RepMan

89, and it’s not so fine

I’m saddened, but not surprised, by the resignation of legendary A.P. White House Correspondent Helen Thomas, who quit in the wake of remarks she made about Israel. Her suggestion that Israel should ‘…get out of Palestine’ and its inhabitants return to their countries of origin provoked an understandable outrage. As a result, a stellar career and reputation has been tarnished.

Ironically, though, her remarks didn’t kill Helen’s career. Her unwillingness to retire did. One has to know when to say when, and Helen didn’t.

I know 89. My mom passed away at the age of 89 and my dad is a very feisty 89. Eighty-nine is no picnic. From what I’ve seen of 89, it’s a time in life without filters.

My mom was a great example. Up until she reached the age of 80, my mom would have qualified as a saint. She never hesitated to help others or speak well of them. Once she hit 80, though, all bets were off. As her health and quality of life declined so, too, did the filters. All of a sudden, people, places and things she used to either praise or at least ignore, became front and center for a vitriolic tirade. At the end, she was reduced to merely registering her contempt with the sorry state of the world and the individuals who had ruined our country (note: she would have had a field day with Tony Hayward of BP).

My dad is different. He’s extremely sharp mentally and physically as he nears his 90^th birthday. What’s changed, though, is his awareness of what is and isn’t appropriate to say in public places. And, that can cause challenges for a man whose political views make Rush Limbaugh seem like a bleeding-heart liberal. When we take ‘pop-pop’ out to lunch or dinner, for example, our entire family is on high alert. We never know if he’ll make a pass at a waitress, posit his views about Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, or just hurl invectives in the general vicinity of any TV set near the bar.

Helen Thomas said what was on her mind. She said what had always been on her mind. But, her internal filters had always prevented her from say anything in public. Then, along came 89. And, it wasn’t so fine.

Knowing when to say when is critically important to one’s image and reputation. Now, instead of being remembered for covering every U.S. president from JFK to Obama, Ms. Thomas will instead, be vilified as the reporter who told Israel to get out of Palestine.

Traditional print advertising is nothing more than white noise

 As I engaged in my daily mental exercise of flipping through the pages of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, it occurred to me that I never, ever stop to read the print ads. In fact, I ignore them completely. They're physical versions of white noise.

Knowing the average full-page ad in each paper runs about $100k per and that each contains 40 or so full-page ads, I realized that marketers are probably burning upwards of $4 million a day on this shotgun approach.

With the exception of affinity publications (mine would include climbing, fitness, running and outdoor trade press), I never read ads. And, I know I'm not alone.

Print ads are increasingly irrelevant because we live in a society suffering from what Richard Edelman calls 'trust deficit' (See Richard's interview with new PR Week Editor-in-chief Steve Barrett at www.prweek.com). Edelman's 100 percent correct. Thanks to the shoddy behavior of such brands as BP, Tylenol (the once-fabled gold standard), Toyota, Tiger, Goldman, the Catholic Church and countless others, we simply don't trust what organizations tell us.

And, that's why PR is so beautifully positioned to fill the trust gap. We're all about engaging in conversations with trusted sources such as reporters and influential bloggers who vet our messages first before putting them in motion.

But, back to the utter irrelevance of mainstream print advertising. To test my theory, I scanned the ponderous, premiere issue of Bloomberg Business Week (now, there's a catchy name) and selected three print ads at random. I wanted to see if they caught my attention, communicated a clear and credible message and, critically, contained a call to action. Here are the results:

 1) Headline: 'Is your business in shape to compete'? Visual: a school of fish aligned in what appears to be the outline of a shark. The advertiser? Accenture. My reaction? Ugh. Talk about bad timing. Who wants to see a school of fish when we know millions are dying in the Gulf of Mexico as we speak? Plus, the message is mundane, trite and overused. I'd grade it F.

2) Headline: 'NEC gives the Peninsula Shanghai what it needs - seamless service.' The visual depicts a smiling Peninsula Hotel IT manager with some happy-go-lucky bellhop in the background talking into his cell phone. My reaction: I want a clean room, good service and palatable food from my hotel of choice. But, since I'm not a hotel IT manager, I'm not interested in NEC's message. I'd grade this one a C+.

3) 'In my world, not connected means not in business.' This one's from Panasonic and depicts a pretty angry-looking businessman who, it would seem, can't get his wireless connection. I sure hope he's not using Panasonic's new Toughbook computer. The problem with this ad is its total lack of credibility. I should buy this Toughbook because Panasonic says so? Sorry. Not happening. I'd give this print ad a D.

I'm sure the marketing powers-that-be justify shotgun advertising in an age of one-to-one marketing by arguing that it only takes one or two sales to offset the wasted spend. I disagree. And, I think you'll see less and less print advertising as social media, mobile, digital and other means with which to put one's messages in motion become more mainstream.

