Astoria Communications

Social Media World Needs More SMB Case Studies

2011-02-18T14:34:00.002-05:00

It seems every time you open your inbox, there's another invitation from a company promoting a social-media seminar. While I'm sure most of them contain very useful information, there's something consistently missing in all of them.

If you attend many of these seminars, one of the first things you'll note is there's a good chance many, if not most, of the representatives will be from large corporations. Much has been written about how Zappos, IBM, Pepsico and other large brands are leveraging social media.

For sure, many of them are doing interesting things with it and dedicating large sums of money to increasing their "mind share" among the social Web. But I think there's an argument to be made that a household name could increase mind share using most any channel. In other words, more people will willingly interact with a household brand than a small or mid-sized business.

That's an important distinction to make, in my opinion, because SMBs are the growth engine of the economy. Also, getting them to adopt leading-edge marketing techniques is tougher; yet, most marketing pros aren't going to find themselves working on accounts of leading brands. Therefore, it's in everyone's best interest to identify and promote ways that these smaller organizations can become a social-media success story.

Certainly, that will probably come as more SMBs "dip their toe" in the social-media waters. Given that, the lack of their presence isn't necessarily a problem at this point. But it would behoove those in the social-media sphere to do more to cultivate these types of companies as clients and show how it can help them succeed.

Bloomberg's Verbal Gaffes Show Biz Skills Don't Always Translate

2010-12-28T18:00:00.002-05:00

New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's no stranger to verbal gaffes; he frequently finds himself in situations that reflect his experience as a business leader has translated into a different philosophy than a typical politician. While that can sometimes produce refreshing candor that voters will appreciate, it seems to make him unaware of how to properly respond in a crisis.

Most reading national papers or watching major news networks are probably aware that the New York metro area was hit with a blizzard Sunday night that left the area struggling to deal with up to two feet of snow. While most of the suburbs have recovered, a microscope has been trained on New York, as airport delays and transportation issues took a toll on visitors and residents alike.

Bloomberg caught the ire of city residents when he basically chastised them for complaining that their streets hadn't been cleared -- saying that the world wasn't coming to an end. That led many to seize on the fact that, as an independently wealthy person, he was incapable of showing empathy in connection with the struggle of average city residents.

On several occasions, Bloomberg has essentially called city residents "whiners" for voicing opinions that differ with City Hall's policy. While his characterization certainly holds water in some instances, when it comes to situations that are having a big impact on people, he often shows a striking lack of empathy.

It's this lack of empathy that I think most who think successful business leaders make great politicians don't always see in advance. We often complain about career politicians, but in a sense, we get to better see what we'll be getting because much of their professional life is played out in the media. Contrast that with someone like Bloomberg, who as a leader of a private company before assuming the mayor's office in New York, had to answer to no one and who didn't have to disclose any information about his business or personal life to anyone else.

This kind of "like or leave it" mentality can make it difficult to get things done in politics, as most don't have city councils or other supervisory bodies that are "rubber stamps." Also, this attitude can quickly come across as abrasive and make voters cool on you relatively quickly. Bloomberg's isolated from this concern, as he's in his last term, but verbal gaffes can be costly for politicians.

New York is a resilient city, not so much because of the leadership of its politicians, but because residents must quickly acclamate to a life that often means putting up with a variety of temporary struggles, such as power outages, building issues, etc. But like any group of people, sometimes they reach a point that makes them feel they've had enough. They're definitely in that spot this week, which has Bloomberg feeling the heat.

Careers Need Effective Messaging Too

2010-12-23T14:49:00.001-05:00

Being a public relations pro, one of the things I consistently stress is the need to create an effective, articulate message. Unfortunately, all too often people assume the a product or service’s "wow" factor will automatically put them over the top, even though that’s not always the case. While it may not automatically seem like something that’s vital to career management, messaging should be one of your top considerations here too.

Stop for a moment and think about how we’re communicating these days. As much as we’re actually talking with others in some interpersonal setting, we’re also communicating online via some sort of social network, e-mail, etc. We may not automatically think of them as such, but all of these conversations are actually messages whose impact can vary tremendously depending on how we structure them.

When it comes to career management, we all know that we should put our best foot forward, but here too many tend to focus more on how to interact in an interview than any other step in the process. Problem is, you’ve got to do a good deal of effective positioning to even get to the interview – especially in an era where unemployment rates are still hovering a post-Depression highs and not forecast to decline dramatically over the next couple of years.

Given that, put some thought into the messages you create when you’re seeking a career. Concentrate on using specific words and phrases that articulate how your skills are better than the competition’s. And if you’re between jobs, please – no matter what you do – don’t label yourself as unemployed. Hiring managers these days are becoming increasingly concerned about someone’s skills becoming rusty, given the fact that long-term unemployment – that is people who’ve been without a job for at least six months – is also at post-Depression highs.

During your job search, focus on doing all you can to get your skills in front of people, whether it’s starting and promoting a blog showcasing your skills or doing pro-bono media relations for a local non-profit. All of these things will not only illustrate the sharpness of your skills, but will also get you in front of someone who might very well be able to help you.

And when you do get some help, whether it’s a recommendation from a former employer, a job interview, etc., please make sure you properly acknowledge that help. I can’t tell you how often I’ve heard hiring managers say that if they have two equally qualified candidates, they’ll advance someone who remembered nice touches like sending a follow up "thank you" letter to someone for an interview.

One of the venues where I spend a good deal of time each week is LinkedIn. As such, I have an opportunity to review a number of different profiles. I’ve been amazed to see some list their current position as "unemployed." These people may be superbly qualified for a great opportunity, but honestly, I rarely read past that because of the way they position themselves. Given the fact that this tight labor market is likely to last for some time to come, think about messaging and use clever, concise descriptions of your skills and experience in hopes of giving yourself a leg up on the competition!

Economic Downturn? Wouldn't Believe It By This Story

2010-11-19T15:14:00.003-05:00

We've been living through an economic downturn that in scale is unlike anything we've seen in this country in easily more than 30 years -- some say since The Great Depression. Yet you wouldn't know it to read one tale involving a major international PR firm.

The PR Coach featured an interesting tale of a small Dallas-based software company that markets a technology platform for restaurants trying to hire a major international firm.

As is often the case, the in-house marketer had to work furiously to convince senior management to hire a PR firm. After a few weeks of reluctance, he gave in and the marketing executive brought representatives from a well-known firm in for a meeting. Following a meeting that involved a variety of team members, including high-level officials, an agency executive indicated they'd be putting together a proposal that the prospect would have within a week's time.

More than two weeks went by without any response from the firm, despite attempts to get information on the proposal's status via e-mail, cell phone outreach, etc. Finally, another executive in the agency is reached, apologizes and indicates the senior member of the team who met with the prospect has been traveling and will put together something soon. Perhaps not surprisingly, nothing was ever submitted by the firm, leaving the in-house marketer frustrated and furious.

Unfortunately, it's a sad tale that irritates many who don't work in the global agencies. While their bottom line can withstand not getting that prospect's business, their actions damage the industry as a whole and are one of the prime reasons we have an image problem. Paradoxically, they're also in many cases the same firms that head up PR industry efforts to rehabilitate its image. Anyone else see a problem here?

Pass On a “Spec” Opportunity

2010-10-13T13:58:00.002-04:00

One of the methods I use to keep an eye on the “pulse” of the PR industry is participating in professional forums on LinkedIn. Recently, I've come across a number of postings by younger professionals that highlighted a trend I thought others might be interested in.

While certainly not new, the trend of asking for work to be done on "spec" – i.e. as a sort of audition before landing an ongoing and/or permanent role with an organization – has seemed to be on a dramatic rise given the current economy. Although it's certainly easy to see why individuals would be interested in taking this route, especially if they're relatively new to the industry, these types of opportunities should generally be considered offers you can refuse.

There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to prove your merit to a potential client or employer and there's certainly no mystery as to why they ask. The potential employer or client is essentially getting a portfolio of work for free. Although the potential employer or consultant may see benefit in going along with this arrangement, remember that for the other side there's nothing but upside, whereas for you, it's at best a mixed picture.

From hearing others' tales of these situations, the biggest issue lies in the fact that almost all the time, they get the job seeker or consultant nowhere. There's almost always some "hang up" that the other side has with the work: its quality, the way it was done, the time in which it was completed. In many cases, it could be something that could win industry acclaim, but still wouldn't be good enough for the prospect or potential employer.

At the end of the day, what the potential employee or consultant is left with is a time investment that was at best not productive. We tend to think of time as something that's valuable only to the very wealthy or important, but the truth of the matter is, time is a commodity that none of us can manufacture. Therefore, it has value and should be used wisely. Given that, the best course of action when you're embarking on a search for a job or a new client is to devise a plan that specifies what type of arrangement you're looking for, along with tactics that position you with a decent chance of getting it and stick to it.

Using this approach doesn't ensure success, but it does come with a much higher likelihood that your time will have been used for a worthy pursuit. Even if your ultimate goal isn't achieved right away, no matter how long it takes you can feel better that you maximized the time you had to pursue it. In contrast, if you'd continued with the speculative opportunity, there's a chance that you will come away empty and behind the "8 ball" in terms of time.

Lest you think I'm just preaching from the pulpit and not speaking of experience, like many PR pros, I went there too earlier in my career. And while few things in life can be spoken of with any degree of certainty, I feel certain in saying that should you try a similar situation, yours will end up like mine: with nothing to show for it.

While the economy's improving on many fronts, the job picture is estimated to be relatively weak for the next 24 months, given the sheer number of individuals that have to be absorbed back onto payrolls and the average number of jobs being gained in a given month. With that the case, these “speculative” offers are likely to come fast and furious for some time.

This Was News?

2010-09-15T10:48:00.002-04:00

OK, I get it; Twitter's all the rage and everything they do or even think about doing gets covered with microscopic detail. However, I was a bit surprised when the whole tech news world basically stopped for a second while Twitter unveiled details that many think will pave the way to an ad-supported business model.

As most anyone who follows tech knows, how Twitter's going to make money has been one of the biggest reasons the platform has stayed in the press -- at least if you don't count Kanye West's most recent apology to Taylor Swift. We've all been waiting for many months, especially after the announcement of several new high-level executives, to see what kind of innovative platform for making money the firm was going to unveil.

This week we got our strongest hints when Twitter unveiled some changes designed to basically keep people on Twitter.com for much longer periods. Most know think they're leaning toward an ad-supported business model -- which leads me to my next big question. "Haven't we been there before?"

It seems Twitter thinks that it will be able to finance itself with ads despite the fact that the increasing glut of inventory has pushed down ad prices significantly. Bottom line: Advertising brings in less money all the time because there are more places to display ads and because reading patterns are becoming much more fragmented.

To be fair, Twitter did unveil several new features on its site, including the ability to include multimedia content, that many see as a move Twitter is making to directly position itself as a Facebook competitor. One big difference I see, however, is Facebook is designed as more of a "walled" garden where you can control who sees the content you distribute. In contrast, Twitter's more of a broadcast platform designed to get your message out to as many as possible. This is illustrated not only in the ability to send messages to followers, but by the fact that retweets are often the primary reason that someone's message gets wide enough distribution for mass attention.

Niall Harbison of The Next Web penned a laudatory piece on the announcement, saying that what at first appears like a Web site upgrade will emerge as something much more meaningful given the role that Twitter now plays in our every day lives.

Time will tell on that prediction, but it seems to me it's going to take more than another ad model for Twitter to reach its full potential.

Even Gifted Communicators Can Make PR Flubs

2010-09-07T16:16:00.001-04:00

Two characteristics that are commonly linked together are the ability to manage in a crisis and gifted communications skills. We seem to assume those automatically go together in a gifted leader; however, if there's one situation that proved this isn't always the case, it's the Manhattan mosque debate.

As most reading this column have probably heard, a Manhattan developer and the leader of a mosque in the financial district teamed together to promote the idea of an Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan called Park 51. While the development cleared its final hurdle on Aug. 3 when the city's Landmark Preservation Commission approved its construction, a national battle was just getting underway.

Many Republican and conservative leaders – coincidentally all from outside New York City – pounced on the story, with Sarah Palin going as far as to call the mosque an "unnecessary provocation." New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg was the only sane voice in the conversation and the only one to consistently defend the organization's right to build at the planned site. President Obama, who is widely regarded as someone with a "gift for gab" almost instantly found himself in hot water, proving the danger that anyone communicating in a crisis faces when they let anyone "hijack" the facts.

The president did make an impassioned defense of the mosque, but almost immediately found himself attacked by everyone from Palin to some families of the victims of the September 11th attacks. What he apparently didn't realize is that often engaging in debate is something that is not only perilous, but foolhardy.

In my mind, from a communications standpoint, this issue was simple. The approval of any religious facility's construction is a local zoning issue – PERIOD. The group constructing the facility secured all of those, and as mentioned, every permit needed for approval was secured by early August. Given that the federal government was in no way ever involved in the situation, the president missed a great opportunity to stay above the fray and let others fight whatever fight they had in mind.

President Obama's gaffe – or at least that's what I perceive it as – illustrates an age-old conflict in PR about responding in a crisis. We all know that sometimes they best thing to say is very little or nothing at all. There will be many times in a crisis when you're better off letting the situation unfold to some natural conclusion, or at least the next phase, without issuing a public commentary. Yet, there will also be other times when complete silence is not the best stance to take, as it gives the appearance that a person or company is trying to avoid dealing with an obvious situation.

These conflicting situations are why crisis communications is so difficult. Simply put, we all seem to want a pre-fabricated template that we can consult following the emergence of any crisis – sort of a “cheat sheet” that says when "x" happens, do "y." It would be fabulous if such a convention could be devised, but for better or worse, life's just not that simple. Trouble is, people seem to either lack the ability to communicate effectively or they let their decision process become fogged in a moment of crisis.

Letting this "fog" sweep in generally means you'll be dealing with a crisis much longer than if a more effective approach had been taken. To go back to the mosque debate, if President Obama had simply and consistently said something to the effect of "While I understand the impassioned views of many on this issue, at its core the decision of whether or not to construct the mosque in Lower Manhattan is a local zoning issue. The group sponsoring its construction has obtained all the necessary approvals for its construction, which hopefully will bring this debate to a close."

While nothing is certain, I'd be willing to wager a pretty penny that if the president had followed this strategy, he would have been able to get a month of his political life back. Instead, he spent valuable time letting others mop the floor with him and linking the mosque's construction to all sorts of other initiatives that had nothing to do with one another. Often, the most victory one can hope for following the emergence of a crisis is to minimize time spent on dealing with it.

Crisis Response Is All About Balance

2010-08-10T14:37:00.001-04:00

As I wrote recently, BP's handling of the public relations disaster it was faced with following the Deepwater Horizon disaster surely won't be taught to students as a template for crisis communications. However, when it comes to crisis response, it's important to note that a balanced approach is key to minimize damage.

This month's crisis involving a major business brand involves Hewlett-Packard's decision to fire former CEO Mark Hurd following a sexual harassment claim from a woman who worked as a contractor for the company. Seeking to counter the notion that boards of directors are often asleep at the wheel and slow to respond, the company's board pressured Hurd to tender his resignation, which he did on Aug. 6. While the company certainly hoped Hurd's departure would make the issue disappear and allow the firm to return to normal, in some ways, it's been anything but that.

The New York Times reported on Tuesday that the company followed the advice of its PR counselor, APCO, which told the company's board the best stance would be to fully disclose all elements of the case, ranging from the unsupported allegations of sexual harassment, to Hurd's alleged falsification of expense reports – itself grounds for termination. One would imagine both APCO and HP were calculating, and certainly hoping, that in the end this would be the best course of action. However, in the ensuing days following Hurd's departure, the company has endured a mixed bag, with corporate governance experts saying the board acted appropriately, while many others see Hurd's departure as an event that could harm H-P's long-term performance and its ability to transform itself into a services company along the lines of IBM.

While most PR pros won't be called into handle a crisis of this magnitude, this situation is also one that can serve as a template of sorts because it perfectly illustrates how crisis response involves making tough decisions that involve alternatives that all look dangerous. Generally speaking, crisis communications pros do recommend companies to take swift command of a situation because you don't want to appear oblivious to a crisis, a la BP. However, that doesn't mean that a swift decision on big issues should be an immediate reaction. If you recall, what got BP so much negative press was the fact that many executives were seen as viewing the disaster as an intrusion into their lives. Certainly, no one was happy that it took as long as it did to cap the well, but on the whole, that wasn't the key fact that made it such a crisis for the company.

Likewise, many believe HP should have taken the time to conduct a more thorough investigation of the alleged harassment. If, following an investigation, the evidence showed that Hurd did act improperly toward the former contractor, then HP's board would have been on firm ground to dismiss him. However, if an investigation determined that there was little or no evidence of harassment, then shareholders, customers and most other influential groups would have probably supported the board's decision to keep him.

What both of these cases show is that it's often the mishandling of information during a crisis, and not necessarily the decisions made in its wake, that bring the most harm to a company's reputation. Influential audiences want a company to conduct a thorough investigation so that all the key facts can be unearthed because this will likely result in smoother sailing for the company later on, regardless of the specific circumstances. These cases show that what companies involved in a crisis need to do quickly is communicate all the information they know about a crisis and provide regular updates to key audiences. Also, they should ensure that the company's CEO, or another high-ranking official, quickly assumes the defacto post of crisis czar and always appears in command of the situation.

Finally, it's important that your messaging remain consistent. In other words, don't give one set of messages to one audience and a separate message to another based on what you fear their reactions might be. It's better to be open and honest from the "get go" rather than risk the chance that the attempt to over manipulate the message will come back to "bite" later.

The last, and sometimes most important, piece of the crisis communications puzzle is the crisis response plan. This plan lays out the procedures that must be taken in the event of a crisis and designates the individuals that will perform key tasks, such as communicating with employees or the media. Every organization that faces the prospect of dealing with a crisis, even if that crisis at first seems mundane, should have a crisis communications plan. In addition, you should make sure that every key employee is aware of its existence and clearly understands his/her responsibilities should a crisis occur.

Remember that every organization, no matter how large or small, faces significant consequences from improperly handling or responding to a crisis. Given that, it's important to make an investment in planning now to avoid a big problem down the road.

BP Spill Likely to Serve as Template for Bad Crisis PR

2010-08-03T18:59:00.001-04:00

When a company finds itself in a crisis that matches the level of the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, odds are a wave of bad publicity will be coming your way regardless of what steps you take to correct the disaster and how you handle the PR aspect of the crisis. We all know that this disaster will rank as the worst environmental catastrophe in our country's history. At this point, I'd say the public relations response will also rank as one of the worst as well.

From the beginning, the parties involved, which not only include British Petroleum but Transocean and other international players, did almost nothing right when it comes to communications. Rather than portraying an image that they were taking charge of the situation, everyone almost immediately began to pass the buck and start debating who was at fault and who bore the primary responsibility of responding and cleaning up the disaster.

That type of strategy showed from the get-go that the executive suite, and particularly those involved with and concerned with the company's ongoing financial affairs, were in charge of the response. No one with any training in crisis communications would have handled things the way the parties involved did in the beginning. What has transpired since is a situation that could pose as serious a threat to BP, like Johns Manville.

Never heard of them? The company developed asbestos, which was used in a variety of commercial purposes following its debut in the 1930s. Virtually all the pipes in this country were made from asbestos before the advent of PVC a few decades later. Johns Manville was one of the nation's industrial giants until financial losses that were the result of lawsuits filed over the lung damage caused by asbestos drove the firm into bankruptcy. It reorganized under bankruptcy protection in the late '80s and became part of the Berkshire Hathaway conglomerate in 2000. It hasn't manufactured asbestos in decades and still is a leader in a variety of building-product categories.

The point of that anecdote is that many executives are foolish enough to think that missteps will never cost them dearly, no matter how big the failure. Many always believe their company will be a large enough ship to withstand any wave, even though history is full of examples to the contrary. While no one thinks of it at the time the collapses begin, one of the key threads in many disasters of this type involve communications and the way a company handles crisis response.

This makes it vital to think about how you and your client or the company for which you work will respond to a crisis should one occur. The first and most important rule is to develop a crisis communications plan in advance and make sure everyone in the organization is aware of it and the procedures that are to be followed. All it takes is one person, no matter what level of the organization he or she occupies, to be "off script," and major damage can be wrought.

The second rule is to realize that once a crisis hits, you'll be in the limelight and likely may stay there for quite some time. One of the reasons BP CEO Tony Hayward got so much negative press about that now-infamous golf outing is not only because people found it in poor taste, but also because they couldn't believe he would let himself get caught golfing in the midst of a crisis. Being in the limelight obviously has its perils, but it also presents a unique time to take command of a situation and reverse a bad situation quickly. Smart companies do all they can to turn the situation around as quickly as possible.

Another wise tactic to follow is to make sure that anyone in your organization or working for a client has been media trained. Many executives like to think that they've got a "gift" when it comes to media relations, but honestly few do, and you don't want to take that chance with your client. If you have a good relationship with the client, they should be willing to take your counsel when it comes to media training and other elements that are vital to the successful handling of a crisis. If they aren't willing to take your counsel, that should raise big, red flags.

With any luck, most of you won't find yourself in the midst of a major communications crisis. However, PR pros often are surprised to find themselves in the middle of a crisis -- either because they thought they did everything to avoid one or because they thought the client was too "mundane" to ever find itself in the midst of one. As is the case with any disaster, the best defense is preparation. Good preparation can not only safeguard your client relationship and the success of your PR and communications program, it might very well save your client from ruin.

Don't Be Fooled: PR Is Not All About Relationships

2010-06-21T20:28:00.001-04:00

There are many misconceptions that individuals have about public relations, especially those who have never hired a PR consultant or agency before. But the one I'd say tops the list is the notion that successful PR pros are limited to those who have personal relationships with influential journalists.

Ever since the PR industry stood by while this reputation of PR pros as being little more than people who “smile and dial” took hold, there's been a notion that if you aren't friends with someone, they won't take your call and won't run your story. PR pros themselves have in many ways tried to capitalize on this myth by saying they're the only ones who can make leading journalists pick up their phones.

Interestingly, neither the client nor the agency/consultant usually sees the big problem with this approach. Simply put, how well do they think that approach is going to work when the editor or reporter with whom they may have a rapport leaves or gets downsized -- situations that are happening every day in the current environment?

For the PR pro or agency, a similar question would be what are you going to do when the industry in which you've been specializing all the sudden hits a rough patch and you can no longer rely on a handful of journalist relationships? Obviously, any PR pro who has built his or her reputation on this kind of strategy is going to have a tough time convincing current or prospective clients that he or she will be able to do the job once tough times it if all they've banked on is a relationship strategy.

Instead of positioning PR strategy and execution-like sales, think of it like a typical professional service and realize that the real value comes from strategic counsel as much as execution. Just as a lawyer can't control which judge will preside over a hearing or trial, no PR pro can control who the reporter is that covers a given beat at a target publication. However, just like lawyers make planning, research, and preparation a key part of their strategy, so can PR pros.

Whether you're handling a pitch or client that's in an industry in which you have extensive experience or you're taking on a client in an industry that's relatively new to you, the elements of success are the same. Put the emphasis on research so that you can properly identify appropriate outlets and targets and spend the time to create a newsworthy pitch that incorporates an angle that will have an impact on the readers of your target publication. Once these two initial steps are done, the final step is making sure you get your message into the hands of the right reporter and editor.

When it comes to picking the appropriate contact, I prefer a mix of tools and time. By that I mean while I do use media databases, I also spend a lot of time researching the content that's appeared in a particular target. This helps you both prepare a pitch that they'll likely appreciate and ensure that you're targeting an appropriate journalist. Once you succeed on both fronts, the chances your pitch will get picked up increase exponentially.

I say all this from personal experience. Over the course of the recession, like most small PR pros, while I've maintained my industry concentrations, I've also had to pitch business in industries that were relatively new to me. However, through research and a methodical approach, I was able to find success in these areas and came to add them to my mix of service offerings. While branching out may not make for the most comfortable experience, in all likelihood it will be a necessity at one time or another. Given that, the earlier you prepare, the better.

No Matter How PR Evolves, Message Remains King

2010-06-16T10:32:00.001-04:00

One of the things business is fond of doing is spending endless hours debating what the future will be like and how it will threaten the way things have been done over the recent past. PR is no exception to this, with the debate largely focusing on the evolving media landscape and the increasing importance of online publications/mediums over print. However, there are some simple things that, if kept in mind, will ensure future success.

