What Craigslist did to classified ads is like what Facebook is doing to newspaper obituaries.

Not many years ago, newspapers realized that  space devoted to free obituaries could become a revenue source from survivors who believed the lives of their deceased loved ones deserved special treatment.

Many local newspapers adopted policies close to that of The Indianapolis Star. The Star will print a basic obituary notice – the deceased's name, age, city of residence and facts about visitation and services –  for free.  More detailed, custom obituaries are treated like ads. The Star works with funeral homes, who include the obituaries in the funeral charges. Costs run into hundreds of dollars.

Today, newspapers earn good money running long obituaries. Lots of folks my age turn to the obituary page – printed or online – every morning to learn if someone they knew passed away.

That will change.

Of course, many obituaries now are posted on funeral home websites, which can substitute for newspaper publication and provide the opportunity for friends to post their memories.

In recent months, I learned of some deaths important to me on Facebook. Using Facebook to inform a network of friends about someone's death makes perfect sense. Those are the persons who care. Facebook also will memorialize a deceased member's Facebook page, removing private information but leaving the member's wall open.

Social media has not become so pervasive that public figures and those whose circles of acquaintances  are not entirely digital will dispense with newspaper obituaries. Considering the cost of telling the story a deceased deserves in a newspaper, however, that day is coming.

Measure outcomes, not column inches
When we ask clients for their communications goals, the answers usually are along these lines:

• “We want potential customers to know our brand and like it.”
• “It’s crucial that our stakeholders understand what we’re trying to do.”
• “Our voice must be heard clearly by the decision makers.”

Rarely does a client say, “I want to be included in 12 news stories that have 400,000 impressions and run a total of 78 column inches.” In those rare instances, the specifications usually have been set by the client’s own in-house advisers, who may know little about public relations.

Yet, the concept of Advertising Value Equivalents (AVE) – estimating the value of space and air time if they had been bought as ads – often is offered by agencies as proof of their public-relations successes.

We’ve always thought AVE is a poor measure because it says nothing about quality and message. The same problem exists with clipping counts and general-market impressions. True, they can make the client feel good about herself, but they give no indication of the quality of her relations with the public. PR work should move a client toward his goal, not just the agency's goal.

Now AVE may be going away. The recent European Summit on Measurement, convened by several international public relations organizations, issued a Declaration on Measurement Principles. The declaration stresses goals and outcomes as the keys to measurement. You can download it here.

While measurement standards proceeding from these principles are still in the works, buyers of public relations services should heed these strong statements in the principles themselves:

• “Overall clip counts and general impressions are usually meaningless.” If you’re counting, you should count only those impressions among the target audience or stakeholder and you should assess the quality of the coverage.
• “AVEs do not measure the value of public relations and do not inform future activity; they measure the cost of media space and are rejected as a concept to value public relations.” Useful comparisons must include quality and the amount of coverage that is relevant.

In truth, the measurement function of public relations should be holistic, long-term and analytical. It can be expensive, but it’s the only way to know if you’re succeeding.

At Executive Media, we’re more interested in persuading our audiences than in spinning our clients.

The only rational argument that supports the plan to pay the Indiana Pacers $10 million a year to stay in Indianapolis and operate Conseco Fieldhouse is that it's a wise investment in second-level economic development. The primary level – the Pacers organization itself – will never generate enough revenue for the city to break even.

The tangible economic activity surrounding the team and the less-tangible status of having a National Basketball Association team are supposed to tip the payback scale.

A key assumption of that argument is that the NBA gives the city valuable status. City leaders making that argument discount the estimate made last winter by Commissioner David Stern that NBA teams collectively would lose $400 million this year. They also assume that a new NBA collective bargaining agreement will fix both the money drain and the lack of team identification that seems to allow players (see Chris Paul) to announce aspirations to play for some other outfit.

Perhaps most threatening is the devaluation of teams such as the Pacers by the talent-stacking move made last week by LeBron James and Chris Bosh in joining Dwayne Wade in Miami. For the next couple of years, who will pay for tickets at Conseco unless the Heat is coming to town? If the same holds true in cities such as Charlotte and Oklahoma City, what will be the value of the NBA? The league could become a dozen or so versions of the Washington Generals, waiting for Globetrotter-style trouncings at the hands of the Heat or the Lakers or a few other teams to sell tickets.

The NBA made a calculated decision to market individual stars rather than teams. That decision may destroy the league, or at least make the decision-makers in Indianapolis wish they'd decided to subsidize players rather than owners. That, of course, would be silly.

The new boss of the Indycar racing series, Randy Bernard, got to see the track and the race nearly at its best at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway on Sunday. Hot but not unbearable, a good race but not necessarily a classic, a big crowd but probably not the biggest. Good enough to understand the tradition but still showing some room for improvement.

In our section in the Northwest Vista, we had spectators from Indianapolis, Boston, New York, Minnesota, Holland (the wooden shoe types, not the Michigan types) and Ohio. From their collective experiences, here are some suggestions to throw Bernard's way:

1. Spend some money on the museum. A first-time visitor sees many cool old cars and, given enough time, can figure out how design of chassis and engines evolved, if not why.  Surprisingly, there's not a lot of easy information about the track itself, which is the star of the show. The video presentation is a recitation of historical facts, but never really transmits the excitement of the race. The museum needs interactive exhibits, cutaways of engines and chassis, a modern-day multimedia presentation, more explanation of technology and some reference to the future. Tradition is not enough.

2.  Make every driver into a star. I understand it took decades just to have introductions of the drivers, but introducing them row by row throws away the opportunity for the newcomers to learn about each one. There's so much time between arrival at the track and the start of the race that the driver introductions can be more detailed. I'd rather hear a Townsend Bell talk about how he got to Indy than hear some ex-football player publicly display his lack of familiarity with the sport. The IRL has taken positive steps by bringing the whole group of drivers to national media centers, but only Danica and Helio have reached rock-star status.

