E-news exclusivity vs. duplication: Which description best fits your delivery?
Any evaluation of e-news capability must be considered in term of competitive achievement. Columnists claiming expertise in e-news matters emphasize the urgency of delivering high-value information unavailable elsewhere. Clearly this is a tall order. In many competitive match-ups, it becomes apparent that exclusivity is in short supply.
Instead, competitive sites post coverage of identical developments burdened by embarrassing duplication in terms of angles chosen and sources quoted. Industries where hot news breaks are constant have a better shot of providing a constant flow of exclusive reporting. Other sites are not as fortunate. They don’t have staff support required to dig behind the scenes for articles based on investigation rather than rewrite of low-interest PR announcements.
Imagine the frustration heaped upon a staff struggling to produce a weekly e-newsletter where industry news flow is anemic. Suddenly, the staff is called upon to fulfill content demands for a daily or a second weekly. Exclusivity is almost out of the question. Instead the pipeline is filled with old news where initial posts occurred weeks or months ago.
Convention coverage poses the true test wherein competitors should be able to document exclusivity. Who did the best job of interviewing program speakers as opposed to writing a story based on a PR handout? Who sponsored a newsworthy, well-attended event? How many end-users attending the show were polled for several round-up articles?
B2B news managers do not support exclusivity claims by relying on curated material, no matter how timely. And we are even less likely to make a favorable impression if most of our current posts are unedited PR announcements. The best way to assess your competitive status in the race for exclusivity bragging rights is to run like-item analysis covering the past three-six months. In many cases you may find your staff being surpassed by a more resourceful competitive crew.