You know the phrase “caveat emptor:” Let the buyer beware. There’s another bit of Latin that people should acquaint themselves with: “caveat lector,” or let the reader beware.

Never has there been so much information available to the public. And never has so much of it come from people with an axe to grind, either politically or commercially.

Anyone over the age of 30 grew up in an era in which media choices were relatively limited. The mainstream media were conscious of their role as an information source for the broad public, and generally made a good-faith effort to be as objective in their news reporting as possible. (No, they weren’t perfect, but I’m not here to debate that.) Meanwhile, there was a clear distinction between news and advertising.

Today, information sources have exploded, and many of the most successful ones have a definite point of view. There’s the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post on the left, Townhall and Fox News on the right. The general-interest outlets that thrived on serving the broad public are the ones struggling to gain traction in today’s marketplace of ideas.

At the same time that partisan news sources are thriving, commercial entities are breaking down the wall that used to exist between news and advertising. Sponsored content is more common than ever, both on the Web and even in print media that used to disdain such things. For example, several Gannett newspapers in New Jersey have regularly published stories written by an employee of the NHL’s New Jersey Devils. And they didn’t always make clear his relationship to the team.

Here in the Twin Cities, Hopkins-based ARAnet has built a successful business providing content that offers useful information to readers – and also gives a boost to businesses that have paid to be mentioned in the articles. These articles have run in the Star Tribune and many other traditional mainstream media. I wrote about this previously for MinnPost.

While ARAnet’s sponsored articles provide credible information, the Internet also has spawned a crop of websites that pose as real news sources but offer nothing more than unsubstantiated marketing claims.

In addition, well-funded interest groups now have the means to quickly create websites that promote a particular point of view on issues of the day – and it’s usually impossible for a casual observer to discern who’s behind the effort.

In many ways, these developments are a throwback to the early days of the republic, when media outlets (usually newspapers) were created by partisans explicitly for partisan purposes. There’s a reason why so many newspapers have “Democrat” or “Republican” in their names. Readers knew that each publication had a point of view, and took that into account. It was only in the last 75 years or so that an increasingly educated, professional class of journalists adopted the mantra of objectivity.

It may be that we’re living in a Golden Age of media, when any kind of writing, recording or video is instantly available to anyone, free of charge, any time of the day or night. Viewpoints that previously were shut out of the cautious, middle-of-the-road mainstream media now can flower. There’s a lot to be said for that.

Just remember that many of the people bringing you this Golden Age are also hoping to enlist you – either in a cause or a transaction.

Caveat lector.

Credit: HealthHabits.ca

Editor’s note: This is John Reinan’s weekly marketing column for MinnPost.com.

Some stability has returned to the traditional media. Local TV stations just fattened up on their usual feast of election-year commercials. And after four years of ruthless cost cutting, newspaper companies have slowed — not stopped, but slowed — their bleeding.

But this brief spell of relative quiet may simply be the calm before another storm.

Newspapers are facing a huge boost in the cost of newsprint – their second-largest expense after employee salaries. Newsprint prices have risen more than 20 percent in the past year, and are expected to stay at that level for the foreseeable future.

Higher newsprint prices could force publishers into another round of cost-cutting. That could mean either fewer employees, or fewer pages in the paper. Either solution risks a degradation in the quality of the product that could drive more readers away.

Meanwhile, local TV hasn’t yet felt the full impact of the Internet. Hulu, a leading Internet TV service, is on track to more than double its revenue in 2010. Netflix has also aggressively entered the Internet TV market.

Here’s how that affects local TV. Cable TV companies nationwide lost nearly 750,000 subscribers in the third quarter of 2010 – the biggest drop in 30 years. Some of those cancellations no doubt were by people trying to save money in a recession. But others probably represent a switch to Internet TV.

Cable systems typically have franchise agreements requiring them to carry local TV stations. Internet-based TV services like Hulu and Netflix have no such requirements. People watching TV on the Internet will find it much easier to ignore local stations.