As for me? I'm buying that new pair of Sauconys I just saw advertised in Men's Fitness. 

How do I love BBC America? Let me count the ways

I am seriously fed up with domestic news coverage. It's banal, repetitive and parochial. And, that's on a good day.

If one were to watch a batch of NBC, Fox, CBS, CNN and MSNBC coverage, one would think the world begins in Hawaii and ends somewhere in Maine.

It doesn't. That's why I've wholeheartedly embraced BBC America as one of my primary sources of news and information.

Where else would I learn of the Iberia Airlines/British Air merger? Where else would I learn about the unrest in Kyrgyzstan? And, where else would I see commercial plugs for the latest installments of 'Dr Who'?

There are many reasons why the sun is setting on the U.S. empire. One of the prime drivers is our incessant and myopic view of life. We believe the rest of the world, if not the entire universe, revolves around the United States. Sadly, the inverse is true. America is increasingly less relevant. As our global deficit rises, our relative importance declines.

That's why it's so important for those of us in communications to understand what the REST of the world thinks is newsworthy. They're not concerned about Charlie Sheen's latest spousal abuse charge. Nor do they care about American Idol, the start of yet another major league baseball season or the Tea Party's views on what's wrong with Washington, D.C.

With BBC America, you'll see far less coverage of Obama's game of HORSE with CBS's Harry Smith and far more insight into what really matters: namely, the latest Middle East news as well as what's happening in emerging First World powers such as Brazil, India and China. You'll see little, if any, mention of the latest Hollywood scandal (think: Sandra Bullock) and nothing about the latest murder/suicide in Boynton Beach.

It's far too late for America to turn back the clock. But, American PR types like you and me still have a window of opportunity with which to understand how dramatically the world has changed (and how we can continue to play a key role in the dissemination of news and information).

Whether you're a student, a PR professional or, heaven forbid, a medical supplies executive, do yourself a favor: pick up a copy of the F.T., listen to BBC Radio or, better yet, tune into BBC America's nightly newscasts. I guarantee your P.O.V. will change faster than Ms. Bullock's marital status.

What if?

I have been glued to NatGeo, The History Channel and other networks that have been replaying the horrific events of November 22-25, 1963 (some, like NatGeo using never-before aired footage).

The whole sad and sordid JFK assassination anniversary got me wondering: what would the media coverage have been like if JFK had been assassinated on November 22, 2009, and not in 1963? Here are some random thoughts:

- MSNBC would have been there to cover the event live. They follow Obama to the most obscure town hall meetings, so why not ship off a team to Dealey Plaza?

- There would have been hundreds of Abraham Zapruder types, all of whom would have used their cell phones to capture the grisly second-by-second shooting from every possible angle (and, each would have been instantly posted on sites such as CNN.com).

- All three morning network teams would have immediately dispatched their anchors to Dallas for special 'Saturday morning aftermath' shows. 'Somber and sad news indeed, Ann. Thanks. Now, on a much lighter note, Al, I understand there's quite a snowstorm blowing in from the Northwest?'

- Eyewitnesses, School Book Depository employees, Dallas policemen and everyone else and their brother would be all a Twitter. Perhaps even Oswald himself would have had time to send a quick Tweet or two: 'No sir. I have not been accused of shooting anyone and I demand immediate legal representation.'

- The Hollywood entertainment sleaze casts would begin round-the-clock coverage of Jackie and the wardrobes she'd chosen to wear at various State affairs.

- Less scrupulous brand marketers would begin exploring signage opportunities on, or near, the grassy knoll. 'What do you mean we can't put our purple logo on the triple overpass? Says who?'

- I'm assuming the TSA would pull a power play and assume jurisdiction for the entire investigation, pushing out Dallas cops, Secret Service agents, the FBI and others.

- The first thought in everyone's mind wouldn't be a Communist plot but, rather, an Al Qaeda terrorist attack.

- The Playboy Channel would originate live coverage from Jack Ruby's strip club. 'Jack, you say that Oswald and the Secret Service agents were all here last night? Unreal.'

- Sarah Palin would issue a statement, passing along her heartfelt condolences and recall that she was able to see Russia the last time she visited Dallas.

- Conspiracy theorists would be blogging like mad and posting various, three-dimensional versions of the killing zone on various sites.

- Oswald's murder at the hands of Ruby would feature many more first-hand interviews of the latter, and include such questions as, 'Jack, how did you feel when you pulled the trigger?' Or 'Jack, what's next? A book and movie?'

In short, what struck me about the original coverage was its combination of shock, naïveté, caring and compassion. While there would be some trace of all four in modern-day coverage, I'm afraid we've become so immune to death and sleaze that there'd be a media circus of epic proportions.

