The Birth of Yellow Journalism

The Spanish–American War (April–August 1898) is considered to be both a turning point in the history of propaganda and the beginning of the practice of yellow journalism.

It was the first conflict in which military action was precipitated by media involvement. The war grew out of U.S. interest in a fight for revolution between the Spanish military and citizens of their Cuban colony. American newspapers fanned the flames of interest in the war by fabricating atrocities which justified intervention in a number of Spanish colonies worldwide.

Several forces within the United States were pushing for a war with Spain. Their tactics were wide-ranging and their goal was to engage the opinion of the American people in any way possible. Men such as William Hearst, the owner of The New York Journal was involved in a circulation war with Joseph Pulitzer of the New York World and saw the conflict as a way to sell papers. Many newspapers ran articles of a sensationalist nature and sent correspondents to Cuba to cover the war. Correspondents had to evade Spanish Authorities; usually they were unable to get reliable news and relied heavily on informants for their stories. Many stories were derived from second or third hand accounts and were either elaborated, misrepresented or completely fabricated by journalists to enhance their dramatic effect.

Both Hearst and Pulitzer published images of Spanish troops placing Cubans into concentration camps where they were suffered and died from disease and hunger. The term “Yellow Journalism,” which was derived from the name of "The Yellow Kid" comic strip in the Journal, was used to refer to this style of sensationalized newspaper articles. The American public purchased more newspapers because of this form of writing, and this strongly encouraged Hearst and Pulitzer’s newspapers to write more sensationalized stories.  Some of the most sensationalized articles concerned “Butcher Weyler” and his reconcentration policies, and the Cuban Insurrection. Circulation continued to soar as the Journal reported that an American civilian was imprisoned without a trial and stating that no American was safe in Cuba as long as Weyler was in charge. Another major  article that enraged the American public was written by one of Hearst's reporters,  Richard Harding Davis,  who came upon the story while on his way back from Cuba.  The reporter learned of the story of Senorita Clemencia Arango.  Arango was forced out of Cuba for helping the rebels, and was supposedly strip-searched by Spanish detectives.  This angered the Victorian ideals of the American public even though the story was found to be in error

Hearst played a huge part in arousing the public’s intention to go to war with Spain. This activity reached its zenith after several years of articles concerning the situation in Cuba, Hearst ran a series of articles blaming the Spanish for the sinking of the MAINE with a mine. Hearst’s powerful articles pushed many Americans towards war with Spain. Because of his leading role in inciting the war, Hearst was nicknamed the “Father of Yellow Journalism.”

Why do I give you the history of yellow journalism? It is now the mainstay of news reporting. News outlets chasing advertising dollar have almost forgot the meaning of fair and even reporting. Fair and even reporting does not sell advertising. Sensationalism does. News outlets fan the flames of controversy in an attempt to boost readership. Ad rates are based on readership rates. Readers read, dollars come in. They really don't care about the overall affect on society. They rationalize that in a free press era the reader will get a fair and even story by reading multiple accounts from multiple sources. Except that people don't do that. They are sound bite addicts. We spend very little time checking the facts.

All you have to do it read the comments section of any article and you see that many of the readers didn't even comprehend the article they just read, more or less research it further. The media says that's our problem not theirs.

Folks, yellow journalism is alive and well. Do not believe what you read. Do not react to sensationalism. Small niches of society have managed to make great gains by using the media to project themselves as main stream. We need to seek the truth before we react. We no longer can rely on the media to present anything even close to resembling the truth.

Lessons from Kaki King.. and others....

I have been thinking about a general principle that has come into my life several times in the past few weeks. It has to do with significant. Most of the time we feel we are far more significant that we really are. I'm going to paraphrase the conversation that started this line of thought. 

I was watching TED Talks, a great set of programs if you have never heard of it. This specific TED Talk was a performance by a petite, introverted, Finger style guitarist names Kaki King (if you don't know her Google it, it will amaze you. She is the first female on Rolling Stones "Guitar God" List. I'm listening to her as I write this). She talked about her place in the universe. She first laid out the concept of time running infinitely in both directions. How every moment was insignificant within this spectrum. But if every moment was equally insignificant, then every moment was equally significant. Her final statement was "Therefore this music will be the most significant music in your life, at this moment".

This fundamental concept has  worked in the shadows of several conversations over the last few weeks. More than likely this is the product of my Reticular Activating Systems, but let's say it is more than that. We think the universe is approximately 18 Billion years old. Now like the world is flat theory of old, this may prove to be untrue, but it us our current paradigm. So our entire life passes as a moment in the history of time. Each day we spend on this earth is even less significant. Each hour, minute, and second progressively less significant.  But each unit of time is unique to us. There will only be one. If we do not use it we cannot store it for another time. What we did with it becomes part of  history, even if we did nothing. 

