Texting for a Cause

By Mitchell Schmale

Nonprofits are often looking for creative ways to share their message, advance their missions and also raise much needed funds to help support their organizations.

In good economic times and bad, nonprofits will continue to utilize traditional fundraising techniques including capital campaigns, corporate partnerships and direct outreach to donors, to name just a few. But more nonprofits of all sizes are now trying to emulate the success of recent text messaging campaigns as an additional fundraising tool to help reach younger donors and build a donor support base for the future.

The New York Times’ Stephanie Strom wrote an interesting article recently on the challenges of launching and maintaining successful text messaging campaigns for many nonprofits.

Following the amazing success of the American Red Cross texting campaign to support Haiti in January of this year, other nonprofits realized the immense potential power of the fundraising vehicle. The text Haiti campaign raised more than $30 million, which was almost as much as all other nonprofit text campaigns in 2009 combined.

However, as The New York Times piece points out, the American Red Cross example is difficult model to replicate. Not every nonprofit is able to share the same sense of urgency, have the ongoing support of global awareness from news coverage, or have the support from other national organizations and high-profile public figures. Additionally, the ongoing cost of creating and maintaining a text campaign can be a costly expense for smaller nonprofits.

Nonetheless, I believe texting campaigns will become yet another traditional mainstay for nonprofits of all sizes to use as a fundraising tool in the future. With the help of corporate partners underwriting campaigns and the costs of launching and maintaining campaigns with mobile phone companies possibly declining in the future, nonprofits will tap into the texting craze for the long haul – at least until the next best technology-based fundraising tool comes along.

Mitchell Schmale is the Vice President of Business. Contact him at mitchell@maroonpr.com.

New Web Coding May Lead to Privacy Issues

By Matt Saler

On the front page of today’s New York Times, there is a story about HTML 5, the new web coding that is slowly being ushered in across the Internet over the next few years. The new coding system will be much more “user-friendly,” making it easier for those who browse the web to check email offline, shop, find the closest movie theater via their iPhone, and view online videos without having to download the newest version of Flash or whatever software they prefer.

Sounds like a nice improvement, right?

Problem is, as the story states…


“The new Web language and its additional features present more tracking opportunities because the technology uses a process in which large amounts of data can be collected and stored on the user’s hard drive while online. Because of that process, advertisers and others could, experts say, see weeks or even months of personal data. That could include a user’s location, time zone, photographs, text from blogs, shopping cart contents, e-mails and a history of the Web pages visited.”


Advertisers and others could see one’s history of web pages visited and potentially read another’s emails without permission? Does anyone not see a problem with this?

While it is noted that users can organize settings on their browsers to avoid such tracking, my guess is that the majority of Internet users are not even aware that such tracking exists.

I think that the makers of these Web browsers should take responsibility and aim to eliminate all tracking capabilities whatsoever, or at a minimum, stress to all users of their software that such tracking exists.

For a country that stresses a lot of freedoms, this certainly has a creepy “Big Brother” feel to it. Hopefully this story opens some eyes.

Matt Saler is a Senior Account Executive. Contact him at matt@maroonpr.com.

Is the End Near For All Print Newspapers?

By Matt Saler

I was pretty shocked to read the other day that The New York Times publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., said the following words: “We will stop printing the New York Times sometime in the future.” He did not give a specific date to this inevitability but it begs the question… if the most read daily newspaper in the country goes strictly to digital, is it the beginning of the end for print newspapers as we know it?

Clearly, a lot of folks in the media industry were buzzing about this news, as many see digital as the present and future. If the majority of the revenue generated by the Times is from its online revenue, it only makes sense that this would be the direction that they would move toward. Business Insider blogger Henry Blogget conducted some interesting research on the topic and came up with the following numbers:


“We estimate that the NYT currently spends about $200 million a year on its newsroom and generates about $150 million of online revenue. If the paywall is highly successful—attracting, say, 1 million subscribers who pay $100 a year—this will add another $100 million of online subscription revenue (assuming the company doesn't lose ad revenue). With $250 million of revenue, the NYT might be able to sustain newsroom costs of about $100 million.

Now, a $100 million newsroom budget is a HUGE newsroom budget--one that most online publications would kill for. So the New York Times isn't going anywhere. But $100 million is also a lot less than the New York Times's current newsroom budget.

So if Arthur Sulzberger is right that the New York Times will eventually have to stop printing the print paper--and we certainly think he is--his company is likely to have to be restructured.”


As one who enjoys opening up a paper and reading through the news of the day, should I be worried that these days are quickly coming to an end? Stay tuned.

Matt Saler is a Senior Account Executive. He can be reached at matt@maroonpr.com.

Michelle Obama’s Recent Vacation – Too Lavish?

By Andrea Kunicky

First lady Michelle Obama and daughter Sasha just returned back from a vacation in Spain that drew some backlash in the United States. Michelle is under fire for a trip to Spain that included expensive hotel rooms and trips. There was also supposedely a bill that came out of US taxpayers dollars for the Secret Service, which was reportedly close to $250,000.

Mrs. Obama's trip is getting a less than a warm reception in the United States because we are experiencing some tough economic times. The five-day trip took Michelle and Sasha to the southern part of the country, where they visited beautiful coastal towns, did some shopping and even had lunch with King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia of Spain. They stayed at the five-star Hotel Villa Padierna, where rooms range anywhere from $400 to nearly $7,000 per night, a high price for extravagance that many are saying is insensitive with the country is in such a terrible recession.

The White House defended the first lady's vacation, noting that the Obama’s paid their own way for the trip. White House adviser David Axelrod said the criticism was overblown, telling The New York Times, "Folks in the public eye are also human beings."

In my opinion, this trip during an economic recession was probably not the smartest move on the Obama’s part, but I feel that we have much more to worry about. Everyone is entitled to a vacation, whether we are a working class citizen or the first lady of the United States. She wanted to spend some quality time with her daughter so we can’t deny her that.

This should die down soon enough, to where we can focus on subjects that are far more important than a mini vacation for a mother and daughter.

Andrea Kunicky is an Account Executive. Contact her at andrea@maroonpr.com.

Enjoying the Positive News of Professional Athletes

By Matt Saler

Enough is enough.

Too many times these days we are discussing the same old issues in sports: a player holding out for more money… a league turning a blind eye to its retired players, who can barely walk despite that league generating billion dollar profits… criminal allegations against athletes… steroids… whatever the case may be, negative news will always jump to the forefront of the headlines.

And I hate it. Bring the topic of religion into the picture, and in most cases, things get crazier and go in a thousand different directions in the court of public opinion. The other day, however, I came across a very interesting piece on NBA basketball player Amar’e Stoudemire in the The New York Times. It discussed Amar’e’s recent visit to Israel to learn more about his Jewish heritage and the history and culture of the Jewish religion. Some fans have mocked this in online forums, and others have questioned why Amar’e was converting. Religion is a very personal issue and some of these “fans” need to get a grip on their own reality before questioning someone elses.

What most probably do not know about Amar’e is that he is a very articulate guy who gives back through his Amar’e Stoudemire Each One Teach One Foundation. He has demonstrated in other ways that he is a class act off the court through his actions: After leaving the Phoenix Suns for the New York Knicks this past summer, he took out an ad in his local paper, The Arizona Republic, thanking his fans for their support while with the Suns.

Being a resident of New York, the epicenter of culture in the United States, has clearly helped Amar’e look within himself to learn more about his history, and I commend him for that.
I enjoyed the NY Times piece and also Amar’e’s take on his Jewish heritage, as shown in a recent interview with Israeli TV (video below). Hopefully our society can get to a point where we stop caring so much about the scandalous details of an athlete’s life and look at a lot of the good that they are doing in society. Many have a very cultured life outside of their sport that fans do not know about.

It’s time to stop always dwelling on the negative and start stressing the positive.

Mazel Tov, Amar’e.



Matt Saler is a Senior Account Executive. Contact him at matt@maroonpr.com.

Wall Street Journal Launches New York Section

By Stefen Lovelace

We have an official newspaper war.

On Monday, print heavyweight The Wall Street Journal unveiled its new “Greater New York” section. The section is being seen as a direct competitor to The New York Times, which has been New York’s top publication for local and regional news for years.


Taking over the grand ballroom of The Plaza Hotel in Manhattan, the Journal feted dozens of guests with a breakfast of bagels, quiche, coffee, Danish and other goodies. Large screens in the room promoted the new section's name, while top guns Les Hinton, CEO; Robert Thomson, managing editor; and Michael Rooney, chief revenue officer, headlined the event.

Each spoke out about why this venture, which many analysts and newspaper experts have said is financially limited, will succeed.

"This is good news for New York and good business for Dow Jones," Hinton told the crowd, adding that, in terms of advertising, "We didn't expect it to be as good as it has been."


This move shows that Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., which purchased the Journal in 2007, believes he can take down one of print’s most well-respected institutions.

There's a reason for his confidence. Earlier this week it was revealed that overall newspaper circulation has continued to declined, down 8.7 percent in a six month period ending March 31, 2010. That news in itself isn't all that surprising.

What is surprising is that The Wall Street Journal is the only one of the top 25 newspapers to rise in total circulation, going up by a very slight 0.5 percent. WSJ is also the No. 1 biggest daily newspaper in the country.

It’s too early to tell what type of effect the Journal’s jump into the New York news scene will have in the city. There have already been some that have ranked and compared the Journal against the Times, with reviews on WSJ's new section being mixed.

NYT hasn’t sat on its hands in this fight, as it’s now being reported that the newspaper is considering expanding its news coverage to include non-New York markets.


The Financial Times is reporting that the NYT has entered discussions to expand to provide regional coverage in five areas of the U.S. Eventually, the paper wants to provide local news for 10 to 15 markets, the FT reports.

It's possible that the paper's enhanced regional coverage is a response to the Journal and fellow News Corp. paper The New York Post's aggressive slashing of ad rates, a move widely perceived as an effort to eat into the Times' ad-client base.


It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out, as the Times and WSJ are two of the largest and most reputable publications in the country. Stay tuned.

Stefen Lovelace is an Associate Account Executive. Contact him at stefen@maroonpr.com.

