I really don’t like press releases. So when Portland-based search engine marketing firm Anvil Media posted something about press release optimization I was immediately skeptical.

But this post was refreshingly different because Anvil Media was honest about one thing: no amount of optimization is going to help a press release that isn’t newsworthy to begin with.

You can’t just wave a magic wand and presto your press release is optimized. It actually requires a lot of creative and strategic thinking. This became very clear after speaking with one of Anvil’s search engine experts, Nick Herinckx.

After a lengthy discussion with Nick, I came up with these four basic steps to better press release optimization:

• Step 1: Build a compelling story that influential journalists and bloggers will want to cover. This is a must-have before any reputable site will link to your company. There is nothing more wasteful than gratuitously stuffing your boring press release with a bunch of links and then paying for it to be distributed. Simply stop doing it and you’ll be better off.

• Step 2: Know your keyword search terms. This is best done by a trained search engine professional (hint: Anvil Media) but you can start off by using Google’s free Keyword Tool. Tip: Don’t just look at the number of monthly searches for a particular keyword. While the temptation is to think more is better it also means there is more competition around that term and will make it much harder to get noticed. If you have the time, create a list of all the search terms that describe your company and then manually go through them weeding out any terms with lower than 100 monthly searches.

• Step 3: Add links to your press release that reflect your top keyword search terms. For example, Anvil uses the anchor text “social media marketing firm” in their press releases (rather than just “Anvil Media.”) The reason for this is twofold: 1) To help search engines associate that term with Anvil; 2) To provide a hint to the journalist or blogger reading your release to use the same link or anchor text in their coverage of your company. The key is to get inbound links to your site from reputable sources. Again, the best way to do this is by carrying out Step 1 every time. Tip: Don’t over link. Search engines will only count one link with the same anchor text. Instead, limit yourself to two or three links, one using the exact anchor text and two using variations.

• Step 4: Use a quality newswire services to distribute your press releases. Yes, these are the ones you pay for although PitchEngine offers high quality news distribution for free. You can also post your press release to free distribution sites but know that they aren’t looked upon as favorably by search engines as the paid sites. In either case, make sure that the distribution service permits you to customize your anchor text (see Step 3).

Still, the biggest obstacle to press release optimization is determining what is newsworthy in the first place. There are no shortcuts here either.

But there is one thing you could try. You may remember that I developed an online news vetting system a few years back to help communicators identify the most newsworthy elements of their stories. It was developed after much consultation with journalists and bloggers. It doesn’t look pretty, but it works. Give it a try and let me know what you think.

Even in the days when prosperous newspaper companies seemed to print money along with the news--an increasingly distant memory--some recent revelations about top editorial salaries would have arched more than a few green-shaded brows.

First there were reports that former Wall Street Journal managing editor Paul Steiger was pulling down a cool $570,000 at ProPublica last year, and now we see that the new editor in chief of the Texas Tribune is making $315,000. What's sure to stoke flames even more is that these two online publications are publicly funded entities.

It's a little surprising that such princely sums have not generated more ire, considering the public's disposition toward compensation these days as expressed in highly vocal opinions over salaries paid to CEOs of TARP-infused banks. Granted, the banks have gotten taxpayer money, as opposed to the private foundation funds that have kept many non-profit news sites afloat, but there have been some suggestions to use "bailouts" and other public money to finance news outlets as well.

We at Newsvetter don't begrudge anyone for making a decent (or decadent) living, but something tells us that others might not look so kindly upon these numbers. And in this age of fiscal scrutiny, especially involving the corner offices, we wager that many more top salaries will fall under a microscope if only a cent of public money touches their corporate coffers.

So what should these companies and organizations do? They have two options, in our opinion: Either take a very public and sizable pay cut or announce their salaries first, before an angry mob does it for them, skewering them with their pitchforks.

