這彼得原則的例子。 您知道，居於上升對他們無能力的自己的水平。 除了在這種情況下，罪犯是 Crain的紐約事務.

如此我讀Crain的這個星期的問題，并且在第15頁我遇到Elisabeth ・寫的文章Butler Cordova與標題， 「Facebook價值： 編輯通過社會網絡站點聘用了」。

現在您不必須是要知道什麼的火箭科學家文章是，因此我將饒恕您細節。

然而，我設法推測什麼是什麼使這個故事報導價值，并且怎麼這個故事被批准了？

終究您不可能告訴我Crain的是正義醒到的事實居於得到通過社會網絡站點聘用了! BlinnPR通過尋找許多自由職業者的作家和宣傳代理人 Linkedin，因為我是肯定的其他PR企業有。

并且不要告訴我這也許是，第一次Crain的實際上有來源採訪，因為一點咕嚕聲工作甚至Profnet詢問可能從前導致了來源。

不，我認為Crain的真正地不知道材料，如這發生。 并且，如果他們不知道，我們可能推斷什麼關於職員和出版物？

我記得讀Murray Kempton，前專欄作家回憶錄與Newsday，并且他說想法為他的專欄來自離開辦公室(他未曾學會駕駛)和觀看和聽什麼在他附近發生。

優秀忠告為新聞工作者或宣傳代理人在今天忙碌媒介環境裡。

書簽：

John Foley at InformationWeek writes, “Business-technology startups have a new channel for getting the word out about their products and services. InformationWeek will begin highlighting startups each week in a new section of the magazine called Startup City. Emerging tech companies.”

Tech startups are invited to nominate themselves for coverage by completing an online application that involves basic information about their offerings, founders, and funding. Entrepreneurs can find a link to the form on InformationWeek’s related Startup City weblog or by clicking here.

InformationWeek editors will evaluate the submissions received each week and choose a newbie to write about in the magazine. Startups that complete our online application will also be considered for other types of editorial coverage, including blog postings, news stories, and features.

The ground rules: They’re mainly interested in tech startups geared toward business environments, less so in consumer-oriented gadgets and Web sites. They should have a business model, funding, and a year or two of experience, including, preferably, early adopter customers.

Bookmark to:

Amid steadily decreasing advertising revenue, Time Inc.’s renowned, new economy magazine Business 2.0 will fold after its October issue.

No surprise to The BlinnPR Report. In fact, we said back in July amide the hullabaloo on Facebook that it was time to put the magazine out of its misery. Once your corporate parent starts consolidating staff it’s time to look in the mirror and seriously ask yourself what value you bring to the bottom line. After all, how many Top 10 lists can a magazine publish?

But this entry is not about ripping on Business 2.0. It’s about predicting what magazines will follow Business 2.0 to the grave.

Here they are.
1) Fortune Small Business. Another magazine not adding value to the bottom line. Plus, how many “small business” magazines do we really need to subscribe too. DOD — First quarter ‘08.

2) Wired. Lost its relevance. Yes, they have Conde Nast’s deep pockets backing them up but watch what happens when circulation number keep falling and advertising dollars dry up even more. DOD — First quarter ‘08

3) Fast Company and/or Inc. Magazine. It’s a toss up. However, if I had to say which one it’s Inc. Why? Just pick up the latest issue of the magazine. In fact, go back and look at a few of the past issues. DOD — Second quarter ‘08.

4) Portfolio. The first issue was disappointing. The second issue was, well, let’s just say it didn’t inspire any confidence. Putting aside what the gossip columns say or the staff turnover, Portfolio is trying to cover business news on a monthly basis and it can’t be done. By the time you read a new issue the news is old, outdated or irrelevant. How many people do you think are going to subscribe to a magazine that publishes old news? Another problem, trying to give business news entertainment glitz. I don’t think it can successfully be accomplished. Business and entertainment news are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Good luck trying to mix Access Hollywood and Ben Bernake. DOD — Third quarter ‘08.

So there you have it. The four magazines we believe are going to follow Business 2.0 to the magazine graveyard. If you think we’ve missed some or if you agree/disagree, let us know.

Bookmark to:

The week before Labor Day is always a slow news cycle but things must have really been crawling at a snail’s pace for InformationWeek to run this story…

The gist of the story is eighty-seven percent of consumers said they lost respect for businesses after those companies lost customers’ personal information, according to InfoSurv’s survey of 400 consumers. Tablus, a company that provides systems for protecting software, backed the survey and announced the results Tuesday. According to Tablus, respondents’ comments indicated that a loss of personal information equals a loss of business because consumers believe businesses should place a high priority on maintaining trust and the confidentiality of their information. In fact, 96% of respondents said that protecting customers from data breaches should be a company’s highest priority. Ninety-five percent of respondents said there is no excuse for exposing customers’ confidential information, and 93% said that businesses are obligated to protect sensitive content. Ninety-four percent of respondents said if there’s a technology to prevent the loss of confidential and personal information, all businesses should use it.

Why isn’t this news? First, because it’s old news. A simple Google search would have shown this. Also companies such as Forrester Research, Gartner and Protegrity (full disclosure, Protegrity is a BlinnPR client) have been talking about this subject for months now. In fact, Forrester and Protegrity have actually calculated in real dollar amounts what a data breach could cost a company. And lastly, anybody who closely follows security and data breaches knows that at RSA 2006 and 2007 this topic was presented as part of a panel discussion. How do I know? Yes, I was at RSA but I was also a panelist both years.

This isn’t about bashing InformationWeek or being the ultimate arbiter of what they should or should not report on. I’ll leave that up to people who are legends in their own mind.

No, my point is this. We already know data breaches are harmful to a company’s brand. What we really should be concerned with is making data breaches part of a company’s crisis communications plan. I can tell you from first hand knowledge that data breaches are not and they should be.

Bookmark to: