Super and Sandy,

I am off my iPhone and can now type on a full keyboard, so allow me this last post on the subject. To correct the record, your assumption that I dislike the WSJ because of politics is, dare I say, overly simplified. I dislike the NY Times for the same reasons - questionable ethics, bias and an overall laziness. Right now, I actually find the most unbiased news coming from Knight Ridder and McClatchy. Whatever my political views are, what I want in news is fairness and honestly (and I am talking about the news pages, not the editorial pages). That's not delusional, it's elitist. ;-) If there's any latitude to be tested here, it has nothing to do with politics, but the ability to include many different people under the umbrella of preservation.

I would not have shared any opinion of the WSJ had it not been for Super's idealistic description of it in an earlier post. Yes, it is the business paper of record, but that doesn't make it good. I dislike Murdoch's impact on news not because of his politics but because of the lack of integrity in his brand of biased news.

Now that we have cleared the air on that, I would ask that you not build strawmen but instead read the rest of my posts on the topic, which come from first hand experience as an outsider trying to get news run and an insider who knows the workings of large media companies.

You have chosen to ridicule me for having the guts to call "bull$&%*" on the WSJ, but have not addressed any of the topics pertinent to this thread.

No where did I see anyone suggest that preservation news items should not be pushed for in the WSJ or any other publication. No one suggested ignoring them as Super put it.

Kelly is right that for a good many stories, the WSJ and similar outlets would not deliver the right demographic, and for some stories it would.

A good press person would understand all the different demos and also understand what kinds of stories an outlet is looking for, and then make sure to follow-through one-on-one with a "customized" pitch.

A sure fire way to fail is to pitch a one-story-fits-all angle, or to pitch stories out of sync with the target.

And this all goes back to taking the time to cultivate the relationship. It can take YEARS to work a reporter into being a reliable outlet for your news, and even then the relationship could turn without careful attention.

One former co-worker, who was brilliant at this, taught me how to have the major newspapers eating out of your hand. She did this by building a relationship of trust, never wasting the reporters time and always delivering a story of interest. And she wouldn't wait to have a fully developed story. She'd call the reporter and present the kernel of an idea, and from that conversation would plan the path of the full pitch.

I fear the John Prine lyric was lost, too. Maybe I can put it another way. Focus on strengths, not weaknesses. If the media mocks us, so be it. Don't give it any play. Focus on the strengths of what makes this avocation great, and beat down the doors with positive news.


I'd be happy to continue the conversation of working with the media, but please let the WSJ issue rest.

Thanks!

Rob

Thanks - I have missed these discussions among very bright and realistic people in the industry, all of whom are essentially correct in every one of these postings, and with no digressions into irrational personality issues that would justifiably force Randy to pull the plug.

I wonder if media relations and techniques for best exploiting media wouldn't be a great topic for a presentation at TRAIN? I know my 1970's experience writing public service press releases is obsolete now, probably many others could stand to update their skills as well.

dave

Good media techniques can help, but you must have a good product to "sell". From my experience in visiting railway and trolley museums this loops us back to having quality program offerings and maintaining the general apperance of the equipment (artifacts) and the surrounding property.

Wesley

Thats a problem. A LOT of people read the WSJ, its not the house organ of a few plutocrats or eccentrics who can be ignored. If you ignore the journal, you are ignoring Main Street, not just Wall Street.

These are the people who SHOULD be the target demographic.

I’m sorry you feel that the above is “idealistic” but its grounded in reality. I’m an analyst with respect for empiricism, so I scrupulously try to avoid conscious or unconscious selective filtration. As Ross pointed out, this is one paper that seems to have a viable business model, that’s not being put into rigor mortis by the rise of the internet. There’s no Jayson Blair at the Journal, no Dan Rather, no Mary Mapes, no activists like Chris Matthews or George Stephanopolous (sp?) masquerading as “journalists”.

Moreover, you seem to be unwilling or unable to properly construe certain facts-the boogeyman, aka Rupert Murdoch had nothing to do with the paper until recently and as for including a diverse audience under the umbrella of preservation, dismissing an institution like the Journal-read as it is by corporate America as well as the truck driver with a modest 401(k) and a couple kids that he'd like to interest in history and science- is EXACTLY what I was objecting to. As for your accusations of a lack of ethics or “laziness”, I’ll suggest that “first hand experience as an outsider trying to get news run and an insider who knows the workings of large media companies” is something of an oxymoron, if you had this wealth of understanding, you’d be successful, not trying.


You have chosen to ridicule me for having the guts to call "bull$&%*" on the WSJ, but have not addressed any of the topics pertinent to this thread.

Actually, what I’m addressing-the summary dismissal of a diverse and extensive readership is in fact pertinent to the purpose of the board, far more than declarations of gaudy gadget possession. I also don’t need to resort to excretory euphemisms to express myself. I see no courage in the use of profanity, I can’t imagine who would. I accused you of bias, I didn’t ridicule you. I dismissed your opinion of the WSJ as factually indefensible. I see nothing in your response to suggest that my estimation was unjustified. Ridicule is, as a matter of fact something that’s invited, not imposed. When you post an opinion, its subject to critical examination-so grow a thicker skin.

As a matter of fact, I think Kelly is wrong. I don't know what the "proper" demographic is- in the dozen years I've been volunteering, I've seen people of every possible age, race, sex, occupation, you name it. My idea of the right "demographic" is anybody with an interest, whether its based on family heritage, interest in history, mechanical fascination or something else-and willing to spend a few bucks to support their interest or some time and effort to devote to the effort.

Actually, a similar topic was discussed at the ARM/TRAIN convention in Sacramento last fall if I correctly recall. I will also point out that there will be similar discussions at ARM 2008 in Colorado Springs. I would urge those of you who are members of an ARM organization or an associate of ARM to attend.

From your moderators….keep going….

We should stay away from Murdock and his influence via ownership of the Wall Street Journal and its political implications….

Discussion about the influence of the readers of the publication are really significant…

Our image outside this discussion group is key to our growth... I am not sure we all share a common view.

Our organization tries to attract everyone it can to support our project. I think we all have gotten coverage in the local media. I always like to try to get exposure in national media outlets.

When ELDCPS got into the American Express Members Project Top 50 list we got a lot of national exposure because AMEX released a lot of press releases that were picked up by a number of organizations. We have been tied into the AMEX "Just Give" program which has gotten us some nice cash donations. The most important result of this exposure is that it reinforced the impression of us by a CEO of a corporation that has provided us great help recently.

I have been spending a lot of time making our project known to several private foundations to give them a reason to support us. Railroad preservation is out of their normal experience - orchestras, hospitals, and schools make up a lot of it. Being conversant in their world - and yes the WSJ is part of it - is a must if you hope to tap some important sources of support.

I said that the WSJ does not represent our entire demographic; sure the "demographic" of interested people is increasingly varied, but our target audience is not represented wholly by the WSJ. An editor of an opinion page found the news hum-drum, but preferred coverage of citizens having to put up or shut-up over an abundance of fallen acorns! The agony! That puts things into perspective.

Sandy brought up an interesting point regarding our "image," which is often described by the public and members of the press with clichés and sweeping generalizations. That, I believe is the real issue here.

How do we make our avocation appealing and curtail statements like "the train chuffed in on the train tracks with the train cars and the conductor blew the lonesome whistle to the delight of railbuffs."

To combat this sort of childish attitude toward "adults playing train," we have to make our industry...dare I say...not just appealing or educational, but maybe even glamorous. We're in the business of entertainment--and if you don't think we are, we at least know that our competition lies in other forms of entertainment that are often more familiar, sometimes cheaper, and more prevalent than any steam train, museum, or history book.

I don't think the Wall Street Journal is entirely our target demographic."

I interpreted that as asserting the readership of the Journal to be limited and ignorable, if I do so unreasonably, well my apologies. On the other hand you wrote "our target audience is not represented wholly by the WSJ", I'll say this-the readership of the Journal is so broad, so varied that it almost surely hits some of whatever people you want. In a prior life, I helped provide technical support to 401k plan sponsors-including for the trucking company JB Hunt. I remember hearing how many of their truckers swapped brown paper clad magazines for financial journals. Moreover, it is influential.

So, instead of debating the merits of any publication, who is (should be) the "target" demographic for museums/ heritage/tourist organizations. Afterall, you can't say something doesn't meet criteria if the criteria is unstated or unknown.

In considering your answer, consider the complications- McDonald's grew into the global enterprise it is, in part because it recognized that it had been marketing to purchasers, not buyers-hence the red white and yellow clown. So your "target" might be like Mickey D's- not the couple that plunks down the cash, but their 2.1 kids. It might be teachers that schedule field trips, bus tour operators that schedule those "day trips" for senior citizens. It might be Scouts, church groups, the teachers of noncredit courses at the local community college.

As for improving "our" image- I think the ultimate measure of respect isn't what (any) mass media says-it'll be the day when working freight lines respect what you do, even if OTHER business, legal and technical conditions have so changed as to make operating on their lines impossible

I agree that the WSJ readers are not our entire demographic. However, we should note that shift is occuring in our society and the organizations that can adapt to the shift will survive while those that cannot will eventually disappear.

Take truck stops for example: the more progressive ones have survived by re-inventing themselves as "travel centers" catering not only to commercial trucks and buses, but increasingly to RV owners and other travelers. They cleaned up their premises and in many cases, extensively remodeled them to add quality sit-down food services, showers and a broader array of merchandise. Many of the smaller truck stops that either could not or would not change their ways have since closed as they lost growing numbers of truckers to the modernized facilities. The modernized facilities not only retained their core commercial truck and bus customers but have drawn in RV owners and their great amounts of disposible income.

This is something that everyone in this business should pay attention to, regardless of what your operation calls itself. We have plenty of competition out there and must adapt the commercial agriculture addage of "Grow your operation bigger or watch it die."

There is a way in which one group could benefit from the WSJ. If your group could be featured in the A-Head story, you would receive a lot of free publicity. The A-Head is the one story that appears on the front page of the WSJ every day that is supposed to be "so light, if floats off the page". It is called the A-Head, because it makes the shape of all the text on the front page appear like a capital A. A few years ago a failing Nova Scotia bag piping school was featured, and their applications increased ten-fold. Obviously the Journal would only do one story on a historical or entertainment rail operation, so only one group, if any, could benefit.

http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=14634

I need to digest this before I comment - I suggest that it is worth the read as the public at large does not recognize a difference between shortlines, the Class Ones and restoration/preservation efforts.

GME

(Continuing on the thoughts expressed by Alan above): Many preservationists have ignored the most basic and direct change in the demographics: 85% of railroad enthusiasts (and almost 100% of the youngest segment of the hobby) now identify themselves as diesel fans. So far the only national organization that has recognized this and is treating it as a growth opportunity is the NMRA (National Model Railroad Association). I used to think of the NMRA as a bunch of people who played with toy trains. That is certainly not the case any more. They are far ahead of many historical groups in their interest in the history and technology of diesel locomotives. They hosted more diesel oriented presentations at their national convention this year than the NRHS has hosted in all of their past conventions for which they have event summaries posted on their website.

The change in interests is not necessarily a threat, in fact it provides additional opportunities for those who are willing to make some effort to adapt.

MX