The New York Times has a great on-line forum called Room for Debate. The concept centers on posing a timely question and then asking experts or others with unique insight to comment. I’ve participated in a number of these in the past, primarily as an expert on transportation policy, but my most recent experience has a few marketing lessons for those attempting to raise public awareness about their books and the pitfalls of working with news media.
Here’s a step-by-step description and analysis of how the forum published on 22 April 2013 came about from the perspective of the person that originally pitched the idea and participated as a contributor.
- I was discussing the problem of violence with Ruth Krug, founder of Reclaiming Lost Voices, an organization (that I support professionally) created to give voice to survivors of violence. We were discussing the Steubenville, Ohio rape trial and the subsequent convictions of the rapists. One of the issues we discussed was the number of people that were bystanders and chose to do nothing while the dignity of the victim was thrashed and assaulted and thrashed over and over again through digital media, public humiliation, and the trial.
- This conversation prompted me to write a blog post on my self-defense blog (www.defensivewarrior.com) discussing the importance of martial arts as social defense because self-defense skills empower individuals and hold the potential to turn bystanders into proactive disruptors of violent crimes and defenders of those under assault. Neither one of us had seen any on-line or print discussion of this issue.
- Several friends and colleagues responded to the post, sharing my post on their facebook pages, and commenting on this statement from the blog: “But another, perhaps even more important goal [of self-defense training], is to create a social environment in which attacks on other human beings won’t happen at all.” This response confirmed my hunch in #1 that this was a newsworthy issue that many people wanted to discuss.
- I sent a personal email pitch to an editor at The New York Times (who I had worked with previously) suggesting a debate question on the responsibility bystanders have to step in when they are witnessing a crime. Even though we had worked together on public policy, I knew she had a much wider responsibility at the Times. I noted specifically it the email the lack of public attention to this issue and the number of people that responded to my blog post. In short, I made sure my pitch would address her interests and needs as an editorial page editor. I also included a possible question and 2-3 potential contributors. (This makes their work a lot easier, even if the editors don’t use your suggestions.)
- The editor to whom I pitched the question like the idea, and brought it up at an editorial board meeting. The editors decided to run with it.
- Three days after the pitch, a second editor (but one I had worked with in the past) contacted me, formally solicited my participation, and asked for suggestions for other contributors. (For the record, I suggested three other contributors, including Ruth Krug, the only other suggestion they picked up.) I was excited; it looked like we were good to go.
- I finalized and submitted my contribution on Friday, April 12th. (Note: My deadline was Monday, but since I was traveling that weekend and the next week, I submitted my contribution early.)
- Based on previous experience, I expected the forum to go live on Tuesday, April 14th or Wednesday, April 15th. Indeed, I even alerted a few key people to it’s potential publication later that week.
- On Sunday, April 21st, the Boston Marathon bombings happened, fundamentally changing the news environment, and throwing the entire debate question/forum into jeopardy. The New York Times was re-prioritizing their editorial content in the wake of the bombings, and my original pitch of bystanders jumping in to intervene in a violent crime was not quite on point.
- Nevertheless, the question and content already submitted gave the Times some material, so the editors reshaped the forum question to focus on the everyday heroes that rose up to save countless lives and take care of the injured; real hope in the midst of tragedy rather than cajoling those who stand by and let tragedy happen.
- The actual forum question evolved to become “The Bystanders Who Could be Heroes“.
- This resulted in a significant expansion of contributors since the Times now needed other writers to focus on the everyday hero part of the forum, and less on the responsibilities of those who witness crimes to step up and intervene.
- Fortunately, Ruth’s contribution was compelling, timely and relevant, even with the shift in focus. Her article was placed prominently as the second article in what became a field of seven articles and eight authors.
- My contribution ended up shuffling down to the sixth in the line up. (In fact, I think my contribution remained as a courtesy by the editorial staff since I was the one who pitched the question and helped tee up a few contributions.)
- One way to measure impact is by looking at the comments left by readers. As of May 4, 2013, the first article in the forum had 46 comments. The second article (Ruth’s) had 9 comments. The third article had 33 comments; the fourth article had 4 comments; the fifth article had 6 comments; the sixth article (mine) had 4 comments, and the seventh article had 6 comments.
Having been around the media block for a while, I am sure my article would have had more visibility and more impact if it had appeared as one of four rather than one of seven. The truth is, however, given how dramatically the media environment changed in such a short period of time, I’m lucky my article appeared at all. In fact, the other contributions were more more on point than mine given the way the question changed to fit the news of the day.
Of course, a little perspective is in order: Appearing on the New York Times is an earned media coup. Rather than lament what could have been, I know need to leverage what I have (which is substantial) in other marketing venues. Having an article on this issue in the Times further establishes my credibility as an author and expert, and this will have long run payoffs.
More on this in a future blog post.