We'll go out on a limb and guess that volunteer pay cuts won't be forthcoming, so here's our advice:

• Meet with outside compensation consultants to determine if in fact you can make a reasonable case for your salaries.
• Consult with PR reps to draw up inflammatory-free language explaining that the salaries are competitive and justified.
• Explain that these salaries were approved by the board of directors, as is typically the case for senior management.
• Get your execs on TV interviews and/or YouTube to show that they're not barricaded behind their antique commodes.
• Provide data, if available, that illustrates the going rate for executives who hold similar positions in the industry.
• Blog about it and invite comments. It won't be fun, but at least you'll know what's being said and have a chance to respond.

The most important point is to take the initiative, rather than be forced to react to news reports that are almost certain to be negative. If you work at a publicly traded company, the salaries of top officers are listed through the Securities and Exchange Commission anyway.

As we have said many times in other instances, it's always best to get out in front of a story and set the tone for the conversation, or at least try to--especially if it's not a pleasant one.

Countless articles are written every day decrying the demise of journalism and all of democracy along with it, but many of them are little more than personal rants from recently unemployed journalists or romanticized writings that pine for a "Front Page" era that never really existed in our lifetime.

One observation made in various venues lately does resonate, however, and it has important consequences for the PR profession as well as the media. It involves the decline of "specialty" beats.

At one time it seemed a requirement for any ambitious newspaper to have a stable of reporters who focused on specific areas--such as science, religion, economics, legal affairs, and environmental issues--beyond the traditional police and city council beats that were considered necessary but pedestrian. (For those of you who are fluent in marketing-speak, think "verticals.")

The formalization of specialty beats is a relatively recent one phenomenon, at least on a historical timeline. A generation ago, newspapers didn't even have separate sections devoted to business, lifestyle, food, and certainly technology.

The idea was sound, to become expert in topics that are of particular interest to readers. But as resources have dwindled, these so-called specialists have been viewed as a luxury that can no longer be afforded.

So in their Sisyphean struggle to survive, many mainstream news organizations are doing exactly the wrong thing as they cut their staffs to the bone. Thinking that they need to keep the most versatile reporters to cover the broadest range of subjects--aka, doing more with fewer resources--editors are turning everyone into general-assignment reporters. It's the ultimate destination of a misguided path laid long ago to be all things to all readers.

An article in The Nation underscored the problem using a compelling example: The firing of science writers at the height of the swine flu epidemic:

"It's no secret the newspaper industry is hemorrhaging staff writers and slashing coverage as its business model collapses in the face of declining readership and advertising revenues. But less recognized is how this trend is killing off a breed of journalistic specialists that we need now more than ever ... who are uniquely trained for the most difficult stories, those with a complex technical component that are nevertheless critical to politics and society."

Although the immediate effects of this transition will obviously be felt on the news side, PR professionals who recognize this trend first can gain an edge on their competitors--or, at the very least, ward against potential disasters created by journalists who misreport a client's information.

In the silver-lining department, there is an opportunity for PR reps to become subject-area experts and shift the balance of power. In this age of declining faith in media accuracy, corporate newsrooms and blogs can draw journalists to you, rather than the other way around--even for H1N1 information.

Unfortunately, there are far more negatives to this universal dumbing-down syndrome. But here too, one can take preventive measures in an age where getting it out first often trumps getting it right. And we all know who gets blamed when a client's information is erroneously reported. (That's right, Sparky, it's you.)

So here are a few tips to keep in mind:

• The importance of simplicity: Communications with the media need to be clear, concise, and compelling. Identify the most newsworthy elements of your news and why it matters to them. Run your elevator pitch by someone outside your PR department (like your mother) to make sure a non-specialist will understand it.
• Know your media target: Research your reporters before contacting them. Don't rely on information from third-party media databases and corporate press lists because they probably contain erroneous or outdated information.
• Corporate blogging: Minimize the use of the dreaded press release and focus instead on developing your own corporate news channel that distributes information via blogs, Twitter, Facebook, FriendFeed, or some other platform that you control. This will get your information to both consumers and the media.

With any luck, we can collectively stave off this intellectual downsizing through new conduits of information. After all, it's all just content--no matter who provides it.

My kids are starting kindergarten in a few days, but the lump in my throat isn't a bittersweet reaction to seeing my boys leave the nest. Rather, it's from a fear that they'll come back infected with the swine flu.