Unfortunately, one thing we've lost appreciation for in American society is the art of writing. Sure, we all claim to do it with varying regularity, but its role has changed just as the way we've “digested” information has changed. While at one point in time, it was very common for the average American to receive a daily or weekly newspaper, newspaper circulation has continued to drop -- first with the increasing influence of television and then in the mid-'90s with the proliferation of the Internet.

That trend has slowly taken us away from long-form journalism typically found in newspapers and news magazines toward shorter-form narratives on television, blogs, and other online publications. Interestingly, I would posit that most didn't notice the trend when it first started, since you don't usually time broadcast news pieces or count the words in an online news article or blog posting. It's been happening for a while, and I would put it as one of the big reasons that newspapers have run into so much trouble. Simply put, we don't really have much of an attention span anymore.

For PR pros, this trend has brought an interesting challenge. On one hand, the number of overall outlets actually has increased if you count online venues like The Huffington Post and other blogs and e-zines that actually practice journalism. On the other hand, it's required PR pros to get much more serious about something many are uncomfortable with, which is writing.

Jack O'Dwyer and others who write about the PR profession have long lamented that many people's impression of PR is basically a “smile and dial” approach where 20-somethings are unleashed on the phone, given scripts, and told to sound friendly when they pitch reporters. That approach basically made PR a “numbers game,” in that PR execs believed that if you called enough people, surely a few of them were bound to say yes to your idea. Needless to say, that approach is a tougher sale in an age where the number of potential targets is shrinking. Now more than ever, a message has to be targeted, with the right subject matching the right person for success to be found.

Rather than continually debating what the future of PR will be like and how the status quo can be maintained, I urge everyone getting into the business, and even those practicing now, to think more about what you're saying than ever before. Success comes from articulating a value proposition, along with anticipating questions and skepticisms about your story idea or pitch. Answering those even before you get very far down the road in your dialog with a particular reporter and editor will do a lot to favor your cause.

Many PR pros can also serve as valuable resources to reporters, especially those working in fields that are dominated by legal and legislative developments. In an era of shrinking newsroom budgets, reporters simply don't have the same amount of time that they once did to research stories and ideas. Therefore, PR pros who send well-researched pitches backed up with details on how the story suggestions will have a quantifiable impact will still find success.

Of course, many of the “old rules” will still apply. For example, when picking media targets, you still want to make sure that you're reaching the highest number of potential customers and clients for your client as possible. Also, try to think of quality over quantity when it comes to placements and other results. Finally, before embarking on any tactics, make sure everything's guided by a plan detailing how your efforts will further a client's goals.

While change is never easy and the evolution will certainly be unsettling, following some time-tested, common sense rules will greatly enhance the chances of a successful evolution.

Did Traditional Media Miss The Boat?

2010-05-24T15:38:00.002-04:00

It seems everywhere you turn these days, people are either trying to determine the future of media or are lamenting the death of print journalism as we've known it. Yet in all these discussions, no one recalls a point where newspapers in particular had a chance to embrace the future and failed in a big way.

Those of us who were online in the 1990s remember bold predictions of how the commercial Internet was going to bring positive changes to the news business that would benefit the consumer and the journalist. The theory was online platforms would bridge the age gap by bringing younger consumers who were less likely to subscribe to a newspaper into the news-consumption fold. At the same time, newspapers were likely to thrive because many liked the advantages they provided, not the least of which was easy portability.

While the consumer Internet did bring an increase in some demographics, the benefit was largely muted by publishers who were so scared at killing their "cash cow" that they essentially voided any success they could have had online by continually shifting subscription policies, only making certain content available online, etc.

These strategy shifts initially didn't have much of an impact because many of the companies successfully doing business online were "off shoots" of major media companies. Things really began to change when citizen journalism, which was first seen in outlets like The Drudge Report, and now includes The Daily Kos, The Huffington Post and a number of other well-respected outlets.

With this shift, start-ups began to prove that you didn't have to be a major media conglomerate to offer quality news. Add to that, the fact that these sites traditionally attracted sought-after demographics meant that they were able to cover their already low start-up and operating costs relatively easily.

Over the last two years, while much has changed on the social news front, very little has changed in the newspaper arena, with the exception of the fact that many outlets are losing money. Papers know better than to abandon their Web sites, but only The Wall Street Journal has figured out how to make money from its online presence. The move online is one of the key reasons that big battles between editorial staffers and management have played out at The Los Angeles Times and The Boston Globe to name a couple.

Meanwhile, journalism graduates and long-time scribes alike are villifying major media organizations for making it much harder to earn a living as a reporter these days. In a discussion on the media-centric site Mediabistro recently, many writers were taking aim at "content mills" like Associated Content, which pays writers relatively little money to produce content for sites like Livestrong -- at least when compared to $1 a word or better at well-known trades and larger outlets.

From a societal standpoint, one can argue this shift has been a bad thing. However, there's enough blame to go around for allowing it to happen. Newspapers had more than a decade to figure out a new business model, but were instead happy to rely on their tried-and-true model that basically relied on low-cost labor for the most part. Had it not been for the fact that most scribes earned very little money for much of their careers, the model would have fallen apart 20 years ago. This meant there was relatively little fat that outlets were willing to trim when times got tough.

What journalism honestly needs now are well-respected individuals willing to serve as cheerleaders for an industry that's done great things for society over the years. Hopefully that will come before it's too late.

A Challenge to PR Pros: Defend Your Expertise

2010-04-06T20:10:00.003-04:00

An interesting discussion got kicked off last week on LinkedIn following a posting by an entrepreneur who issued a challenge to PR pros. Only it wasn't your typical challenge and it highlighted one of the reasons that PR doesn't get the respect it deserves.

This "dare" involved an effort to try and find someone willing to operate on a pay-for-placement basis in an effort to secure press for a personal grooming device that he didn't really elaborate on extensively. Predictably, the suggestion unleashed a firestorm of comments for about a week from PR pros who were irked that he was basically saying most PR firms just take their clients' money and can't really get clients in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. His offer was to arrive at a fee scale based on a paper's circulation.

What he didn't realize is that there are already several firms that claim to operate on this model. But rather than just point out that fact as I did and let him choose to go with one of those if he wished, many practitioners got upset at the suggestion, pointed out it was unethical, etc. Unfortunately, while passions get stoked by such dares, the profession doesn't really do much as a whole to defend itself against those challenges and unjust comparisons to other professions.

As PR pros, if we're going to counter such arguments, we need to use other arguments besides ethics because, honestly, a client that's going to try and secure that kind of arrangement doesn't care about ethics. And many PR pros will take the challenge, either because they're trying to break into the field and want to just try it for the clips or because in this economy, they need any possible revenue they can find. Neither side is going to care about the fact that it's against the PRSA Code of Ethics because in all likelihood no one involved in that potential transaction is a PRSA member, thus making that point moot.

The entrepreneur also mentioned that some law firms operate on this model – a typical point that's made in these discussions. However, what people bringing up this angle never highlight is the fact that contingency work, which is what this type of arrangement is called, is really only used by personal-injury attorneys and others having a specialty representing plaintiffs. Because such firms receive a relatively high percentage of any money collected, if they can get enough cases in the pipeline, odds are enough of them will work to sustain a business.

One of the things that very few PR pros ever mention is that the biggest component to whether a product or service makes it in the market is whether or not it's actually unique and/or serves a need that enough people have. While there's a conspiracy theory among many entrepreneurs that anytime a PR program doesn't secure a ton of ink, it's the firm or consultant's fault, in reality it's most often because the product or service just isn't that appealing. This is further illustrated by the fact that so few products actually succeed on the market.

To me, more PR pros should go as far to do as much as they can to get these kinds of inquiries off their plate because nobody can build a business with these kinds of companies. Part of having a solid bottom line result is making your business run as efficiently as possible with the maximum margins possible. Put into plain English this means you want to minimize the amount of time you spend on non-billable activities, such as selling, and put more time into activities that actually earn revenue.

Secondly, as Michigan PR pro Alan Stamm so eloquently put in an article he authored on Ragan.com last week, PR pros need to avoid a "vending machine" approach to PR and focus on the fact that media relations is just one PR tactic. Social-media engagement, analyst relations and other tactics are often a big piece of an ongoing program – something that most people never mention.

One of the best pieces of advice came from PR practitioner Amanda Cooper of Victoria, British Columbia.

"Some people think that any publicity is good publicity. I say 'be careful what you wish for.' I am curious as to what would happen if a P.R. professional took you up on your offer and an uncomplimentary write-up happened. Does the P.R. pro still get paid?"

Finally, anyone who's been in the business for any length of time will tell you the most vital part of ensuring a successful client relationship is establishing clear expectations up front. In the minds of many, even if it's something that makes sense on some level, one of the biggest problems with "pay for performance" is arriving at a metric everyone can agree on. Beyond only paying for certain circulation achievements, how much "ink" qualifies as a hit?

Unfortunately, if the reputation of PR as a valuable service is going to change, it's professionals that have to lead the charge. We owe it not only to ourselves but our clients to do a better job of communicating our value proposition and explain that just as no single product can literally be a fit for anybody, no single PR strategy is going to work for every single company.

We're More Than List Builders

2010-03-11T23:31:00.002-05:00

I've often maintained that PR as an industry is in bad need of some good PR. A new discussion underway amongst professionals has me thinking this view needs to be broadened to include not only the industry as a whole, but the people who practice it.

A long-running conversation on LinkedIn features a variety of PR pros giving their views on sharing media lists with clients and soliciting opinions in regard to policies employed at various agencies. While the intent of the original poster was to solicit opinions on whether (s)he should share a media list with a client, it actually opened up a whole can of worms.

The central issue, as I and other respondents see it, is that this wouldn't even really be an issue if PR pros better positioned themselves and were more confident in their abilities. In other words, while tactics and the success of the tactics employed are a big part of what makes of successful, the strategy used to determine the actual tactics is what determines everything.

Unfortunately, strategy is something we rarely talk about. Pitch meetings with prospective clients are dominated by promises of high-level media placements and pronouncements of capabilities. Yet, the very fact that these elements take center stage at a pitching meeting sets up a situation where you're going to live or die by the hits only. It also positions the industry as little more than a telemarketing operation specializing in delivering marketing messages.

Any PR pros who work for small or mid-sized businesses can back this up. Often, clients will leap the assumption that if you don't personally know every editor at a publication you're pitching, you'll go nowhere. They don't even think about the fact that the messaging you use and other elements you create will be as instrumental, if not more so, than any relationships you may have. No one expects every lawyer to know every judge they may appear before on a personal level, but yet PR pros have let themselves get backed into that corner. Worse still, we've got no one to blame but ourselves.

My challenge to PR pros out there: Position yourself as a strategist who employs customized tactics that suit a client. Don't let yourself be known as someone who only does the "smile and dial."

Sometimes Less Really is More

2010-03-03T00:57:00.002-05:00

Ironically, one of the toughest things about being a public relations counselor is getting clients to actually take our counsel. Perhaps nothing illustrates this better than the process of determining media targets.

Long, long ago it seems, PR pros let themselves get pigeon-holed into a "YES!" mentality when it comes to any request from a client. For example, if you were to eavesdrop on a typical PR agency pitch meeting, when a typical question like "Can you get us into The Wall Street Journal?" comes up, the answer will many times go something like this "Sure, we have many contacts there. They all know us and are always eager to feature our clients."

There would, of course, be nothing wrong with that if it were typically true. And it's not that it's never true; rather that the question is one that's impossible to answer honestly with the level of information you typically walk away from following an initial pitch meeting. In a sense, these meetings involve everyone putting on their best face – yes, even the prospective client.

While it's true that the prospect holds all the cards in terms of the buying process, the fact that they're looking for a PR firm illustrates the fact that they're eager to get the third-party validation that comes from an objective news article in a leading business or trade publication. So, in a sense, they're working hard to have the agency or consultant come away believing they've got the best thing since sliced bread and the agency or consultant is working hard to get them to believe they know how to butter that bread better than anyone. The problem with this approach is it paves the way for unrealistic expectations and/or a problematic relationship from the get-go – and that's IF they hire you.

As I've written many times before, one of the biggest problems with PR is its high client turnover rate. I believe one of the biggest reasons the turnover rate is so high is because PR pros are too hesitant to give feedback and counsel that clients may not want to hear. When a prospect asks whether a placement can be secured in a particular media outlet, rather than instantly saying "YES!," the focus should shift to the PR program's objectives, including the audience the prospect wants to reach.

While there's an automatic notion that a placement in The New York Times is the best thing you can have, depending on the product or service you offer, that may not always be true. In media relations, you don't just want to reach the most people, but the right people. Thus, if only 10 percent of the readers of The New York Times are potential customers but 90 percent of the readers of a well-respected trade publication are likely buyers, the trade publication may very well be your best bet.

Likewise, when it comes to determining value from a PR program, be careful in how you say you're going to do that. Last week, I saw a PR pro write on a well-known social-networking site that they still use the ad-equivalency model. For those who may not know, that model basically multiples the space your story occupies and translates that into what it would cost to secure an ad of the same size. It was created in large part because the number that you will arrive at will often look impressive. Problem is, it's not really connected to the business objectives of the client at all.

Everything in a program or proposal that you put together should be tied to business objectives that are important to the client or the prospect. Not only does this approach allow a new program to start off with both client and agency/consultant on the same page, it also helps eliminate much of the confusion and frustration down the line. Using this approach, instead of filling in blanks to simple questions like "What media outlets do you want to reach?," you and the client go down a path that has both examining what the PR program should accomplish and how best to get there.

The answers to this question may very well generate a program that has a smaller list of targets and places an emphasis on fewer program elements. However, the long-term dividends may be much greater than a program that emphasizes numbers for their sake alone.

Establishing Trust in the Age of Social Media

2010-02-07T14:18:00.003-05:00

The "end goal" of all marketing efforts is to turn information gatherers into trusted consumers. While PR and advertising both work toward this goal, one of the greatest selling points of social media has been that trust will come faster since the real focus is on sharing information and not selling. Unfortunately, a new survey indicates that's not yet true.

Edelman, the nation's largest independent PR firm, has for years conducted an extensive round of interviews of consumers in conjunction with its annual Trust Barometer. Edelman recently published the results of its 10th annual survey, which yielded some surprises.

Of the 4,875 people aged 25 to 64 surveyed, the number of people who people who trusted information from "people like me" dropped from 47 percent to 27 percent. Digital media in particular fared poorly; only 11 to 22 percent of those surveyed indicated they trusted blogs, social networks and other free content sources, such as Wikipedia or Google News.

Traditional media, as one might expect, didn't fare very well either. Trust in television news dropped from 44 percent to 24 percent; trust in newspapers declined from 46 to 32 percent and radio fell from 48 percent to 31 percent -- it's smaller drop probably a reflection of the fact that radio news is generally much more pervasive in larger markets.

While the traditional media results were probably not surprising, most were dismayed by the social-media numbers, since the premise of the medium has generally been that people will trust information and recommendations from friends more than third parties they don't know. This survey shows that, while the results all around were relatively poor, some do place value in having a trusted gatekeeper -- something that's always been held as the primary advantage of major media outlets.

Edelman chief Richard Edelman can be seen elaborating on the survey here

Article Predicts Growth in Social Media Spending

2010-01-22T20:34:00.003-05:00

As the economy struggles to recover, those of us in the marketing industry are eagerly watching for signs of growth. While the overall picture still remains a bit murky, the consensus view is that social-media spending will continue to grow.

A new survey conducted by Alterian, a Web content management and social-media monitoring firm, predicts social media will continue to do well. Alterian received 1,068 responses to a survey conducted both online and at live conferences.

Of the respondents, about 40 percent said they would be shifting at least 20 percent of their marketing budget to social media. Also, 36 percent indicated they've already made substantial social-media investments. Perhaps surprisingly, however, 42 percent don't incorporate data gathered from their various online channels to assist them in better tracking sales leads.

While this survey indicates a promising future for social media, it's hard to know exactly what this will mean for the industry as a whole because a social-media presence can vary greatly from one firm to another. Some consider a mere blog as a social-media investment whereas others will probably go on to create more robust, interactive content networks to engage prospective and current customers.

One thing that any company would be wise to do when embarking on a campaign is to simultaneously create a system to capture and analyze data from social-media activity. This is more important in social media than any other form of marketing because social media platforms offer a range of opportunities for companies to encourage prospects to willingly engage with their brand.

Certainly the jury's still out on the exact form that the most successful marketing strategies of the future will take. But one thing's clear: Conventional advertising and other strategies that once had the market cornered are rapidly losing favor to newer options that give companies a better idea of a campaign's effectiveness and data that allows continual customer and prospect engagement.

Ad Age Article Challenges PR Industry's Digital Prowess

2010-01-04T11:25:00.003-05:00

In a broad ranging article discussing the overall outlook for the advertising industry in 2010, Ad Age takes a swipe at public relations agencies and their response to the emergence of digital platforms, such as social-media outlets

Broadly speaking, the article says public relations agencies have been standing by during the interactive explosion, much as they did during the dot-com boom in the 1990s. The result, the article claims, is that PR agencies have lost business they should be handling to direct marketing agencies, digital consultancies and related businesses.

The article says the PR industry needs to be putting its emphasis on understanding which of the remaining media outlets will have the most impact on customer decisions and reallocate their staffing to include more individuals that understand how to properly respond to these trends on their clients' behalf.

As I write this about two hours into the work day, a whole host of PR pros have retweeted the headline/URL of this story and have gone on to say that while there's still work to be done in understanding where we're heading and arriving at a successful implementation, the industry as a whole has done pretty well at adapting.

One claim the article makes that I wholeheartedly disagree with is the claim that PR agencies largely stood by following the emergence of the dot-com boom and lost business as a result of it. If anything, I think the PR industry overreacted to the dot-com boom and overestimated the lasting impact it would have on the industry, and marketing in general.

While many of the predictions made during that time have borne or started to bear fruit, I think one of the main reasons for the dot-com bust was the fact that broadband technology was not yet mature and pervasive enough to carry the benefits into the country's homes and businesses. We often forget that most American consumers now have more bandwidth in their homes than was serving an entire enterprise during the mid 1990s. Given that, it's no wonder that PointCast couldn't make it or that instant messaging companies couldn't survive as standalone businesses as Twitter is now.

I also think the article overlooks the fact that it's far from clear who the overall winners will be in the "digital revolution." As I've written many times before, we certainly have the technology in place to bring in a sea change in terms of the way information is distributed and consumed. That said, just like early attempts to reinvent information distribution failed because of the lack of broadband pipes, the new information platforms have yet to arrive at a solid business model. Once the business matures and we have a better idea of the winners and losers, the real jockeying can begin.

What's the Real Impact of Social Media

2009-12-11T15:37:00.004-05:00

Michael Coppola, a professional acquaintance and the owner of the search-marketing firm Path Interactive posed an interesting question during a recent blog entry. Basically, he asks, is social media more hype than substance.

The basic thesis of Coppola's post was that if social media had an extensive quantifiable impact to businesses of all types, then most every business would be rapidly embracing it. Yet, social media still tends to dominate discussions among likely industries, including marketing and technology.

Another issue Coppola raises is that, unlike banners, pay-per-click ads and other familiar vehicles, it's much harder to quantify the value of spending time on LinkedIn. While that's true to a degree, I think it's important to bring this back to what marketing can and can't do. At its core, marketing is designed to give potential consumers of a product or service more information that they can use to make an informed decision. While you can incentivize people to "pull the trigger" and buy your product or service, they have to actually be a big enough believer to become a consumer. In that sense, there's not much difference from banners and pay-per-click ads than social media or traditional PR. For example, in a typical ad campaign, you can only really expect people visit your Web site, store, etc. If people weren't converted into buyers, there's a whole host of other reasons that were responsible.

The reason most haven't found success with social media is they're thinking of it as too much like a traditional marketing venue and not enough as a unique venue where the sharing of information is key. If you don't establish yourself as a trusted source and take the time that it takes to do that, then you'll likely see lukewarm success at best.

I'd welcome the thoughts of others and any relevant experience individuals would like to share.

Media Bloodletting Continues

2009-11-06T18:12:00.002-05:00

While the layoffs at major print publications may not carry the same economic impact as those on Wall Street that carried high-value bonuses, and by extension high tax revenues, but they nonetheless signal a trend that has to have news enthusiasts concerned.

As I've chronicled before, I'm one of many who made the switch from journalism to public relations. And although I haven't really regretted the decision that much, I always tried to carry forward the principles and tactics I learned during my decade in the field. I've always practiced solid journalistic principles when I put together something written for clients and have worked hard to get clients to avoid jargon that has no meaning. Also, my years in that field gave me a big appreciation for less is more when it comes to describing clients, what they do and what makes them unique. One of the big problems in our field is most people take 100 words to do that when you really should be able to do it in about a dozen.

So it's with sadness that I'm reading a veritable sea of news about layoffs at well-respected publications, ranging from The New York Times and Forbes to the closing of publications like Fortune Small Business. However, the news isn't really catching anyone by surprise. Journalism has always been a relatively low paying field and was always very dependent on advertising. Thus, when times got tough and advertisers fled, it's tough to make cuts because there's not that much fat there. Instead, many publications are finding it necessary to make widespread changes to their structure, or in other cases, to shut down entirely.

And contrary to what most people think, circulation revenue is basically designed just to cover the production costs of a publication; it's never really made much of a contribution to the overall operating costs. Thus, when circulation declines, over time it gets more and more difficult to cover the costs to just produce the publication, much less the content that's in it. While the recession has undoubtedly had a lot to do with the havoc, publishers have never been at the forefront when it comes to embracing technology. Most were initially scared of the Web because they though it was going to kill their business models. Unfortunately for them, they didn't realize that the Web was one of the few things that could save their businesses if they invested time to figure that out.

One example that has always been held up as a success when it comes to the Web is The Wall Street Journal. Their unique mix of content, combined with a reputation for excellent reporting and a high level of readership among the top players in the world of business and finance, means they didn't have to panic when everyone else was going free on the Web. While Rupert Murdoch initially made mentions of making WSJ.com free when the News Corp. purchase of Dow Jones was completed, he later backed off those plans, in part because of the turmoil in the ad market.

Unfortunately, most other outlets weren't as lucky and they had no "backup plan" to rescue their business models. We may not realize the value of what we're losing now, but over the long term, we'll all come to recognize the societal value that news organizations provide. Let's hope that by then someone's figured out a way to make the financials work.

Economic Downturn Ushers in Continual Career Maintenance

2009-10-06T15:03:00.003-04:00

By now, unless you've been living under a rock, most readers here know that we're in the midst of the worst economic downturn in some 30 years – at least from an employment standpoint. While much attention is being paid to new signs that point to recovery, it's important that we all take away lessons from this period that will serve us well for years, and perhaps decades to come. Because I frequently get e-mails from college students and other early-career professionals due to writing I do on other venues, I thought I'd give my take on the current environment, as it relates to the PR profession.

Certainly this downturn was very pronounced in the fact that more jobs have been lost in the last two years than any period in the last 30 years. At the same time, many people saw their cost of living increase, which reduced the power of the wages they were earning. However, what many don't think about is the fact that this loss of wage power is actually a trend that's been in motion some time and may necessitate everyone to think differently about work and their careers.

We all know that the days when you work for one employer for most of your career are nonexistent now and have been for quite some time. Even with that commonplace knowledge, however, most people don't think of a career as something that has to be maintained. In other words, you need to set long-term goals and a number of short-term goals designed to get you from “point A” to “point B.” Realize that establishing yourself in your career is a marathon and not a sprint. You'll also likely suffer setbacks, due to the changing nature of the economy and/or your industry, among other reasons. The most important thing to remember in all this is that if you properly maintain your career, you'll be better prepared for these shifts when they happen.

What does that mean exactly? For starters, keep abreast of changes in your industry. For PR pros, that means continually staying on top of not only media trends, but developments in the social media world. The latter is rapidly changing; for example, MySpace was once considered to be the top dog, but has now become mostly an also-ran unless you're an entertainment specialist. Likewise, knowing how to properly integrate various social-media tools into a cohesive campaign is vitally important as well. I continually tell clients to never assume you know how someone will find you. Some days it might be Google, other days it might be LinkedIn. But if you've got all your social-media elements working in tandem, it really doesn't matter. I regularly use Twitter to drive users to published content online, I post news of all new client developments via both Twitter and LinkedIn and make sure that my LinkedIn profile is up-to-date.

