October 26, 2007
R&FF Retailer: ‘I Wanted to Puke’
By Warren Thayer, Editorial Director, Refrigerated & Frozen Foods Retailer
Through
a special arrangement, what follows is an excerpt of a current article from Refrigerated & Frozen
Foods Retailer magazine, presented here for discussion.
Writing stories using only outside sources is becoming more common in these days of spin control. A wistful reminiscence, but with no real wish to go back.
“I wanted to puke when I read your story about us,” the voice at the other end of the phone said – in a tone befitting a comment about the chance of an afternoon shower.
I matched the tone – although my pulse had definitely quickened – and asked “Why?”
“Everything. It’s all wrong.”
I’d sent him a final draft of one of my cover stories, prior to publication, weeks after the retailer’s public relations department had turned down an interview. I make a point of doing that, especially if the story has negative parts, out of a sense of fair play and old-fashioned Baptist guilt – guilt that my hard-core journalist friends laugh about and say is badly misplaced.
Things have changed since I switched from covering the police beat for daily papers to covering the grocery industry about 20 years ago.
Back then, you could call up and ask for the president of Kroger or Ralphs or Safeway and, fairly often, the next voice you’d hear would be their brisk “Hello?” They were easier to reach than desk sergeants.
Now, of course, all the major retailers have layers of public relations people. Yes, CEOs have better things to do than talk all day to the 66 puptillion trade magazines out there, and besides, spins must be controlled for Wall Street. I understand that. The reality is that, for better or worse, the trade press increasingly is shut out. (For the health of the industry, I’d say “for worse.”)
This forces me to do my job differently, using outside sources such as vendors, brokers, securities analysts, former insiders and competitors. These trusted contacts have become my stock in trade. At last count, my single-spaced Rolodex was 153 pages long.
Perhaps because the stories I get from these sources rarely flatter the retailer, I make these last-ditch efforts for comment after I’ve finished writing. Responses vary.
Some retailers are outraged that I wrote about them when they didn’t “authorize” it. I’m tempted to remind them about the First Amendment, but hold my tongue for fear of adding fuel to the fire. Twice, retailers have called me, and it’s been the start of a beautiful friendship. Most retailers appreciate the opportunity to get some of their side into the story. The guy who wanted to puke never called again, but his PR person fixed a mistake in my story – I’d spelled a street name wrong.
In some ways, it would be nice to get back to when I could pick up the phone and chat with the CEO, but I know those days are gone forever. Today’s stories probably better reflect reality’s subtler shades, anyway. All in all, though, I wish it hadn’t become so adversarial.
Discussion Questions: What do you think is driving retailers to forego talking to trade magazines? Do you see this as a positive or a negative? Do, for example, the limits companies place on providing information to the trade press contribute to the slow pace of innovation in much of retailing?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Warren, you really hit a nerve today. For all the talk in the retailing industry about collaboration, truly open communication is rare indeed. I believe the problem is driven by a combination of Wall Street pressure and the misguided notion that everything needs to be kept a secret from competitors.
If the environment were a bit more open, all parties would benefit. I, too, remember the “good old days” but I believe strongly the days of more open communications were better.
And, it’s possible things will swing the other way again. Just look at people’s new attitudes towards the environment and how quickly “going green” has become popular to see how fast things can change. All it will take is a few examples of retailers and suppliers willing to communicate openly and seeing success from it and the pendulum will start to swing (hopefully).
More and more, I notice retailers providing pre-written “stories” or “story ideas” to the business reporters of mainstream media outlets. More and more, I see these “stories” being printed with very little effort made to investigate the claims, interview others who might add color or dimension to a dialogue, or call foul on the one-sided spin being provided. Retailers know that if the same story is “shopped” to the more knowledgeable industry insider reporters of the trade press, they will not get the same happy result which they often do from the time stressed and more gullible mainstream reporters who are under constant pressure to fill the page at least cost. Retailers also use this technique because they feel via the MSM they get a wider audience than stories on which they cooperate, and are printed in the trade journals.
Sorry, I don’t have a solution, but I sure do see the problem.
As a fellow former ink-stained wretch and long-time friend, I openly and proudly stand with Warren on this topic. He’s one of the best we have and any executive who shuns his request could use a tune-up in the wisdom department.