The rise of the smartphone also comes into play. By 2012, smartphone sales are expected to surpass, for the first time, combined sales of desktop and notebook computers. So, as more people watch Internet TV on mobile devices, local TV again risks being left out of the picture — unless the locals can come up with compelling Web offerings of their own.

A proposed sale in the traditional media world could provide clues about the future. Freedom Communications, which owns the Orange County Register along with 100 smaller newspapers and eight TV stations, recently put itself up for sale.

Some analysts have suggested that Freedom would use the money from the sale of its traditional media properties to remake itself as a digital company. That would be a sign that one management group, at least, no longer sees a future in newspapers and broadcast TV.

So, where is the future? On Facebook and sites like it. Facebook currently accounts for 10.3 percent of all visits to Internet sites by U.S. users. That’s more than Google, which comes in second at 7.2 percent.

What’s even more striking is that Facebook accounts for one in every four page views (actually, 24.4 percent). YouTube is second at 6.4 percent.  People use Facebook a lot, and they visit multiple pages while they’re using it.

The audience for Facebook is bigger than any TV show, and as time goes on it will become less about chatting with friends and more about delivering information and advertising of all kinds.

As Tim McGuire, longtime editor of the Star Tribune, said recently on his blog: “Mass media may not be dead — but call it fragmentation, targeting or hyperlocal, the day of a dominant local or national news force has definitely begun to fade. Mass media is on the clock.”

This is John Reinan’s weekly marketing column for MinnPost.com. To see the original, go to http://bit.ly/9Di7sa.

The free ride on the Internet isn’t over yet, but there are a lot of people looking for ways to bump up the fare.

Last week, AT&T announced the end of its unlimited data plan for smartphones. The problem: Data hogs were using huge amounts of bandwidth, slowing down the phone network for everyone else. Other telecom companies are expected to follow suit.

AT&T is now going to charge an extra $10 for up to 2 gigabytes of data per month. How much data is that? It’s the equivalent of about 17 hours of video, 400 song downloads and a million one-page e-mails. And yes, there are people who consume that much data on their phones.

Meanwhile, the traditional media are still wrestling with how to charge for their content on the Web.

Starting in January, the New York Times will begin using what’s called a metered system. Subscribers to the print version will continue to receive free, unlimited access to the Times website. Non-subscribers will get a certain number of free articles per month, then will have to begin paying for content once they reach the limit.

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. already uses a paywall on its Wall Street Journal website; online users must pay for access to articles, although a limited amount of information is free. Murdoch says that he wants to extend the paywall model to other media properties he owns, such as the New York Post.

The Star Tribune has taken a step into paid content with its Access Vikings site, which charges $19.95 a year for Vikings coverage beyond what’s available on the regular Strib website.

In the early days of the Internet, Web acolytes repeated the mantra, “Information wants to be free,” and for more than a decade, the nation’s largest media organizations played along. Media continued to offer Web content for free, believing that the way to financial success was through advertising sold to the maximum number of eyeballs attracted to the free content.

After watching their revenue plummet for the last five years, however, the media companies are looking at paid content with a whole new fervor.

But the future of paid news content is far from certain. Earlier this year, the Pew Internet & American Life Project surveyed Web users about their willingness to pay for news content. The results weren’t encouraging.

Even among the most avid consumers of online news, only one in five said they’d be willing to pay for content. Among Internet users who said they visited a favorite news site every day, 82 percent said they’d go to a different site for news if their preferred site started charging them.

Meanwhile, the ad-supported model faces its own problems. In the Pew survey, 77 percent of respondents said they ignore web ads– the same ads that help fund the sites they visit.

It’s a mess, and if I had the answers, I’d go on the lecture circuit and charge media tycoons $1 million a head to hear my talk. And if I really did have the answers, they’d gladly pay.

But it’s safe to say that you can expect to begin paying for information you’ve been accustomed to getting for free. Maybe not tomorrow, and maybe not for everything. But the free, all-you-can-eat buffet of the Internet will soon be offering a more limited menu.