Also, even relatively new professionals need to start thinking about making a name for yourselves. We all know that, in this day and age, a prospective employer will conduct an extensive Web search to see what you've done online – including anything that you've written. Given that, you need to actively manage your information to ensure that a selection of it is available online for employers or prospective clients to easily peruse. Do simple things like including URLs to your online profiles in your e-mail signature. This approach takes all the guess work out of knowing how people will find you online, as that strategy will work as well for people coming in from a search engine as it will going to your Web site or a social-networking site profile directly.

Finally, once you've established a high level of comfort with the basic tactics of the PR business, look to begin specializing in a few industries. The most important thing to remember about career maintenance is you don't want to be like everyone else. Instead, you want to become known for a few things that remain marketable throughout your career. These may change over time, and we'll all have to freshen up on things, but it's a big help if you've become known as a “go to” person within a few industries.

To increase your reputation within an industry, carefully select one or two industry associations to join and become active in them. Personally, I make sure at least one of these are outside the PR/marketing world. I've got nothing against my fellow PR and marketing pros, but in my opinion, networking extensively outside those industries pays bigger dividends, since everyone in the room's not a competitor and you're raising your reputation within an industry from which you hope to draw clients.

Finally, even for those of you who aren't solo practitioners, practice and refine your “elevator pitch.” These days, it's vitally important for people to be able to give a cohesive 30-second answer when someone asks “What do you do?” It's especially important for people in public relations, because very few people know what the heck we do. You never know who you're going to meet or where, so being able to give a clear, concise answer to this question could pay big dividends down the road.

Companies Excited About Social Media's Promise, Wary of Its Perils

2009-09-14T11:30:00.002-04:00

Businesses of all sizes and types are excited about the potential that social media poses for their businesses. However, at the same time, a recent survey indicates they're entering into the area with a bit of trepidation at the same time.

The survey, conducted by Minneapolis-based brand consultancy Russell Herder and Ethos Business Law, found that 40 percent of businesses surveyed are holding back on implementing a social-media plan because of security and confidentiality concerns. Other top issues that were impacting the implementation of social-media efforts included employee productivity and a general lack of understanding regarding social media.

Those who have begun to embrace social media still have a lot of work to do from a planning perspective, according to the survey. In fact, only one third have established any social-media policy and a mere 10 percent have conducted any kind of social-media training.

I've written in this space and elsewhere that social media won't necessarily be the elixir that every company hopes. However, it's a very cost effective way to maintain and increase brand awareness and keep current and prospective clients and customers engaged with your brand. But before companies can capitalize on its business potential, they first need to take steps within their organizations to establish policies and procedures that will guide and govern its use.

Failing to do so not only raises the potential that a company will miss a big opportunity when it comes to social media, but it also exposes that company to many potential liabilities, legal and otherwise. Now that we're entering the fourth quarter of the year and many people have their eyes on 2010 hoping for a sustained economic turnaround, the time to begin planning for the future -- social media and otherwise -- is now.

PR Firm, Former Client Embroiled in Spat

2009-08-25T11:34:00.004-04:00

Unfortunately, in public relations and other professional-service environments, the client/advisor relationship doesn't always go smoothly. Most often, this results in a calm parting of ways, but occasionally things can get bitter and sometimes even go public. With the widespread proliferation of social media, going public is happening quicker than ever.

The battle started on Aug. 20 when Rafat Ali, the leader of ContentNext Media, a company that operates several Web sites providing news about the world of digital media, announced on The Business Insider that he was firing his agency, Brainerd Communications following a pitch the agency sent out with the aim of getting him interviewed as a source on the future of music startups.

A high-level Brainerd official took issue with the coverage on the site, which the agency called a "mischaracterization." Brainerd was thought to be referring to a characterization issued by Ali himself -- and not The Business Insider -- which referred to them as "morons."

Obviously it's impossible for anyone but the two parties who signed the contractual agreement governing Brainerd's representation to be able to say much with certainty about what was promised, how the relationship was supposed to work and other key elements that go into making a PR firm's counsel worthwhile.

However, the typical firestorm that each of these complaints unleashes across the Web damages not only the firm itself but the industry as a whole, pointing again to the need for a cohesive industry voice to respond. Yes, Brainerd probably should have let the issue go and allowed the public at large to decide who was right in the spat, but the fact that there were many posting comments following the issue questioning the value of PR show the industry has a lot of work to do in terms of explaining what PR is and its value.

In all honesty, the reason there's so much anger when these relationships go south is because an impossible situation was set up from the beginning. This could be because there wasn't a good personality fit between the PR firm and its client, because the client expected more than was in any way realistic and the firm didn't temper those expectations or a whole host of other reasons.

While many in the PR industry probably regard the "dot-com boom" as a shining moment, at least in terms of industry revenue, it was also a time when lots of agencies took companies with business models that would never work and that had no real innovation to speak of and tried to turn that situation into something newsworthy through some form of "spin." Fact is, most any reputable journalist decides in under a minute whether something is worthy and most of the companies that were brief stars in that era didn't qualify. Had they qualified, they would have gone on to be unparalleled successes and obviously that didn't happen.

In closing, it's important to keep in mind that there will always be unhappy clients, even when an undisputably good job is done. Focusing on clients that are a fit and explaining in realistic terms what can be expected is the best anecdote to keep this kind of venomous situation at bay.

Twitter, Facebook Attacks Show Vulnerabilities of Platform Reliance

2009-08-11T14:58:00.002-04:00

Online and printed media outlets, as well as blogs and other social networks, were abuzz last week with news over the apparent cyber-hijacking of Twitter as part of what a blogger claims was an act of orchestrated retaliation.

While the details of the specific attacks have been well chronicled by numerous other outlets, what wasn't written about extensively was how these attacks illustrate perfectly the need to consider not only the demographics and audience that you can reach via social media, but also the technology ramifications of any campaign you launch.

With the increasing reliance on social networks, the Web has made a migration of sorts away from a collection of properties based on uniform standards ratified by international bodies to a few, select properties that, when taken offline by technical issues or some other circumstance, can cause widespread disruption. That's not to say that using Twitter or Facebook for social-media campaigns is a bad thing; however, just as you want your important computer files residing in several places including one site that's remotely managed, you want your social media presence to be planned similarly as well to avoid widespread disruption in the event of outages.

The best way to get around these attacks is to rely on platforms that you exclusively control, but are remotely maintained. Examples can include everything from Web sites to blogs. While one of your hosts may go down at any one time, if you host the different elements of your overall Web presence at different locales/services, the odds of a widespread disruption are lower.

Even if another widespread attack doesn't occur in the future, it will likely pay dividends in the event an Internet backbone provider has a widespread disruption or something similar happens. We sometimes forget that for all the redundancies that were built into the Internet, occasionally all it takes is for an errant backhoe operator to take down a big chunk of the Internet, as has happened in the past.

Just as you plan for conventional disasters at the office, planning for them in your online activity can avoid costly and time-consuming disruptions

WSJ Story Finds Twitter Brings Few Benefits to Financial Pros

2009-08-04T10:36:00.002-04:00

According to a new story in The Wall Street Journal examining the impact that Twitter has had on financial advisors who've tried to use the service to build their business, the micro-blogging platform has yet to deliver any major results.

The story is just the latest in a series of articles questioning Twitter's value, its overall strategy and whether it will ever actually be able to deliver the goods when it comes to business development. And it's important to note that while the story mentions that Twitter isn't responsible for bringing the advisors who use it scads of new revenue or clients, it is having tangible benefits for many.

One advisor mentioned in the story, who focuses on individuals with particular interests and successes in charitable giving, has found Twitter to be a valuable way to form relationships with influential figures in the field, such as the heads of well-known foundations.

Another advisor has effectively used Twitter to form relationships with women entrepreneurs, a nice parallel to her goal of developing a financial practice specifically targeted to providing advice to women.

This story is yet another reason that I advise clients that while building their business through Twitter is probably something that would take a long time and might yield relatively few results, Twitter shows great promise when it comes to continually engaging with clients. The main reasons clients leave firms with whom they do business is because they feel the firm doesn't take the relationship seriously enough and is not communicative enough. This is one area where Twitter gives individuals a very easy way to continually work on this thorny issue.

Twitter Increasingly Used to Promote Contests

2009-07-21T14:44:00.004-04:00

Much has been made about Twitter and the various uses for the service, ranging from sending out droll updates to friends to businesses using the microblogging service to get a better handle on customer-service issues. Now, a new trend is emerging on the platform, which could play into efforts to develop a business model.

As reported in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, the "buzz-generating" value of Twitter is increasingly being pared with the proven benefits of contests to increase brand awareness. As an example, Moonfruit, a London-based Web-design firm, added 47,000 followers and increased its Web site traffic by 1300 percent by using Twitter to promote a 10th-anniversary contest. The contest used "tweets" as its entry method, with entrants only required to place the #Moonfruit "hashtag" somewhere in the tweet.

As a result of the campaign, Moonfruit says its paying customers have increased by 20 percent and the number of trial users has grown more than three fold. One important thing companies using Twitter to promote contests have found is that while they're great at initially luring people as followers, companies must make a concerted and continual effort to keep them engaged or traffic will fall off precipitously once the promotional period has ended.

Intern's Widely-Read Report Offers Blunt Analysis of Teens' Media Habits

2009-07-15T15:04:00.005-04:00

A report authored by a 15-year-old UK intern is getting a lot of attention this week for a blunt analysis of one of the most popular social-networking tools around.

Matthew Robson, who is working this summer for Morgan Stanley's UK offices, authored a candid report detailing the media consumption habits of typical 15-year-olds. The report included information on their favorite television programs, as well as where they spent most of their time online.

Surprisingly, Twitter received very little praise in the report, with Robson saying not only do most teens not read newspapers and dislike ads, but they also have very little use for the popular micro-blogging service.

Robson says teens shy away from Twitter because most use it from cell phones and, unlike e-mail messages, every text message costs money. Robson said teens would rather send texts between friends than use them for updates "that no one is viewing."

He goes on to say that teens have no interest in physical newspapers and would rather consume their news online. He calls banner ads "annoying and pointless" and says that teens prefer to download or stream their music using free sites/services rather than pay for them.

While Robson's report may seem harsh, I think it's one of the best assessments of the media transition I've read. Everyone talks about the popularity of Twitter and iTunes and fails to mention the fact that banner ads remain a relatively ineffective way to finance content. Unfortunately, this has resulted in a delay in finding new, effective forms of financing online content.

Hopefully Robson's report will not only result in watercooler conversation, but some honest analysis of business models across the media and entertainment industry.

Morgan Stanley executives in the UK were so impressed with Robson's report that they immediately circulated it throughout the C suite, which prompted a number of high-level client inquiries.

The Promise of "Citizen Journalism"

2009-07-05T23:54:00.003-04:00

The New York Times ran a story over the weekend that looked at the rise in importance that tech-oriented social media sites were having on the industry and on the impact that rise was having on the way Silicon Valley companies now looked at marketing for their products. However, as is the case with many stories about social media, there was some big gaps in coverage that should be part of any social-media discussion.

The story profiled Brooke Hammerling and her involvement with Silicon Valley and the area's social-media scene. The story goes on to say that tech companies now have to consider influential bloggers such as Om Malik and sites like Tech Crunch and All Things Digital. The story goes on to say that conventional media are circumvented through the ability of "new media publicists" to whisper in the ear of influential CEOs and pundits, which it claimed would in effect have the conventional media outlets seeking out the principals of the story, rather than the other way around.

Hammerling's thesis is that, at its core, PR is all about relationships and that the PR firm or practitioner who has the most solid relationships will be the most successful. While that sounds great in theory, I really question whether there's substantial truth behind the notion.

For starters, many of the influential business leaders cited in the story are influential today because they have a hot-startup; forget for the moment that many of those start-ups don't have a viable business model and wouldn't be surviving right now were it not for venture capital. This is in a business context pretty much the same as a consumer living off a continual stream of income from home-equity loans; it's great as long as there's something to backup the value of the money coming in, but when that's not there, the ships starts to sink.

Social media and citizen journalism are both concepts that show a lot of promise, but let us not forget that the only form of journalism right now that has a business model that's ever shown to be a success is traditional print and broadcast. Yes, their business models are under attack like never before, but at least they've shown they have a viable business model that works. No one's really figured out how to get anyone to pay for original content on the Web, which is the one dirty secret of citizen journalism that no one mentions.

The story also revives the notion that buzz equals long-term benefits. Yet over and over, we've seen a host of companies that generated a ton of buzz -- some of which were mentioned in the article -- that mostly never made it out of the startup phase.

A successful public relations strategy is one that doesn't involve broad generalizations and instead relies on a customized approach for an individual company. We seem to often forget that most of the products and services that are the most profitable offerings for companies aren't often that exciting. Generally, I prefer "benefits" over "buzz" because buzz will eventually die, whereas a company that brings the most benefits to the table for their current and prospective clients or customers will go on to be household names.

While buzz isn't always bad, in many cases, it's better to leave the buzzing to bees.

When It Comes to Social Networking, Pay Attention to the Essentials

2009-06-16T09:46:00.004-04:00

Anyone reading any technology news over the last week probably saw countless articles on Facebook's "vanity URL" registrations. While the move might have generated lots of ink for Facebook, in the context of newsworthy social-media events, I'd call it a yawner.

Sure, I realize that anything the hottest social-networking site besides Twitter does nowdays is going to get covered. However, just because something's newsworthy in the overall context of a single social-media platform or social media as a whole, that doesn't make it something that will help drive one's business.

As many of you may know, LinkedIn has offered the same vanity URL concept for almost a year now. Judging from the profiles I see there, relatively few have taken the few extra steps to register their name. While that may sound negative, I'd actually go as far as to say LinkedIn is probably the best social network for actual business out there.

Social media success comes through participating in the right platform for your business in the right way. For many knowledge-based professionals, for example, that's proving your expertise in the "Answers" forum and writing a clear, concise profile giving people more information about what you can do for your clients or customers.

Realize too that effective use of social media results in an increase in viewership for all your marketing tools. For example, I get a lot of visits to my Web site from my LinkedIn profile and vice versa. Leveraging all the content you create to work together for the benefit of your brand is the best way to ensure you're maximizing the benefit of social media.

Deciding Where to Put Your PR Emphasis Is Tougher Than Ever

2009-06-11T00:37:00.001-04:00

Public relations was once a fairly straightforward discipline when it came to establishing appropriate media targets. However, a variety of events over the last two years have upended old rules and have many searching for the new world order.

When it comes to media relations, and specifically which media a client should target, the best advice is still to try and get your message in front of the largest number of potential customers or clients as possible. Figuring out where those people are these days is anything but simple, however.

Establishing targets is still very much dependent on where your potential customers spend most of their time. For a business-to-business company, that might very well be trade magazines; however, for a consumer-oriented company, especially one targeting a younger demographic, the answer could be entirely different. In the case of the latter, it could just as easily be MySpace as it is any type of printed publication, or even an online component of a major media company.

These online venues are becoming increasingly important because consumer-driven companies are realizing that their customers now prefer having an ongoing dialog with their brands. Rather than putting marketing messages in one-way ads designed to drive home a message to the point that a buying behavior is triggered, social media marketing seeks to involve the customer in the process of defining and refining the end product or service.

However, as mentioned above, not all social-media venues are alike. One that has from the beginning perplexed me and continues to do so is Twitter. Oh, I get the attractiveness of being able to send out short, witty messages to all of those who choose to follow you and to have instantaneous conversations with them. But at the heart of it, Twitter just took traditional short-message service functionality that works on every cell phone today, and put a much more attractive interface around it. In fact, Twitter itself was a service that mostly controlled using your mobile phone and not the Web.

Twitter's been in the news a lot of late for not having a business model. Despite promises that a path to ongoing revenues was forthcoming and hints that it would most likely involve a variation of the service that targeted corporate customers, nothing has emerged thus far – not even any reliable hints of what's to come. One of the things that has amused me during Twitter's emergence and the subsequent trials and tribulations of print media is that while everyone's predicting the demise of print media because of troubles with its business model, very few are questioning Twitter's future despite its complete lack of a business model. We've seen what happens when companies that lack a solid business model enter with a stratospheric launch but never get the business side of things nailed down, and it's never pretty.

For professional-service practitioners and many smaller companies that don't have a large marketing budget, LinkedIn can also provide an effective way to spread awareness of your company and its offerings. However, it's especially important that participants on LinkedIn avoid the temptation to engage in overt sales and promotion. LinkedIn users take pride in having a community that's more of a “peer-sharing venue” where users can exchange information on problems and solutions. That's not to say that business can't be won on LinkedIn – in fact, I'm proud to say that I've done it on more than one occasion – but it's important to note that winning business can't be the main reason you participate in forums and other interactive elements.

Finally, it's important to point out that in many cases, the appropriate social media venue could be as simple as the traditional blog. A blog allows you to have an ongoing dialog with current and potential customers and get valuable feedback regarding your current product or service and any proposed changes. Better still, a blog is an environment that the company itself can completely control. Blogs are attractive because you can integrate them completely into your Web site to offer one seamless online presence. When paired together with a statistics program like Google Analytics, a company can take a look at its overall Web presence and determine where visitors are spending most of their time and let those statistics guide their efforts.

In closing, I want to mention that I remain a big fan of conventional media outlets. For starters, the news and information featured on them is still top notch and isn't something that can be easily duplicated by an entrepreneurial venue. Secondly, the demographics of major print media readers remains very high, making them a good place for companies with a high-margin product or service or something aimed primarily at corporate buyers.

It's hard to say how any of the media shakeout will finally resolve itself, but one thing's for sure: a diversified media strategy is the best way to ensure success.

When It Comes to Social Media, Pick Battlegrounds Carefully

2009-05-05T10:10:00.002-04:00

As the "social-media revolution" continues to be chronicled in many major business and technology publications, most of the stories make little distinction between the various players involved, nor to they attempt to make any kind of judgement in regard to which are more likely to have a quantifiable business impact. According to the results of a new study, they should.

A study issued yesterday by A.C. Nielsen & Co. indicates 60 percent of Twitter users leave the service after the first month. Nielsen didn't make full copies of the study available yesterday, but regardless of the reasons for the quick defection, it doesn't pose promise for the social-media darling, which has yet to figure out a business model -- or even debut a viable revenue model.

The euphoria over Twitter isn't really surprising. In most any wave of change that involves a new way to communicate or a new tech-based movement, there's a rush to crown everyone winners rather than worry about things like viable business models. We saw this in the dot-com boom years when it came to e-commerce platforms. Back then, everyone was predicting how no one would go to "brick and mortar" stores and everyone from consumers to businesses would shift the vast majority of their commerce online.

Obviously, there will be some changes that are a result of this period that will stick and become a part of business life. However, the Twitter study shows how important it is to individually evaluate every player involved in a new trend and make separate judgements on their value. So, for example, while Twitter may go on to establish partnerships with a number of consumer-driven companies who like the ability to instantly communicate with their audience, it might not end up having much of an application for companies who are predominantly B2B focused.

As communications consultants, it's our job to help clients sort through the field and make value judgements based on what's suitable for our clients rather than just jumping on the latest bandwagon. Not only is it good for our clients, but it's good for the PR business as a whole as well; in short, everyone benefits from picking a winner.

New Venues Can't Escape Old Business Rules

2009-04-18T00:46:00.004-04:00

It seems every day, there's a new story on Twitter or some other new communications tool and their likely impact on the future of marketing and public relations. Pundits and prognosticators writing about what will happen with Twitter should look no further than one of the last new media darlings.

In a report issued this week, Credit Suisse projects that YouTube will lose $470 million this year, while raking in only $240 million in revenue. Since Google ponied up $1.65 billion for YouTube more than two years ago, YouTube doesn't face the same financial pressures of a typical technology company, as long as Google's willing to underwrite YouTube's losses. Still, their progress does speak volumes about what happens when you put a platform ahead of a business model.

PR pros and other communications professionals looking for help in deciding where to place their marketing money and effort would be wise to remember that the notion that you can build an audience first and worry about your business model later generally hasn't worked out too well historically. Just because Twitter's a media darling today doesn't mean it won't be gone at some point in the future.

I was surprised to finally see a negative -- or realistic, depending on your take -- column on Twitter that ran this week on CNET's News.com penned by Charles Cooper. Basically, Cooper said while the rest of the media world may continue to fawn over Twitter, he's going to take a vacation and wait for Twitter's co-founders to finally cement a business model before joining the crowd singing their praises.

Like Cooper, I'm generally advising all my clients to put their time and effort into social media platforms and tools that are based around a solid, quantifiable business model. Quite simply, if the platform you're banking on hasn't figured out how they're going to put money in the bank over the long term, it's not worth the majority of your time and effort at this point.

Twitter may indeed go on to become a true sensation that changes the way we communicate, but it's important to remember it may also become another WebTV; there's $425 million Microsoft would likely love to have back.

Defining (or Defying) Conventional Wisdom

2009-04-06T09:48:00.004-04:00

During times of economic tumult, there's a natural tendency for everyone to look at historical precedence in an effort to get a handle on how the future may play out. The reason for this is simply because things often play out that way. While that may be true in this instance, we've got an opportunity to make some important changes this time that may have a long-lasting, positive impact.

One of the things that naturally occurs during a downturn is businesses struggle to get where they were before the downturn occurred. Most often, they embark on this journey using the same tactics and practices that have historically been used, without asking whether or not things can be done better.

Unfortunately, it's this lack of innovation that actually is a big reason that downturns themselves are cyclical; in other words, you can't predict much about them with certainty, except that they will occur again. Changing tactics or philosophy will likely not eliminate downturns, but it certainly could reduce their lifespan and/or severity.

It's my sincere hope that the public relations industry comes out of this downturn with true ideas on how to successfully innovate. The biggest thing we need to realize is innovation doesn't simply mean ways to make more money, but rather a long-term change that will result in one or more positive impacts.

I challenge my fellow practitioners to help me bring about innovation in public relations by having PR practitioners seen as valued counselors rather than merely hired hands that perform a tactical service. This perception is one of the reasons that PR pros often find they're not able to get clients to take their strategic advice. Instead, the client often ends up telling the agency what to do, and the agency works to deliver it -- regardless of whether it's a good idea, or even possible, in the first place.

This symptom results in public relations and the firms who practice it losing some of their value. In economic downturns, value becomes crucial because the first things to get cut are often services or products that are perceived to not deliver value. This certainly won't be an easy journey, but if we can join forces to bring it about, it will bring a seismic shift to the PR industry and all who practice it.

Need a Perfect Example of a Bad PR Move? This Is It

2009-01-26T13:47:00.003-05:00

New York City landlord Rockrose Development, which is a well-known manager and marketer of luxury rental apartments in Manhattan, can trace much of its success to efforts it has undertaken to attract a young, hip audience to its pricey downtown rentals. While they've definitely figured out a lot of things when it comes to marketing, they've got much to learn in terms of crisis communications.

A story in Monday's New York Times chronicles the story of a young couple who claim they were forced to move from a Rockrose-managed facility because they lodged repeated complaints on an in-house, online tenant forum hosted by Google Groups but monitored by Rockrose.

David and Katy Griffiths were told by Rockrose that their lease wouldn't renewed because they had posted critical comments on the online forum. For their part, the Griffiths say while they did engage in spirited conversations on a number of issues, ranging from gym hours to additional fees for grilling on terraces, that none of their comments should be considered abusive.

They also say the whole issue smacks of 1984, particularly since Rockrose officials admit they have employees whose responsibilities include monitoring online forums, such as the ones the Griffiths participated in.

From a PR standpoint, the most interesting part of this whole affair is that Rockrose officials remain completely unapologetic.

“In these times, I try to renew everybody — unless somebody’s a real hothead and a troublemaker," Sofia Estevez, the company’s senior vice president for marketing, told The Times. Yet, the story also says "On perusing his file, the only evidence Ms. Estevez could cite of 'troublemaking' was his refusal to pay fees for the gym and other amenities early in his tenancy, when the gym was not yet open. She said that she could not recall whether online postings were a factor, but that a Rockrose employee does monitor tenant complaints on the Web."

Needless to say, there are some big risks being taken here. For starters, admitting that you monitor postings on an in-house forum as much to determine who the gripers are as much as actually fixing their complaints would rile many people. Secondly, it appears the Griffiths did have some legitimate issues, including the fact that some building amenities that were supposed to be provided as part of a mandatory fee were not yet available.