That makes it the most significant moment of our life, at that time. Kaki was right. So  the question is; do we live like it is the most significant moment at the time? Do we realize how truly unique each moment is?

This bring me to list written by Andy Rooney, that I cannot verify, but hey it was on the internet so it has to be true....right..... here is a sample:

1.       That I can always pray for someone when I don't have the strength to help him in some other way.

2.       That no matter how serious your life requires you to be, everyone needs a friend to act goofy with. 

3.       That sometimes all a person needs is a hand to hold and a heart to understand.

4.       That simple walks with my father around the block on summer nights when I was a child did wonders for me as an adult.

5.       That life is like a roll of toilet paper. The closer it gets to the end, the faster it goes.

6.       That everyone wants to live on top of the mountain, but all the happiness and growth occurs while you're climbing it.

7.       That opportunities are never lost; someone will take the ones you miss.

8.       That it's those small daily happenings that make life so spectacular.

9.       That under everyone's hard shell is someone who wants to be appreciated and loved.

The life lesson that come from this list is that life's little moments are important. We spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about the big moments that lay ahead and very little time appreciating the little moments in front of us.

Is this the most significant moment in your life right now? What did you do with it?

The Ripple Effect

Yesterday Rodney King passed away. His 15 minutes of fame came back on March 2, 1991. What brings this to mind is the tragedy of the situation. Rodney King was an ordinary man. Like many ordinary people he lived a life that put him in an extraordinary circumstance.  We see this quite often in life. People living their ordinary lives, then faced with a circumstance that they didn’t seem prepared for. Mostly we hear of heroism, these ordinary people pulling strangers out of wrecked cars or burning buildings.

Rodney King did not wake up the morning of March 2nd thinking that this day would be dramatically different than all of the others. He had no idea when events finally played out fifty-three people would lose their lives. Rodney’s part on this was very small. Through his actions, he simply made himself available. ( the same could be said for the police officers involved)

Rodney embraced a life of alcohol and drugs. He was defiant, living for today. He was on a trajectory of failure. He was convicted of armed robbery in 1989, serving one year of a two-year sentence. By the time he hit the lime light in 1991 he was 26 years old, twice divorced and the father of 3 children.  Just prior to his confrontation with police, his alcohol level was two times the allowable limit. Had this moment in his life not happened, we would have still read about him in the papers. We just wouldn’t have noticed.

On that March day, Los Angeles police overreacted to a simple situation they had been through many times. Their actions propelled Rodney into the lime light and a new trajectory. One that he was not prepared for and more than like would have liked to avoid. Rodney was driving a car being chased by the LAPD at speed up to 80 mph. When stopped by several police cars and at least one helicopter, his passengers surrendered without incident. Rodney started acting strange. He made a move that officers interpreted as aggressive. He later stated that he ran because a DUI would void his probation and send him back to jail. This was the extraordinary circumstance. This was the point that Rodney’s life and the lives of several people would be changed forever. This one decision, we all make them, most go unnoticed. 

 Rodney was tasered and struck at least 56 times with batons. George Holiday caught all of this on video. Video that would be used at the trial of the officers involved. The officers were tried in state court and found not guilty of criminal conduct. The outcome of the trial that ended on April 29, 1992 was the catalyst for the riots that started right after the verdict. Fifty-three people were killed in the riots. Twenty-three hundred and eight-three people were injured, there were around 7,000 fires and 3,100 businesses were damaged. It all happened in the very neighborhood of the rioters. They burned their own neighborhood down. Two years later, Lawrence Powell and Stacey Koon were convicted in Federal Court of violating Rodney King’s civil right and sentenced to 32 months in prison.

Rodney spent the next twenty-two years in notoriety, both a reluctant symbol of the civil right struggle and the catalyst of anger and rage. Our message today… when we get up tomorrow morning we will not know the ripple effect of our actions until they are complete. Are we living a life that could lead to positive or negative reactions? Are we one road rage away for notoriety?  Are we one text message away from multifactorial events that will change lives forever? The lives of people we don’t even know. Neither the police officers or Rodney knew the people lost in the riots, yet each had an impact on their lives and the lives of those who did know them.

