Thursday, March 29, 2007

What about 'Trusted Voices'?

Howard Owens wrote a thoughtful, supportive post about our Yahoo announcement (see it here) that includes this observation:

I’m not a fan of the name, which sounds a bit too “we’re the journalists and we know better.” That’s not a great value proposition in the era of distributed media where truth is often sussed out among a multitude of voices, but there is value in placing all that content under a single platform.

I see it differently (what a shock). The intention is to differentiate McClatchy from commodity news and headlines -- not to separate ourselves from the readers. "Trusted" has lots of implications, of course, but a key objective is to declare that these reporters are doing more than one-dimensional reporting; in a real way, they're guides to help you fight through the thicket of data that everybody faces. We picked "voices" to stress that they are individuals, not packaged goods.

Maybe that doesn't work. What do you think of the name? Any other concerns?

1 comment:

  1. Taken out of context it does sound a bit pretentious, like the salesman who says "You know you can trust me!" But once readers become familiar with Hannah Allam and the others, the name will fit.

    If only it could somehow convey "Voices trusted by McClatchy who will soon earn your trust too."

    By the way-- I'm another non-newsroom employee who reads you. Newsroom evolution influences all of our jobs. I think this is an exciting time. It is certainly motivating a lot of discussion.