Even in the crazy world that is New York City real estate, it seems an especially bold move to be taken in a city whose unemployment ranks are swelling with each passing day and likely won't eclipse until late 2009. Most companies would be well advised to avoid anything that remotely resembles this kind of approach to complaints because almost nobody has a monopoly on a product or service. Just as word of the complaints reached Rockrose executives thanks to an employee who carefully monitored forums, you can bet several hundred thousand people -- many of whom may have never even heard of Rockrose until now, much less rented from them -- not only know who they are, but have a negative connotation attached to that name.

Anybody in public relations or crisis communications who is worth their salt will always counsel a client not to get involved in a conflict, whether it's verbal or on a virtual forum, with any current or perspective customer or client. The fact of the matter is, once something goes public, you have very little control over perception, even if you respond in the right way, or the best way possible. Unfortunately for Rockrose, they didn't really pick what most will view as the right way to respond, which will likely mean the memories of their aggressive action will linger longer than they otherwise would.

Yet Another Illustration of Social Media's Perils

2009-01-19T15:39:00.002-05:00

Practically since the Web's beginnings, many irate customers have often used it to criticize companies with whom they've done business. In an "updated" version of the tale that emerged last week, a similar event occurred on one of the hottest Web 2.0 platforms -- only this time, it was a PR agency that was left with some explaining to do.

A Ketchum Inc. vice president based in Atlanta was in Memphis last week for a meeting with FedEx executives. The next part of the story gets all the more interesting, given that part of his mission related to training on social media. James Andrews, a Ketchum VP, apparently issued the Tweet "True confession but I’m in one of those towns where I scratch my head and say 'I would die if I had to live here!"

Obviously, FedEx wasn't too pleased with the Tweet, saying it exhibited poor judgement on the part of Andrews. However, the company said it was grateful for the apology and was moving past the incident.

For his part, Andrews said the moment followed an irate exchange with "an intolerant individual," and wasn't aimed at Memphis or its residents.

"Everyone knows that at 140 characters Twitter does not allow for context and therefore my comments were misunderstood," he wrote on his blog.

True enough. And, obviously these kinds of situations have snared many individuals and companies in the past. But it does seem amazing in 2009 that we still have to be reminded that online communications don't only give the poster a chance at instant expression, but they also pose the risk of instant feedback. Sometimes that's a good thing, but there are others where the situation could pose a big risk.

Bottom line: Don't assume anything you're writing online, whether it's a Tweet, a blog post, a Usenet posting or on any exploding number of private forums and social networks out there, will be either private or will shortly die. When I was a daily newspaper reporter, one of the solaces we took was that a mistake only lived in print for a single day and that you got a chance to instantly get up to bat the next day in an effort to start a new streak. Certainly these kinds of mistakes won't often have eternal consequences, but it's definitely not as easy for them to disappear from the public's view.

PR Students Worry About Reinvention of Industry

2009-01-12T14:34:00.003-05:00

Perhaps no other economic downturn in the last 20 years is causing the same level of reverberations through the nation's economy as the recession we're now in the midst of. While everyone's concerned about their future in one degree or another, perhaps no group is as concerned as recent college graduates or those about to enter the work force.

Students about to enter the work force or recent graduates are most certainly encountering a challenging environment. While the current economic turmoil has a lot to do with it, the situation is complicated by the fact that the overall marketing and media landscape, with which PR will be forever linked, is literally in the profess of reinventing itself.

This reinvention is due chiefly to the emergence of blogs and other social media, as well as the decline of conventional media. Hardly a day goes by that a story predicting the newspaper industry's imminent death isn't published. In fact, several stories have made the rounds recently predicting that The New York Times may end the printed version of its flagship publication as early as May.

Certainly the business model around both publishing and advertising is going through a turmoil like never seen before. That said, anyone who claims to be able to chart exactly how any replacement vehicle(s) and their accompanying business model will be structured doesn't really know what they're talking about because the business model behind the replacements is still very much a work in progress.

I'm certainly not criticizing social media here; in fact, I'm in the midst of launching a social media practice at Astoria Communications. Yet, in contrast to many who have "pie in the sky" notions of what it will do, I believe we should have a much more concrete approach that focuses on knowing how to use social-media tools for business development. Even as new schools of thought are emerging that say expanding one's view of what a social circle is when it comes to social-networking platforms, it's still as important as ever to realize that these are communication platforms and capitalizing on them will require individuals to know how to do that successfully.

While I certainly won't slam a journalism or PR degree, I'd counsel current students and recent graduates to try and broaden their educational experience as much as possible. The classes you think are boring in school, such as economics or other business-oriented classes, will be what sets you apart from a hungry pack in the future.

Celebrity PR Doesn't Speak For Industry

2009-01-06T23:17:00.004-05:00

I'll be the first one to admit that public relations has an image problem and have chronicled that fact in several posts since this blog's inception. However, the latest critique that's making the rounds has me baffled.

In the most recent "bookshelf" column appearing in The Wall Street Journal, Toby Young slams public relations as a "hype machine" and takes issue with the book's attempt to refute PR's imagine as the "unsavory business of exaggerating the value of their clients or their clients’ products."

The column, which is actually a review of the book Where's My Fifteen Minutes by Howard Bragman. After reading columns elsewhere about the review, I was expecting it to be a complete hatchet job, but if the book is characterized correctly, I actually agree with a good number of the criticisms.

One thing the column quickly shows is that there continues to be a widespread belief that "Hollywood style PR" is what most public relations pros are engaged in on a daily basis. I've written about this many times and have said this is why I personally hate when publicity and public relations are used interchangeably.

Many of the stories relate to personalities or celebrities and aren't really relevant for the majority of the industry that's involved in helping reputable companies of various types.

It's no surprise that someone with show-biz insights was able to sell someone on writing a PR-oriented book. What's unfortunate is that all these years after public relations became a mainstream professional service, most people don't know what the heck public relations is. Anybody who's actually out selling PR knows this all too well and is why I've continually called for industry practitioners and/or groups to ban together to try and stop this and actually illustrate the positive business impact of what is a widely-used professional service.

Here's To A Better 2009!

2009-01-06T20:21:00.003-05:00

It seems 2008 was a year mostly filled of headlines chronicling one type of doom or another and, unfortunately, it won't go down as a banner year for public relations either. While the recovery may not take hold until mid-2009, there's still a lot we in the public relations profession can do to "raise the boat" for everyone.

Public relations has a unique opportunity, perhaps like never before, to articulate its value proposition. The changing media and entertainment landscape may be giving consumers more and more choice, but it's also posing many challenges on the advertising front. One of my professional colleagues is a long-time advertising executive who several years ago sold his company to one of the international conglomerates. If you were to ask him, he'd be the first to tell you that the ad industry has a lot of "discovery" to do, chiefly because there's a disconnect between the areas where opportunities are growing and viable business models.

In other words, the world may be moving online when it comes to news and content, but the online world is, at least for now, not nearly as profitable as the print and broadcast landscapes have traditionally been. Most consider PR and ad folks staunch competitors since they're generally trying to pull dollars from the same "marketing pie." However, this ad exec is refreshingly upfront and honest when it comes to speaking to business executives and owners in regard to what type of marketing works best for a given business. One of the things he says most often is that unless you're able to deal in relatively large budgets, advertising is generally not a good fit. That's chiefly because ad agencies are compensated based on a percentage of the overall advertising expenditure; thus, small budgets aren't really viable in the ad world. Conversely, public relations, which has very little outside costs other than staff time to create and execute a program, can offer options to a much broader range of business sizes and types.

Sadly, however, few people know of this distinction. That's not really surprising, however, given how few actually know what PR people actually do. While I'm not trying to appear as someone who is looking through rose-colored glasses, I do believe now is an opportunity like none before for PR firms and consultants to approach solid companies and tell them the current economic environment gives them a great opportunity to set themselves apart from their competition. Quite simply, success stories have gotten to the point that they're almost "contrarian indicators" in the current economic environment. Given that, there are many good reasons for successful companies to undertake and/or expand their public relations programs in an effort to gain market share.

Hopefully these thoughts will inspire others in the PR field to go out and educate business owners and managers about what we do and what PR offers. Happy 2009!

The Lois Whitman Hess Debate Continues

2008-12-24T21:26:00.003-05:00

As many of you might recall, the blogosphere was set abuzz earlier this year following a backlash against publicity tactics employed by one tech agency. Three months later, the firm is again making a name for itself -- and not in a good way.

Earlier this month, HWH Public Relations sent out a press release in December regarding booth appointments for client Samsung HDD at the upcoming CES consumer technology tradeshow. Among the recipients was Phone Scoop, a well-respected blog that's widely followed for all the latest news on mobile devices and carriers. Phone Scoop founder Rich Brome sent an e-mail in response to the e-mail asking HWH's Lois Whitman-Hess to remove his name from the list, saying his blog didn't cover the type of products Hess' client was promoting.

Instead of replying with an "I'm sorry," Hess shot back with an angry e-mail whose text included:

"CES publishes a list of press … As a PR agency we use that list so we can solicit press for booth appts. I hope you can appreciate that. If you don’t, let me introduce you to the 'delete' button. Or in the future do not sign up as a press person for CES.

"Furthermore, do not make any threats to my company. I don’t need you to tell me what is right or what is wrong. I have been in the CE business for 42 years. I have seen nasty people like you melt away faster than a snowball going up hill in the rain. I am waiting for an apology. Maybe we can meet at CES for a hug or a slug.

"P.S. I just visited your web site. I would hardly call your blog a publication."

By the next day, the blogosphere was abuzz with the exchange with personal attacks and PR bloggers taking various sides over the issue. Interestingly, one of her defenders was POP! PR Jots!' Jeremy Pepper. While he was quick to point out he wasn't defending Hess' actions, he said that sending off-topic messages to outlets in advance of a trade show was one of those unavoidable things that happen under pressure to line up appointments for clients.

Pepper is, of course, right. But his explanation also points to another key issue in PR. Practitioners are all too often guilty of not realistically telling clients what can be expected in response to a request or demand. Instead, we work to move mountains, often embarrassing both ourselves and the client in response. If both the agency and their client work together in advance of a major initiative to prepare a clear strategy, this kind of stuff doesn't have to happen. Failure to prepare should never be labeled a media problem.

What to Make of "Web 2.0" From a PR Standpoint

2008-12-08T13:41:00.002-05:00

It's almost impossible to read anything connected to the practice of public relations without quickly coming across the phrases "Web 2.0" or "social media." While platforms of these types have no doubt spawned many valuable exchanges, in many ways I question the efficacy of ways they're being thought of in regard to public relations programs.

Quite simply, it seems there's a notion out there that social-media platforms are the new media and that the most valuable conversations will start taking place on platforms such as MySpace, Facebook and Twitter. What all the proponents of this "second coming" of communications seem to overlook, however, is that good public relations programs aren't akin to beating a targeted audience over the head with a marketing message until they're motivated to take action. Instead, well-executed public relations programs communicate a value proposition in proven ways that, once explained, is easily understood by the target audience.

One of the things I've railed against continually in terms of the practice of public relations is the fact that so many campaigns and practitioners take the lazy-man's way out. They spend so much time looking for the lowest-hanging fruit and targeting it that their only real accomplishment annoying people. Taking the "mallet" approach isn't based around any kind of dialog at all, whether the conversation is taking place with an editor/reporter at a traditional outlet, or with an audience on a social-networking platform. I've personally noticed an increase in hostility among users of social networking platforms at the veiled attempts at promotion that have begun taking over discussions.

I think this is the latest in a series of developments that are challenging the prevalent notion that "Web 2.0" (whatever the heck that is) is rendering PR useless and/or meaning that dialogues have moved away from traditional media channels entirely. I find it amusing that something that's done through the same browser-based technology that we've had since 1994 is even called Web 2.0, but I guess I'm a curmudgeon in that sense.

One of the big things that PR pros need to grasp is the fact that a dialog is what everybody wants, and it's not just those who are on social-networking platforms. Journalists too want to know that you understand their needs and are willing to help them when you can, even if it's not necessarily on behalf of a client.

I know people who are looking for jobs/clients want to do the best they can to meet their client's/employer's needs, but I hope at some point we can get to a rational discussion on this as an industry.

Why Is PR So Often Behind the '8-Ball'?

2008-12-04T17:38:00.002-05:00

It seems every day, I either find myself in a conversation with a PR pro or read something in a trade publication that's acting as if the recession that we're now officially in is only now something that deserves reaction. Given how well PR budgets hold up once times get tough, frankly I'm amazed.

Following last week's post on debate within the Public Relations Society of America regarding licensing, I was involved in an online discussion with PRSA PR chief Arthur Yann. Basically, Yann indicated that the licensing debate was part of a discussion exercise at the annual conference in preparation of next year's bylaws rewrite. He said the topic of licensing didn't mean the organization is formally discussing the issue.

Over the course of the conversation with Yann, I mentioned to him that I've consistently thought the PRSA should serve as more of an industry advocate. Any practitioner who's had a conversation with someone who's never worked with a PR professional will tell you that many people have absolutely no idea what PR is or what a PR person does. The closest most come is work that most closely resembles celebrity representation, which is something the vast majority of PR practitioners aren't engaged in. Nowhere in people's knowledge in connection with PR is mission-critical communications that help companies drive their business. In an effort to remedy that situation, I suggested to Yann that the PRSA conduct surveys that would illustrate the cost effectiveness of public relations in comparison to other forms of marketing. No word on whether that's something the organization will consider.

I close by asking all professional PR practitioners -- and even students -- to PLEASE band together and lead an effort to change this. We complain about having to fight hard for a seat at the table, but all too often we don't back up that need with any kind of supporting information as to why we merit one.

PR Licensing Debate Flares Again

2008-12-01T14:58:00.003-05:00

Over the years, there have been a number of proponents of licensure for PR professionals, both in and outside the industry. The reasons vary, but proponents generally argue that licensure does a better job of ensuring standards consistency among practitioners in a way that accreditation, since it is controlled by one body, does not.

Now it appears the Public Relations Society of America is at least discussing the idea among its membership. Attendees to this year's national conference reported that PRSA Chairman Jeff Julin led a debate and discussion on this issue, although details were sparse since the PRSA didn't release a transcript of the conference or issue any other details on discussions to non-attendees.

Some like O'Dwyer columnist Wes Pederson seem to indicate that the First Amendment would be relevant, although it's hard to say what it's impact would be since commercial speech -- which is what PR would most certainly be considered -- is given far fewer protections than individual speech.

Since the disclosure of its discussion at the conference, several columnists have weighed in on the issue, on both sides of the fence. Most feel there's nothing inherent in licensing that leads to an assurance that either the quality of the provider or the service they deliver will certainly be higher.

It's difficult to fully comprehend what proponents of licensing would hope to achieve in the field of PR. For example, if an agency or consultant is charged with developing and executing a media relations campaign, they can't realistically guarantee any outlet or reporter will find a particular story angle interesting. While some might try to guarantee that in advance, which poses an ethical issue of sorts, it's hard to imagine how licensing would guarantee a higher level of success in media campaigns.

While it's easy to understand why licensing is preferred in certain professions like law, where a single mistake can cause tremendous and in some cases irrevokable damages, since most PR firms or consultants work on short-term contracts, it's fairly easy for a dissatisfied client to seek new counsel. Given that fact, perhaps it's best to let the free market rule.

Link Shown Between Startups Who Use PR and Successful Funding

2008-11-24T15:09:00.007-05:00

A new study published in the most recent PRWeek magazine once again provides stats proving that public relations is the most beneficial marketing tool for new businesses.

A survey conducted by BIGfrontier Communications Group of Chicago showed that startups who used public relations were 30 percent more successful in getting funding within one to three months than companies that did not. In all, 44 percent of companies who used PR received funding within one to three months of their launch, compared to 14 percent of companies who did not.

Despite the advantages PR is shown to have for startups, however, only 18 of 300 surveyed by the group undertook a public relations program during their funding search.

The survey was conducted between September and November 2008 via polling on social networks and direct solicitations through e-mail to CEOs and CMOs.

Now Is PR's Time to Shine

2008-11-18T10:57:00.004-05:00

While it's undoubtedly going to be a tough road for the next 12 months or so for public relations and most anything connected to marketing budgets, there are important distinctions that can be made about PR that could help the profession stand out from other tactics.

Conventional wisdom is that all companies cut their marketing budget during a downturn and that will inevitably lead to a tough time for PR firms. While that's certainly true to an extent for those who rely on major corporations, there are a lot of businesses that continue to grow in a downturn -- particularly those who have an efficiency proposition.

This downturn gives public relations practitioners a great opportunity to let people across small and mid-sized businesses know that PR can be an affordable way to market one's goods or services and that a well-executed PR plan offers efficiencies in comparison to other types of marketing. One of the reasons ad firms are especially hard hit in a downturn is because their model relies on commissions from a total ad spend. Thus, when ad budgets go down, their revenues fall. In contrast, a good PR plan often doesn't rely on the purchase of any expensive supplemental service or product, which means that PR firms have the flexibility to work with a wider range of budgets.

While few people in their right mind would tell you this is a rosy time in the PR and marketing world, it does present a great opportunity for PR practitioners to trumpet PR's advantages and to put them to work for the entrepreneurial companies that will likely lead us out of the downturn.

A Reflection

2008-11-06T17:15:00.003-05:00

About a year ago, I was in an office at a mid-sized public relations firm in Manhattan having a conversation with two agency principles that hinged, in part, on the outlook for the business and the economy in general.

I remembered them being quite surprised when I indicated that in 12 to 18 months, things were going to get quite ugly from an economic standpoint once people were no longer able to take equity out of their homes to fund a lifestyle that had grown larger than their take-home pay. The response I got was one of surprise and, at least to some degree, disbelief.

I say that not to prove that I'm an economic soothsayer. In fact, I have no special talents in that area other than those I acquired from my work as a financial journalist for about a decade that include being able to read company financial statements and understanding various economic indicators. My thesis was built entirely on the fact that spending was outpacing wage growth and the spending increase was largely built on home-equity bets.

To bring this back to public relations, I urge all practitioners, financial or not, to gain a better understanding of the economy and what it means to their business. Often we as an industry are very guilty of chasing the latest booming trend only to be burned to a crisp when it goes south. By understanding the economy, practitioners can get a better grasp on which trends are sustainable and worthy of an investment of time or energy.

Loic LeMeur Again Shakes Up Social-Media World

2008-11-05T16:42:00.002-05:00

Loic LeMeur, the entrepreneur behind the video community seesmic again made news across the social-media world this week when confronted with rumors about his company's decision to layoff staffers in this difficult economic environment.

Those who follow PR blogs may remember LeMeur's rant about the uselessness of PR, chronicled here. Basically, LeMeur took a shot at PR, saying the whole industry essentially peddled a false claim that there was a "secret" to effective PR and that no outside consultant could do as effective a job at representing a company as its CEO. He went on to say that PR is no science and it's no longer complicated since social media platforms allow companies to manage their reputation directly.

Unfortunately for him, he found out that the situation might be a little more complicated than that following an announcement that his firm was laying off seven people. While that's not exactly newsworthy in this environment, what was interesting was the firestorm of comments that were unleashed following the announcement, including one disgruntled reader who accused the company of failing to have a business model and LeMeur of grandstanding and pursuing personal engagements more than ensuring seesmic's survival.

Of course, there will always be disgruntled individuals in the wake of an action like that taken by LeMeur; the key issue is how you confront the issue itself. On that front, LeMeur took a bold move by addressing the issue head-on and not letting rumors continue to surface. The wrath he encountered probably changed his attitude a bit about the ease with which public perception can be managed; hopefully he understands now that managing public perception isn't as simple as he first laid it out to be.

PR's Image Problem Continues

2008-11-03T16:18:00.003-05:00

Anyone who practices in the industry knows that public relations has an image problem. One place you wouldn't expect it to crop up is the annual conference of the Public Relations Society of America.

Penelope Trunk, a career columnist for The Boston Globe reportedly had attendees squirming in their seats after saying "You guys know how to spin anything.... we should all be as good with spin as you are."

While PRSA Chairman Jeff Julin interrupted Trunk to say that spin isn't something practiced by PR professionals and that the true practice of public relations involves building relationships, the sad fact of the matter is Trunk's speech -- at a PR association industry event nonetheless -- shows what a poor job the industry does in explaining to people what it is we do.

Sure there are other professions, such as lawyers, that often fall victim to many negative associations, but because the public as a whole understands what they do much better, they also assume that most of the apples in the barrel are good ones. Not so with PR unfortunately; most people think the average PR person spends his/her time explaining the misconduct of the latest celebrity gone crazy or trying to make a guilty party or company look innocent.

Hopefully after hearing these words, PR practitioners will put themselves on a mission to explain what they do and how it's valuable. It's amazing to me that The Society for Human Resource Management is a heck of a lot better at doing PR for its organization than the organization that represents public relations. Anyone who's watched a primetime show or a Sunday morning program with a highly sought-after demographic has likely saw their ads.

In this time of economic downturn, those who can explain what they do and why it's valuable will succeed. Those who can't will fall far, far behind and potentially even witness failure. It's time for everyone in the industry -- especially the PRSA -- to take the mantle and start defending the profession.

Determining Social Media's Value Can Be A Difficult Proposition

2008-10-28T22:27:00.001-04:00

Ever since the first blog went live, PR pros have been trying to figure out how to capitalize on the medium on behalf of clients. And while social media is in many ways no longer an experiment, determining its actual value largely still is.

There are lots of great social networks, such as LinkedIn, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and others. Some have a decidedly more business-oriented focus like LinkedIn, but basically they all purport to bring like minded people together in the name of establishing valuable relationships.

Although it took some time from the emergence of MySpace and other networks for businesses to pay close attention to the trend, soon companies started trying to figure out is what value should be placed on the trend as a whole and which networks should receive priority in their marketing efforts. Once that happened, PR agencies started opening new media practices and there were also a host of social media evangelists that hit the Web espousing their value. And while some of them have certainly proven popular, the jury's still out as to whether social media is a trend that's worth a significant investment of a business' time and/or money.

In a recent report titled "Exploring the Link Between Customer Care and Brand Reputation in the Age of Social Media," the Society for New Communications Research examined how consumers are using social networks and which ones they value. While 74 percent of respondents say they choose companies and brands based on the experiences shared online by customers, most still indicated they used conventional search engines for their research rather than social media networks. In fact, several leading social networks scored poorly when it comes to consumer influence, with only 39 percent saying they used micro-blogging sites like Twitter or Pownce; 27 percent used YouTube and 22 percent turned to Facebook and MySpace.

Not surprisingly, technology and e-commerce companies tended to dominate the online discussion landscape, with Dell Computer Corp. and Amazon.com Inc. taking top honors as the companies most often discussed by consumers online. That said, those who do turn to social media networks are a desirable demographic, with an average net income of more than $100,000; most are college educated and range from 25-55 years old.

As with all things new, especially those involving technology, there's been a rush to adopt social media networks. One of the problems, however, is the fact that the social media sector is still quite decentralized, with several companies trying to jockey for the lead spots in the marketplace. This makes it especially hard for companies to know which investments will generate reliable returns. Historically, in the early phases of a new trend's emergence, this factor hasn't mattered very much; however, the fact that little attention has been paid to a return on investment has meant that technology-related trends have experienced harsher than normal boom and bust cycles.

I was in a discussion earlier today with a group of legal marketing executives and a consultant who helps law firms set up their own blogs. The discussion originally started when an executive asked others whether they used Twitter, and if so, how? That spawned a lengthy conversation as to whether social media is judged in the same vein as other marketing activities and, if so, how a return-on-investment can be reasonably calculated. Even though the cost to set up a social media presence may be minimal, there should still be goals set and those should ideally be linked to a positive impact on a company's bottom line; after all, no matter what business you're in, time really does equal money.

The blogging consultant was of the mind that people responsible for bringing in business do the best when they're engaging in activities they truly enjoy under the theory that the use of these mediums mean a firm has the opportunity to reach potential customers that their competitors, who aren't embracing the platforms, are missing. That's certainly theoretically possible, although I suspect it will be some time before we really know for sure.

In the meantime, I still encourage companies – especially small and mid-size firms with limited PR and/or marketing budgets – to continue mining opportunities within conventional media channels. Those channels may not be as “sexy” as social media, but they still deliver an audience of many potential customers with desirable demographics.

Do It Yourself PR Isn't The Value It May Seem

2008-10-28T22:21:00.002-04:00

Anyone who practices public relations has probably run into a business owner of some type who started chatting them up about a new, "do-it-yourself" book on public relations that makes PR out to be something almost anybody can do with only a little reading. If only it were that easy.