Look both ways before crossing an intersection and listen to all stakeholders before engaging in social media

I recently shared a Bulldog Reporter audio conference panel with two corporate communicators and another representative from the dark side (read: PR firms). The topic was social media and, thanks to some excellent moderating by the lovely and talented Brian Pittman, the discussion was rather lively.

I found myself disagreeing with one of the corporate panelists who advised the 150-plus listening audience to engage in social media at all costs, 'Look,' he advised, 'Social media is the future and you might as well engage sooner rather than later.'

I agreed, sort of. I think personal engagement in social media is, indeed, a no-brainer. But, an organization should think long and hard before taking the plunge. The corporate panelist said organizations can learn as they go. Well, yes, but some serious, and potentially devastating missteps can occur during that learning phase.

I likened social media to a busy intersection in a large city. Conventional wisdom holds that one should look both ways before crossing. Social media is the same: organizations should listen to all stakeholders before proceeding. Does each and every audience need/want your organization to engage with them in a social media dialogue? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe information overloaded employees don't want or need a company Facebook page. Maybe long-standing customers prefer the pleasures of a face-to-face meeting over a Don Draper-like scotch and soda. And maybe local community leaders expect a town hall type back-and-forth on issues of the day.

The social media land rush mentality can undermine your organization's image, reputation and credibility if you dive in without listening first.

Brian Pittman asked what sort of questions an organization should ask of its stakeholders during a listening phase. That's easy: the exact same questions neophyte journalists are trained to ask before crafting a news article: who, what, when, where, why and how.

Make sure your audiences want to engage in social media before you decide to flip on the switch. Just because your management wants to, or your competitors are doing it or, even worse, some expert says it's here to stay and you better engage are the wrong reasons.

In the same way rushing across an intersection can be detrimental to one's health, diving pell-mell into social media can be dangerous to one's brand.

So, how did you feel when you first learned your son had third degree burns over 75 percent of his body?

My alma mater, Northeastern University, is featuring me in an upcoming section celebrating 
the 100th anniversary of their cooperative education curriculum (a five-year plan in which students alternate between classroom study and relevant work experience).

I majored in journalism and was incredibly fortunate to land three stellar co-op jobs:

- as a copy boy/news clerk with The New York Times
- as a reporter/sportscaster/talk show host for WGCH Radio in Greenwich
- and, finally, as a news writer for WEEI News radio in Boston.

As I was being interviewed, I was asked why I'd chosen public relations over journalism. “That's easy,” I responded, “I hated asking the 'So, how did you feel' questions to victims of fires, parents of kidnapped children and other people who suddenly found their worlds turned upside down.

I remember my WEEI news editor once yelling at me to track down the survivors of a horrific fire in Dorchester that had occurred the night before. “Get one of them on the phone and, so help me, do not hang up until you ask them how it made them feel!” He felt I wasn't getting enough emotion in my interviews.

I couldn't deal with the intrusiveness of it all. Nor could I deal with the jaded, world weary personalities of the journalists with whom I worked. I didn't want to wake up one day and be as burnt out as so many of these professional journalists appeared to be.

I bring all this up because I see the “...So, how did it make you feel?” question being asked more often than ever nowadays. In fact, it's become a staple of the morning talk shows. Maggie Rodriguez of ‘The CBS Early Show’ just asked the mom of some poor kid who had been badly burned how she felt. As soon as the interview ended, Maggie smiled at the camera and previewed an upcoming segment on women's health.

I couldn't do that. I couldn't keep up a false front or 'compartmentalize' the horror and personal tragedy.

I think it says something about the image and reputation of journalism that, as the media skew more and more towards the tawdry and sensational, we're seeing more and more digging into the human tragedy that goes along with modern-day life. Sleaze equals ratings, pure and simple.

Journalists may pillory public relations, but most of us focus on telling the positive side of a story. And, for that, I'm grateful (and proud.)

The network who cried wolf

What should constitute 'breaking news'? The Kennedy assassination would certainly qualify in my mind. So, too, would the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. And, I'd also list Michael Jackson's untimely passing as another breaking news item.

But, the powers that be at CNN have certainly watered down my perception of breaking news with their reportage of Jacko's memorial service.

I'm neither hard-hearted nor mean-spirited but, excuse me, the Paris Jackson quote is not breaking news.

I typically click on the CNN breaking news alerts when I spy them on my blackberry. But, after a week's worth of non breaking news alerts, I'm becoming a little gun shy. By crying wolf with these bogus alerts, CNN runs the risk of alienating audience members like me. So, note to the CNN newsroom folk: let's schedule an internal meeting ASAP and review the parameters of what constitutes breaking news and what's better left for the evening tabloid shows.