Selling in the 21st Century

Selling has changed considerably in the last 10 years. Start-ups have embraced this change because they have to. Older companies are just starting to understand it. This change in driving business, has been brought about to a large extent by the movement away from the concept of “Web 1.0” to “Web 2.0”. The major difference in these two concepts is the Web 1.0 was a more traditional push-pull approach. The idea was to attract eyes to your website and then provide value. This is an electronic form of print advertising, except that there is a lot more real estate to use and a wider geographic distribution. Web 1.0 didn’t fundamentally change sales methodologies. Prospects were attracted to the website, were then pre-qualified by filling out a form and passed to sales as a lead.

Web 2.0 changes that dynamic. Web 2.0 is interactive. The website visitor can change the content by commenting on it. They can add their own spin. Two prospects can debate benefits and add insight for each other. Many Web 2.0 demonstration sites allow the viewer to interact with the demo by inputting their own data. They can have a dialogue with the presenter if there is one. Fundamentally, a prospect can experience the first 2 or 3 steps of the sales cycle without engaging a live person. When the lead gets to sales, the prospect is much more informed and qualified.

Using blogs, twitters and wikis as part of the marketing and sales strategy has become more commonplace. Letting the marketplace create marketing content through interaction provides deeper insight. Sales has to adjust to this new medium. As the prospects and client collaborate on new ideas and approaches, Sales has to keep up. No longer can they rely on marketing material printed annually for their source of information. Smart sales people have their own blogs and twitters. They are engaging their market to build relationships and find opportunities. Social networks can provide new knowledge on personalities, backgrounds, priorities. Reference selling through social networks is a growing tool.

Hiring salespeople with a defined rolodex and an aptitude for cold calling is old school and ineffective. There are just too many screening processes available to the prospect. The average buyer in inundated with spam and junk e-mail, not to mention telemarketing calls. They have e-mail filters and incoming call identification to help them manage unwanted interruptions.

Times have changed and companies must change with them. Take the time to reevaluate the interaction between clients, marketing and sales. Look for sales people who have embraced the new technologies and know how to use them to drive performance. Have they defined their social networks and do they know if and how these networks affect their performance.

Driving Mechanisms and Critical Events

This subject has come up a lot lately. It’s interesting how many people in sales don’t understand this very simple concept. If there isn’t a change agent going on in the business, change will not happen. If this change is not tied to a drop dead date, it will not happen in a predictable timeframe. When you say it out loud is sounds intuitive. When I talk with clients and they are lamenting about long sales cycles, unpredictable forecasts and why their sales people can’t close business, my first thought goes to these two concepts. Let me explain further….

Almost every professional sales person has now figured out that they have to solve a business problem to stand a chance of closing the deal. They understand that uncovering and validating the pain is important, if not critical. The top echelon even goes as far as to have the prospect validate the value of the pain in their own words. They get the solution to belong to the prospect by having them articulate the need and the value to themselves of meeting that need. Mike Bosworth in “Solution Selling, Creating Buyers in Difficult Selling Markets (McGraw-Hill 1994) defines a prospect as a buyer who has admitted a problem. So you understand the buying process, you are dealing with the decision maker, they have a budget allocated, you have not only uncovered the business pain, you have gotten the buyer to admit to it and put a value on it. Deal closed, right!

Why is the deal still in the pipeline three months from now? How do you overcome objections when there aren’t any? The checks in the mail.

The reason is there are no driving mechanisms and/or critical events to cause the decision to be implemented. Your prospect, the CFO or the VP of Purchasing has never processed the paper because there are other pressing issues or no issues at all. In James Clavell book “Shogun” (Cornet Books 1975), Lord Toranaga constantly reinforces to Blackthorne that no decision should be made until it has to be made. The driving mechanism might be a face-off with his arch-rival, but there is no attack; therefore no critical event. The same is with sales. There must be a driving mechanism such as a reorganization, critical financial crisis, or new business process. Something which causes the potential buyer to consider alternatives to what they are doing today. This is what got you to the presentation and the proposal, but it won’t close the deal. Too many times we get this far and assume the deal will now close.

This is where understanding the critical event becomes extremely important. If I am going to forecast this sale, I had better understand when and why it’s going to close. If my solution is part of a process required to achieve a goal, I need to work backward from the launch or introduction date of the new process to create my critical event. “If we cannot start implementation by next week, we cannot make the launch date of May 17^th.” “If your new plant is scheduled to go into production on July 1^st, then we need to….now”

If they want to improve your AR process or their sales process, but haven’t actually committed to when they must accomplish it, then I can’t forecast the close date on my deal. If they want things to be better, but don’t have a time line for making them better, then I can’t predict when they will buy, if ever.

Even when the pain is real and the cost of the solution is less than the problem, without something driving the buyer to implement the solution, there is no deal. This is why opportunities linger in the pipeline for months and then fad away…..