As with many professions that don't require licensure or advanced credentials, PR has come to be one of those things almost everybody thinks they can do as well or better than those currently doing it. It seems almost every month, there's a new book by a former TV or print journalist or some type of business expert that promises to tell you all you need to know about PR in about 200 pages. While these books may do a decent job of touching on the basics, they leave out a lot of details that are key in determining the success of a campaign.

The biggest problem with the "do-it-yourself PR" view is it completely overlooks the fact that a business owner will almost never be able to look at their business subjectively. By that I mean, if they were to talk to a journalist about their business, they'd hype to the extreme and often make it difficult for a journalist to tell what their compelling value proposition is. In a world where at best you have about two or three minutes to make your case, a bad approach to a journalist can blow a potential opportunity quickly.

Also, business owners have no formal experience in putting together a message that's part of a larger trend. Anyone whose been successful in PR will tell you that's the difference between success and failure; in other words, don't position your company in a self-serving way, but rather in a way that will have readers and viewers feeling it's "news you can use."

This will certainly be no surprise since I'm in the PR business, but I firmly believe that there are enough "mission-critical" things for business owners – especially small-business owners – to be doing that they should focus on the day-to-day tasks associated with administering the core function of their business.

While it may seem simple to fire off an e-mail or make a phone call to a reporter you've seen write stories on subjects that are similar to your business, a poor approach will not only cost you time, but will potentially leave the reporter with a negative feeling that might be very hard to recover from. As someone who spent a decade as a journalist, I can honestly tell you I remember people who made very bad PR pitches and once I was put through a bad pitch or two, it was very unlikely that I'd consider doing a future story on the company in question.

I also realize that entrepreneurs are often tempted to handle almost everything on their own. Their reasoning is nobody can do things as well as they can and/or no one can understand their business as well. While it's not always easy to think of someone else helping to market your own company, it can often be a smart move. Your options are two-fold: either bring someone in-house to handle the efforts or hire a consultant. The chief benefit of the latter is you'll get a higher level of experience for the fees you pay than if you were to use an equivalent amount of money and put that toward a full-time hire. Not to mention the fact that you'll be relieved of payroll taxes and other burdens associated with employees.

Ideally, you'll locate someone to help you who has substantial experience working with small companies and/or start-ups. They'll be able to sit down with you and help determine what your compelling advantage is and how best to communicate that. You should also be willing to accept honest feedback about your messaging and be willing to put into place the recommendations that your consultant makes. While it's never easy to hear anything that resembles a critical word, it's better it comes from someone working on your behalf than a journalist or other key stakeholder.

When meeting with a prospective PR counselor, make sure you're clear with him/her about what you want to achieve and give as much information as you can that will help the counselor. Even though a seasoned PR pro will be able to give you a lot of guidance on how to structure an effective message, their success will depend on large part on the quantity and quality of information you supply them.

If you retain an outside PR professional, make sure they're kept up to date on new hires, new product/service launches, new office openings and other events that can be translated into stories and briefs in business and trade publications. Most any successful PR pro will tell you the more information they have, the better. This will allow them to respond quickly to journalists they know are working on stories for which you're company will be a fit and/or to answer requests from reporters who might be considering a story on your company but need more information first to seal the deal.

Lastly, when embarking on a new PR campaign, remember to give it time. Just as Rome wasn't built in a day, it's not realistic to expect hits to start rolling in immediately. While I've scored major media hits for new clients right out of the gate, I would never tell a prospective client that it's likely, simply because if relatively few people know about a company and what it does, it takes time to educate them on who a company is and why they're worthy of media mention. However, with the right blend of cooperation and experience, the hits will come.

Trades Can Often Be A Good Sale

2008-10-28T22:16:00.002-04:00

To public relations professionals, dropping the names of top-tier outlets in which they've secured clips for their clients is a sort of “A list” approach to selling. While it does indeed make for an impressive feat in many ways, it's not always the best method over the long term.

It's understandable that clients like to see their names in top-tier publications like The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal. Simply put, meeting that bar gives a sense of validation to a company that sets it apart from its competitors. While they will unquestionably raise a company's visibility level, their impact on sales in many cases won't be all that dramatic.

To put it in simple terms, let's reflect on the old, familiar slogan used by USA Today, which is "not the most words, just the right ones." I think it makes sense to look at media outlets and campaigns in the same way. While it's natural to take pride over having your name seen by hundreds of thousands, or perhaps even millions of readers, stop and consider how many of those readers are prospective customers of your client's product or service? In all likelihood, there's a good chance that number is relatively small. This, of course, is especially true in the case of a company that sells primarily to businesses and not consumers.

Trades serve a much narrower, more focused audience; while their circulation is definitely smaller, many are widely read in their industries by key executives who turn to them for the latest in product developments and a whole host of industry news. Another big benefit of trade publications are reader-service cards. They provide actual sales prospects because readers actually go the extra step of volunteering to receive more information on a featured company's product or service.

Even better, most publications will send you periodic reports containing a detailed list of sales prospects who've submitted those cards. This information can easily be imported into a company's database for sales tracking purposes. In addition to the obvious benefit of having actual names and contact information for prospective customers, the feedback allows a sales team to put together a sort of “geographic hit list” based on the sales inquiries. This allows them to spend more time chasing qualified prospects rather than cold calling or some other method that doesn't yield much efficiency. So, for example, a client can often say that a specific story in a trade publication generated X number of leads and that translated into X number of sales.

Trade publications also often make for great case studies, since placements in them will generate qualified leads and sales. For example, I've been able to craft a number of successful “David vs. Goliath” story pitches that have resulted in stories chronicling how a small company in an industry vertical dominated by one or more large companies found a niche that separated them from the competition. By using a time-tested formula that presents a problem and goes on to describe how a company solved it, case studies serve as a sort of “how to” road map that other companies can follow. Think of it as the corporate America version of “news you can use.” Just as traditional media outlets love those kinds of stories, business and trade publications often do as well.

Another obvious benefit trades provide is the opportunity to expand your media target horizon. For every sector that a company sells to, there's almost certainly a fair number of publications that track the industry. By getting to know the publications, their editors/reporters and what they write about, you can create several pitches with each one containing specific information about how your client addresses a key need businesses in the industry have.

Unfortunately for PR pros and their clients alike, many PR counselors are afraid to give any kind of counsel that does anything but parrot and cheer on what the client says they want. So, for example, if the client says they want The New York Times, their PR pro in most cases says, "sure, we'll go get it." Again, high-level placements can indeed be very valuable; that said, just as much time should be spent ensuring your reaching a proper target audience and that's where trades play a key role.

Client Does Some Negative PR On Its Own Agency

2008-10-14T13:21:00.003-04:00

Every public relations agency around has at one time or another helped one of its clients handle a situation with a negative consequence. While that may be a staple of the business, the industry was abuzz this week following a well-publicized efforts by one agency's client to flip the situation around.

Clean Air Gardening, a Dallas-based retailer of environmentally-friendly gardening and lawn-care supplies, went public this week with its battle against Christie Communications, its public relations agency. The company claims it was a victim of poor reputation once Christie Communications sent out a press release without its approval and created a press kit that, as Clean Air Gardening puts it, "was so badly designed and riddled with errors, that it looked to me as if a middle school student had created it for a school project."

These issues led Clean Air to decide to fire the agency immediately, which set off a back and forth tussle between client and agency. Basically, the company is alleging that it should receive a refund for the $12,500 in fees paid to the firm based on the poor quality of work provided.

CleanAir President Ron Hundley says he tried on several occasions to work things out with the firm, but couldn't get company executives to return his phone calls and e-mails. After going public with the dispute, he did receive a response from the firm that detailed the work that had been done on his behalf, which he took issue with.

Upon receiving is latest complaint, the company reportedly accused him of libel and defamation as a result of claims made on the Web site he uses to air his dispute. In his latest response, Hundley has advised the firm to send specific examples of factual inaccuracies on the site and he also claims he offered to take the matter to mediation in mid-September.

While this is certainly an extreme example, it points to issues that can quickly spiral out of control when there's a dispute regarding work done for a client. Although no assurances can be made that these situations can be avoided in all cases, if the client's allegations that the firm stopped responding and/or making an effort to resolve the dispute are true, they illustrate how important it is to not only handle such issues as both quickly and cautiously.

This Is a Chance to Reinvent

2008-10-06T10:43:00.003-04:00

By now, most everyone who follows business and economics concedes that we're likely in a recession. While it's unknown just how deep things will go and what it will mean for individual sectors and businesses within them, it's important to note that it presents opportunities as well as challenges.

One of the things I've always maintained is that the business world, and the U.S. in particular, needs to refocus the way it thinks about work. Although the majority of American workers are now white-collar or "knowledge" workers, the way we go about our day largely reflects an approach that's rooted back in the industrial age. We have set work days, devise uniform policies that treat large groups of workers alike and don't really have any systems in place to reward superior individual contributions, apart from one-time "atta boys."

Worse still, refusing to change the way we think about work has led to many outmoded models that reflect increased costs. While sales professionals and client-facing personnel are often out of the office as part of their duties, we cluster everyone who has administrative or management tasks into expensive office space that accounts for one of any company's largest expenses.

There are some companies that have shifted away from this model, particularly companies that are based on the "freelance" consulting model, like Axiom Legal; that said, there's no reason more can't adopt it. Now's a perfect chance to do just that and not only bring about a scenario that's a lower-cost environment, but one that's more productive as well. Study after study points to increased productivity gains when more flexible work arrangements are adopted, pointing to a scenario that's truly a win-win for everybody.

Since it's usually the case that by the time an economic downturn brings a panic-like scenario, such as we're seeing even today on the world market stage, there's a good chance that we'll be in this mode for a while. Let's not miss this opportunity to stop talking about superficial methods of streamlining and gaining efficiency and truly taking a look at the way we look for the better.

We Honestly Didn't See This Coming?

2008-09-22T09:55:00.002-04:00

It's been almost impossible to pick a newspaper, watch a news or financial-oriented television program or network or even in many cases watch a local newscast, without seeing a report on the chaos that is wrecking Wall Street. While this is certainly a tragedy, one has to wonder why we didn't see it coming.

Because this blog isn't intended to be a financially-oriented outlet, I'll skip over all the arcana that's inherent in things like auction-rate securities, credit default swaps, etc. While all those things, in addition to housing certainly played a role, the elements involved aren't as important to note as the behavior.

Basically, what happened is that we all got swept up into euphoria over a trend that reality was really telling us wasn't based in fact and wasn't likely to hold up. Unfortunately, our society tends to be one that favors riding a wave until there's a big wipe out, which results in an end that's much more chaotic and has a much bigger impact on our economy and society. This trend was rooted in the fact that many of us, both businesses and consumers, were relying on assets for our economic well being that were either overvalued, improperly valued or suddenly had no market.

All of this is a symptom of our desire to concentrate on maximizing immediate returns, often at the expense of overall stability and long-term results. An examination of long-term financial trends after all this is over will likely show this crisis will rank at the top of near the top of all the nation's financial calamities.

At this point, you're probably saying "All that's fine, but how does this tie into PR?" I think our industry is exactly the same way and that basically the same behavior causes much more cyclicality than would otherwise occur. It's also important to note that until this crisis and the economic upheaval its causing in sectors far afield from finance is over, marketing budgets will be squeezed like they haven't been in more than a decade. This makes it all the more important for PR pros to clearly communicate the advantages the discipline presents over other forms of marketing and to specifically communicate with current and prospective clients regarding what can be expected in a PR program.

By using the current climate to once and for all alter the playbook that's come to dominate PR, we can put the industry in a position to better weather the next crisis that arrives.

Does the "P" Stand for Politics Now?

2008-09-15T13:17:00.003-04:00

As I've written about extensively, one of the reasons I believe public relations has a hard time gaining the respect it deserves is because of the weakness of the Public Relations Society of America. Unfortunately, despite a regime change recently, it seems that as far as the organization is concerned, the more things change the more they stay the same.

In its infinite wisdom, individuals associated with the organization decided it was in its best interest to get into the political season. Thus, PRSA CEO Jeff Julin issued a challenge to the campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain, asking both campaigns to sign pledges to abide by the PRSA's Member Code of Ethics.

In a letter sent to the campaigns, the association says the society feels part of its duty is to "intensify our organization’s advocacy for a clean and fair campaign modeled on the principles of the PRS Code of Ethics, which could help strengthen trust in the U.S. and its electoral process."

A couple of things make this appeal smell very fishy. For starters, neither communication chief for either campaign is a PRSA member; thus, it seems odd that they would ask individuals who didn't willingly commit to those standards to sign a pledge now. While I don't have any issues with a code of ethics, I do have issues with the comingling of PR and politics. Too many people out there have a tough enough time understanding what we do, which is why we fight so hard for that "seat at the table." Given that, don't we as an industry have bigger fish to fry?

Julin goes on to state that a founding principle of the PRSA is "protecting and advancing the free flow of accurate and truthful information… and open communication fosters informed decision making in a democratic society." This despite the fact that much of PRSA's own business isn't done in the light of day in front of its members, but is rather overseen by a relatively small number of people who do much of the organization's most important work in secret.

Finally, this to me seems like another example of how the PRSA is just plain out of touch. In an economic slowdown, PR has to fight like mad to retain its budgets and avoid being seen as something other than a cost center. Given that, it seems to me a better use of their time and a better way to advance the profession would be to educate the public on how public relations provides a quantifiable return on investment and how it compares to other marketing-related disciplines, such as advertising.

Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

This Is Why We Have Trouble Getting A Seat At the Table

2008-09-02T10:31:00.002-04:00

One of the things that's always concerned me about PR and the opinions of the profession is the fact that, unlike attorneys and counselors of various types, PR practitioners seem to be consistently fighting for a place at the table.

While it's true of many professions, PR is one of those that everybody thinks they can do better than those who are actually in the business. It's one of those arguments that anyone who's been in the industry for any length of time has probably had with a friend, former/prospective client or some other associate at one time or another. Unfortunately, with every positive example the profession has to offer, we seem to be held back by the fact that there are also a large number of negatives.

Case in point, the latest example from the well-regarded Bad Pitch Blog. The pitch chronicles several mistargeted e-mail pitches sent by HWH Public Relations on behalf of some well-known names including Samsung and Westinghouse Digital.

The issues with those pitches are numerous; however, chief among them is the fact that the blog's area of coverage means it has no interest whatsoever in pitches from HWH on behalf of their clients. And unfortunately for those clients, HWH's tactics have even raised the ire of bloggers and others for using sexism and little creativity in its pitches.

Honestly, I would love to understand the motivation behind this kind of approach. Unfortunately, no one from HWH would respond to the BPB, so we may never know. It's just amazing to me that, at least in some circles, we can't do better.

Calcanis Provokes Ire of PR Blogosphere

2008-08-28T09:53:00.004-04:00

PR blogs were abuzz this week with missives in the wake of a posting by Jason Calacanis, the entrepreneur responsible for Silicon Alley Insider and Weblogs, the latter of which was sold for a hefty profit.

In the post, Calacanis basically suggests the best PR strategy involves not retaining a PR firm; instead, he opines that CEOs take on this task themselves. His exact prescription: "be amazing, be everywhere, be real." Now, imagine for a moment that some unknown entrepreneur went into a meeting with a VC. Next envision a managing partner asking the entrepreneur their strategy for success. Finally, picture the look on the partner's face is the entrepreneur used Calacanis answer for a PR strategy as a response to that question.

My point is I've never understood why simple answers to questions that involve complex matters are supposed to be OK when it comes to PR when they would never work in the real world. I think it's safe to say Calacanis is glossing over some things when he relays the success he's had without a PR agency. Chiefly, he was able to get a lot of free publicity when his company Weblogs was sold to AOL for $25 million. Reports are that he gets very annoyed when people discuss the collapse of his first company, Silicon Alley Reporter.

Don't get me wrong, every good entrepreneur fails and sometimes on multiple occasions. But if the strategy he speaks about were as bullet proof as he makes it out to be in his latest missive, he should have been able to generate so much buzz about SAR that no mainstream publishing house could have seen how their world would function without it as part of their collection.

Just as that didn't happen and can't be expected to happen in every case, even when it's justified, these "cut and paste" prescriptions for PR don't always work either.

Announcing The PR Tipsheet

2008-08-26T10:39:00.003-04:00

As I alluded to last week, one of the issues that has always concerned me with public relations is how there's a dearth of quality, educational information aimed at entry- and mid-level professionals.

Given that those two groups do much of the actual, hands-on tactical work of the profession, it would seem to me that providing quality, educational information concerning effectively media relations practices and tactics would be a no-brainer. While there are courses offered by both PRSA and companies like InfoComm, most of them aren't aimed at these two groups of professionals; secondly, since these are the folks that actually do most of the profession's tactical work, agencies usually don't send them to continuing education seminars.

In an effort to address this issue, I'm announcing the launch of The PR Tipsheet, a weekly e-zine that will feature topics that will help entry and mid-level professionals succeed in the business. The goal is two-fold: 1) Increase the quality of media relations practices in the industry and 2) Increase the retention rate of professionals in the business, and by extension, hopefully address the abysmal client turnover rate that's endemic in PR.

While the publication will be subscription based, which will support content of a higher quality level, the fee will be reasonable, since I realize there will be many who might be footing the bill out of their own pocket. As soon as details on this front are finalized, everything will be announced in a more formal release, so please stay tuned.

The Blogosphere and PR; Defining the Tail and the Dog

2008-08-21T15:07:00.005-04:00

Ever since blogs came on the scene -- and yes, even before the whole movement was defined as social media -- perhaps no topic has raged on as much as how this will impact PR.

There have been blogs launched to out poor PR practices, blogs and wikis devoted merely to publishing e-mails and domains of PR firms that send misdirected e-mails and scads of predictions that only those who succeed at understanding social media will make it in PR.

The latest "smack down" of sorts came this week when Edelman blogger Steve Rubel opined that the future of PR is in peril because most bloggers feel no need to work with PR firms and because most PR practitioners who correspond with social-media writers send them mistargeted e-mails and unwanted information.

As Jeremy Pepper wrote, it's almost as Rubel forgot he works in PR, let alone at the biggest independent firm in the business. Surely the firm has the resources to devote to turning this trend around, at least when it comes to its own associates.

Whether or not you agree with any of these predictions on the future of PR, one thing is terribly clear: Despite internal efforts to educate, often with clever names evoking an educational mission, there's very little educating being done in PR. Why? The people who need the most educating are also the most profitable, since the ratio between their billing rate and annual salaries mean it's to an agency's advantage to keep them as busy billing as possible.

That's not to say there aren't others offering bona fide education programs. The Public Relations Society of America offers them to their members at discounted rates and numerous other private providers, such as Ragan Communications and its publications do as well.

That said, given the large number of people who work for small firms that likely can't/won't either make the investment or can't spare their staffers for the time it would take to complete the programs, this isn't likely going to cut it. As a profession, we simply have to do better, but the best way to do that is to offer solutions, not just scathing criticisms of the status quo.

To that end, I'm in the process of developing a new platform specifically developed for entry-level professionals. More on that soon.

Recessions and Their Relationship to Marketing

2008-08-13T16:29:00.003-04:00

While a debate rages on as to whether the U.S. is currently in a recession, to a large extent that debate is a moot point if you're in and/or serve clients in one of the areas that are customarily impacted by a recession.

Along with finance and most other industries except consumer staples (e.g. the things that you need to live on a daily basis), marketing and PR certainly sees a big impact from recessions. Most notably, the industry contracted for a multi-year period following the 2001 recession that was exacerbated by the terrorist attacks.

Generally speaking, the reason marketing tends to suffer during a downturn is businesses tend to take the view that it makes sense to cut every cost possible that's not essential to the daily running of the business. In some cases, this allows them to avoid layoffs or taking other painful steps -- at least for a period of time. While this strategy may make some sense from that standpoint, in the long run, it may cause substantial damage and/or delay a recovery.

To fully understand why, perhaps putting things in simple terms may fit the bill. While effective marketing almost always delivers results, people tend to associate marketing with success during good times but view it only as a cost item in bad times. This mentality was summarized in a good quote I saw recently that said "Go ahead and cut your marketing budget. That's like saying I'll put some logs on the fire when it warms up in here."

That may be simplifying things a bit, but the attitude the quote conveys makes a lot of sense. Broadly speaking, if a business isn't getting returns from its marketing program, it's not marketing and the expense of it that's to blame, but rather the design and/or implementation of the plan.

These factors can be alleviated by picking strategic partners that are good fit, both from a tactical and personal standpoint. Make sure both sides agree on the scope of the program, its goals, cost and other important factors. Next, companies need to realize that a marketing effort is in some ways like a living organism; it's something that will take different forms as a company reaches different stages and/or has changing needs. A good consultant will help you reshape your plan as needs require.

In closing, since PR firms are a vital portion of the marketing equation, we've got to do a better job of thinking of and properly positioning ourselves as strategic partners that deliver value. Firms that can successfully do that won't just be seen as a cost item when things get tough; rather, they'll be seen as a value-added partner that can help a business improve its recognition, generate valuable sales leads and stand out from the competition. These are all vitally important to any business, especially in a tough economic climate.

Subcontracting Carries Perils Too

2008-07-29T11:12:00.003-04:00

Many sole practitioners and even small agencies occasionally supplement their ongoing retainer client load by subcontracting with other agencies and consultants. While such a move can help bolster the bottom line, especially in tough economic times, it's also fraught with perils -- and not just for the lead agency.

The attractions of subcontracting, both for the lead agency and their subcontractor(s) are obvious: For the agency, taking on additional talent on a project-by-project basis allows the lead agency to broaden their breadth of experience and to overcome any disadvantage from its small size. Likewise, for the partnering consultant or agency, they also get an experience and increased revenue, even when you take into account the fact that a subcontractor almost always lowers their rate.

There are many cases where individual counselors and/or small firms have worked together for years and have cultivated relationships that are fruitful for both. However, what's not mentioned nearly as often is when the inverse happens, and a subcontractor and/or agency partner is penalized as a result of actions taken by their lead partner.

For example, if a client has any kind of issue with the lead agency/partner that leads to a termination of the account, more times than not the subcontractor/partner is also out the door too. There are times when the partner can resurrect the relationship, but just as often as not, the former client will be angered enough by the actions of the lead agency that resurrecting the relationship becomes impossible.

So while it may seem that only the lead partner has any vetting to do before a new partner relationship starts, in reality the subcontracting partner should do vetting as well. Take note of actions done during the sales process, if you're brought in that early, that are red flags. These are often good indicators of issues that will linger even if the account is won. Also, insist that any partner will listen to your views too because often a subcontracting partner is doing the lion's share of the actual tactical work. Given that, it only makes sense that they be willing to take your views into account.

Both sides of any partnership should address any conflicts and/or crises as soon as possible to avoid them from causing irrevocable harm. Also, make sure that both sides agree on philosophy. I can't say this enough. There are so many consultants and firms out there that believe their philosophy is the only way and that's honestly a tough situation to be in from a partner's perspective. In the end, what should really matter are the results, not how you got there.

A Seat at the Table Has to Be Earned

2008-07-22T11:07:00.002-04:00

Much has been said over the years about the importance of companies giving their PR counsel, be they employees or consultants, a "seat at the table," making them integral partners in decisions that go beyond the communications strategy. Whether or not we've earned that consideration is very much an open question.

It's no secret that the opinion of PR firms is generally not that high in the business world. One of the reasons that's the case, in my opinion, is because many things we do reflects too much marketing and not enough business acumen. This is readily apparent from the beginning of the sales cycle since in many cases the moon is promised to win an account, even though that will only lead to problems later.

I was in a meeting recently when an industry colleague, who was discussing a potential PR plan with a company was asked a question that while not related to PR, was something that the respondent should have known based on the knowledge of the prospect and what they viewed was important. The response to the unexpected question was something along the lines of "we'll study up once we get the account."

I was honestly flabbergasted; this goes back to business communication skills 101. There will certainly be cases where every potential answer won't be known before going into a meeting, but sometimes the way someone responds to a situation like that is as important as the answer itself.

Sadly, the most recent experience wasn't my first. Before going out on my own, I was also at a meeting that involved a senior-level practitioner with more than 30 years where virtually the same exchange occurred. Oddly enough, the account was won in both cases, but I submit just as likely an outcome would have been executives walking out the door. Let's hope fewer agencies and PR consultants take that risk in the future and do their homework in advance.

Is Twitter the latest media relations tool?

2008-07-08T14:39:00.002-04:00

In creating one of the most simplistic social-media platforms out there, Twitter seems to have succeeded at catching its share of the buzz factor. Now, some PR and marketing bloggers are going as far as to call it the latest and greatest media-relations platform.