And they shouldn’t. There’s no reason to. Now, this doesn’t mean reporting or news itself will die with the newspaper; it just means ink on paper is a dinosaur that is going to go extinct. News is now at the point where it happens and is reported almost simultaneously, so any medium that stretches out that divide of time is going to die. Newspapers with their 24-hour turnaround time are hours behind blogs and online newspapers, which are increasingly lagging behind twitter. So why would I pay for that? Simply, we shouldn’t. That’s the reason why we see the Rocky Mountain News, the Baltimore Examiner, the Albuquerque Tribune, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and so many more locking their doors.

To me the most interesting part of this death spiral is watching newspapers frantically grab more and more buckets to bail water out of their Titanic of an industry. That’s why I got such a kick of this article, via Variety. It is about an L.A. Times article that ran front-page Friday. The story is about a rookie L.A. cop named Ben Sherman as he learns the ins and outs of the streets on his very first day on the job. The problem? Ben Sherman isn’t real. He is a character on a new NBC television show called “Southland,”and the story is actually an ad.

TheTimes didn’t really try to disguise this fact; the ad is marked as an ad and is in a different type face, but it is certainly set up to look like a news story. Beyond that, the front page of a newspaper, especially one as big as the L.A. Times, has long been considered sacred territory not to be messed with. The front page is supposed to be the model of journalistic integrity, where the most serious reporting takes place. But more and more, as newspapers look for new revenue streams to try and keep their ship from sinking, the front page is just looked at as wasted ad space.

The best part about the ad is that it was initiated by the Times itself. They went to the producers of “Southland” and proposed the idea, which was quickly scooped up. Don’t get me wrong either, I love the newspaper. I love getting up in the morning and reading it over a cup of coffee, especially the L.A. Times, which is one of my favorites. But c’mon, that seems pretty desperate.

I am not offended by this advertising display in the least. I think that the newspapers that actually weather the storm, if any do, will be the ones that move away from the traditional model of selling the advertising real estate of a physical object. Branded content, more savvy digital marketing and cutting the glut that traditional newspapers accumulated while they thought they were an indispensable societal asset are a start, but it still won’t save most. I am interested to see what next steps newspapers will take to postpone the inevitable. I suggest guest reporting by famous people about themselves. It can be a narcisisstic PR outlet that can go to the highest bidder. Goodbye journalistic integrity, hello self-indulgent, six-page biopic spread by George Hamilton. Nice.

Sometimes I wish for the old days, when press agents would buy a few lunches, send a case of scotch to the newsroom at Christmas and ensure coverage of their clients in the only medium that really mattered: the daily newspaper.

The job of helping businesses transmit their messages to the public is getting more complicated by the day. The news last week of the Star Tribune’s bankruptcy filing highlights the rapid changes in the media landscape.

The traditional media – newspapers, magazines, TV and radio – are failing. With their struggle comes a fragmentation of the one thing they reliably delivered for decades: a mass audience.

As media relations director for a marketing agency, my job depends on keeping up with these rapid changes. In recent months, it has often seemed as if the ground is shifting daily. The changes in the media world are affecting every advertising, public relations and marketing agency.

In addition to the well-chronicled staff cutbacks at newspapers, the medium is adopting a more centralized delivery model for non-local, non-breaking news. Individual newspapers are deploying their thinning staffs on local news, the one area where they still have hope of maintaining a competitive advantage.

In Texas, Florida, Ohio and elsewhere, newspapers under different corporate ownership are banding together to provide regional coverage in their areas. Elsewhere, business and lifestyle news, national trend stories – even sports coverage of major events – are increasingly generated by a relative handful of national reporters at wire services, syndicates or major news organizations. Gannett, the nation’s largest newspaper chain, is toying with the idea of using its flagship USA Today as a sort of wire service for Gannett’s 80-plus papers, feeding them non-local stories.