Like Warren, I’ve chased sources down for their own protection and bent over backwards to deliver accuracy and balance. I was lucky enough to have the power of SN at my back for some of my years in the business, which provided both credibility and some arm-twisting ability. Puke-threats aside, I found ways to get the facts.
I also wish to declare, for the record, that I was always entirely biased in my approach to covering the retail and consumer products industry. In my view such bias is unavoidable–a good trade press editor is always an advocate for the industry he or she covers. (For that matter a good newspaper journalist is always biased in favor of the reader’s interests.) Forget objectivity–I don’t believe it exists, but both truth and fairness are absolute requirements of the trade journalists’ craft.
During my career, I had so many executives respond to my requests with a belligerent, “Why should I talk to you?” that I composed a “Top Ten Reasons…” list and pinned to my cubicle wall. It’s included as the final essay in my book “Tenser’s Tirades,” which is downloadable from this RetailWire site here….
Reason #1: Because you may learn something useful from the reporter.
As I read David Biernbaum’s first post, I was all prepared to quote his line “Warren…you are one of the special few…” and leap off into a discussion of how the press in general has brought this on themselves. Then I read Ryan’s post and concluded there was nothing left to say.
A couple of points with regard to “trade journalists” in particular though: 1) the criticism of your publications becoming revenue driven advertorials is spot on, but 2) my opinion is that you are much less prone to the “article ambush” we all fear than the traditional media. But when I read our major metropolitan dailies and the standard online news bureaus all I see are “headlines with an attitude” going in search of an article with a fact(oid). I fear our mistrust spills over onto even those we can and should trust sometimes.
Warren and Ryan have a clear and painful message, but are understandably too focused. Publicly brandishing terms like “transparency” and “collaboration,” senior executives have steadily withdrawn from most communication forums (forae?), not just trade press interviews. When do they participate in meaningful dialogue after January’s FMI Executive Summit? Do they engage in thoughtful top-to-top problem solving at GMA/FPA’s Greenbrier conclave? Who knows the answer? I haven’t personally been to either event since the energy around ECR dissipated into the trading partner cosmos.
And don’t expect to see management from any level of the organization out and about too much. They don’t have the time or travel budget. And guess who controls those. We’ve become a cloistered community in many respects, too busy to waste time on the bigger picture or even a clearly focused snapshot.
Open communication makes everyone’s job much easier. I, too, remember the days when calling a press office and explaining that I was a journalist researching an article was the magic formula that unlocked far more information than I could use. Along with access to anyone I needed to interview for direct quotes. Now? They promise to call back and do they? Not on your nellie.
Maybe too many articles have not come out the way the interviewee intended (read they didn’t get the superlative editorial that they expected). Or maybe too many people are worried about simply being misquoted or not sufficiently confident to speak without internal authorisation in case they say the wrong thing. Nowadays companies seem to prefer sending out press releases and trusting that journalists are going to accept the spin that is offered to them. On the other hand, as one of those journalists, attributing comments back to PR and “spokes” people gives more freedom to use descriptions such as claimed and alleged. Giving credit where it’s due, of course. There are ways and means of letting readers know that you don’t always agree with what you’re writing, more’s the pity. ‘Twould be so much better if people said what they meant and meant what they said.
Okay, what else can be said about why retailers are foregoing talking with the trade press? Not much, but when I headed Kroger and then Supervalu’s food companies I always answered my own phone and spoke openly with all inquiring minds. This was not without consequences with chairmen and secretaries although I never actually saw them puke.
Today, as retailing contracts in number, it seems as though the trade press may be proliferating. That suggests that more folks may be calling fewer CEOs today. Priorities prevail for the CEO’s time–and courage. There is little more than I can add to what has already been said above so I will conclude thusly:
If with you, the knowledgeable, I am
Impelled to create some witty epigram,
I won’t try to take wisdom’s credit;
Warren and Ryan have already shared it.
Well said, Warren! I like the part about companies that didn’t “authorize” articles about them. It’s funny how companies pay so much importance to Analyst Relations, devoting an entire department to making sure their actions are projected in a good light on Wall Street, but they do not always think too much about trade publications that the same Wall Street Analysts reference to augment their analyses. Agreed, there’s a lot of them out there, but if the publication has enough circulation to impact your reputation, you need to be concerned about what they are going to write.
I actually find it extremely helpful to read and digest differing points of view. This includes the positive and the negative.
Therefore, if a retailer or manufacturer for that matter will not grant an interview and they happen to be an integral part of the story, then the reporter should be able to proceed with their story regardless.
However, whether the publication is a trade or newspaper publication they should be held to a standard of truth in reporting and make attempts to be objective. Too many times I have read articles that skip these 2 parts.
Therefore my distrust of the media in general.
The reasons I most often hear from retailers for not divulging information to the media are the following: it’s proprietary data; it’s confidential; why give our private information to our competition? At least two US-based companies have a policy of not speaking to the trade press. This puts us in the ridiculous position of sometimes looking in the mainstream media for industry information. Not surprisingly, companies are far more interested in sending their message to Wall Street or our Bay Street, rather than share information with the trade media and the food industry.
Ken Grady–It’s interesting that some companies believe the press is biased, because many manufacturers view the trade press as being community bulletins to announce almost nothing but “good news” about retailers, executives, etc. Very little content of a critical nature makes its way into the printed trade press. Even most of the commentaries written by editors are written from an extremely retailer friendly point of view. I’m not passing judgment on that approach because there are any numbers of good “business” reasons why that is the case, but I have seldom read anything resembling the WSJ approach in trade journals.
Warren, I have known you for over 15 years and if anyone gives a story a well balanced intelligent perspective it is you. So retail execs should know that and be happy to pick up the phone and chat with you. But as you said, that is not likely to happen.
Your story reminded me of the first time I saw the then Prime Minister of England, Tony Blair, fielding tough questions from MP in the house of commons as part of the weekly process known as “oral questions.” I found it very refreshing, that a person in a position of high responsibility should be put into an open forum and field questions–unrehearsed and unfiltered. Open Q&A, or even talking to the press without filters, is another mechanism that helps ensure that our leaders (public or private sector) are up on issues, accountable and that the people (employees, investors and consumers) get a first hand feel for their character.
It also speaks to the basic tenets of democracy and free speech.
So if the PM can manage a forum to address issues candidly with his constituencies, why can’t a CEO get on the phone and talk to the trade press about key issues without it being rehearsed and filtered through their pr department?
Warren, keep those gloves off and push to get the right people on the phone to have meaningful dialogue about real issues.
Where to start indeed…At the risk of biting the hand that fed me for so long, let me say two things are true: one, the trade deserves the kind of media it’s got (if one really wants to call it media rather than what it is — weekly/monthly advertorial sheets); and two, the trade media has only itself to blame for its current lamentable state.
Forget the publicly held company argument. There have always been plenty of publicly held companies and, in the past, their CEOs went on the record. The truth is that the trade media has lost the respect of the industry and so there is no advantage to any company to talk on the record. It started when it became standard practice to include unattributed quotes in “news” stories and was exacerbated as advertisers (manufacturers) discovered they could co-opt editorial by threatening to withhold ad revenue.
After a time we began to see unidentified “retailers” touting the merits of a category and even specific products. My personal favorite example of this was a story on condoms that offered quotes from an (of course) unnamed “major retailer” explaining how Trojan was all but finished as player in the category if not in fact as a company. Needless to say (I hope) it ran against/opposite a full page Durex ad.
The same softening of standards slowly infected “pure” (as if such a thing still existed) editorial. First there were the unattributed quotes. Then outside sources became a substitute for actual company employees. Then trade magazines began to cut editorial travel budgets so that younger writers and editors lost some of the ability to be on a one-to-one basis with sources that knew–and as a result–trusted them.
The question assumes that trade magazines are still in a position to drive innovation, a premise that’s almost laughable if you look through the current crop of trade media. Sure there are still old war horses out there like Warren and Dave Merrifield and others who grew up playing with a different set of rules (God love them and theirs) but the financial pressures in publishing have marked real reporters as an endangered species in this (and sadly other) industries.
There was a time when trade magazines were important. When they had the power to incite debate. They took on companies, and associations and issues. And, if they lost ad revenue or made enemies, (I personally still live with the scars of arm wrestling FMI for example)–that was part of the price you paid for telling the truth. They were read–and spoken to–because they had something to say and an audience that read what they wrote.