For the uninitiated, Twitter allows you to send short, simple messages to friends and colleagues. It allows you to "follow" people you choose and allows anyone else on the platform to choose whether or not they wish to "follow" you or anyone else. Unlike LinkedIn and other social-media platforms, the relationships don't have to be reciprocal; in other words, you can follow people without them giving you their permission.

For the past few weeks, a number of listservs and trade publications, including Ragan have been asking is Twitter going to become the defacto tool in media relations. The theory is that as more journalists join the network, they'll send short updates describing the stories they're working on and that will support a wide range of pitching opportunities for PR pros who subscribe to their feeds.

Some have said Twitter is destined to replace the conversations that used to take place between journalists and PR pros at the local watering hole. That's theoretically possible, but as someone who was on the journalism side for 10 years, I never really saw that many journalists hit watering holes eager to shoot the breeze with a PR rep.

That said, there are some well-known journalists using Twitter as an interaction platform, although as expected the list is tech-heavy. However, if Twitter really does foster trusted relationships, then it could become one of the most valuable tools a PR pro uses. And you sure can't say the price isn't right!

Viral Media Predictions

2008-06-24T21:58:00.003-04:00

In a recent post, Richard Laermer, one of the authors of the excellent The Bad Pitch Blog wrote an entry predicting that the Internet and social-platforms in particular will continue to wreak havoc on the PR world, making commonly-used tools and methods obsolete.

Laermer maintains that in this world a written pitch will be considered spam, whereas media outlets and other consumers of information distributed by PR pros will view multimedia pitches as informative and engaging.

The post was essentially a warm-up for Laermer's latest book project, 2011: Trendspotting for the Next Decade, which examines the impact a number of emerging technologies and trends will have on us all and gives some insights into his predictions on which of these trends will go on to be hits and others misses. While I haven't had a chance to read the book, in the interest of full disclosure, it's generally been positively reviewed by those who have. That said, I think one future trend that may be a bit off the mark is the notion that PR, and marketing as a whole, will evolve into something that's dominated by the consumer rather than a company or one of their consultants or agencies. Basically, if someone likes your idea, Laermer believes they'll become an evangelist, much as the way Apple Computer Corp. has always had a core group of evangelists going back to before the company was hot again.

While Apple has certainly had that, something I can attest to having spent many years as a tech reporter and written a few stories that had negative Apple news, I don't think that means most companies can expect to achieve it and/or that most companies will want to market themselves that way. Certainly, some consumer-oriented companies might, but the world is full of successful companies doing all kinds of things that may not be "social-media worthy," but are important -- and profitable -- nonetheless.

So for now, while viral marketing may have some influence on a few campaigns, I'm not sure it's going to be a game changer in the PR world as a whole.

PR 'dean' calls for renewed focus on ethics

2008-06-16T17:05:00.003-04:00

Howard Rubenstein, who in many ways is the modern dean of public relations having been a professional practitioner since 1954, made news recently when he called for a renewed, grass-roots effort to help the PR profession restore its lost credibility.

In an op-ed for The Bulldog Reporter's Daily Dog, Rubenstein highlights the fact that too many PR professionals thought practicing PR was synonymous with "spinning and inaccuracies." Since it was the very professionals that were in large part responsible for that belief, Rubenstein believes it's incumbent upon them to help lead the charge to change the reputation of PR and rid the industry of shady practices.

One of the catalysts that leads to the problem, Rubenstein notes, is the way many companies respond to a crisis. Rather than taking on a crisis and dealing with it in a straightforward way, he notes that most companies first insist on a string of denials rather than getting at the crux of the problem. It's up to responsible PR pros, he notes, to push clients to be both ethical and accurate. Those who aren't, he maintains, are failing to perform their true jobs as a company's trusted advisor.

Another reason ethics are not often practiced, Rubenstein believes, is that even professionals who receive accreditation from the Public Relations Society of America pay very little attention to the society's code of ethics in their daily practice. A better solution, Rubenstein believes, would have the PRSA offer a certificate on ethics and have something that agencies and their practitioners could promote.

I have no idea whether Rubenstein's call to arms will be answered, but I dare say anybody who is responsible for selling PR services knows what we're up against. In too many cases, there's a notion among the general public -- including the marketing departments and the entrepreneurs that purchase our services -- that PR involves spin rather than the truth. If we can't explain better just what it is that we do, I'm not sure how we can purport to explain what a current or potential client does and why it's worthy of attention.

Social Media Enthusiasts and Their Views on PR

2008-05-26T00:14:00.002-04:00

It may seem silly to take issues with social media platforms via a blog, but regular readers of this blog know that I've done that on several occasions when I feel that enthusiasm goes from being a promoter of the new at the expense of the old.

The latest blogger to take issue with public relations and its tactics is Loic Le Meur, a Frenchman who has been involved with a number of Internet startups, including an interactive ad agency, which was later sold to BBDO in 1999.

Le Meur starts off his post by basically saying that PR pros claim to have a "magical sauce" when the precise notion is, in his words BS (to put it nicely). Instead of engaging a PR pro and going the traditional way, Le Meur espouses an updated approach that basically capitalizes on using your social network to the utomost. By doing this correctly, he believes you can do everything yourself better than anyone else could do for you.

He also claims the PR industry holds a number of believes that are patently untrue, including the notion that traditional journalists and media channels hold more influence than social media at large and influential bloggers. Rather than relying on a PR agency to get the word out, he advocates relying on your users and customers to do it for you. In the end, he believes, their fanatical enthusiasm will lead journalists to circle back around and give a company coverage, effectively killing two birds with one stone.

He also advises CEOs and other key executives to be their spokesperson behind their brands. He reasons that the CEO should be the brand, much akin to the way Richard Branson is associated with the Virgin empire.

While there's some validity to the notion that a trusted CEO can be the best person to speak for a company, he completely ignores the fact that messages issued by a company are only one very small part of a communications program. It's not surprising that a serial entrepreneur would view CEOs as the best spokesperson, but he completely ignores the fact that a journalist will see them as a biased source that will only say what they want people to believe. Yes, there are cases where CEOs bluntly and honestly deal with their firm's problems, but even then, they're not the architect of a response in most cases, just the face delivering it. He also ignores the fact that if they're busy serving as the architect of the response, they've diverted their resources from actually dealing with it in the first place; honestly, that's what their customers, clients and investors want them to do.

PR certainly has its problems on occasion, and one of those is the fact that the profession as a whole has done a pretty poor job of educating the public at large in just what the heck it is a PR person does. But equally as disturbing is the fact that there's still this pervasive notion that while you need qualified individuals handling your business' finances and legal needs, PR can be done by almost anyone with the right connections.

Outrage Against Poor Media Relations Practice Continues

2008-05-12T14:16:00.003-04:00

When debuted in 2006, the excellent Bad Pitch Blog had the PR community buzzing, as it was the first outlet to aggressively confront poor media relations practices. Unfortunately for the PR industry as a whole, it was only the beginning.

Over the months that followed the blog's debut, it was the subject of articles in many PR trades and was responsible for launching a broader discussion on media relations practices and how they could and should be changed for the better. At the same time, a move grew to "modernize" many media relations tools, including transforming the media release into a new format that would allow the incorporation of multimedia tools and other content and features. The resulting Social Media Release template, which you can read about here is still a work in progress of sorts.

Unfortunately, while the debate over media relations practices and how they should change or adopt is occurring, the reputation of public relations continues to decline in large part because of poor media relations practices. Witness the prspammers wiki, which is basically a collection of e-mail addresses contributed by leading blog authors and other social media enthusiasts containing the names of PR pros from some of the industry's most familiar names.

Problem is, this isn't a good list to be on. The list itself denotes off-target pitches sent to leading bloggers over the past few months, and it reads like a virtual who's who of the biggest firms in the industry, ranging from Atomic and Bite to Shift. The latter is particularly unfortunately because it's Shift that's been one of the main drivers of the social media release.

Ever since the emergence of blogs and other social media platforms, I've become concerned that the industry is too concerned on cashing in on the craze at the expense of strengthening its core competencies. To me, PR as a whole pays too much attention to the development of "new and improved" ways to get its message out and way too little attention to developing messages devoid of hype that clearly communicate what a company is about and why it's worthy of attention.

It's always bugged me that PR is considered a "buzz creating" industry, when I personally believe that if you correctly position a useful product or service, the buzz will come on its own. I also believe this need to always create new and improved tools, while it may be good for the bottom line, is also disproportionately responsible for the industry's high client turnover rate.

Let's hope we start worrying more about the message and less about the medium.

Debates Rage About Usefulness of Twitter

2008-05-09T13:58:00.003-04:00

At one time, the phrase social media was synonymous with the blogosphere, since that was the first platform that enabled virtually any Web user the opportunity to easily take a message to the masses.

Since that time, however, there have been a lot of new entrants, including twitter, which is basically a Web-based instant messaging tool that allows any twitter user to follow another, with both having the ability to share updates on what they're doing at the moment.

I started checking out twitter after some technology consultants on a listserv sponsored by a professional organization to which I belong asked others if they were using twitter for business development purposes. At the time, it amazed me that twitter would even be considered something that an attorney or legal marketer would use to reach current and prospective clients, although some in the discussion took up the view that every emerging platform generally has an uphill battle to climb in terms of both adoption and acceptance.

Then today, I was spending some time on MyRagan, a social media platform for communications professionals, and noticed a community member there had penned a blog entry also questioning the value of twitter. Add to that, most of the comments on twitter echoed the view that at this point, most of the "buzz" about twitter consists of stories about its usefulness, or lack thereof, and not much about how anyone's using it in the course of their overall communications strategies.

While that's true, the same could be said about the blogosphere in the beginning and it's certainly evolved to be a useful tool in PR programs, especially when it comes to companies that sell directly to consumers. It will be interesting to follow twitter's evolution and see whether it emerges to become much more than a "new fangled" instant messaging platform or something truly beneficial to business.

Views on Agency Compensation

2008-04-29T15:28:00.002-04:00

One of the most hotly-debated issues in public relations has always been compensation; by that I mean what agencies should get paid, not what they should pay their people. This is especially now that we're in an era of push-button publishing and "how to" books purporting to make everyone instant experts in virtually any subject. While the debates rage on, I'd like to suggest they mostly miss the point.

For some time, there have been agencies and consultants touting a pay-for-performance model in public relations. In most cases, this simply means that agencies get paid based on how well they perform for the client. While that sentence may have been simple enough to parse, such a change in strategy is anything but simple and, in my opinion, not as great as it may sound.

In most cases, pay-for-performance models have scales that award the agency a fee based on the circulation of a publication or some similar metric. For the most part, such model changes have been suggested mostly for public relations, since there's always been a perception that it's in the best interest of a business to pay based on media coverage. However, one ad agency chief recently raised some eyebrows for suggesting a new approach that would extend to ad agencies.

In an AdWeek story, Andy Fletcher, chief of the Atlanta ad consulting company Fletcher Martin suggests one of the problems with the conventional agency compensation model is that agencies are rewarded the same for success as failure. Instead, he proposes a two-tier model: the first part of that model would involve clients paying a set fee for a program strategy; the second portion would be based on the results the client receives as a result of the strategy itself. Fletcher proposes that agencies should be willing to risk all their execution-based compensation because, if the client wins big, so does the agency. Again, Fletcher's not specifically mentioning PR in his piece, although such a methodology could theoretically apply there as well.

Fletcher's idea is certainly better than the pay-for-play approach that's traditionally been espoused in PR. The key question, however, would be whether such a model could really be effectively adopted by PR agencies. For example, there are certain scenarios where no agency could succeed, regardless of the quality of the strategy. These could include a flawed product design, poor program implementation, etc. While the agency would still receive a program fee, one would assume that their overall upside would be tilted toward execution rewards. In this case, those rewards would likely be muted by the aforementioned issues.

As someone who's spent a lot of time working with attorneys and other professional service providers, it's always struck me as odd that some PR pros devalue their services in an effort to compete. For example, you'd never see well-known corporate attorneys adopting a "winner take all" strategy when it comes to a piece of complex litigation; and they certainly wouldn't call a business model like that revolutionary.

For better or worse, however, PR has always seemed to do a poorer job of positioning itself than its clients. So if we're going to talk about alternatives, in my opinion, a model based along Fletcher's thinking is at least a step in the right direction.

Company Goes to Bat With Google Over Anonymous Blog Posts

2008-04-25T14:31:00.002-04:00

Since it's launch, one of the things most lauded about the blogosphere is not only its ability to give practically anybody the ability to speak their mind on whatever they wish, but if they so desire, the right to do it anonymously. In yet another case pitting existing laws against emerging technologies, that may soon change.

Aircraft company Eclipse Aviation has subpoenaed Google in an effort to secure contact information for several anonymous posters on the Eclipse Critic blog hosted by its Blogger service. The legal action comes as a result of several comments made on the blog that question the features and characteristics of the Eclipse 500 Very Light Jet.

The company says that while it has no desire to shut down the blog, it feels compelled to go after the unnamed authors that it feels have defamed the company and its products.

Of course, it will likely be a while before this issue plays itself out in court. And while I'm not an attorney, it seems to me there are legal precedents at play that could make this issue rather short lived. In the recent past, there have been several cases regarding Internet service providers and the content they transmit; this issue was widely followed when the original Napster was still around and scads of users were swapping music files with one another. Basically, courts ruled that ISPs could not be expected to monitor their networks for unauthorized/illegal conduct transmitted by their customers. While it's true that technology might make it possible for the owners and controllers of content networks to keep an electronic eye out for certain types of content, the practicality of covering every base imaginable is a big question.

From a PR perspective, a question could be raised as to whether Eclipse would have been better served by actually tackling the issues raised in the blog postings rather than trying to silence the conversation.

Just What IS PR 2.0 Anyway?

2008-04-22T11:13:00.003-04:00

It seems every time you look at a PR trade publication or an industry forum on a platform such as LinkedIn, you see someone asking about PR 2.0 and its importance on the profession. Maybe it's just me, but I think we should pull the plug on all the "upgrade" talk.

Although there's no universal definition, when most people speak of PR 2.0, they're playing off the Web 2.0 phenomenon that signifies the emergence of a number of Web-based platforms, such as blogs and wikis, that are truly interactive and foster two-way communications.

All these things can be wonderful additions to a PR program, especially for clients offering a consumer-oriented product or service and/or trying to reach a technically-inclined audience. These platforms foster a community-oriented communication that can, when used correctly, help clients gain additional validation via third-party influencers.

That said, all these things are just tools; they're appropriate for some campaigns and not appropriate for others. Even with the new tools, the time-tested and proven methods for conducting a successful PR campaign haven't changed and shouldn't be tossed out in favor of blanketing any new platform with a message about a client.

All too often, tools like these are seen by the industry as a chance to pad program budgets with extra fees and services that may or may not benefit the client. And at the end of the day, everything we do should be judged based on how well it benefits the client, not on whether it increases the agency's bottom line. For if we as an industry consistently do things that benefit the client, even if it's not always using the latest whiz-bang technology, the bottom line will almost certainly increase.

The Transformation of Content and Its Impact on PR

2008-04-15T12:06:00.002-04:00

Practically since the beginning of the commercial Internet, there's been this back-and-forth tug regarding business models that have dominated the conventional business world and predictions over how much of that would translate to the Internet.

In the mid to late 1990s, the notion was that advertising would step in and solve everything, which explains in large measure why most business plans of Internet content sites based most of their revenue models around the ability to attract ads. Of course, the go-go 90s that played host to a ton of predictions about how the conventional world and its business models would be overturned got a big dose of reality in 2000 when the markets started cooling to the ideas.

While many thought that the fall out from the "dot-com boom" would usher in a new round of sanity and more fact-based analyses of the Internet's impact on the business world, sometimes it seems all that happened was just a thinning of the crop. Even now, with all the predictions of a dire economy that lay ahead, you still have people who bank on the Internet and related content platforms with rose-colored glasses that aren't giving them the full view of the picture.

For instance, many PR firms are treating the blogosphere as a vast, new media platform that will upend the conventional world as we know it. They're advising clients to pile a ton of money in new media initiatives, convinced beyond belief that it will pay off. Obviously, as a keeper of a blog, I'm not against the concept of blogs by any means, but I think we do have to radically realign our notions of what they are and the role they'll play.

One of the things I've never understood about the blogosphere is why we're promoting something so heavily that essentially just leads to a decentralized audience. By that I mean, having hundreds of platforms for content may be wonderful to those who want to read it, but when it comes to monetizing a platform like that and building revenue models around it, the challenge will be immense, since the audience will be so decentralized.

One one hand, blog enthusiasts could legitimately say the low barriers to entry from a cost perspective make that point largely moot; they'd be right if the goal was to simply establish a content beachhead, but when it comes to making money, you need some mass audience. Essentially, the more content platforms we have, the more the overall value of content is dilluted until we achieve some sort of mass.

In a recent editorial, Wired editor Chris Anderson predicts that free is the future of business. In promoting a system he calls "freenomics" -- a play on the widely read book Freakonomics, Anderson says decisions like that of The New York Times to take down their subscription wall and make all its content free serve as an example of things to come. Outside the content area, he also points to cases like the British rock band Radiohead, which freed itself from conventional record-label marketing to offer its latest album directly to the consumer and whatever price (s)he is willing to pay.

He goes on to point out how there are many versions of the "free" model, and most involve at least some sort of payment for a portion of a site or a value-oriented addition to a service. And in many ways, he's right about the fact that Google, Craigslist and others have shown the free model can work. However, it also has a number of big hurdles and we'd do well to examine them before creating Dot Com Bust II.

Will Social Networking Kill High-Margin PR Services?

2008-04-01T16:55:00.002-04:00

As anyone in PR knows there are a variety of tools available that aim to greatly streamline specific tasks, especially those connected to media relations. And while they perform that function well, they're also very expensive and a budget stretch to many in the profession. Well, it now appears that these expensive "walled gardens" may soon be shaken up by social media platforms.

Of course, one of the most well-known social media network is LinkedIn. In addition to being a networking platform, LinkedIn's Answers functions allows people to post questions not only to their networks, but to the LinkedIn community at large. Currently, there are 15 separate categories spanning a number of industries and a separate category where members can share tips on using LinkedIn itself.

Lately, I've seen several situations where journalists, especially freelancers, are turning to LinkedIn to solicit story ideas that they can take under consideration for conversion into pitches to editors at publications for which they write. Given LinkedIn's large community that encompasses representatives of most every profession around, it makes sense to tap the group for both ideas and sources.

Another new entrant comes from PR and practitioner and new-media evangelist Peter Shankman titled If I Can Help a Reporter Out. It basically functions as an e-mail list, allowing reporters to send queries seeking sources to PR practitioners who subscribe to Shankman's list. Subscribers receive about 3 e-mail dispatches daily with details on stories reporters are working on and they can in turn suggest sources for the reporters to include in their story.

Shankman's idea, while it may not seem revolutionary, does have the potential to turn shake up things at very profitable units of major conglomerates like PRNewswire, whose ProfNet service currently dominates the landscape. While an unquestionably useful service, ProfNet's pricing is out of the reach of many small practitioners. Although there are other services around, such as Expert Click, there's yet to be a service that has gained enough traffic to be a serious competitor.

In his introduction to the service posted on the site, Shankman acknowledges that "...Help a Reporter..." will only prove useful if it can gain enough participation from both the source and PR community. In the interest of competition, I hope it's successful.

Has Technology Lived Up to Its Promise in the Workplace

2008-03-31T15:41:00.002-04:00

Businesses and workers alike generally laud technology improvements, both using examples such as e-mail and the Blackberry in pointing out how technology has allowed businesses to operate more efficiently. However, when the issue is more closely examined, it's really not that clear cut.

According to a new survey issued by The Radicati Group, e-mail volume has increased a whopping 55 percent since 2004, with the average corporate e-mail user receiving 126 messages daily. The report goes on to say that if growth in e-mail volume continues at its current pace, workers will spend almost half their days managing messages by 2009.

While most bloggers who picked on this study stuck to the main issue, I thought I'd expand it a bit to examine the basic premise of technology and its promise of bringing efficiency to a variety of processes. There are countless examples of promises that were issued when new technologies emerged that haven't really lived up to reality. For example, I can remember businesses using videoconferencing over ISDN connections as early as 1993 and even then, equipment providers were touting how they would replace meetings and make business travel much less frequent. And of course, e-mail was supposed to cut down on the need for meetings, allow problems to be solved faster, etc.

Before going any further, I want to emphasize that I'm not saying these things haven't occurred in some cases, but it's fair to say they haven't occurred across the business world at large. In theory, if technology were making our lives more efficient, shouldn't we be able to accomplish more in a shorter amount of time, either getting more done in a standard workday or having a shorter workday?

Obviously, at least in the U.S., neither has happened; and rather than blame the technology, I suggest the reason these radical changes haven't happened is we've failed to adjust our attitudes, the way we think about work and the way we think about what we should get done in a formal work setting. Simply put, unless you change what a worker does during their day, the presence of technology won't necessarily enable you to get more done.

To bring this back to the PR world, I suggest we haven't done enough to change the PR business model through technology in a way that makes it possible for the ever-growing number of small and mid-size businesses with limited marketing budgets to engage a PR counselor. For example, a company with a limited budget could be presented with an account option that includes limited meetings, phone calls and other time-consuming (e.g. expensive) options for one that features mostly electronic client communication. That would enable the PR counselor to spend more of the company's billable time on actual program initiatives, greatly increasing the productivity that can be expected from limited budgets.

When thinking about technology and its impact on the business world, we'd do well to develop a plan that will allow the technology to reach its full potential and that focus should include just as much on the workday structure and the way we think about work as what the technology promises to do.

Pew Study Illustrates Difficulty in Determining Social Media Impact

2008-03-28T15:58:00.004-04:00

Proponents of social media have generally highlighted its biggest advantage as being the potential to "upend" the media landscape by shifting the power from a few large, established players to a more decentralized environment that delivers a broader perspective, free of biases. However, a new study by the Pew Center paints a much more complicated picture.

The study says that despite social media's potential to create a more diverse media culture, the reality is that even when it comes to new media, most consumers typically turn to the ventures of the established media companies that have dominated the media world for decades, if not longer. The research shows that blogs and other social media outlets are attracting a smaller than expected audience and that rather than creating a culture devoid of elitism, all that's happened is the elites now come from a broader class consisting of more than just individuals with media backgrounds. In other words, the barons still rule, just not the media barons of old.

The biggest trend, according to the study, is that news today is thought of not so much as a product, but as a service. Consumers are changing their preferences when it comes to consuming news by opting for everything from traditional, full-form news stories to 40-character briefs sent via e-mail.

As far back as 2006, I was saying that we've been in a "blog bubble" of sorts that is causing us to avoid fully examining the potential impact of social media and keeping us from using it in the right way. Unfortunately this latest study seems to say loud and clear that while social media has value, PR pros and others advocating its use would be well advised to give it a more thorough examination than has been done in the past. Frankly, we owe it to our clients and to the reputation of our industry as a whole.

Edelman's Take on PR's Validity

2008-03-18T16:04:00.004-04:00

Richard Edelman, CEO of the nation's largest independent PR firm, had a great take on the impact the current economic downturn will have on PR that I urge everyone to read.

He believes that PR will be better equipped to weather the downturn than during the tech bubble of the 90s, when some tech-focused PR firms suffered dramatically, but says the industry could do a better job of promoting its own value proposition. Edelman goes on to list several key contributions PR makes to a business and its bottom line, including getting multiple stakeholders involved in a company's success -- not just consumers and serving as a unique accelerator for a company and its brand. That aspect stems from the fact that PR involves a communications approach that leads consumers of a company's PR message to become active participants that help companies shape their products and services.

Finally, Edelman argues that PR offers a credibility advantage because information is thoroughly vetted and examined by the media, bloggers and independent third-parties.

I agree with all the above and also with the fact that it's the industry's job to communicate these advantages through the selling process. Anyone who's in PR and has ever talked to someone who's never before met anyone else from the industry knows how little the average person understands exactly what we do. In a sense, that disconnect is causing us to miss out on a great opportunity, since at least a portion of these people might be potential PR consumers if they better understood the industry.

Does Recession-Proof PR Exist?

2008-03-14T13:14:00.003-04:00

In a recent op-ed for The Bulldog Reporter, GolinHarris CEO Al Golin takes a turn at the microphone in the debate over the impact the current economic downturn will have on public relations.