For someone like me, that means I may no longer have the option of getting a reporter in, say, Phoenix interested in a story about a client’s new product or service – a story that once could have gotten picked up by the wires and run nationwide. The reporter in Phoenix will be covering news that originates in Phoenix, and nowhere else. Instead, I’ll be pitching to an increasingly small number of overworked and overpitched national reporters in New York or Washington, D.C. There will be fewer sets of ears to listen to an interesting idea.

Infomercials replace news show
Speaking of D.C.: WUSA, the Gannett-owned TV station there, recently announced that it was canceling its weekend morning news programs and replacing them with infomercials. Weekend news programs have traditionally been the PR person’s friend; they have a lot of time to fill and not a lot of breaking news, so they often are receptive to feature stories and other offbeat pieces that wouldn’t work on an evening newscast.

WUSA also is cutting staff and creating one-person news crews: a single news staffer will shoot video, report and edit stories. Other stations in D.C. have indicated they’ll follow suit, and I expect the salary-saving trend to spread nationwide. Again, this means that stressed news staffers will have less time and inclination to report on any but the most immediate stories. Expect “if it bleeds, it leads” to be taken to a whole new level. In-depth looks at issues such as energy efficiency, health care and personal finance are likely to get shorter shrift than they already do.

Lifestyle magazines are closing by the dozen, and radio – well, it was already far ahead of the other media in centralized, standardized programming. Even so, cuts are now thinning the ranks of the few local personalities and news reporters who remain.

What does this mean for the marketing world? At the risk of sounding like a broken record: social media. Much of the news and discussion that once centered on the traditional media is moving to blogs and Web sites. As my agency president, Jörg Pierach, told us recently, “We’ve all got to be social media experts.”

I’m not saying that traditional media relations will die out entirely. There’s still a place for someone who knows how to shape a story to gain the interest of a print or broadcast journalist.

But it may be a skill that becomes more and more specialized, like the watchmaker who fixes the expensive timepieces of that fraction of the population who don’t wear cheap digital watches.

Her term as governor ends in two years. Strictly from a marketing standpoint, I think she’d be making a mistake by staying in politics. I think she should move into the punditry/entertainment nexus. Here’s my reasoning.

• She’s got ready-made name recognition.
• She’s got a large core of devoted followers.
• She’s bold, blunt, energetic and fearless in making her points.
• She’d be one of a relatively few women in that arena.
• There have been few new stars to arise in the conservative punditry firmament in recent years. Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Buchanan: they’ve all been around for a while. There’s an opening for a new voice from the right.
• Her career longevity would be greater.
• Someone is certain to offer her a ton of money.

You could argue that she’s not the brightest bulb on the tree. I’d reply that she’s plenty smart enough to go on TV or radio and give her unscripted views. All she has to do is unleash her id, and I don’t doubt that she’s quite capable of that.

Those are my thoughts. Yours?

Bishop and Green recognized that donors such as Bill Gates and Bill Clinton are redefining philanthropy, formerly a one-step action of charitable giving, into a business-style model of accountability and results.

Appropriately timed for the September book launch, two recent examples of philanthrocapitalists illustrate why controversy can emerge when individuals enter the advocacy space with past political ties and partisan views  

PickensPlan

T. Boone Pickens (Source: PickensPlan.com)

Earlier this month, T. Boone Pickens, founder and chairman of BP Capital Management, announced his intent to reduce the United States’ dependence on foreign oil. He’s referring to this agenda as PickensPlan, which advocates a mixed use of wind, solar and natural gas energy. This plan, laid out in graphics and charts for easy public consumption, is accompanied by a myriad of traditional ad buys and media tours.

Also bolstering this campaign is a well-run social media operation including a social network, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and YouTube. Pickens is a well-known conservative. However, he — or his agency – has obviously learned from his liberal counterparts as he attempts to make foreign oil dependence a top issue in this fall’s election.

The PickensPlan appears to be a social and traditional media home run, but the long-term impact of the plan remains to be seen. Can a lifelong oilman known for flying on a $60 million Gulfstream private jet genuinely advocate for alternative energy? 

