people. For this group, word of mouth and experiential activities are the most powerful tools.

More importantly, even though news is now everywhere, it appears that a significant percentage of the population either doesn’t notice or doesn’t care. That may be the bigger problem. This is a big challenge for the future of our industry and our society. As an industry that relies upon communication, the future of our job will transcend delivering messages to the media. We are also going to be responsible for encouraging people to “tune in” to the media to receive the messages, which may be an even harder task.

Submitted by Fred Cook

These days, professional communicators are scurrying to become more conversant in the emerging channels audiences use to get news and information. The sheer number of focused news sources -- no matter what the topic in which you have interest -- is enough to make a PR pro's head spin.

In this increasingly atomized media landscape, PR practitioners can't live without an understanding of how, where and why specific groups of people get information. We have to have working knowledge of the channels and sources constituents rely upon to formulate opinions in order to tell our organizations' stories in a relevant way. As in ages past, it all comes down to trust.

Earlier this year, the GolinHarris Dialogue integrated media team launched a new ongoing research initiative called "TMI" -- the Trusted Media Index. The effort is aimed at helping GH teams and our clients keep tabs on the choices narrowly defined audiences make for getting specific information about particular topics. And to understand how those choices change over time.

While this research was originally intended as an internal learning tool -- one of many we use to understand audiences -- we want to share some basic findings from our initial survey. Scroll down for a link to download an introductory whitepaper.

We fielded an initial consumer opinion survey of nearly 1,100 US citizens and asked a flurry of questions about media consumption habits and their viewpoints of specific information sources. We explored sentiment across 10 different modes of communication spanning traditional/mainstream media, digital and social media, direct experience and word of mouth.

GH developed a comparative index (think Consumer Confidence Index) to give us an apples-to-apples comparison of trust for 10 unique information source categories. We defined trust as the sum of reliance, confidence in, present/future use and value of each information source.

Click here to view a small chart with TMI summary data.

For each of these information sources, we also determined what's driving their trust -- literally, why someone selects a particular type of news source for information on a particular topic.

The research is most useful when it's sliced and diced far beyond traditional demographic subsets into smaller groups with specific interests. Understanding the characteristics of Internet forums which attract working moms who seek health and wellness information. Or knowing, for example, why a senior may choose print newspapers for financial news over online sources -- despite having a broadband connection at home.

A few headlines from our study as it relates to all Americans:

There is no substitute for personal experience. Despite the flurry of new mediated information sources (more magazines, more television channels, more online-only news sites, etc.), most Americans still trust most what's in closest proximity: their own experience. Direct experience remains the most trusted source of information for virtually every demographic group, for every major topic of information. In PR, these valued experiences might come in the form of a mobile tour or sampling program.

Word of Mouth is strong. WOM allows individuals to "borrow" the direct experience of others and ranks as the second most trusted information category in our study. Recommendations from friends and family have always been influential, but the Internet's ability to let individuals self publish, share, and search for opinions with unprecedented ease has made WOM even more powerful and trusted than ever before.

Companies which embrace consumer dialogue and provide easy tools to spread the word will continue to see benefits from positive word of mouth. If you're selling consumer electronics products online, for example, think about sending your loyal customers a link to a review site to encourage positive feedback.

Online media has come of age. One of the more surprising findings of our initial research is the relative strength of dedicated online media such as CNET, WebMD and iVillage. It's now more trusted by most Americans more than every major mainstream media category, outpacing radio, television, newspapers and magazines (including their related online Web sites).

Much of online media's trust comes from familiarity -- people now have enough experience using the Internet that it's become a reliable, valuable channel. The tipping point for online media has been reached and it's now regarded as a "mainstream" information source.

Communications programs without a dedicated online media strategy miss a major opportunity to reach audiences in a highly trusted channel.

Radio is the most trusted "mainstream" media channel. While trust in all traditional media channels appears to be in decline overall, radio (including podcasts, streaming audio and satellite radio) shows relative strength compared to other mainstream news sources.

We believe this is due in part to radio's quick shift to portable and on demand formats. Some of the most popular podcasts, for example, are simply time-shifted radio news programs which allow consumers to listen on their own time, on their own terms.

Social and collaborative media channels show promise for the future. When asked about future trust, social media showed the biggest gains among US respondents. Internet forums, social networks and blogs were all touted as more highly trusted channels for the future. Today, trust in these channels is relatively low overall, though markedly higher for influencer groups (more on this in a moment).

Trust in a media source is determined by many factors, but familiarity is one of the most fundamental. As individuals become more comfortable and experienced in collaborative online news environments, their trust will surely grow. Communicators who gain experience communicating ethically through these channels now are making investments in their future ability to reach taste-makers.

Influencers are news junkies. One of the small subsets we examined was a group we call "ProActives" -- that is, individuals who have demonstrated through action their propensity to get involved and share their opinions with wide audiences. Compared to the general population, these influencers relied more heavily on a myriad of channels, aggressively seeking out new perspectives on topics of interest. They're well-versed in social media, too, allowing them to share their ideas with others more readily.

Companies who want to reach these folks need to do it consistently across virtually all channels -- and not take a myopic approach focusing on just a few information sources. Because Proactives compare, contrast and evaluate differing opinions, it's critical to ensure your organization's message is communicated universally.

If you'd like a deeper dive into the Trusted Media Index, download a primer by clicking here.

To learn more about our research, or to better understand media trust for a specific audience, contact Jeff Beringer at:

Jeff Beringer
GolinHarris
p 972.341.2508
e jberinger@golinharris.com

In the future, we'll be publishing insights about more narrowly-defined groups and their most trusted sources of information. GH will be fielding fresh TMI surveys, too, allowing us to report on changes in media trust over time.

Last week, we shared a few top line findings from GolinHarris' initial Trusted Media Index survey.

Today, I read another new study from McKinsey & Company focusing on related themes. It's worth a look. (Available HERE as a free download for registered users.)

In their article titled, "What Consumers Want from Online News," McKinsey's authors compare and contrast how different audience groups consume news from multiple media sources, and in multiple formats.

While McKinsey spends a fair bit of time focusing on digital media, the takeaway isn't myopic: different audiences consume information in very different ways -- not just online or offline.

The implication? Thinking big in communication today is more about thinking small and understanding the subtly nuanced ways micro-groups within your target audience get information. One-size-fits-all consumer targeting and mass marketing is becoming less and less effective.

What McKinsey found -- also echoed in our own Trusted Media Index research -- is that today's audiences gobble up information from scores of different sources. They call it "media promiscuity" -- the idea that there is little loyalty to a particular media outlet, and that audiences increasingly compare and contrast news from a variety of sources. We found exactly the same thing with our research, particularly when we examined media trust of influencer groups. Tastemakers who share frequently with peers are news junkies and rely on a multitude of sources to formulate their opinions.

In McKinsey's study, the majority of survey respondents reported dividing time between 12-16 different news sources each week. These are largely "mediated" sources and don't take into account first-person information sources such as direct experience and word of mouth. Add those into the mix and the number of places most Americans look for counsel and news grows to a remarkably high number.

McKinsey's paper wisely posits that a well-built news aggregation product -- which pulls together information from a variety of sources news seekers choose -- will be highly valued in the future. We're already seeing the underpinnings of this, with great news aggregation services like Google News and Adobe Labs' "MyFeedz" social newspaper already available.

As consumer control over what we watch, listen and read increases, so too must our understanding of how, where, and why audiences ferret out news from different sources. Communicators must become conversant in each of these channels to remain relevant and influential.