Comments on: Why Don’t Foundations Get More Media Coverage?

By: @calcal30

@calcal30 — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:09:06 +0000

By: @calcal30

@calcal30 — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:08:44 +0000

By: Sean Stannard-Stockton

Sean Stannard-Stockton — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:11:40 +0000

Thanks Christine. Making grants might just be “your job”, but that doesn’t mean that making grants well is easy. It seems to me that most people (not just journalists) assume that giving money away is rather easy and so not worth paying much attention to. I happen to think that giving money away well is really difficult. I wonder if this is part of the reason the media doesn’t cover foundations much.

By: Christine Mulvin

Christine Mulvin — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 01:15:29 +0000

I work for a foundation and am the communications director. We have spent the last few years developing a really good relationship with our local paper, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and it health reporter, Peggy O’Farrell. We’ve gotten to the point where Peggy knows she can call us at any time and get an expert opinion on health issues. The story may not be about us, but it’s about healthcare, and that’s the business we’re in. We get a mention in the paper, and Peggy knows she can get what she needs from us.

We also surveyed reporters on covering foundations (the report is called “Getting in Print” and is at the Communications Network site or our site at http://www.healthfoundation.org), and we learned that reporters don’t often cover foundations because many of the stories we pitch are about the money we give, which to the media is just us doing our jobs, and that’s not news. We need to do a better job of telling our stories and a better job of being the subject matter experts that the dwindling newspaper staffs need to do their jobs easier.

By: Bruce Trachtenberg

Bruce Trachtenberg — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:21:05 +0000

John,
That’s helpful. And if you feel like sharing that survey, it could be useful to our members.

By: John McDonald

John McDonald — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:59:09 +0000

I think there are some foundations that do an excellent job – I am very impressed with the work that Irvine has done on transparency. But in a survey I did with reporters a few years ago -that is pretty much what they told me. I think things have gotten better – but there is always room for improvement. John

By: Bruce Trachtenberg

Bruce Trachtenberg — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:12:29 +0000

John,
That’s a rather sweeping indictment. My guess is that it probably applies more to foundations that don’t have bona fide or the right kind of communications staff (or outside counsel). That said, it doesn’t mean foundations can’t do a better job.

The issue that has concerned me for years — and that was highlighted in yesterday’s panel — is that foundations aren’t seen as something philanthropy beat reporters should be covering routinely.

By: Sean Stannard-Stockton

Sean Stannard-Stockton — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:03:50 +0000

Interesting take John. I’m sure Bruce would have a different take. But there no doubt that as a group foundations don’t like controversy and of course controversy is often the heart of news stories.

By: John McDonald

John McDonald — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:40:06 +0000

I have worked on this issue a bit with the Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy at USC, and often work with nonprofit groups, foundations and the news media. My own sense is that many foundations aren’t much good at working with the news media. They don’t understand the jobs of reporters and editors, they don’t to a good job providing information about their work or sharing their expertise, and often have the wrong people in communication jobs. Also, foundation leadership and board members are too cautious, and often unresponsive to media inquiries, particularly when the subject is controversial.
john

By: Mike Fabio

Mike Fabio — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:20:31 +0000

Sean:

I guess what I really meant to say is that ultimately media companies rely on quality content to sell advertising. And while many non-profits are quality content, the coverage possibilities are limited. There are a lot of truly innovative philanthropies out there (Google.org and Kiva come to mind) worthy of 6 o’clock news coverage, but does anyone really want to read another article about the American Red Cross? But ultimately a story about the American Red Cross would sell considerably more advertising than a story about Kiva.

Your point about newspapers is an interesting one, and something I hadn’t given a lot of thought to. I guess I have a hard time imagining non-profit newspapers when there is so much opportunity for citizen and social media.

By: @nonprofitsos

@nonprofitsos — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:54:10 +0000

Reading: Why Don’t Foundations Get More Media Coverage? – http://tinyurl.com/apq4l6

By: Sean Stannard-Stockton

Sean Stannard-Stockton — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:53:07 +0000

That’s possible Mike, but the media covers a lot of topics, many of which are not related in any way to their financial interests. Plus, these days foundations are actually seen as a possible savior for the newspaper industry, I wonder how philanthropy might change of some newspapers convert to nonprofits as some people have suggested?

By: Mike Fabio

Mike Fabio — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:20:33 +0000

Not to be a naysayer, but the reasoning I think is quite simple: money. This works on a couple of levels:

1. Most media companies are owned by or associated with other companies that spend enormous amounts of money on advertising. For instance, I think NBC Universal would be much more interested in covering stories related to General Electric than with any non-profit, because they kill two birds with one stone – free airtime and makes the parent company happy.

2. Foundations and non-profits simply aren’t able to pump as much money into paid advertising as for-profit companies because they don’t have as much to work with. And since the media is rarely in the business of giving away valuable screen/print/whatever real estate, foundations don’t get covered.

In full disclosure, I should note I work for one of the foundations you mention. This is an issue we (and many foundations like ours) follow very closely. Moreover we have begun the process of investing considerable energy into non-traditional media, which can often have as much (or more) impact for a fraction of the cost.