According to local news reports, Oregon state health officials are warning that "40 percent of the state's population could become ill with the virus." That's 1.5 million cases. Of course, much of this is just the media's interpretation of the facts--and therein lies the issue.

In matters concerning life and death I don't want to be forced to rely (solely) on a news media obsessed with body counts and hot zones. Same goes for the un-vetted information that will inevitably float around on various sites, blogs, and social networks.

I want a carefully tended sanctuary, free of rhetoric and jargon, that provides information meeting the following criteria:

• Actionable: Practical advice on preventing or treating the disease, such as washing hands, getting vaccinated, and sleeping at least 8 hours.
• Credible: Information from state and federal epidemiologists on the front lines of the battle.
• Current: Constant updates with the latest verifiable facts about the epidemic's status.
• Local: Geographic context to the information most relevant for specific communities.
• Social: Information that can be shared easily and immediately with family, friends, and co-workers. This would help make credible information the most prevalent on the web.

So who should create this sanctuary? I believe that health authorities in each state have a responsibility to open an online newsroom or crisis center to educate the general populace. What I have found so far, however, is a long way from ideal.

Oregon's Public Health Division website, for example, has made a decent start but still could use a good shot in the arm. Here are a few basic things that would make the site infinitely more useful and usable:

• Put a big "SWINE FLU" button front and center so that people can find it easily and quickly.
• Convert all the PDFs into web pages with a "printer friendly" option. This helps with version control, allowing staff to update the pages without needing to update PDFs, which can also take a long time to download.
• Create a blog to handle breaking news, which can be optimized for search engines and distributed easily.
• Maximize the ways to share information, using such tools as Twitter accounts, Facebook pages, YouTube videos, and RSS feeds. At the very least, it should allow readers to email content directly from the site.
• Edit like crazy so that only the most pertinent information is placed in front of the reader. Make sure all content is only relevant to the swine flu.

There's no question that health officials face an enormously complicated and terrifying task ahead. That makes it all the more important to provide information in a way that fosters public confidence.

And with all the free communication tools available today, these officials have an opportunity to set a new standard in the way information is managed in health emergencies.

Update: Based on this post, I worked with Ike Pigott to put together the NW Oregon Swine Flu Newsroom. You can read Ike's write up here.

If there is any doubt that the idea of a corporate news site can work for almost any type of business, consider the ISC Newsroom: It's a sugar company.

Not just any sugar company, but "an authoritative voice in the sugar industry--U.S., Mexico, and elsewhere ... a one-stop shop for the best thinking and views on sugar and all of the issues/market forces that surround it," according to David E. Henderson of The News Group Net, the Washington-based consultancy that built the newsroom for the Imperial Sugar Company with veteran journalists.

The goal is admirable, and the concept is sound. In fact, it sounds a lot like the corporate newsroom we recommend here at Newsvetter. There is one crucial difference, however: In our view, the ISC Newsroom needs a lot more vetting.

It's true that the site is dynamic and features content that is decidedly unlike typical press release copy--which is to say that it's relatively free of jargon and is actually of some interest to people other than those inside the company. But it's also an example of having too much of a good thing.

Upon visiting the newsroom, the reader is bombarded with content, which includes not one but two slide shows, at the top and the right side of the page. The "stories" are fine--a mix of features and brief blog-type summaries that link to external articles and items.

Dozens of headlines fall under categories with such labels as "News," "Customers," "Company," "Latest Sugar Industry News," and "Sugar Industry Related News and Resources." Then we have a nav bar that lists "Communities," "Company," "Customers," "Featured" (?), "Industry," "New Products" (finally!), "News" (again), "Partners," and "Photos."

It's enough to make us diabetic. Even if there really is such a voracious appetite for sugar-related information to warrant this kind of coverage, we would argue that it can be edited and packaged in a way that doesn't overwhelm the senses.

For one thing, a red flag should immediately be raised any time you have a subject mentioned in several categories on the same page, as "news" is here. Second, when you get beyond four or five, it's time to ask whether you truly need all of them or you're just piling on instead of honing and reorganizing.