Newsday Pay Wall Having Limited Success

Author: Stefen Lovelace

Date: Thursday, January 28, 2010

I wrote a blog last week that detailed The New York Times strategy to start charging its subscribers to read NYTimes.com stories. In that post, I mentioned that many other newspapers would be watching to see what type of success The Times has doing this, as it could show whether online readers would be willing to pay for something that they were used to getting for free.

In October 2009, Newsday - a Long Island daily newspaper that has a top-12 national circulation - put Newsday.com behind a pay wall. According to The New York Observer, the number of subscribers to Newsday.com after three months is remarkably low.

So, three months later, how many people have signed up to pay $5 a week, or $260 a year, to get unfettered access to newsday.com?

The answer: 35 people. As in fewer than three dozen. As in a decent-sized elementary-school class.

That astoundingly low figure was revealed in a newsroom-wide meeting last week by publisher Terry Jimenez when a reporter asked how many people had signed up for the site. Mr. Jimenez didn't know the number off the top of his head, so he asked a deputy sitting near him. He replied 35.

According to the story, web traffic to Newsday.com has seen a sizable hit. In October, Newsday.com got 2.2 million unique visits. In December, just 1.5 million. Page visits normally equal advertising dollars, so the switch to a pay model may ultimately do much more harm to the bottom line than good.

What this means for The New York Times isn’t yet clear. The Times is much more of a national newspaper, so it’s possible that its far-reaching audience will be more willing to pay for the paper’s content. And not to take anything away from Newsday, but The Times is known for having some of the best reporting and stories of any newspaper in the country.

Still, I would have to think that The Times is paying very close attention to what ramifications Newsday will see from forcing online readers to pay.

I ended my New York Times post by asking how much true journalism was really worth.

Apparently not that much.

Stefen Lovelace is an Associate Account Executive. You can contact him at stefen@maroonpr.com.

NYTimes.com to Start Charging for Online Content

Author: Stefen Lovelace

Date: Monday, January 18, 2010

In August 2009, David Simon – the creator of the critically acclaimed HBO television show “The Wire,” top-selling author, and former reporter for The Baltimore Sun – penned a story for the Columbia Journalism Review that urged newspapers to make a major change in how readers access their online articles.

Simon urged The New York Times and The Washington Post, two of the biggest and most well-respected newspapers in the country, to start charging for their online content. He was one of the most vocal in defending the value of true, long-form journalism, and has argued that newspapers giving away their product for free will just continue to lead to plummeting circulation and advertising dollars. This cycle will eventually lead to newspaper’s ultimate demise.

For the past year, The Times has wrestled with the idea of going to some form of a pay site. NYTimes.com is one of the most popular websites on the internet, but their online advertising didn’t result in a big enough profit for The Times company.

It was reported yesterday by NYMag.com that The Times may have finally decided on a way to make readers pay for content.

New York Times Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. appears close to announcing that the paper will begin charging for access to its website, according to people familiar with internal deliberations. After a year of sometimes fraught debate inside the paper, the choice for some time has been between a Wall Street Journal-type pay wall and the metered system adopted by the Financial Times, in which readers can sample a certain number of free articles before being asked to subscribe. The Times seems to have settled on the metered system.

If this does occur, it could have a major ripple effect in the newspaper industry. Every newspaper around the country will be watching The Times to see if this works, as the major argument against having pay sites is whether readers would be willing to pay for something that they’re so used to getting for free.

The final decision could come this week, with a formal announcement to come within the next few weeks. According to the story, The Times wouldn’t start charging for content for months (perhaps starting in the spring).

The decision to go to a pay-site was not an easy one. Top-level employees at The Times had been debating the decision for the last year, with those that advocated to stay free citing the growth of the website, and the possibility of big profit coming in the future from web advertising.

The argument for remaining free was based on the belief that nytimes.com is growing into an English-language global newspaper of record, with a vast audience — 20 million unique readers — that, [Times digital chief Martin] Nisenholtz and others believed, would prove lucrative as web advertising matured. (The nytimes.com homepage, for example, has sold out on numerous occasions in the past year.) As other papers failed to survive the massive migration to the web, the Times would be the last man standing and emerge with even more readers. Going paid would capture more circulation revenue, but risk losing significant traffic and with it ad dollars. At an investor conference this fall, Nisenholtz alluded to this tension: "At the end of the day, if we don't get this right, a lot of money falls out of the system."

Nisenholtz’s argument certainly has tremendous merit, and if the pay-site idea fails, it may be difficult to earn back a lot of the readers that NYTimes.com currently gets. The huge declines in advertising from the recession last year put pressure on the newspaper to act now with their pay idea or risk even more profit declines that they wouldn't be able to withstand.

Simon and others in favor of newspapers charging for their content ultimately got their wish and now we’ll see what impact this will have on the industry. With so many people used to getting online newspaper content for free – like readers, bloggers, online news sites, etc. – will those people be willing to pay for the written word?

At the very least, this model may help to answer the question: How much is true journalism really worth?

Stefen Lovelace is an Associate Account Executive. You can contact him at stefen@maroonpr.com.