The current situation won’t hurt the industry but it hurts those of us who remember when reporting was all about developing a source and getting them on the record in a story that was critical. I feel Warren’s pain and salute him for continuing to fight the good fight (although personally, I’m still old school enough to never send anything to anybody for review). If you’re right and they don’t participate when you give them a chance, it’s their problem.
Would the industry be better off with a higher class of trade magazines? Of course, but as I said, it deserves what it gets. I can’t remember any protests from outraged readers about the slide in journalistic standards. Media is a lot like modern politics–sleezy, distasteful and the end product of collective apathy.
Warren, this is an excellent topic. You are one of the special few in the industry that writes and reports the news of the retail industry in a truly meaningful and critical manner. When I consult retailers I encourage them to have a rapport with the trade press. My message to retail executives is that it’s better if you tell the story the way you want it to be told rather than to wait until someone else tells your story without your input. Because one way or another, the story will get told.
I think the retail community is more willing to talk to the industry than to see things in writing. The ability to pull comments and information from the internet (see Whole Foods) and the fact that emails are constantly being monitored are all contributing to the angst around communications. There is a level of mistrust of all media in this country, not just in retailing, because of the ability to use sound bites or quotes out of context. (I know Warren would never do that having years of personal experience with him.)
Communicating non confidential information is the best way to insure understanding and cooperation from every one involved in the business. We will all be better off if the cycle swings back!
Time management is a most critical skill. Everyone has to decide whether it’s more important to talk to a trade magazine writer or to spend time working with employees, suppliers, investors, etc. Anyone who can sell advertising can run a trade magazine. But unless the potential interview subjects see a direct benefit to themselves and their businesses, they aren’t going to spend the time. Most great businesspeople aren’t publicity hounds. Warren Buffett rarely gives interviews. Donald Trump is quoted all the time. Who’s more respected? Who’s the better executive?
Where to start! In no particular order….
For publicly held companies, the implementation of Reg FD (which basically requires companies to make sure public disclosures of material information happen in a way that everyone has access at about the same time) has caused companies to pull back on the amount of public disclosures they make through interviews.
Also, adherence to facts in stories is something that seems to be an art drifting away. I remember a period of many weeks where articles frequently appeared on the front page of the Wall Street Journal addressing matters in which I was involved. Even if we talked to the WSJ, the reporters made significant factual errors in the stories (one kept referring to a major securities class action lawsuit as an antitrust lawsuit). I know many executives who have given up on reporters taking the time to get stories right (even though they recognize the time pressures in the modern media age).
Some companies have decided that not participating in a story allows them to criticize it. If they participate in the story and it is wrong, they believe their criticisms aren’t taken as seriously.
Some companies believe the press is biased, so they simply choose not to participate in the process.
Some companies find the trade press less relevant in this era of blogs, podcasts, etc.
The list goes on and on. But, the good news for the trade press is that when you have credibility, develop a strong reputation, and show that you are accurate and fair, you typically find that you eventually can get access.
This entire situation is the result of two things. 1. The reputation the media has earned for being a “gotcha” medium and 2. The pressure on business people to be everything to everybody.
When reporters can’t find sources, it’s usually because the sources don’t feel like they can trust the reporter. Second hand sources use reporters to advance their own agendas. Reporters will place great store on second hand sources to “get a story.” We all know that the established media will place great faith in swindlers and stories have arisen with some frequency about reporters fabricating reports and series simply because they were too lazy to do their job or approached a story with an attitude and elicited facts only to support a predetermined position. Give the business world a break; the media does make us “want to puke” more often than not.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
Warren, you really hit a nerve today. For all the talk in the retailing industry about collaboration, truly open communication is rare indeed. I believe the problem is driven by a combination of Wall Street pressure and the misguided notion that everything needs to be kept a secret from competitors.
If the environment were a bit more open, all parties would benefit. I, too, remember the “good old days” but I believe strongly the days of more open communications were better.
And, it’s possible things will swing the other way again. Just look at people’s new attitudes towards the environment and how quickly “going green” has become popular to see how fast things can change. All it will take is a few examples of retailers and suppliers willing to communicate openly and seeing success from it and the pendulum will start to swing (hopefully).