Case in point: The "Customers" category in the ISC Newsroom has only one entry, which argues for it being consolidated with others. And is there really a need for a section called "Featured"? This, by definition, would seem to argue for its content to be displayed front and center on the main page.

In fairness, such specific elements may have been demanded by the client; we all know how that goes. Nevertheless, it's worth reinforcing the need for reader accessibility, which businesses must accept if they are to have a successful newsroom.

This is why Newsvetter's mantra is "less is more," whether it's a sentence or an entire site. Vetting is tough work but, in the end, pays off for the reader and the consumer--and, in turn, for your business.

In explaining Amazon's extraordinarily lengthy beta-testing period, Jeff Bezos told me in 1995, "Anyone can come up with 20 great ideas. It's choosing the top 3 and executing that's the hard part."

Amen.

On Monday Mike mentioned the importance of having a "producer" in your corporate newsroom, someone who is "obsessed with the distribution of your content." Not a bad description for what I've been doing for the last year and half with Newsvetter and Guhmshoo.

Many of you may have figured out a lot of this on your own already, but I thought it might be worth sharing some experiences with readers who are new to the content business. Using the delivery truck as a metaphor, here are four basic recommendations:

Step 1: Carry something people will want. As obvious as it may seem, this single most important point is often missed entirely. Before embarking on Newsvetter and Guhmshoo, I dedicated a great deal of time and research to identify a problem, learn what people needed, and offer a practical solution. I can't stress enough how much sacrifice is involved in the process--you can forget about remuneration--but there truly is no substitute for hard work. Otherwise, you'll be driving nothing more than a garbage truck.

Step 2: Choose the best path for delivery. There are many routes you can take, but the key is finding the most efficient way to bring your product to your customers without landing in the neighbor's driveway or on the roof. I chose Twitter partly because my target audience was most active there, as well as simplicity (140-character limit) and redistribution (re-Tweeting). This does not mean that Twitter has more value than FriendFeed, Facebook, or other applications. I tried them all (yes, even Identi.ca and Second Life), and I would recommend that you experiment with all the latest shiny toys available.

Step 3: Meet the people on your route. Before I was really active on Twitter, I lurked to get a feel for the place--how people used the medium, what they got away with, and what they didn't. I also identified the leading Twitter users in my area of interest. I tried to engage them, to get them to look at my feed in hopes that they might find something of interest. Don't be shy to do this; it's no different from walking into a room and engaging people you don't know in conversation. Sure, you'll make mistakes and some people will be jackasses (as in the physical world), but eventually you'll assemble a group of people you respect who will be happy to share your work. Again, if you have something worth delivering, you won't have a problem. If everybody hates you, repeat Step 1.

Step 4: Deliver with a personal touch. I want people to read my stuff, and that often means delivering content that is highly specific to them and their interests. For example, one of my first Guhmshoo toons featured Peter Shankman skydiving with one of the guys from ProfNet. Shankman really appreciated the toon and shared it with his huge network of fans. This gave my cartoons instant visibility and, I hope, credibility--two features necessary for your delivery channel to succeed. This approach proved effective with numerous other toons.

You may have noticed that I've left out one of the most common delivery routes used by public relations agencies, the newswires (PRNewswire, PRWeb, et al). The omission was intentional because these "blasts" or "sprays," as they are known in the industry, are the opposite of what you should strive for: indiscriminate, impersonal, and--not surprisingly--ineffective.

What you should do is create your own distribution system, tailor it to your needs, and control every inch of it so that you can make adjustments on the fly. Believe me, you'll need to.

Since posting the FAQ about our "Vetted Newsrooms," we've gotten some questions from people concerned about the time and resources necessary to maintain a living content site.

The answers, of course, vary broadly depending on the size of your business and what you're trying to accomplish. At the smallest operation--a one-person shop, maybe not even full-time--it might just be a matter of creating a page for your product and updating it as needed, with or without a regularly written blog or "news" component.

