Views on Agency Compensation

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

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?

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

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?

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

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

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

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?

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

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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?

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?

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

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.

Implications of Podcasting Still Uncertain

As was the case with the emergence of blogs, the debut of podcasts prompted many in the public relations industry to herald the new medium and challenge practitioners to find a way to capitalize on it or risk foregoing opportunities that would be awarded to first movers. However, a new survey shows that while most PR pros know what podcasts are, a much smaller minority are actually using them on a regular basis.

For those unaware, podcasts function as a sort of "audio blog," allowing subscribers to sign up for audio content that can be automatically delivered to computers and portable audio devices, often for free. These are most commonly offered by purveyors of audio content, such as technology news, as a way to bypass traditional distribution channels like terrestrial radio and reach consumers directly.

Sponsored by the Dallas chapter of the International Association of Business Communicators, the survey found only 8 percent of the 109 survey respondents had published a podcast. An equal number said they were unaware of what podcasts were, while 61 percent indicated they were aware of podcasts, but hadn't published them, and 23 percent said they had listened to or actively subscribe to podcasts.

Despite the low number of corporate communicators using podcasts, there are several Web sites dedicated to communications-related podcasts. These can all be found at the Podcast hub Podcast Alley.

Follow Up to Bad Pitch Blog Post

I urge everyone who read not only my post on the Bad Pitch Blog entry commenting on a pitch that had not yet been sent to the media to visit not only the comments section of my blog for an update, but also to visit the Bad Pitch Blog itself for additional comments from Kevin Dugan.

I mention this in my comments, but I also want to point out the fact that I missed where the BPB itself mentioned that the post was a proposed pitch. Part of this confusion was due to the fact that, as Kevin admitted, the BPB has not set out a "rules of engagement" policy for what it publishes and does not publish. However, the BPB does consider a proposed pitch fair game. As long as that is known, then that’s their option.

I hope this post clears up any confusion about the entry, and I again urge any practitioner to regularly visit the BPB.

Bad Pitch Blog Goes Too Far

The Bad Pitch Blog was launched earlier this year with considerable fanfare, as people both inside and outside the industry were curious to see the impact that a blog promising to call people out on bad pitches would have on the industry.

While reaction to its launch was mixed, most PR professionals recognized the value that the blog could have in highlighting the mistakes made by a few practitioners that on occasion manage to tar an entire industry. And since its launch, the blog has been filled with examples of pitches that any honest and/or capable practitioner would admit were hardly “ready for prime time” to put it mildly. As is the case with any critical body of work, there will be times when someone’s efforts go too far, and The Bad Pitch Blog made its first misstep of that kind this week.

An entry on the blog on Monday chronicled a pitch that carried the subject line “What Do Katrina Victims and Osama (Bin Laden) Have In Common?” The body of the entry contains the words “here’s what I’m considering,” which was probably confusing to many, but speaks volumes. Why? The entry, which someone who subscribes to any one of several PR-related Yahoo! Groups forwarded to The BPB, merely makes an effort to sound members out about what the contributor said was admittedly a risky approach to a PR pitch.

I, and several others who are members of those groups, cautioned the contributor against using it, and in the end, he rewrote the pitch so that it would carry a different headline that better emphasized the work his non-profit client was doing in a more straightforward way.

The big problem with this blog entry is nowhere does it contain any phrasing to identify the fact that it was lifted from a Yahoo! Group and that it never made its way to any reporter or editor’s inbox or voice mail. I and several others have submitted comments to the BPB since discovering the snafu to clarify the situation, but as of yet, none have been posted.

Again, I want to emphasize that I approve of the concept of the BPB and respect the co-creators of the blog. But just as it’s important to call PR pros out on mistakes, the BPB needs to develop a system of standards that ensures everything’s being done in a forward and proper manner.

Positive Effect of The Bad Pitch Blog

Ever since it was launched in January, the PR world has been abuzz about The Bad Pitch Blog, an effort by Richard Laermer and Kevin Dugan to "showcase" the worst the PR profession has to offer.

Not only did news of the blog's launch receive mentions in BusinessWeek, CNET and a host of PR-related publications and blogs, it also got well covered in the blogosphere. From what I read, most of the comments were positive, although some of that had to do with the fact that they came from journalists rather than industry professionals. Please note I'm NOT saying those opinions should be taken with a grain of salt; rather, I believe in reality the opinions of journalists matter far more than those that come from within the profession.

I've gotten into a lot of heated discussions over this point through the years, but I've never really bought into the supposed "symbiotic relationship" that some say exists between PR professionals and journalists. Don't get me wrong, journalists at all levels and outlets appreciate the assistance of a good PR pro. But, by the same token, any good reporter likely doesn't need assistance from anybody to do a story. In other words, if a company won't cooperate, because of the controversial nature of a story or any other reason, the reporter will find a way around that through the use of anonymous sources, regulatory and/or legal filings, etc.

Given that fact, I think the best hope for PR professionals and the industry in general is to position ourselves as a value-added service. By that I mean, we should work with reporters and view them as our friends, rather than the enemy, and do all we can to make their jobs easier. If we do, the relationships will go far. Journalists will understand that our hands may be tied by a situation beyond our control, and PR pros will appreciate the fact that journalists generally go out every day and do the best job they can. Obviously, that means a negative story will sometimes result. But, as long as the reporting is accurate and fair, we really shouldn't expect to ask for anything more.