3. Compress the accumulated traditions. Give Florence Henderson a lifetime pass and a seat in the Hulman Suite, but no singing duties. Do one really stirring tribute to the military, not several weak ones. (Personally, my jaw dropped when the benediction mentioned Izod, but I guess a deal is a deal.)

4. Put some pre-race entertainment in the corners. The video screens are great, but a couple of hours in the grandstand prior to the race would go faster with the kinds of shows they use at NBA halftimes. The acts could rotate around the tracks. Sort of like the Macy's parade in New York.

5. Develop more American drivers. I know everybody has said this for 20 years and efforts have been made, but it continues to be an important priority.

6. Explain stuff. People in our section didn't understand the scoring displays for about 60 laps. If you are working to attract a new  audience, you have to expect some of your audience is new and they don't always buy programs.

7. Put humanity first. When Dave Calabro was calling on the crowd to cheer Dario's victory, everybody on the north end of the track was holding their breath waiting to see movement from Mike Conway. How that horrific crash could have been ignored defies explanation.

8. Figure out exit traffic control. In recent years, law enforcement has become much more active in closing lanes and funneling traffic flow. So far the result seems to us to be more gridlock.  Spectators should know what streets are going to be closed or redirected so that they understand why they're being sent south when they want to go north.

These are just a few thoughts. I'm sure Bernard has his own observations as well. So far, I think he's going in the right direction.

"Utilities were created for a reason – a lot of that is to take politics out of decisions," (Indianapolis Mayor) Ballard said Wednesday, quoted in the Indianapolis Star. "When it comes to an election, (politicians) say, 'I'm going to stand up and protect ratepayers,' when infrastructure is decaying underneath."

That perspective may look correct enough to an officeholder facing re-election for him to turn his back on the populism that put him in office. That's exactly what he's doing in proposing to sell the Indianapolis water and sewer systems to Citizens Energy, an independent public trust.

Historically, Ballard's view is myopic. Privately owned utilities developed because they could raise capital, build systems and operate them at a time when governments did not have resources to do the job. Many were regulated locally until their operations spanned municipal boundaries, leading to control over rates and investments by appointed commissioners at the state level. The Mayor is correct in that having regulation vested in a state commission allows politicians to rail against utility rates without accountability for the amount and quality of planned investments.

While that situation is convenient for the office-holder, it may not be preferred by the voters. If you asked a water and sewer customer in Marion County about whether he or she would like a voice in when and how Indianapolis spends $4 billion for infrastructure improvements, I'd bet most would opt for accountability.

• Drivers would learn how cars work and would, of necessity, learn how to perform simple repairs.
• Using 35-year-old steel accomplishes the goal of recycling without the middlemen.
• The average trip would become shorter, partially because of the noise and discomfort.
• Texting and other dangerous distractions would disappear as drivers focused on operating manual transmissions.

Nevertheless, it goes. And stops. Isn't that all we really need?

Meanwhile, in a recent presentation, Indianapolis Star Editor and Vice President Dennis R. Ryerson said his newspaper has stopped counting on advertisers to carry their traditional share of operating costs. He said the paper will institute changes to induce readers to buy the print product. He described the new direction for the Star as a "daily newsmagazine." The professional reporting, writing and editing of the product, he said, had to be supported by circulation revenue.

Both of these moves come as a response to the failure of advertisers to value online publications, at least those that are produced by traditional print newspapers. Both companies also are responding to the unsolved problem of free, unregulated online duplication of news produced by their employees. 


The Evening Standard's Russian owner, Alexander Lebdenev, seems to believe flooding the market with a free quality product will make his product indispensable to advertisers. Since the change, one other free newspaper in London has shut down.


The Star's Gannett ownership seems to believe that advertisers, with many options, will never again foot the bill for news operations. A good, local news product, they are saying, should be a marketable item.


There are differences between the U.S. and British television systems, which alter the calculations, but it's hard to imagine that both of these moves can be right at the same time. If London is wrong, the Evening Standard will flame out. If Indianapolis is wrong, the Star will start spiraling into a smaller and smaller niche. Let's hope at least one of them has found the answer.

Driving back from Kokomo on Wednesday, I saw a driver almost knucklehead himself into a bad accident. We were stopped at a traffic light at a complex intersection. When crossing cars appeared to stop, he drove into the intersection with an assumption our light was turning green. He got to the middle before he realized a left-turning car was about to plow into him. How could he be so oblivious?

He was talking on the cell phone at his ear.

Heading south near Butler University last week, I stopped for a 4-way stop sign and let a car cross in front of mine. Then I started up to take my turn. The driver behind the first car paused and then barreled into the intersection in front of me. I thought she just was being too aggressive.

Then I saw she had a phone at her left ear. Perhaps she didn't see me at all.

On  Monday, I waited for a crosswalk signal and started walking across Illinois Street at Ohio Street. A man driving an SUV made a right turn that forced me to push myself off his car door to get out of his way.

He had a cell phone at his right ear.

Six states now ban use of handheld cell phones by drivers. Eighteen states ban texting by drivers. Indiana's ban, passed this year, applies only to drivers under 18. It did not apply to the three distracted drivers above.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been following the issue of distracted driving for some time. It estimates that more than 5,870 traffic fatalities and more than 515,000 injuries last year were caused by distracted driving. See the findings here.

State Rep. Vanessa Summers of Indianapolis has introduced a bill to ban the use of hand-held mobile telephones by all drivers (except in emergencies) for the past eight years.

Help her pass that bill this year. Save the knuckleheads.

I could not say this better than Bristol Editor.