But even for a multinational corporation, the resources needed to run a company-based news organization may be fewer than you think. Let's break them down in a hypothetical company of 10,000 employees with a wealth of content that would be valuable to its clients and consumers but is difficult to find between its sprawling websites and databases:

• The first thing you must do is hire someone with experience in building a real-time content operation, preferably with a general news background. Why? Because this point person needs to have a bird's-eye view of your operation from a consumer perspective, detached from stagnating internal processes and the inevitable fiefdoms that pervade the typical workplace. Editing experience will also be required, especially if you don't have the resources for proofreaders.
• Next you need two or three "reporters" to mine your troves of data and interview people working on interesting and/or important projects (not always the same thing), then write newsroom posts in an accessible way that's compelling to experts and novices alike. These aren't press releases, but your version of "stories." Guest columns are also most welcome from other staff, but be aware that they'll most likely need substantial editing.
• You'll also need at least one "producer" who will construct and maintain the newsroom's infrastructure, handle multimedia applications, and make sure that the technologies play nice. Perhaps most important, this person needs to be obsessed with the distribution of your content on any available platform while being ultra-vigilant for emerging pipelines.
• Depending on the degree of your ambition, you might consider snagging someone from the creative department as the newsroom art director, designing everything from spot gifs to major display components. This would be of particular importance if you want to "make over" the look of your newsroom regularly, the way a daily newspaper does its front page.
• Hire an external web developer to build your newsroom. Internal IT honchos will say they'll need months to go over spec sheets, architectural details, and legacy integration issues before starting, which will likely fall behind dozens or hundreds of other projects already in the queue.

Done. Here you've got a corporate news site of your own, staffed from outside the company or culled from existing departments but not beholden to the established hierarchy.

And you've only used 0.03 or 0.04 percent of that 10,000-employee payroll. Newsvetter would be happy to assist in any way that we can, naturally, but all this can be accomplished internally.

PR agencies and marketing departments will scoff at this notion, telling you it's impossible to accomplish this task with such a small staff. But remember that these are the same people who hold dozens of meetings and spend weeks writing press releases that no one will read. The reality is that corporate newsrooms could replace a good portion of internal or external PR, advertising, and marketing functions.

Consider this: A company can spend thousands of dollars on the composition and distribution of a single traditional press release. An experienced professional blogger or journalist should be able to write a 400-word post in an hour or two, depending on the level of complexity, then move onto the next topic while the producer takes the first item and search-optimizes it for Google, fires it off on Twitter, and posts it on Facebook fan pages.

If done correctly, this news operation can be extremely effective in displaying and distributing your content to those who actually want it, in a manner that can be legible and even enjoyed by relative laypeople who may become customers because they finally understand what you do.

For those of you who are new to Newsvetter, a bit of background: I built a unique web-based "vetting" process in 2007 that was designed to cut down on PR spam--poor-quality press releases and misdirected pitches that flood the inboxes of journalists and bloggers every day. The primary objective of Newsvetter was (and still is) to improve the quality of PR-generated news and to share that content responsibly with appropriate parties.

After two years, I have decided to make a few changes:

The new Newsvetter. Newsvetter is no longer a self-service site. The main problem with current self-service PR web tools is that they don't discriminate; in other words, they don't vet their users or their content. And the people who use these tools still don't know how and when to tell an interesting story. They cling to the false hope that these tools by themselves are the secret ingredient for getting someone to read and then write about their content. As a result, PR tools are becoming just another way for people to barrage readers with irrelevant news. The Newsvetter DIY vetting system was also being used in this way, so I've decided to take it offline where it can be guided by experienced consultants instead.

Our consultants: Over the last several years, I have met a lot of people who shared my interest for improving the quality of corporate content. These experienced and creative individuals are experts in a variety of disciplines such as: media relations, copywriting, news distribution, search engine marketing and optimization, social media marketing and monitoring, pay-per-click campaigns, web development and design, and viral video production.

Our blog: This web site will serve as Newsvetter's new home. In addition to private consulting, we will be blogging about developments in PR and media as well as providing helpful tips on how to get noticed in a noisy and crowded marketplace.

Questions? Please send us an email or give us a call. We look forward to working with you.