Which brings me back to the Bad Pitch Blog... Anyone in the profession owes it to themselves to stroll by and read some of the entries. I should sincerely hope you'll be smacking your heads in amazement that stuff this bad actually went out. For I think we have less to worry about someone shining an unfair light on PR than we do about improving the work of the industry's professionals as a whole. Obviously, there's no way to know whether the bad pitches came predominately from "green" PR pros, but let's hope the attention will bring changes that will be truly good for everybody.

I gave a presentation last week to about 30 students at Farleigh Dickenson University, as part of a panel discussion on how writing is used in careers. One of the reasons I urged the students to develop the ability to write well is that writing is a skill that will serve you well, no matter what path your career may take, because good communication skills are necessary for most any job today. When asked about ways to improve one's writing, one tip I gave the students is to read all they can in the areas that interest them because reading good writing is one of the best ways to improve one's one writing.

Well, let's hope the same thing goes for pitches. Hopefully reading bad pitches will get the profession as a whole to re-examine this widespread notion that everybody's out to get PR and that journalists don't give PR pros a fair shake. After all -- if you received some of the e-mails in your in-box that have been prominately featured on The Bad Pitch Blog, would you have an opinion that was any more favorable?

The Shifting Media Landscape

Much was written on PR blogs following last week's announcements by Dow Jones Co. that it would merge its print and online operations. In its announcement, Dow Jones said it was making the move to essentially become a platform agnostic content messenger; in other words, the company would not favor one venue over another in the delivery of its content.

Following the announcement, many respected PR bloggers -- among them Richard Edelman, CEO of the largest independently-held shop in the business -- penned an article on his blog that examined whether this announcement would hasten the death of the traditional media model. He concluded, after speaking with representatives of Forbes and other media outlets, that while it will have more of an impact on daily outlets, like The Wall Street Journal than bi-weeklies, PR pros will have to adjust their approach to one that takes into account all available outlets, be it a traditional newspaper or PDA/cell phone screen.

While I certainly won't attempt to argue with the essence of his assertion, I don't know that we'll see a sea change from this. The main reason is because traditional outlets like The Journal have a reputation that other outlets have yet to achieve. That makes what they publish, and opine on their editorial pages, by extension, more valuable. Even in the heydey of the "dot-com boom," when Internet messaging boards like The Raging Bull got lots of coverage, no media offering could move markets more than a Barron's cover story.

All this is basically comes down to the fact that the age-old saying "the more things change, the more they stay the same." While I was one of a relative few who were downloading digital content from The WSJ via a custom software product and a dial-up modem some 10 years ago, Dow Jones' electronic offerings didn't take off until the launch of its Web-based edition.

What does that have to do with changes in PR? It means that, just as WSJ subscribers haven't abandoned the newspaper product, it's doubtful that clients of PR firms will abandon their quest to appear in top-tier media, even if appearing in a well-read trade would be better for their business. The PR business itself is responsible for this in large part, because everyone promises this kind of coverage in sales pitches for new accounts. So, if it doesn't take hold, to a degree, we only have ourselves to blame.

Debunking a Continual PR Myth

I was listening to a well-known technology pundit’s Web cast today when the subject of achieving publicity came up. The host indicated that press releases were the primary way that a company communicated news regarding its products to journalists and that basically all it took to achieve news coverage was putting out a media release.

For better or worse, this is one of the most widely-held beliefs related to a public relations campaign. Basically, many people believe that all it takes to achieve coverage is putting out a press release and, by extension, most anybody can steer a public relations campaign. However, anyone who’s actually been involved in a campaign can tell you first hand how nothing could be farther from the truth.

For starters, there are literally hundreds of press releases that cross BusinessWire and PRNewswire every day. There’s absolutely no way that a major journalist has time to read them all and cover the breaking news of the day. That’s one of the main reasons that I advise clients to use press releases sparingly. They’re a great fit for certain types of news, including executive appointments and announcements about a new round of funding. But in the vast majority of cases, a press release is going to be a poor way to communicate to journalists just what makes your news worthy of their attention.
In those cases, nothing is better than a simple, short, well-written pitch that quickly tells a journalist who your client is, what they have to say and why it merits their attention. It’s quick, simple and to the point. Better yet, there are no cumbersome attachments to bother with and journalists will love the fact that they don’t get any of those annoying “Did you get my press release?” phone calls.

It surprised me that someone whose supposedly on the other end of PR pitches would think there’s all there is to it, because I assure you that as someone who was on the receiving end of pitches for years, there’s lots more to getting good coverage than meets the eye.

Is Money the Way To Silence Annoying Messages?

By now, many of you have probably seen reports that America Online and Yahoo! have jointly discussed enacting a new “postage-based” system for Internet e-mail that would allow trusted messengers to be assured their e-mail arrives at its destination.

On the face of it, this sounds great. All of us have “in-boxes” that are swamped with spam and would love to have less of it. A technological solution is obviously appealing, because it eliminates the time-consuming chore of going through each message and deciding how to handle it.

While there will be considerable debate on this issue and how to best handle it, it brings up a broader point related to marketing messages. Companies like AOL and Yahoo, who both depend on the messages marketing and advertising generate for a large chunk of their revenue, risk devaluing those messages by charging, not for better or more costly content or other services, but for the right to exist without those messages.