Perhaps his past and current positions illustrate a strong change in the wind, as the United States recognizes the need for increased wind, solar and natural energy. Or perhaps not: as Pickens has noted, “There are no [wind] turbines on my ranch, because I think they are ugly.”

ProPublica

Herbert and Marion Sandler (Source: NYTimes.com)

Earlier this year, ProPublica, the brainchild of San Francisco entrepreneurs-turned-philanthropists Herbert and Marion Sandler, opened its doors, declaring, “Investigative journalism is at risk.”

Led by Paul Steiger, the former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, ProPublica claims to be a non-partisan, non-ideological shop, taking on investigative journalism pieces such as its recent 60 Minutes partnership, which examined the U.S.-financed Al Hurra.

Some argue that investigative journalism is a luxury that the modern newsroom cannot afford; thus, it makes sense for a non-profit to fund the activity. Others point to the Sandlers’ financial resources, amassed from years in the mortgage and loan industry, and wonder if ProPublica’s critical investigative eye will examine its own funding source.

Also interesting is the Sandlers’ relationship to ProPublica. Unlike contemporaries who attach family surnames to their non-profits, the Sandlers tend to shy from the public eye. Does this translate into less involvement in the day-to-day running of ProPublica, or can the public expect left-leaning investigative journalism pieces that reflect the funding family’s history of Democratic Party support?

It’s hard to argue with wealthy people using some of their riches to support public-minded initiatives. But the credibility of the new philanthrocapitalists may hinge on whether their ventures truly act in the public interest or merely serve as vehicles for personal ideological passion.

I honestly had a physical reaction when I saw it. I felt a thrill run up my spine, and I suddenly got a little shaky and weak in the knees.

For 20 years I wore badges like that. It’s fun to wear one again. I’m sitting on a terazzo floor in the lobby – literally sitting on my ass, back against the wall and laptop on my knees, typing away as people walk by me.

God, it’s great.

But a few short blocks away, at the Minneapolis Convention Center, thousands of deep thinkers, do-gooders, bloggers and assorted social irritants from across the USA will be on hand for the National Conference for Media Reform, sponsored by Freepress.net.

Dan Rather and Bill Moyers are among those who will be there, promoting “diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media and universal access to communications.”

Me? I’m going to be there too, blogging it live on Friday afternoon and Saturday morning.

In this political season, there’s a political angle to this conference, too. The organizers say that the mainstream media’s “failure to inform and represent our communities” poses a dire threat to our democracy.

Their claim certainly gains credence from the recent revelation that even President Bush’s own press secretary thought the media didn’t closely examine the crucial issues in the leadup to the Iraq War. That will no doubt be a widely discussed topic this weekend.

I’m just hoping to snag a free pen.

�

Either way, the headline stands. I’m a cliché of a girl who purchased an advance ticket for the SATC premiere. I’m meeting gal pals (friends and frenemies per Carrie Bradshaw) for cosmos. I *may* wear an oversized flower. And don’t count out the possibility of some faux Manolos.

I’ve read countless pieces deriding this movie as being analogous to comfort food, detrimental to the psyche of the average women, overhyped fluff, etc. It may be all of the above, but I don’t regret snagging my ticket and planning a night out.

I could make a case that this movie represents four strong women whose types are not often seen on the big screen. I could argue that this film takes a strong stance for maturing women as the fab four are in their 40s and 50s.

But, quite truthfully, the reason I’ll be waiting in line tonight is Miranda Hobbes.

In a glitzy show focused on a columnist with a penchant for fashion, a Park Avenue princess (my apologies to Charlotte fans for the simplification) and a man-eating publicist, the creators of the show thought to add a character who couldn’t quite manage fashion nor a relationship, but excelled at her career.

Not a man-hater nor a sharp-tongued shrew, Miranda’s character was a developed professional female role – something sorely lacking in today’s entertainment landscape.

Thus after imbibing a few pink drinks, I’ll critique Carrie’s fashion, love the banter between Samantha and Charlotte and enjoy the NYC scenery. But most of all, I’ll wistfully hope for more well-developed characters like Miranda.