More and more, I notice retailers providing pre-written “stories” or “story ideas” to the business reporters of mainstream media outlets. More and more, I see these “stories” being printed with very little effort made to investigate the claims, interview others who might add color or dimension to a dialogue, or call foul on the one-sided spin being provided. Retailers know that if the same story is “shopped” to the more knowledgeable industry insider reporters of the trade press, they will not get the same happy result which they often do from the time stressed and more gullible mainstream reporters who are under constant pressure to fill the page at least cost. Retailers also use this technique because they feel via the MSM they get a wider audience than stories on which they cooperate, and are printed in the trade journals.
Sorry, I don’t have a solution, but I sure do see the problem.
As a fellow former ink-stained wretch and long-time friend, I openly and proudly stand with Warren on this topic. He’s one of the best we have and any executive who shuns his request could use a tune-up in the wisdom department.
Like Warren, I’ve chased sources down for their own protection and bent over backwards to deliver accuracy and balance. I was lucky enough to have the power of SN at my back for some of my years in the business, which provided both credibility and some arm-twisting ability. Puke-threats aside, I found ways to get the facts.
I also wish to declare, for the record, that I was always entirely biased in my approach to covering the retail and consumer products industry. In my view such bias is unavoidable–a good trade press editor is always an advocate for the industry he or she covers. (For that matter a good newspaper journalist is always biased in favor of the reader’s interests.) Forget objectivity–I don’t believe it exists, but both truth and fairness are absolute requirements of the trade journalists’ craft.
During my career, I had so many executives respond to my requests with a belligerent, “Why should I talk to you?” that I composed a “Top Ten Reasons…” list and pinned to my cubicle wall. It’s included as the final essay in my book “Tenser’s Tirades,” which is downloadable from this RetailWire site here….
Reason #1: Because you may learn something useful from the reporter.
As I read David Biernbaum’s first post, I was all prepared to quote his line “Warren…you are one of the special few…” and leap off into a discussion of how the press in general has brought this on themselves. Then I read Ryan’s post and concluded there was nothing left to say.
A couple of points with regard to “trade journalists” in particular though: 1) the criticism of your publications becoming revenue driven advertorials is spot on, but 2) my opinion is that you are much less prone to the “article ambush” we all fear than the traditional media. But when I read our major metropolitan dailies and the standard online news bureaus all I see are “headlines with an attitude” going in search of an article with a fact(oid). I fear our mistrust spills over onto even those we can and should trust sometimes.
Warren and Ryan have a clear and painful message, but are understandably too focused. Publicly brandishing terms like “transparency” and “collaboration,” senior executives have steadily withdrawn from most communication forums (forae?), not just trade press interviews. When do they participate in meaningful dialogue after January’s FMI Executive Summit? Do they engage in thoughtful top-to-top problem solving at GMA/FPA’s Greenbrier conclave? Who knows the answer? I haven’t personally been to either event since the energy around ECR dissipated into the trading partner cosmos.
And don’t expect to see management from any level of the organization out and about too much. They don’t have the time or travel budget. And guess who controls those. We’ve become a cloistered community in many respects, too busy to waste time on the bigger picture or even a clearly focused snapshot.
Open communication makes everyone’s job much easier. I, too, remember the days when calling a press office and explaining that I was a journalist researching an article was the magic formula that unlocked far more information than I could use. Along with access to anyone I needed to interview for direct quotes. Now? They promise to call back and do they? Not on your nellie.
Maybe too many articles have not come out the way the interviewee intended (read they didn’t get the superlative editorial that they expected). Or maybe too many people are worried about simply being misquoted or not sufficiently confident to speak without internal authorisation in case they say the wrong thing. Nowadays companies seem to prefer sending out press releases and trusting that journalists are going to accept the spin that is offered to them. On the other hand, as one of those journalists, attributing comments back to PR and “spokes” people gives more freedom to use descriptions such as claimed and alleged. Giving credit where it’s due, of course. There are ways and means of letting readers know that you don’t always agree with what you’re writing, more’s the pity. ‘Twould be so much better if people said what they meant and meant what they said.
Okay, what else can be said about why retailers are foregoing talking with the trade press? Not much, but when I headed Kroger and then Supervalu’s food companies I always answered my own phone and spoke openly with all inquiring minds. This was not without consequences with chairmen and secretaries although I never actually saw them puke.
