Flack's Revenge

The Must-have Tech Tool for PR Folks and Others

Sometimes it is not the grandiose "paradigm shifting" technologies that make a difference in life and work, it is the simpler things - the technology with humble aspirations and claims.

About a year or so ago, I decided that I was tired of the way I had been tracking the tidbits of my working life.  This mostly consisted of filling yellow and white pads of lined notebook paper with scribblings and notes from client and internal meetings and calls, in penmanship that only a doctor could read (I am not a doctor, and don't even play one on TV, but do come from a family of doctors, so sloppy writing may well be an inherited trait).

This worked OK for awhile, at least until I realized that it was very hard to go back and find the right information in the right notepad.  I filled so many of these over the years that I ran short of space and wound up piling the older ones into an abandoned filing cabinet in the corner of my office to make room for the new ones, creating kind of a sad, leaning tower of old notepads

I thought: "there has to be a better way," and "doesn't there exist some kind of note taking software that will make this all easier?"  Word processing seemed at once to be overkill - too many features, and too much overhead in saving and organizing files.  The Notepad text editor was clearly under kill.

I poked around online a bit, and found that there is indeed an established note-taking category of software.  In fact MS had an nth generation product that had gotten some very nice reviews.  And then there were all the shareware freebies.

Long story short, I went the "free" route and somehow found and selected Evernote for Windows.

Evernote has made a tremendous difference in how I organize and take notes.  I found Evernote right around the same time my employer Fusion PR set me up with a laptop.  So I can take my laptop with me into meetings, wherever I go, and capture all the essential details.  There's no need to worry about saving my notes, or assigning names to files.  I can categorize them if I wish, by client, project, etc., and the program automatically saves as I type.  It has full text searching, and supports "clipping" from Outlook and other applications.

If I really wanted to push the envelope I could experiment with "digital ink," and various forms, like To Do lists, Phone Messages, etc.

But I don't need to conquer the world with this particular piece of software.  It does a very nice job in a very specific area, and in doing so empowers me because suddenly I seem to have instant recall (and others have great fun watching as I awkwardly and furiously hunt 'n' peck out my notes - well anyway, at least they can read it when I am done!)

I write all this because I like to acknowledge things that make a difference (no, they are not a client), and also because I saw a post on the New web 2.0 Magazine,  Extend Your Brain with Evernote, that talks about a new Web version, apparently now in invitation-only beta - Sign me up!

NY Times Dabbles in PR (But not enough of their own)

The NY Times covered the PR profession this weekend (see Sunday business section, Your Publicist should Call my Publicist); or, more specifically, the world of Hollywood publicists, in an article that was clearly timed to coincide with the Oscar awards.

The reporter, Michael Cieply, said that there are now too many entertainment publicists:

This is an industry that still remembers the old MGM publicity department's way of cleaning up messes... But even here in Hollywood, recent growth in public relations machinery is cause for remark.

Executives have publicists.  Stars have publicists. The tiniest movies will arrive with publicity teams, often three of four of them... Sometimes it seems, even publicists have publicists.

Could it be, perish the thought, that there so many because publicists provide an important and effective service (and why is the service referred to as "machinery"?)

Unfortunately the NY Times seems to be tied up in its own publicity mess following the ill-advised McCain piece - in which they implied that he had an affair - from last Thursday.  The publication has been hammered incessantly - by the left, the right and everyone in between - since the article appeared.

But has anyone contemplated a world without the NY Times, the noble institution that is so often cited on the this blog?

None other than tech luminary Marc Andreessen has, as reported by Josh Quittner in the Fortune piece Marc Andreesen's newspaper deathwatch (and pointed out to me by my colleague Suzanne McGee).

What's the tech pioneer been doing since Netscape? Investing in social networks and waiting for the New York Times to die.

Quittner wrote, and continued:

When I mentioned its dismal earnings and casually suggested that one way to save the paper and the social good it provides ... would be for some rich guy to ride in and set up a trust to protect it, [Andreessen] blew a gasket. "My company does good for the world," he growled. "Why doesn't someone protect it?"

Then he went back to his computer and launched a kind of fatwa that was immediately broadcast in the echo chamber of the blogosphere.

"I can't take it anymore," he wrote on his blog (blog.pmarca.com). "I hereby inaugurate my New York Times Deathwatch, which will continue until the last Sulzberger has left the building." The piece goes on to rip apart the Times' business strategy top to bottom, attacking everything from the techno-illiteracy of its board of directors ... to its recent per-copy price hike. "When you have an obsolete, inconvenient physical product that nobody wants in an era of universal online access, the appropriate strategy is clearly to raise the price," he snarked.

And it wasn't even McCain that set Andreessen off.

I dunno, I guess they are an easy target but I really think you have to love the Times.  They get it right more often than they get it wrong.  True, they let their bias show sometimes, but what publication doesn't?  Their commitment to news over the years - to good old fashioned reporting (OK, the words "old fashioned" might not help their case if you listen to Andreessen) and have worn thin more reporters' shoe leather in pursuit of the story than just about any other publication.