In the article, Golin maintains that much has changed in the PR landscape in recent years. As a result of what he terms PR's "coming of age," Golin says businesses understand much more about what PR firms do for them and how important they are to their success. He goes on to say that PR can now make a good case about its necessity and has gone beyond merely an industry specializing in getting clients ink to one that includes firms that are valued business partners.

As proof of the change, Golin sites the growth of his own firm, which he maintains had a banner year last year. While I don't think Golin would have a reason to overstate his firm's state, that stat was impossible to verify since GolinHarris is part of the Interpublic Group, which doesn't readily make available stats on its various subsidiaries.

Overall, I think articles such as this perfectly illustrate the wide disconnect between large and small firms. Large firms, as is the case with large companies in many other industries, often enjoy many benefits by virtue of their size. Chief among them is the fact that large businesses often patronize businesses of their same size; so Golin Harris has a number of large, publicly-held clients as companies. I suspect an examination of smaller, independently-held firms would yield a much different picture since competition is even more fierce at that level.

If there are any owners/managers of mid-size or small independent shops, I'd love to hear your comments on this issue. Is Golin's enthusiasm overstated?

How to Effectively “Sell” PR

2008-02-24T13:20:00.001-05:00

(Note: This article was originally published on TalentZoo.com Feb. 17, 2008)

Even the most talented public relations professionals need one key ingredient before they can work their magic: A company willing to trust the PR pro with their program. Getting to this crucial point isn't always easy, and the way PR has traditionally been sold has a lot to do with it.

The business pitch process itself is relatively simple: Find a client that's a good fit for a consultant or an agency's experience and background and convince them you're the one for the job. While that seems simple enough, like many things, the devil's in the details. While it's understandable that an agency or consultant may want to pull out all the stops to get new business, in many cases, the way it's done now is all too often the problem.

Often, a new business pitch consists of an agency or consultant wowing a prospective client with PowerPoint presentations and telling them all the great outlets they're sure to appear in if they just select their firm. They talk about the placements they've achieved for clients and how they can do that for darn near anybody on the planet – including, of course, the company they're pitching.

Now no one in their right mind would go into a business pitch with a demeanor resembling the comic Steven Wright and/or an attitude that didn't reflect competence and confidence; but the key thing to remember is going overboard is no better. During the “dot-com boom,” we were all treated to stories about how company x was going to have the next best thing that was sure to shake the competitive landscape of its field. And when most companies are looking for a PR pro, they feel just as confident about their product or service and think it's just a matter of time before the high-level ink will come rolling in.

When an agency or consultant typically hears a prospective client talk like this, they often give encouraging feedback and/or do their best to echo what the client said. However, at this juncture, what we should really be thinking is not so much giving the client back what they want to hear, but giving them honest feedback that reflects the experience that comes from managing good PR campaigns. To get a better idea of what I mean, think about law firms. I do a lot of work with law firms large and small, and I feel that PR should do more to model itself around the legal profession and other portions of the professional services world. By that I mean, even the best lawyer in the country will never promise an outcome they're not sure can be delivered. In addition to the fact that doing so would run afoul of a myriad of ethics rules, they also realize all too well that even if someone's the greatest at what (s)he does, sometimes they'll lose for reasons completely out of their control.

While it may be tough to say even to ourselves, even the best PR campaign will fail sometimes, even if the client has a good idea. After all, the proverbial road is littered with many sound ideas, services and products that just never took off. A good PR agency will bridge the gap between what they can and can't do in terms of the end result by explaining what works and doesn't work, as illustrated through campaigns that are similar to what the prospective client needs. You can tell a lot about whether a company will be a good client by how they react to your objective advice; if they don't take it, odds are they're going to want to pin everything that doesn't go right in a PR campaign directly on you, even if the reason something didn't work as expected was completely out of your control. That doesn't mean I would say you should never take business from a company whose executives act in this manner; my point is merely that it will prepare you for what could lie ahead and allow you time to think about managing the issue. If you follow the path of giving a prospective client objective advice and they come aboard with your firm, you're already going to be on much more solid ground than if you'd promised anything and everything under the moon just to get them in. And to be fair, you really can't blame the client in this instance, as nobody forced the PR pro to say something they didn't want to say.

In all likelihood, taking this path will go far toward earning you that “seat at the table” that so many PR pros covet. To be successful, you'll need an advocate inside the company that communicates your successes and embraces your ideas and is willing to go to bat for you and those ideas to key executives. You'll also likely find that the client will respect your abilities more if you give them objective advice, even if it confronts their conventional wisdom at the time.

The best reward that this approach will likely bring is both a happy client and a long-term client. As I've written about extensively on my blog and in other forums, if every professional service firm had to replace their clients as often as PR firms do, they'd be thinking something had gone horribly wrong. Yet, for some crazy reason, we in PR just accept it as a fact of life. What makes this doubly crazy to me is that if you asked PR pros whether they'd rather be engaging in selling or strategic PR, most would choose the latter. Given that, why not do all you can to maximize client retention and, thus, reduce the need to constantly sell? I'm convinced taking a better approach to sales will not only benefit the practice of an individual practitioner or an agency's, but also be a great thing for the profession as a whole.

Afzali Commentary Featured in O'Dwyer's PR Newsletter

2008-01-31T16:57:00.002-05:00

As many of you know, one of the themes I've consistently taken on is the pervasive antagonism that many PR professionals have for journalists. The reasons it exists are many, but the bottom line is regardless of the reason, it does no one in the profession any good, especially the agency and their client.

Jack O'Dwyer, who publishes a well-respected newsletter on the industry, recently interviewed me on the subject and ran an article its January 4 issue. For those who are interested, the article may be found here

I invite your reactions to both my comments and to the issue at large.

An update from Astoria Communications

2008-01-31T10:46:00.000-05:00

In a nod to the obvious, it's been a while since there was any post of relevance on this blog. Given that, I thought I'd post a short note to explain.

In addition to a nice uptick in business for my practice, I've also been contributing a lot of written pieces to several publications of note, including O'Dwyer's PR Newsletter, as well as a variety of career-related PR columns to outlets such as TalentZoo and, very soon, TheLadders. All this has left me with little time to update the blog.

However, I will be posting some of those writings here and hope that they will be relevant to those in the profession. Obviously, those who are newer to PR will probably find the career-related columns of particular interest. To any who may read this, thanks for checking in and stay tuned. 2008 will bring many more contributions.

Wired Editor's Rant Exposes Weakness of Traditional Big-Agency Model

2007-11-01T16:37:00.000-04:00

As the fallout from Wired editor Chris Anderson's post on lazy flacks continued, with both journalists and PR pros taking both sides of the coin, a thought struck me that's been missing from this debate.

Although it may not be acknowledged widely, one of the main reasons that the poor pitching practices continue in the PR industry is because of practices that are especially prevalent at big agencies. Those agencies, many of whom represent some of the largest corporations in America and charge five-figure monthly account balances, rely on a ready supply of young talent to pitch media. They do this because they come cheaper and are more profitable. How is this? It's simple math: the profit margin on an account executive who might be billed out at $130 an hour is much higher than an account supervisor, who might go for $200 an hour or more since the former can be had for a salary in the low 30s(K), in contrast to the $75K an up an account supervisor will earn. Simply put, the profit margin on each hour is much higher for lower-level practitioners.

PR is quite different than other professional services in that lower-level employees are often given very specific tasks that separate them from high-level employees. In contrast, aside from crisis communications planning and the design of PR programs themselves, much of the core day-to-day work in a PR program isn't performed by someone in a supervisory or advanced career stage at all.

In theory, one could say the practice engaged in by typical, large PR agencies was good business. After all, theoretically every business is in business to maximize the revenue potential of its products or services. This theory quickly breaks down when PR campaigns are executed, however. As I mentioned, my former "life" was a journalist for CNN and other outlets. I can tell you without a doubt it was beyond painful, both for me to listen to and I'm sure for the junior PR pro, to weather pitches during the start of the tech boom. Much of the stuff being promoted then had very little in the way of compelling advantages, making it doubly harder for a junior staffer to explain why it was the latest, greatest "value-added solution."

The staffing phenomenon I describe also has a lot to do with the above-average turnover rate for PR accounts, at least when compared to other professional service sectors. In short, clients hate being sold by high-level practitioners and serviced by junior ones. I hold little hope for this situation to actually change as long as the big agencies are the model for change in the industry. Since they contribute much of the money to professional associations working to advance the industry and supply a large portion of the industry's overall jobs, no one really wants to rock the big-agency boat. Sad, since we all suffer for it.

The Unsolicited E-mail Debate

2007-10-31T16:49:00.000-04:00

As many of you are probably aware of by now, Wired magazine editor Chris Anderson kicked off a firestorm of debate earlier this week when he essentially published a list of PR practitioners who had violated his "one strike" rule pertaining to sending him unsolicited pitches.

Anderson goes on to say that all too many PR people send him the material in his position as editor-in-chief, without first bothering to discover who actually writes stories on a particular topic for the publication. Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly given the fact they all have well-known technology clients, the list reads as a sort of "who's who" among tech PR firms.

Since the blog's publication, many people -- particularly freelance writers who also loathe the unsolicited pitches -- have written in support of Anderson and his publication of the list. The publication has also received support from a number of PR-related blogs including The Bad Pitch Blog.

While the problem has been well-documented, very little has been written about why it's happening and the impact it will have on the profession. One could perhaps understand how it might occur more often at very small firms that don't have the time and money to invest in professional education. But the fact that some of the biggest firms in the PR business, both in the U.S. and abroad, are represented on the list, points to the apparent ineffectiveness of those programs.

As a former journalist, whose outlets have included CNN, I can understand Anderson's frustration. Some have said he 's going too far when he rails against unsolicited pitches. Others have pointed out that a good pitch can add value both for the client and the publication and that the pitches are being sent to Anderson in his capacity as a Wired editor using company resources. That said, anyone who knows anything about journalism should know the EIC isn't the person to receive this kind of information and that is Anderson's core point.

So while it may be painful to read posts such as Anderson's, hopefully they serve to advance the PR profession and the work of professionals. Yes, ideally that would be done at the industry level, but we all know all to well it's not.

Good PR Is More Than A Handbook

2007-10-08T09:45:00.000-04:00

If you're reading this post, you're likely noticing that this blog hasn't been updated in ages. There are a variety of reasons for that; chief among them is the fact that -- happily -- business has picked up dramatically for me over the past few months and I simply just don't have as much time. Secondly, I feel that the real power in blogs is in not just spreading a message, but a good one. When I don't have anything compelling to write, I don't. There are countless good PR blogs out there written by industry pros who do a pretty darn job at keeping their content compelling. So my thought is, "why reinvent the wheel?"

All that said, an exchange I had with a professional acquaintance a couple of weeks ago got me thinking and proved to be the genesis for this post. The fellow came up to me before the start of a meeting we're both involved in and showed me a book authored by a former TV journalist describing how easy it was for anyone to execute a PR campaign (after they read his book, of course).

At first I was a bit taken aback. For starters, I wondered if the person had thought about how he'd feel at being told darn near anybody could do his job? Rather than give much of a response, I just chalked it up as one in a continual line of "I can do your job better than you" sentiments that pervade not just PR, but education and countless other professions.

While the sentiment about PR irks me, I can also see why people believe it's true. Why? Because there are scads of examples where supposed PR professionals unleash crap on the world that makes us look bad. It could be because the information is poorly written and/or doesn't convey much of a point, because it's sent to the wrong person/outlet, because a PR pro pretends a journalist (s)he's never met before is a long-lost pal, and on and on.

I know from my experience as a journalist that this kind of approach isn't as limited as some in the profession might like to imagine it to be. Being a tech journalist during the dot-com boom was a brutal experience at times because it seemed like everybody had the next Swiss-Army knife, but no one knew how to get to the point in regard to why it was so great. For better or worse, most of those companies have long since vanished from existence.

Now that I've been on the PR side of the aisle for a good number of years, I obviously look at this issue from a different perspective than when I was a journalist. It presents a quandry of sorts, as another person's bad work gives me a chance to go in and show how my experience and methods make me a better fit. Unfortunately, the situation is so pervasive that it's hard for a small shop to really make much of a difference. While I'm out there beating a "no-hype drum" and actually saying that fewer words are better, I've got scads of other competitors saying just exactly the opposite. Take a look at a typical press release and you'll see what I mean.

While it will take a lot of time and effort to truly change this sentiment, it's never too late to add to the efforts of those who are. All of us can start by truly educating current and prospective clients on just exactly what PR is, keeping in mind that many of the people we come in contact with in a given day may have never hired or worked alongside a PR professional in their lives.

I have to believe that if everyone who buys one of those "you can do PR too" books or goes into those "PR Store" shops were to truly observe an award-winning campaign or one that's the subject of a case study in a major PR publication, they'd start to understand there's more to good PR than meets the eye. Once they realize it, hopefully they too will start to be evangelists for a better way. Over time, hopefully we can change some of these perceptions and truly make a difference to all our fellow PR practitioners.

Longtime PRSA Member Advises Organization to Listen to Critics

2007-04-16T17:09:00.000-04:00

The Public Relations Society of America continues to come under scrutiny over a governance structure that critics continue to say suppresses debate and dialogue on a number of issues vital to the profession.

In an article written for O'Dwyer's PR Report, Stuart Goldstein, managing director of corporate communications for Depository Trust & Clearing Corp. urged PRSA President Bill Murray to "fling the door open and embrace critics."

Goldstein faults the organization for requiring accreditation from the organization before allowing a member to serve on the group's leadership team. He also says the requirement restrains comments from corporate communications professionals who see the accredited public relations (APR) designation as irrelevant.

As many know, the PRSA has taken an aggressive stance against individuals that criticize its leadership practices, a practice that Goldstein says leads to an organization that's closed to new ideas and doesn't advance the profession. Goldstein's stance against PRSA practices goes back to 2003, when he wrote an article for the flagship Tactics publication that was delayed until someone was identified to write a rebuttal that appeared adjacent to his article.

I can't speak for other bloggers, but I know that one thing the PRSA is actually good at is finding articles or blog postings that are critical of its practices. What it doesn't do is quickly come out against practices that harm the profession. To look at a good contrast, one should examine the Legal Marketing Association, which adopted a lengthy position statement in opposition to new advertising rules formulated by New York ethics officials that greatly changed the way lawyers and law firms would be able to market themselves. The rules would have affected not only New York-based attorneys and firms, but also lawyers who were licensed to practice in the state, but based elsewhere in addition to satellite offices of firms headquartered in other states. In part because of that effort, the final versions of the rules that took effect early this year were much less stringent, resulting in a scenario that was much less cumbersome.

One of the major problems that PR faces in the opinion of myself and many seasoned pros is the negative attitude the profession holds. Sure, one could say there's not much you can do about that, and to a large extent that's true. But if PR had an organization that was a more aggressive advocate for the profession, it would likely bolster PR's overall reputation and make the industry better as a whole.

Hopefully that situation will improve, but until industry leaders are comfortable at debating the issues that threaten the profession, the prospect is dim.

Some Practices Never End

2007-04-03T23:19:00.000-04:00

As some of you may know, my career includes nine years experience as a journalist at outlets ranging from small dailies to CNN Financial News. I've found that experience invaluable in my current role as a PR consultant, especially when it comes to having a good sense of what works and doesn't.

It's no secret that journalists and PR reps have an uneasy relationship; that exists for numerous reasons, but honestly, most of it is the fault of PR professionals who, when it gets right down to it, just do things to shoot themselves in the foot.

The latest example comes from Waggener Edstrom, which is one of several agencies that handle a piece of Microsoft's business. Waggener was working on behalf of Microsoft to schedule an interview with a Wired contributing editor, who was writing on a video blogging initiative the software giant was working on. In the course of that work, Waggener compiled what is commonly referred to as a briefing book for a Microsoft executive that consisted of previous stories from the editor, along with advice for the executive on how to handle the interview.

While this is a common practice done by PR firms, often at the behest of clients who are nervous about potentially being unprepared, what got Waggener attention it probably didn't want was additional information about the editor that would be involved in the interview. Fred Volgelstein, a contributing editor for Wired was described as "tricky" and someone who would make an effort to throw an interviewee off guard. They went as far as to say "It takes him a bit to get thoughts across, so try to be patient" -- not something that most people would find flattering. It ended by promising that Microsoft executives would have a chance to vet the article, something both sides deny was ever said.

You might wonder why this practice exists. If you were to ask a group of industry professionals, they would probably tell you that it's because they don't want the client to be put in a situation they didn't expect. And while that is part of it, a great deal also has to do with the fact that PR firms and many who work in the profession generally don't trust journalists very much and think that without their handholding, a journalist couldn't do his or her job. Of course, they'll never admit it, but if you work in PR long enough, you'll find people who think they can do the job better than the journalist can.

The craziest thing about all this is the only people hurt through this practice are PR professionals and the industry as a whole. I always advise clients that they should never ask to review any article before it goes to print, let alone expect someone will provide it for review. In addition, I always tell clients that, whether they like it or not, they need the media outlet more than the media outlet needs them. On a given day, there are hundreds or more messages competing for a journalist's attention, making it vitally important that messages be well constructed and quickly get to the worthiness of the pitch. If a company or someone working on its behalf can't quickly get to the point, it will go in the proverbial round file.

Rather than worry so much about leveling the playing field between PR reps and journalists, how about we spend more time teaching junior PR execs how to put together a pitch, how to properly follow up on the phone and other techniques that will benefit both them and the profession? That will pay dividends that will go far beyond anything that could come from controlling a single story.

Nonprofit Group Takes on the Mission of "Outing" PR

2007-04-03T14:24:00.000-04:00

You may have heard of the Center for Media & Democracy, a Washington, D.C. think tank that has made its mission "investigating and exposing public relations spin and propaganda" in an effort to allegedly increase interest in the democratic process.

The company hit YouTube last week with a video that equates all forms of public relations as propaganda and basically says that public relations involves nothing but spin and is the reason that more Americans don't really know what's going on in their country.

John Stauber, founder of the organization's PRWatch initiative, says PR is all about media manipulation, perception management and putting hidden messages into the mouths of people we trust. Implicit in this comment is that most of what constitutes PR messages is untrue. Stauber also makes the big mistake of comparing advertising messages with PR campaigns. While it's true that both of them are part of marketing campaigns, the two worlds operate quite differently. A good PR campaign is about telling an honest message involving a client and letting a journalist decide whether it's worth the merit of a media mention. In contrast, advertising messages are clearly an attempt by companies to get you to believe what they see as compelling features of what they're trying to sell. The vast majority of America is intelligent enough to know the difference.

In his video, Stauber mentions some of the most well-known PR firms in the country, who he claims nobody knows about, this despite the fact that many of them are part of large, publicly-held companies. As brought up in a post on this issue by Richard Laermer and Kevin Dugan, it's embarrassing to say that some of the allegations in the video are true. That said, anyone wanting to present an issue gets a lot more credibility when they present both sides of an issue. In the case of PR, it would be well worth anyone wanting to present an objective look to point out all the new products, services and issues that come to the public's attention through public relations. One of the most recent ones I was involved in concerned a push in New York State to dramatically change ethical guidelines concerning legal advertising. Until the rules were scaled back following public comment, the initial rules could have had a chilling impact on the public's ability to get information about legal providers and the services they offer.

So while there's always plenty of blame to go 'round when it comes to the negative side of most any issue, a balanced approach will always lend more credibility. In the case of public relations, we'd also be better served if we had an organization that would produce more of its own educational material confronting these kinds of issues. But I'm not holding my breath on that.

Public Relations Rises from Ashes of "Dot-Com Bust"

2007-03-26T15:21:00.000-04:00

While most people will remember the dot-com bust for the demise of technology and e-commerce companies like Pets.com, one of the sectors that suffered most dramatically was public relations. Perhaps nowhere was this felt greater than at agencies that had ramped up their technology practices to handle the accounts of the many new e-marketplaces and promising new business and consumer products.

The resulting bust that followed in 2001 was painful across the board, but especially at small and mid-size agencies that didn't have a large enough account base to weather the storm that resulted in the loss of many technology accounts. In some cases, small and mid-size agencies had a technology practice in name only for a good period of time following the dot-com bust.

While the "good old days" of $30K budgets across the board, combined with the almost limitless optimism that accompanied them still may seem in ways like a distant reality, recent statistics show that public relations has indeed recovered nicely and is competing well with advertising for a company's overall marketing dollar. As chronicled in a new story in Adweek, after hitting a bottom in January 2004, employment in the overall marketing sector has grown 12 percent. What's more, since 1990, employment in public relations has grown 44 percent, compared to advertising's overall 14 percent. So overall, while PR remains a very volatile sector save for a few very well-established names that have secured the business of multinational corporations, things for the industry as a whole are definitely on the rise.

Not only does this point to an increasing economic influence of public relations, but it hopefully will also bring about a coalescence around best practices and standards that will keep the next inevitable downward business cycle from business as painful as the "dot-com bust." Unfortunately, PR agencies can in many ways blame themselves for that; sure, it's not like we told people that selling pet food over the Internet would be a billion-dollar business, but we did in many ways promise more than we could deliver to get business in what was at the time a fiercely-competitive race to win the next hot company.

Hopefully, the industry's growth will make major players realize that we don't have to do that anymore. Instead, we should see the value in giving better, more objective counsel that will not only help viable companies prosper, but will keep agencies from banking their futures on companies that we can all sense aren't likely to pan out.

Public Relations Industry Continues to Suffer From a Leadership Vacuum

2007-03-19T17:22:00.000-04:00

It seems as if the Public Relations Society of America can't even get out of its own way these days. For those who haven't been following the issue, over the past year, the organization has faced a deluge of criticism, both from PR pros themselves, as well as from industry observers. One of the many complaints centers around the fact that, while PR continues to suffer a bad reputation, the organization never really comes out swinging in its defense, nor does it avoid getting into PR flaps of its own on many occasions.

One of the biggest thorns in the side of PRSA has been newsletter publisher Jack O'Dwyer. O'Dwyer has criticized many of the organization's decisions, including the fact that the organization hasn't operated transparently in quite some time and generally avoids answering any questions publicly about the way it operates. There were high hopes that this would change with the arrival of a new president and chief operating officer, Bill Murray. However, if anything, the first few weeks of Murray's tenure has been as rocky as his predecessor's.

In an internal letter addressed to the organization's leaders that was leaked to O'Dwyer and others, Murray takes on O'Dwyer, calling his editorials on the PRSA "inaccurate." He goes on to label O'Dwyer's coverage of the organization as containing stories that are "unsubstantiated," "misleading" and "erroneous," yet does not give any examples. He also refutes O'Dwyer's contentions that the organization's finances are anything but healthy, although separate analyses conducted by independent college professors maintain that the organization doesn't fully report its expenses, including rent for its Manhattan headquarters and costs associated with the annual PRSA conference.

O'Dwyer goes on to criticize the organization for ceasing the publication of its annual printed membership directory, in factor of an online only directory -- a decision that was said to have been done to hold down costs, yet raised the ire of many members.

All this comes as the organization lost two key executives last week, both with long tenures. Communications chief Cedric Bess left after five years and CFO John Colletti left after six.

The most baffling thing about the PRSA has always been the way it responds in a time of crisis. One would think an organization of PR leaders would know how to respond in such situations, but rather than keeping cool and on point, the PRSA seems always and only to attack the messenger, as if to say they're above reproach and the only reasons anyone attacks them or one of their positions is they just can't understand.

Let's hope at some point the PR profession can get an organization that will understand the battles those of us in the trenches face every day, in terms of the impact the profession's poor reputation has on everyone. What the industry needs more than ever is not an organization that's not always on the defensive, but one that will take stances that will actually advance the profession's standing and will enhance its reputation.

Technorati/Edelman Study And The Value of Blogs

2007-01-14T02:36:00.001-05:00

One of the issues that I often have with the PR profession is our tendency to regularly put our focus on a variety of new initiatives at what can be in my opinion at the expense of our core areas of practice. Although I often feel I'm relatively alone in this regard, I've blogged before about my suspicions regarding the supposed value of blogs to a business and how, despite claims to the contrary, I believe the jury is still out on the value of blogs.

One of the reasons for my skepticism is a barrage of studies that continue to trumpet the value of blogs, only to have little information to bag that up. The latest came in a joint study conducted by Edelman Public Relations and Technorati. In a Jan. 5 posting on his well-read and often very useful blog, Richard Edelman says "blogs matter and we have the data to prove it." He goes on to write that the joint study surveyed blog readers in 10 nations, including the U.S., as well as several Asian and European countries, and found that blogs are frequently quoted in the media, spur readers to attend public meetings and become more active politically and socially, are more often read in Asian countries than the U.S. and that multinational companies draw more blog viewers in a particular country than companies based in that country.