Andrew Fowler, Newsvetter founder

I've been working with a number of reporters/editors/bloggers to take a closer look at what has been landing in their inboxes. The following is a brief analysis of 340 pitches and press releases sent by various PR agencies and companies over the course of a week to one editor at a major technology publication. Emails were sorted based on relevance/irrelevance and relevant pitches/press releases were evaluated on quality, news value, and whether the editor used the emails to generate news coverage.

Overall Quality

• Of the 340 press releases/pitches I reviewed, only 52 were relevant to this editor and his publication.
• Looking closer at those 52, only 13 answered the basic question of why their news was significant or unique and only 3 used third parties (customers, analysts, third party experts) to back up their claims.
• 23 personalized their pitches for this editor yet only 4 answered basic questions such as: "Why are you sending this to me (reporter/editor) and why should my publication care?" This is where most reporters often make their decision to either read further or delete.
• 4 received coverage in the publication, but they were all from well-known companies.

Newswires

• 109 of the releases/pitches were delivered via the newswires, but only 7 were relevant to this particular editor. This may be because newswires often distribute news based on a pre-determined "profile" or "personal beat."

As part of this exercise, I looked at the profiles filled out by this editor for PRWeb and Marketwire. The profile options are similar: A user is provided with a checklist of subject areas, regions, languages, and other criteria. In my opinion, the choices are far too broad; just imagine how much irrelevant stuff would be sent to you by simply checking "computer," for example. That seems to have been the case with PRWeb, as only 2 of its 12 releases were relevant for this editor.

PRWeb even has a "quality" filter ranging from 1-5. This editor had set the filter to 4. When asked about the filter, PRWeb responded:

"All of our press releases are graded on a 5-point scale by our editorial staff. The grade takes into account the newsworthiness of the release, editorial quality of the release, etc. If you select a 3 or above you will ensure that the news releases that are delivered to you are top-tier content."

In this case, and based on what I know about this editor and his publication, most of what was sent through PRWeb was irrelevant. Therefore, I would question the usefulness of a "quality" filter that doesn’t take "relevance" into account. If i was indeed "top-tier content," it likely went unnoticed. I did review the 2 (out of 12) relevant releases sent via PRWeb and found them lacking in both news value and quality.

Marketwire sent this editor an email compilation of 71 press releases or "abstracts" based on the general term "technology." Again, based on this editor's focus, only 2 were truly relevant, and the abstracts failed to give any journalist a reason to read further.

Let me start by saying that this was not a fun exercise (although I would recommend it for all PR professionals, preferably early in their careers). I had an ulterior motive for doing this analysis, to further document how large volumes of poor quality pitches and press releases constantly bombard the media yet do not generate much value or coverage. Interestingly, PRWeek/PRNewswire last year released the results from a survey of 1,232 journalists that further bear this out. From the report:

"The survey…indicates that journalists have mixed feelings about dealing with PR pros. When asked what percentage of pitches they receive is related to the subject they cover, the highest number (48.7 percent) say zero to 25 percent."

Another interesting point raised in the PRWeek/PRNewswire survey was the percentage of journalists who rely on personal contacts for stories:

"According to the survey, 86.2 percent cite personal contacts as 'extremely' or 'very' important in finding experts for stories."

This point is interesting because it suggests that the potential value in using a quality-based news distribution model such as the one we use here at Newsvetter. If reporters/bloggers/editors associate your work with quality and relevance, you may be able separate yourself from the noise and increase your chances of becoming part of their personal networks.

On a final note, if the mass distribution/low quality model is so ineffective in influencing coverage, why does it continue to be used? In my opinion, there are three reasons:

1. It's good business. According to a Fortune article in 2007, press releases represented a $2.2 billion market. This does not include the amount it costs companies to have their PR people write them, which is considerable.
2. Search engine optimization. With so many SEO tools and strategies being applied to press releases, PR people can game the system and bypass the editorial process entirely, keeping the floodgates open at all cost.
3. Free PR tools that don't vet the user nor the content.

(Editor's Note: A version of this post originally appeared on the old Newsvetter blog last year.)