Today, as retailing contracts in number, it seems as though the trade press may be proliferating. That suggests that more folks may be calling fewer CEOs today. Priorities prevail for the CEO’s time–and courage. There is little more than I can add to what has already been said above so I will conclude thusly:
If with you, the knowledgeable, I am
Impelled to create some witty epigram,
I won’t try to take wisdom’s credit;
Warren and Ryan have already shared it.
Well said, Warren! I like the part about companies that didn’t “authorize” articles about them. It’s funny how companies pay so much importance to Analyst Relations, devoting an entire department to making sure their actions are projected in a good light on Wall Street, but they do not always think too much about trade publications that the same Wall Street Analysts reference to augment their analyses. Agreed, there’s a lot of them out there, but if the publication has enough circulation to impact your reputation, you need to be concerned about what they are going to write.
I actually find it extremely helpful to read and digest differing points of view. This includes the positive and the negative.
Therefore, if a retailer or manufacturer for that matter will not grant an interview and they happen to be an integral part of the story, then the reporter should be able to proceed with their story regardless.
However, whether the publication is a trade or newspaper publication they should be held to a standard of truth in reporting and make attempts to be objective. Too many times I have read articles that skip these 2 parts.
Therefore my distrust of the media in general.
The reasons I most often hear from retailers for not divulging information to the media are the following: it’s proprietary data; it’s confidential; why give our private information to our competition? At least two US-based companies have a policy of not speaking to the trade press. This puts us in the ridiculous position of sometimes looking in the mainstream media for industry information. Not surprisingly, companies are far more interested in sending their message to Wall Street or our Bay Street, rather than share information with the trade media and the food industry.
Ken Grady–It’s interesting that some companies believe the press is biased, because many manufacturers view the trade press as being community bulletins to announce almost nothing but “good news” about retailers, executives, etc. Very little content of a critical nature makes its way into the printed trade press. Even most of the commentaries written by editors are written from an extremely retailer friendly point of view. I’m not passing judgment on that approach because there are any numbers of good “business” reasons why that is the case, but I have seldom read anything resembling the WSJ approach in trade journals.
Warren, I have known you for over 15 years and if anyone gives a story a well balanced intelligent perspective it is you. So retail execs should know that and be happy to pick up the phone and chat with you. But as you said, that is not likely to happen.
Your story reminded me of the first time I saw the then Prime Minister of England, Tony Blair, fielding tough questions from MP in the house of commons as part of the weekly process known as “oral questions.” I found it very refreshing, that a person in a position of high responsibility should be put into an open forum and field questions–unrehearsed and unfiltered. Open Q&A, or even talking to the press without filters, is another mechanism that helps ensure that our leaders (public or private sector) are up on issues, accountable and that the people (employees, investors and consumers) get a first hand feel for their character.
It also speaks to the basic tenets of democracy and free speech.
So if the PM can manage a forum to address issues candidly with his constituencies, why can’t a CEO get on the phone and talk to the trade press about key issues without it being rehearsed and filtered through their pr department?
Warren, keep those gloves off and push to get the right people on the phone to have meaningful dialogue about real issues.
Where to start indeed…At the risk of biting the hand that fed me for so long, let me say two things are true: one, the trade deserves the kind of media it’s got (if one really wants to call it media rather than what it is — weekly/monthly advertorial sheets); and two, the trade media has only itself to blame for its current lamentable state.
Forget the publicly held company argument. There have always been plenty of publicly held companies and, in the past, their CEOs went on the record. The truth is that the trade media has lost the respect of the industry and so there is no advantage to any company to talk on the record. It started when it became standard practice to include unattributed quotes in “news” stories and was exacerbated as advertisers (manufacturers) discovered they could co-opt editorial by threatening to withhold ad revenue.
After a time we began to see unidentified “retailers” touting the merits of a category and even specific products. My personal favorite example of this was a story on condoms that offered quotes from an (of course) unnamed “major retailer” explaining how Trojan was all but finished as player in the category if not in fact as a company. Needless to say (I hope) it ran against/opposite a full page Durex ad.
The same softening of standards slowly infected “pure” (as if such a thing still existed) editorial. First there were the unattributed quotes. Then outside sources became a substitute for actual company employees. Then trade magazines began to cut editorial travel budgets so that younger writers and editors lost some of the ability to be on a one-to-one basis with sources that knew–and as a result–trusted them.