As a point of clarification, I'll note that the information upon which I based this posting came from Richard's own blog and that while more details were supposed to be released Jan. 12, I could not locate any additional information on either Speak Up! or the Edelman corporate site.

While I have no reason to doubt any of these findings, I'm not sure how they justify the claim that "blogs matter and we have the data to prove it." Sure, most anything matters to somebody, and I don't think anybody will deny that there's a lot of value to be found in a medium that gives most any Internet user the power to be a publisher of sorts. But the more central question, I believe, is How does that translate into value? I think a typical PR client would define value as money spent on an initiative that delivered better-than-expected results, however there's nothing in any of the data above that would lead me to assume value will be delivered by a blog.

When it comes to financial impact on a business, I think of blogs much as I do a company's Web site; it is another tool to get information about you and your business out to prospective buyers of your good or service. Blogging is not going to change the financial fundamentals of that business and it's uncertain at this point whether blogs will go on to play a long-term role in a company's public relations or marketing plan.

The Role of New Platforms in PR/Marketing Programs

2006-12-05T17:25:00.000-05:00

You knew it had to happen. First it was blogs, then video blogs (or vlogs), as well as social media releases, all leading up to the much-touted Web 2.0, which PR and marketing pros are predicting will have a profound impact on companies and their ability to market.

Rather than presenting this blog post as a primer on any of the technologies, I wanted to discuss for a moment what this might mean for PR and whether it will be good or bad. From a client perspective, more venues to present a marketing message is probably viewed as a good thing. But, there's a bigger question, which is what, if any, impact this will have on the effectiveness of a company's PR/marketing campaign and whether that's being addressed at all in any of these initiatives. History is littered with examples of inventions that, while technically sophisticated, didn't really present a compelling enough advantage to bring about the once-touted sea change. In all cases, it simply ended up being a case of a lot of "gee whiz" and very little substance.

Not surprisingly, a lot of PR firms are on board with the social media release, blogs, vlogs and other advances even though there's little evidence to point that people will take a proactive attitude when it comes to marketing messages. Why? Well, there are many reasons, including the need to be seen as a company at the forefront of new technologies, but when it all comes down to it, all these new "innovations" represent billing opportunities. Why just do conventional media relations when a program can be expanded to blogs, vlogs, and other services?

I'm not necessarily saying anything is wrong with any of these, but that it all has very much of a "dot-com" feel to it. Remember when PR pros were sending out releases with buzz words like "leading community site on the Web," or "value-added solution?" (who'd ever say something subtracted value?) To me, if there's not much "value add," then what's the point? One of the taglines I use in explaining my philosophy on PR is "it's the message, not the medium." By that, I mean if a message isn't compelling, it doesn't matter what venue is used to transmit it, it will likely fall flat.

I've also been skeptical from the beginning that the consumer will willingly seek out marketing messages. After all, there's not exactly a "PR News Network" or a "Commercial News Network" on any cable system I've ever seen. Obviously, there are times when youth-oriented venues like YouTube or MySpace are an important part of a campaign. But overall, I think rather than continually reinventing itself every time a new technology comes along, the PR industry would be better served by getting back to basics. As we've seen in a wave of ethical issues involving a number of PR firms, the basics aren't always mastered. Until we've done that to the point that our reputation is much higher, I'd suggest a regimen focused on basics might be best for everyone.

It's a Marathon, Not a Sprint

2006-11-26T17:09:00.000-05:00

One of the toughest things to do in the public relations world is to honestly discuss the concept of expectations. While reasons vary, it's likely to have something to do with our society's increasing reliance on things that deliver some form of instant gratification. Want a movie now? Tune to your cable provider's video-on-demand service. Want to avoid holiday crowds and complete all your shopping? Go online and you can be done in a few clicks.

The increasingly fast-changing world has also influenced the PR world in terms of how the services practitioners offer are sold. Clients are more than ever before expecting immediate results, in part because agencies pitching new business are quick to promise them thanks to the fact that many have developed a sort of of "let's win the account and worry about results later" philosophy.

I personally think that approach couldn't be more wrong, and I think it's up to PR practitioners themselves to change it. You wouldn't see a top 100 law firm go in and guarantee any particular result to a major corporation, so why would any reasonable PR pro do it either? The answer to this question eludes me, but I think it may have something to do with an inferiority complex that the industry has, which has stuck partially because people think there's nothing difficult about PR or that it's just a matter of "the right spin." Success in PR is achieved through a medium to long-term approach that involves a combination of the right messages sent to the right people at the right time.

If PR pros truly want opinions about the industry to change, then they have to lead the charge. As sales training materials often say, confidence breeds confidence. In other words, if you can successfully communicate to a current or prospective client that you know your business, everything else will take care of itself.

Survey Questions Efficiency of E-mail for PR Communications

2006-11-20T12:20:00.000-05:00

As with any professional service, there are different tactics used by agencies and the individuals who work on their behalf to carry out public relations campaigns. While conventional media relations is just one of many potential elements to a PR campaign, it's often the largest and in some cases the only element of a company's campaign, which it makes its success vitally important to a client.

Until the proliferation of e-mail, the predominant ways PR practitioners used to communicate with journalists were either sending printed material through the mail or just plain old pitching using the telephone. Pitching changed a lot when e-mail became commonplace, as it brought a lot of communication that used to be phone-based and moved it to e-mail. This has occurred not just with PR pitching, but with mainstream business communication in general. Take a tour through a major office these days and, unless it's a call center, you'll likely notice it's much quieter than it used to be.

Obviously, opinions on e-mail for PR communication are divided. Some claim it's not effective, while other practitioners such as myself have found it works wonders. The fact that opinions do remain divided means it's one of those issues that are the subject of surveys and studies, the latest of which was released today by the International Association of Business Communicators.

A total of 85 percent of respondents said e-mail overload is having a negative impact on their productivity, a number that jumped to 93 percent in the case of users of PDAs like Treos and Blackberries. Sixty-two percent of the respondents as a whole said they were getting too much e-mail, while 75 percent of PDA users responded likewise. The two largest culprits were identified as "external news sources" and professional subscriptions, such as e-mail newsletters the recipients willingly sign up for.

Some PR practitioners and those who write about the profession will look at this survey and say, "dump e-mail, it doesn't work." However, I'd say it says nothing like that at all. As anyone who's served as a journalist at a major outlet and they'll tell you the problem isn't how the communication is sent, but rather the volume as a whole. In other words, there's just too much stuff sent around that the recipient has no interest in. It would make as much of a bad phone pitch as it would an e-mail pitch, only a voice pitch would take up more than twice as much of the reporter or editors time. Multiply that by the 100 or more e-mails received in a day and then you'll get an understanding of what it means to have an impact on productivity.

So what's the answer? Stop sending so much stuff to people who have no interest in it. Rather than using a media database alone, here's a thought.... actually read the publication you're pitching and find out who's specifically been writing on the subject germane to what your client has to say. If you follow this approach, you'll have a higher rate of success no matter whether people are using the phone or whatever the successor to e-mail proves to be.

Clearly Communicating the Role of PR

2006-11-10T14:13:00.000-05:00

One of the downsides in working in a profession like public relations is it that many either don't understand what the heck it is or what role it has in a company's overall marketing plan. You can't blame people about the former: fact is, the vast majority of American professionals will never be in a position to retain a PR professional. However, when it comes to the latter, it's the job of practitioners themselves to embark on an ambitious education campaign.

I've often written, both on my blog and in professional forums, that one of PR's biggest problems is self-created. By that I mean expectations for what PR can do for a company are often too high, and the reason for that has to do with the fact that many practitioners and firms oversell in their efforts to get the business. Without naming any names, I can tell you that I've been on many a sales presentations at other firms where the lead executive expressed abundant confidence in being able to deliver what a prospective client wanted.

You might be saying "what's wrong with that? It's just good salesmanship, right?" Well, it is good salesmanship, but as we all know, getting the account is only half the battle. Once it's won, you have to keep a company a client by giving them the service and results they expect. This is complicated by the fact that most PR firms do a poor job of explaining to clients that it's not necessarily reasonable to expect a constant stream of hits, but just because you don't have them doesn't mean your program isn't working.

Once PR hits are delivered, savvy clients will package them and make them part of marketing material and/or new business presentations. They won't just wait for a new article to hit an outlet covering a specific geographic market or industry segment they want to target. Following this approach not only makes the best business sense, but it also maximizes the value of one's PR program and the money spent on it. The latter is part of a comprehensive marketing program, but unfortunately many companies see PR as being the only part of their marketing program that is held to high expectations.

These expectations, which I know are unreasonable in many cases, are part of why PR has a poor client retention rate when compared to professional service providers. That retention rate really hasn't changed much in the past few years, yet unfortunately neither has the way PR practitioners explain what PR can and can't do to both prospective and current clients. If we as practitioners want to solve the retention problem, it's to our advantage to address the issue of reasonable expectations.

I can honestly say I do my part on that front and I'm encouraging any PR practitioners who may read this, regardless of who they work for, to do theirs as well.

The News Release and Its Role in PR

2006-09-27T01:20:00.000-04:00

One of the most oft-debated topics in public relations is the news release, it's purpose and whether or not there's any future for it left in PR. Like most contested issues, ask a half dozen PR people for their opinions on the issue, and you're likely to get half a dozen answers.

While there hasn't been much new in terms of news releases in quite some time, there are movements afoot to change it, most notably with the social media news release. In a nutshell, the social media release revamps the traditional version to address new technologies through the use of linking and multimedia elements, add context about the issue being discussed, make news more search friendly, and help build community.

Do these efforts matter? I suppose that depends on one's assessment of a news release's value. There are many journalists that deplore blanket e-mail blasts of news releases they'll never read. While some in the PR community think those sentiments are harsh, think of it this way: you're getting 100 e-mails a day from a PR person, each with a news release that's 2 pages long. If you even tried to read it all, there would be 200 pages of material every day. Now, ask yourself who would possibly have time to read all that?

There are certainly times when a news release has value. Some examples are personnel announcements, mergers/acquisitions, and other routine news. But PR pros are wise to remember that most of the outreach we do on behalf of clients doesn't involve something that's definitely going to get covered because of its newsworthiness. Rather, it involves news that will interest some reporters and not others. If PR practitioners spent more time developing a pitch that answers the age-old "why should I care?" question and targeted only reporters interested in that topic, the profession would be better for it.

Like everything, a news release will continue to have its place, simply because the emergence of a new medium/technology rarely means the complete death of something else. But as with any element in a PR campaign, careful thought should be given as to whether it adds value to a client's program. For it's those elements that add value that make clients feel their expenditures on a PR program is money well spent.

Public Relations and Writing

2006-09-14T11:47:00.000-04:00

Unfortunately, if you were to rank the skills that a public relations agency or practitioner is judged upon, writing would probably be eclipsed by one's ability to get media placements.

It's not surprising, since most people see the value in a public relations program as being demonstrated by the media placements secured and set a benchmark for their value based in part on the publication in which they appear and its importance to their current and potential customers/clients. That said, we'd do well to step back and take another approach that views the whole public relations process as more of a communications medium, and less of a sales medium.

To see examples of how PR is dominated by a sales culture, all one has to do is read some of the written material put out in conjunction with campaigns. You'll see sentences like "value-added solution," "best-of-breed," etc. What's the problem here? These phrases and the writing that often accompanies them is seen as being so sales focused that the perception of its total value is decreased.

Companies wanting to raise the value of their writing and their overall PR program should instead construct their written communication much like a typical inverted-pyramid news article. Start out with a lede that addresses the main points and from there, provide more detail on each and how everything ties together. Taking this route will give your written communication much more credibility and, most importantly, would decrease the chance that what you send out will end up in the proverbial "round file."

I can't fault PR agencies alone for this phenomenon because, after all, we're in the client-service business. Any smart practitioner in a client-service business knows that the fastest route to success is to give the client what they want (e.g. are willing to pay for). So, how can we really bring change in this area? PR practitioners should work with their clients to get them to see the value in reconstructing their written communication. They should show them how hype isn't the only direction to take and, most importantly, how toning things down won't decrease the attention your written material receives, but increase it.

Pay for Performance And Its Continuing Impact on the Profession

2006-08-30T17:40:00.000-04:00

There's a small, but vocal number of practitioners that endeavor to make a living under a system they call "pay for performance." Although the arrangements differ by company, basically the fee paid to a PR firm under this model is directly related to the circulation of outlets that run your news.

The model isn't new and has been around for a while. What is changing is a small number of companies that are endeavoring to compete aggressively in this area, under the guise of "challenging" PR industry norms.

I had a discussion last week with a representative from one of the leaders in that field, Publicity Guaranteed. The conversation came after I sent an inquiry following an ad I noticed in a local edition of Craigslist. The ad didn't mention Publicity Guaranteed, but rather its parent organization, KMGI. And when I asked the person who placed the ad -- KMGI founder Alex Konanykhin -- why he didn't mention Publicity Guaranteed, he indicated that it was because he wasn't planning to compensate people who worked on the project for each placement, but rather using an hourly rate. He also indicated he knew there were no guarantees. Yet, when I asked whether a typical subcontracting rate was in his budget, he indicated he was not.

Now, I have no idea whether or not he is actually planning to pay people an hourly rate and NOT based on placement, but it seems to me that if you can't make any money if you pay those who work on the project a typical rate, then something's up. I also sent word to several PR lists I subscribe to so that anyone who might inquire would know the full drill. That's when I provoked the ire of someone who claimed to do writing work for the company. In a nutshell, she went on to say that my criticism was based on a failure to understand a new model, based on old ways of thinking and that I was behind the times.

Now, I've never claimed to be a futurist in the mold of Paul Saffo, but getting paid on what is essentially a commission-based system doesn't seem that futuristic to me. My main gripe with these structures is they devalue the PR profession to something akin to a sales model isn't that innovational. I also don't understand why, if something is so innovational and cutting edge, that anyone would get so steamed about discussing the pros/cons of it. A great thing stands on its own and doesn't need anyone's endorsement.

To those wondering why I object to the system so much it's because I believe anyone performing something that's valuable should be paid that way. You can't expect lawyers at top firms to only get paid if they win a case/judgement/action. Similarly, doctors don't only get paid if you're cured. And lastly, a well-run media outreach campaign is more like a marathon than a sprint. A reporter or editor may not be interested and/or have time to do a story you're suggesting when you first make contact, but if they like the idea, they'll come back to you. And if you have enough ideas in the pipeline, you'll likely be getting regular placements for clients.

Also, it's insulting to PR professionals and journalists at well-respected publications to assume that you'll be able to guarantee placement of a story. I can certainly guarantee you the chances of doing that with The New York Times or a similar outlet is small.

I'm continually bothered by the fact that the PR profession is in many ways its own worst enemy. Engaging in this kind of practice makes everybody look bad, just as it does to pass off advertorial copy as news. We should be proud of the work we do for clients, stand by our results and provide the kind of counsel that makes us more than commission-based performers, but partners.

Public Perception of PR Continues to Decline

2006-08-22T14:49:00.000-04:00

There are certain professions that are always going to have a large number of people that hold a fairly high negative view of it; among them are teachers, doctors, lawyers and certainly public relations professionals. The reasons for those opinions obviously vary, but it probably has something to do with the fact that many of these professions are either seen as only operating because of there's a negative situation or because they get the spotlight during those times. They're also generally misunderstood because the average consumer rarely deals with them.

I and many others who follow public relations have written extensively on the need for public relations to have a strong advocacy organization, if for no other reason than to challenge and attempt to correct the negative misconceptions about the industry. Unfortunately in PR's case, efforts to do this are fragmented, in part because there are a number of different organizations serving the industry with different philosophies, and because the Public Relations Society of America, seems to have so much trouble managing its own reputation that it really can't be much of a strong voice for the profession as a whole.

Not surprisingly, there's new news that paints the public relations industry in a negative light. A recent Harris Interactive/PRSA Foundation survey indicated that 79 percent of respondents believe public relations practitioners are only interested in disseminating information if it helps their clients make money, and 85 percent believe PR pros sometimes present misleading information to journalists in an effort to further their clients' cause. On the bright side, 71 percent believe PR pros help raise awareness of issues that might not otherwise receive attention, and 56 percent believe PR agencies work with their clients to present fair and balanced information.

To anyone who works in the profession, the results aren't likely to be surprising. However, that doesn't mean that the industry shouldn't do a lot more to turn those opinions around. The PRSA would be the natural organization to help do that, but so far, it's generally been a no show. The best they've done so far, is to say the results show a misunderstanding of the profession. If that's not an understatement, I don't know what is.

A Blog Bubble?

2006-08-14T17:33:00.000-04:00

Nobody’s uttering the phrase "irrational exuberance" yet, but even in the relatively nascent area of blogging, there’s already talk of a bubble.

In a story in the July 3 edition of The New York Times, media reporter David Carr wrote that Nick Denton, whose Gawker Media has assembled more than a dozen sites on a variety of topics, is closing two of his blogs, laying off an undisclosed number of writers and reorganizing other properties.

In the story, Denton said he was making the moves now to avoid a more painful situation later. He also attributed the move to the fact that blog publishers are becoming more "old media" in terms of their view of economics and the need to deploy resources where the growth is. He went on to say that the fact that some well-known names, including America Online, are getting into blogs has led to a lot of hype and an explosion of money from venture-capital firms and other sources.

I’ve written extensively on what I see as the future of blogs and how I also believe that those who believe them to be the next incarnation of media are, in my opinion, off the mark. Anyone who needs an example that would back this up would be well to remember Yahoo!’s $4.3 billion purchase of Broadcast.com. It sure made Mark Cuban a lot of money, but I don’t think even people inside Yahoo! would call that the best business decision they’ve ever made. In fact, most of the content that was available on Broadcast.com — conventional terrestrial radio stations streaming over the Internet — has since been taken in-house by the major radio chains, including Clear Channel.

To bring this back to public relations, in my opinion, blogs aren’t worth much time and attention until they attract a mass audience. Some certainly have, especially in certain verticals, but they’re still not a household name. I also have a lot of people who’ve told me that blogs represent a great opportunity for corporations to get their message out to the public, in particular, young Web users. In theory, that’s true, and maybe they’re right. I just don’t see a lot of people beating down any company’s door to read what they know is a well-rehearsed message.

The power in blogs lies more along the lines of “citizen journalism,” and it’s there that I think there will be a bright future. And it’s certainly possible that PR pros might one day dialoging with influential bloggers the way we do certain columnists in the industries we work with. But just as columnists aren’t where most of our messages are going to find a home, blogs aren’t likely to be either… at least in my sometimes humble opinion.

Is Credibility PR's Missing Ingredient?

2006-06-06T01:25:00.000-04:00

Credibility. It's one of those virtues that almost everybody in business would say that they have, but when it comes to credibility, surveys and other meters of public/customer/client opinion almost always paint a different picture than businesses might like to admit.

Obviously, PR is no different. In fact, if you asked a lot of people whether or not PR was down close to or completely at the bottom of the heap in terms of credibility, people might give it one of the worst scores. (That said, you could substitute PR with any number of other professions, including journalism -- the profession whose members many of us most regularly interact with -- and they'd get a poor score too, which I guess really says we're a skeptical lot.)

I bring this issue up because it's the subject of the latest entry in Richard Edelman's well-followed blog. In a nutshell, he confronts the PR industry for its hand in allowing the industry to be known as a collection of spinmeisters, rather than purveyors of truthful, valuable information.

I won't go into every issue addressed in Richard's post, because he does it very well. I just think it's very encouraging to see people at well-known firms tackle these issues head on. Sure, I could say one thing and maybe a handful of people will read it. But when an industry leader promotes a particular thought, it will get much broader attention. And the issues Richard brings up benefit our whole industry.

Now I just hope the PRSA and other industry executives will take the mantle and run with it as well.

Is the PR Industry Too Ga Ga Over Blogs?

2006-05-15T15:43:00.000-04:00

A survey sponsored by the Manhattan PR shop Makovsky & Co. and conducted by Harris Interactive, showed only a tiny percentage of Fortune 1000 leaders are using blogs to either communicate to their customers or build brands.

In writing on the issue after the study's release, Makovsky chief Ken Makovsky says that "given the fact that blogging can help to make or break a company's reputation, it continues to surprise me how few corporate leaders are taking the control of their destiny in the blogosphere." (As an aside and a point of disclosure, I worked at Makovsky for a time just before the bottom of the technology market).

It seems to me that this whole hoopla over blogging and its potential financial ramifications for PR has dot-com era written all over it. I think more PR pros, especially considering many are in NY, should go to the middle of 42nd/Broadway and ask people passing by how many of them actively read blogs. I would posit the number would be quite low. And if you also asked them whether their opinion of a company was influenced by a blog, I think the number would be even lower.

I bring up that last point because before anything is going to be anywhere close to revolutionary, there has to be a significant uptrend in interest. Yes, blogs are read by many, but I wouldn't go as far as to call them mainstream at this point. In my opinion, the main promise blogs currently offer to consumers is the ability to easily publish to the Web. At the heart of it, a blog is a specialized Web site that can be launched in minutes, requires no real knowledge of HTML or Web editors, and is relatively simple to administer.

All those benefits are nice, but they don't generate any money -- at least not yet. Please note that I'm not lumping blogs together with communities like Myspace. The latter has much more potential, since it's a destination of sorts, just like Yahoo!, only with the aim of serving a particular demographic.

Am I the only one that thinks the industry is going a bit too "ga ga" over both the PR and financial implications of blogs? I welcome the opinions of all interested parties.

Blogging's Financial Impact on PR

2006-05-05T11:39:00.000-04:00

Not surprisingly, every time a new innovation comes out, it's immediately followed by a hail of predictions about both how the offering will both change the face of business and how that innovation will allow people to make scads of money.

Blogging is no different. First, the social activitism it affords most anybody with a 'Net connection and the time/inclination to do it, meant that mainstream journalism as we know it was on the way out. This smelled so much like dot-com era hype, I just had to laugh a bit, but at least on the surface, it potentially had some truth. The only real thing that was likely to stop it from happening is the fact that in a country where you can't even get 50 percent to vote, I don't think you'll have "average Joes" starting to blog en masse.

Nevertheless, a number of both well-known and not so-well known people within the PR industry have started blogging in the last couple of years, ostensibly to help further position themselves and their firms as thought-leaders in the industry. Like everything, I believe there are some good blogs and some that aren't exactly must-reads. However, I think anybody who wants to blog should contribute to the overall discussion of the industry.

The issue of just who is best qualified to represent the industry in the blogosphere became rather heated issue, after a guest columnist on former FT journalist Tom Foremoski's blog appeared to suggest that because blogging represents, as he put it, the "delicate olive branch of PR," it should only be handled by a few industry luminaries. Bite Communications' Andy Bernstein did happen to mention that his boss, Tim Dyson, would be one of them.

Not surprisingly, he encountered a hail of comments, and later redefined his views to be that some sort of quality-control system should be instituted, likening blogging to an open-source movement such as Linux where it's necessary to make sure that things function in a proper way. However, even after that redefinition, I'm still not sure I get it. How do an OS and PR compare? An OS has to function correctly or everything else that's dependent on it will not. Instead, PR is more of an "art" where things are continually refined, in part because it's a very subjective industry. In other words, you might have an idea, a client or a pitch that you think is just "the bomb," but it fails to float when you actually start to pitch. When that happens, you have to go back to the proverbial drawing board and come up with a new approach. Jokes about Microsoft functionality aside, you don't see software makers doing that very often.

In addition, Bernstein calls blogging a "killer app," again recalling visions of the year 2000. What's killer about it? Is it nice? Yes. Liberating? Yes. But does it make any money for anybody? Change who anyone votes for or buys from? Not likely. Bernstein seems to be among those in the camp that blogging stands to make a lot of money for PR firms, and that only a certain few are likely qualified to be thought leaders in that area. Again, this harkens back to 2000 when PR firms were putting out press releases about the next "value-added solution," and while that generated a large temporary increase in revenue, it also caused many shops to encounter very choppy waters over the next few years.

My suggestion: How about we just keep doing what we're best at? At the end of the day, when you put all this fancy jargon aside, we're called upon to advance the work of our clients in a way that best fits their business models and goals. Perhaps at some point that will mean blogging, but as long as you have millions reading and viewing traditional media outlets and a relatively small percentage of the overall 'Net audience blogging themselves or even reading blogs, I don't think it should be out biggest concern today.