The rules don’t apply to me

Power brokers think the rules don’t apply to them. That’s certainly true of sports stars, rock impresarios and politicians. It’s also true of executives. Take the latest findings released by UberCEO.com that reveal a near total use of social media tools by Fortune 100 chief executive officers.

UberCEO thinks CEOs are either distracted or too timid to engage in the blogosphere. Timidity (or fear) is a likely culprit. But, so too, is hubris. CEOs move in rarified worlds and breathe rarified air. As a result, most think the rules governing mortal men simply don’t apply to them. One needs only to think of, say, Bernie Ebbers, Bernie Madoff, Dennis Kozlowski or Jeff Skilling to prove the point.

I think CEOs think social media is for the hoi polloi. They don’t need, or want, to dirty their hands by interacting with the masses. They already have their hands full with such irritants as analyst calls, CNBC interviews or annual meetings. Who has the time or patience to write a blog, Tweet or maintain a home page on Facebook?

Sure, one needs to factor in Sarbanes-Oxley when conjecturing why CEOs avoid social media like the plague. And, yes, there remains a solid business case why the big kahuna needs to do this citizen journalist ‘nonsense.’ But, I think the average chief executive officer thinks just like the J. Walter Thompson CEO I once worked for. He felt himself above the fray and looked down his nose at lesser mortals. Let them eat cake (or hit ‘send’).

Until, and unless, we have some truly enlightened CEOs sitting in Fortune 100 corner offices, I don’t think we’ll see any blogging or podcasting. CEOs think that’s something for the ‘marketing guys’ to deal with. In the meantime, they have bigger fish to fry: Wall Street is unhappy with the stock performance, the board is questioning the latest downsizing and the charities are demanding some sort of sustainability program. Blogging? Bah humbug!

*Thanks to Greg Schmalz for the idea for this post.

I highly recommend it

Public relations is in the midst of unprecedented change. Traditional media relations, while still important, has been equaled, if not surpassed by social media. Indeed, we’re seeing more and more clients ask about word-of-mouth. How does one inspire, motivate and encourage a prospective or current customer to ‘recommend’ an organization’s product or service to a peer? The answer  to that single question contains the key to the future of marketing communications.

 

Like many forward-looking organizations, we’re grappling with how one goes about ‘encouraging’ or ‘enabling’ recommendations. We don’t know the full answer, but we have some ideas. In the spirit of openness and transparency, we’d like to get your perspective as well.

So, if you don’t mind, click the survey link below and let me know what you think. I promise to share the findings in a future blog that, I hope, you’ll highly recommend to others.

Check out the survey here.

"Time Out New York" Should Have Taken a Time Out

Today, senior account executive Lia LoBello has written the following special guest post.

Tuesday, media outlets were quick to report that actress Natasha Richardson had been critically injured in a skiing accident in Canada.  And while this story has now reached its unfortunate and sad conclusion, details over its course have remained scarce. Over the last two days, many news outlets cautiously reported the conflicting reports of Richardson’s injuries– all that is, except one. With an abandon you’d associate more closely with the New York Post’s 'Page Six' or Gawker, of all media outlets, it was "Time Out New York" that tried to break the story open mid-day Tuesday by citing one singular “source close to the family,” that the actress was “dead” and posting RIP Natasha Richardson: 1963-2009.  Within minutes, blogs such as PerezHilton.com had picked up the story, offering their condolences to the families involved.  Yet, there was one major issue– the actress had not yet died.  At that time, she was potentially brain dead– but by broad consensus, alive.

In the race to number one, such a critical and egregious error– particularly on such a serious claim– is the equivalent of falling flat on your face.  And despite posting an apology once the account was refuted– which took longer than normal to go live as the site crashed under traffic– readers raked the magazine through the coals, expressing anger at the irresponsible, opportunistic reporting. Odder still, yesterday, no link to the story appeared at all on the magazine’s home page.  Late last night, a retrospective of her work went live on the site– a piece much more reflective of "Time Out's" normal brand of journalism.

Putting aside the baffling entrance and even quicker apparent exit of "Time Out" (for non-readers, the magazine provides listings for events happening each week in the City, sprinkled with a light feature or two), into the gossip circus, the gaffe serves as a grave reminder that public goodwill is a fickle commodity– here one day, but gone the next, should a corporation stumble. In addition, in an era when information changes hands in the blink of an eye, in the handling of the scoop of a lifetime (as I have to imagine "Time Out" believed they had,) the rules of Reporting 101 must stand:  corroborate facts with several sources or make absolutely sure your singular source cannot be refuted. In not doing this, Time Out created a public relations nightmare and significantly damaged an otherwise intact reputation.  A little fact-checking– not to mention discretion– does, indeed, go a long, long way.