The question assumes that trade magazines are still in a position to drive innovation, a premise that’s almost laughable if you look through the current crop of trade media. Sure there are still old war horses out there like Warren and Dave Merrifield and others who grew up playing with a different set of rules (God love them and theirs) but the financial pressures in publishing have marked real reporters as an endangered species in this (and sadly other) industries.
There was a time when trade magazines were important. When they had the power to incite debate. They took on companies, and associations and issues. And, if they lost ad revenue or made enemies, (I personally still live with the scars of arm wrestling FMI for example)–that was part of the price you paid for telling the truth. They were read–and spoken to–because they had something to say and an audience that read what they wrote.
The current situation won’t hurt the industry but it hurts those of us who remember when reporting was all about developing a source and getting them on the record in a story that was critical. I feel Warren’s pain and salute him for continuing to fight the good fight (although personally, I’m still old school enough to never send anything to anybody for review). If you’re right and they don’t participate when you give them a chance, it’s their problem.
Would the industry be better off with a higher class of trade magazines? Of course, but as I said, it deserves what it gets. I can’t remember any protests from outraged readers about the slide in journalistic standards. Media is a lot like modern politics–sleezy, distasteful and the end product of collective apathy.
Warren, this is an excellent topic. You are one of the special few in the industry that writes and reports the news of the retail industry in a truly meaningful and critical manner. When I consult retailers I encourage them to have a rapport with the trade press. My message to retail executives is that it’s better if you tell the story the way you want it to be told rather than to wait until someone else tells your story without your input. Because one way or another, the story will get told.
I think the retail community is more willing to talk to the industry than to see things in writing. The ability to pull comments and information from the internet (see Whole Foods) and the fact that emails are constantly being monitored are all contributing to the angst around communications. There is a level of mistrust of all media in this country, not just in retailing, because of the ability to use sound bites or quotes out of context. (I know Warren would never do that having years of personal experience with him.)
Communicating non confidential information is the best way to insure understanding and cooperation from every one involved in the business. We will all be better off if the cycle swings back!
Time management is a most critical skill. Everyone has to decide whether it’s more important to talk to a trade magazine writer or to spend time working with employees, suppliers, investors, etc. Anyone who can sell advertising can run a trade magazine. But unless the potential interview subjects see a direct benefit to themselves and their businesses, they aren’t going to spend the time. Most great businesspeople aren’t publicity hounds. Warren Buffett rarely gives interviews. Donald Trump is quoted all the time. Who’s more respected? Who’s the better executive?
Where to start! In no particular order….
For publicly held companies, the implementation of Reg FD (which basically requires companies to make sure public disclosures of material information happen in a way that everyone has access at about the same time) has caused companies to pull back on the amount of public disclosures they make through interviews.
Also, adherence to facts in stories is something that seems to be an art drifting away. I remember a period of many weeks where articles frequently appeared on the front page of the Wall Street Journal addressing matters in which I was involved. Even if we talked to the WSJ, the reporters made significant factual errors in the stories (one kept referring to a major securities class action lawsuit as an antitrust lawsuit). I know many executives who have given up on reporters taking the time to get stories right (even though they recognize the time pressures in the modern media age).
Some companies have decided that not participating in a story allows them to criticize it. If they participate in the story and it is wrong, they believe their criticisms aren’t taken as seriously.
Some companies believe the press is biased, so they simply choose not to participate in the process.
Some companies find the trade press less relevant in this era of blogs, podcasts, etc.
The list goes on and on. But, the good news for the trade press is that when you have credibility, develop a strong reputation, and show that you are accurate and fair, you typically find that you eventually can get access.
This entire situation is the result of two things. 1. The reputation the media has earned for being a “gotcha” medium and 2. The pressure on business people to be everything to everybody.
When reporters can’t find sources, it’s usually because the sources don’t feel like they can trust the reporter. Second hand sources use reporters to advance their own agendas. Reporters will place great store on second hand sources to “get a story.” We all know that the established media will place great faith in swindlers and stories have arisen with some frequency about reporters fabricating reports and series simply because they were too lazy to do their job or approached a story with an attitude and elicited facts only to support a predetermined position. Give the business world a break; the media does make us “want to puke” more often than not.