Even right wingers cite articles the NY Times when it supports their arguments, not just when they are hyperventilating over the unfairness of it.

I think we would all rue a day when we did not have the NY Times to kick around anymore.

Reputation of Reputation Management

There's a good article on the Computerworld website, Online Reputation Management is Hot... But is it Ethical?"

It explains in detail the growing number of options for tracking online buzz related to companies, people, products and brands.

According to the article:

Online reputation management "is a space that's hot and is heating up further," says Jeff Zabin, an analyst at Aberdeen Group Inc. who recently co-authored a report on social media monitoring and analysis. Executives are waking up to how the Internet can be used as an early warning system to alert them if their company's brand names and reputations are at risk as a result of a product defect, a disgruntled customer's blog rant or some other looming crisis, says Zabin.

The article covers vendors ranging from those that use natural language processing and other techniques to find, report on and classify related online conversations (Buzzmetrics, Umbria and Cymfony), to those using SEO techniques to elevate (or, in the case of bad buzz) diminish search engine rankings of offending content (ReputationHawk, Elixir Systems and Buildtelligence). Others, like Buzzlogic, provide subscription-based dashboards for monitoring the blogosphere and aggregating info.

It should be required reading for anyone in PR - paper clip harvesting services are oh so yesterday, and the range of systems that we as a profession have relied on to track online and offline media can be helpful but do not provide the same functionality or set of services (in fairness, there is a pretty big price discrepancy).

The article cites a number of cases studies and discusses functionality. This is Computerworld, and it takes somewhat of  a techie viewpoint, which I actually found helpful  in understanding features and functionality of the alternatives.

On the other hand, you can forgive CW for not taking a more nuanced PR view as that is generally not their bailiwick.

The issue is framed as an ethical one, and the article reduces reputation management to just another technology category.  It almost makes it sound like reputation management can be boiled down to an algorithm.

I think most will agree that reputation is something to be earned and built over time, not simply managed like so many records in database system. (In an earlier post I discussed the evolving nature of reputation building).

 

When it comes to SEO, there are so called white hat and black hat techniques, although I am not sure there is any single, accepted ethical code that defines the line that separates these.  Just like there are varying degrees in ethics in any field, I am sure you will find PR folks who say all is fair in Love and Web. 

 

I feel that tactics that are  more geared towards helping accurately classify content are white hat, even if you are edging out competitors in the process of elevating rankings.  SEO techniques and reputation management tactics that exist only to deceive - to game rankings and bury content are black hat and ill-advised.

 

What do you think?

The best of both MSM and social media PR Worlds

It occurs to me that some of the changes taking place in the world of media tie back to the idea boosting signal and reducing noise, i.e. improving the S/N ratio of info.

In the days of old, barely ten years ago, media gatekeepers were the defacto filters that helped determine what info was worthy of our attention.  They sifted through the noise of the world, presenting us with the news of the day/week/month based on their best guesses about what was important and what their readers and viewers cared about.

In this day and age of democratized media, the fourth estate as a separate institution is withering under the onslaught of more choices. There are more info sources - more places to go for facts, analysis and opinion - than ever before.  This diffuses attention and jeopardizes legacy media business models.

Studies have shown (see Indiana U. study) that many people trust nontraditional media sources like blogs more because these are perceived to be voices of the people, uninfluenced by the party line or commercial interests in many cases.

So, although MSM continues to act as a filter, its role as gatekeeper has been greatly diminished.  It simply can't keep pace with the growing number of info sources and chatter.

We need better solutions to help us filter the information, and indeed we are seeing this in the evolution of search, the growth of RSS, newsreaders, news aggregation and social news sites.  Looking beyond purely technical solutions, crowdsourcing and top-ranked bloggers are lending a human element to info filtering. 

These are a start, however there is still a long way to go in helping people find just the info they need (or should care about), when they need it, from credible sources.

Lest we become too intoxicated over the power of social media, please remember it is all just noise without mechanisms that help us discover, filter and prioritize info.

PR folks and other marketers need to understand that the filters and filtering mechanisms are the new gatekeepers.  Without filters, more noise and diffuse attention means uncertain impact on business outcomes like sales and brand building.

 

Let's not forget the power of big media to marshal the attention of vast audiences and shape national dialog - recall the recently settled writers' strike, and the vacuum it created (true, it was more about entertainment than news, but PR is not just about news).

Consider that many if not most big stories driving buzz originate from various forms of "traditional" media (I use quotes here because I include online components of major publishing brands).  My post about  Digg's Leaderboard said more about this.

 

In conclusion, MSM and social media are all part of the attention puzzle.  PR folks need to stay attuned to evolving filtering mechanisms that boost signal and reduce noise.  And agencies and strategies that treat social media as a separate entity - the only thing that counts, or the most important thing - will be less effective than integrated programs that  take into account both MSM and social media.

Words that Work in Tech PR, Part 4

Here is a quick refresher on previous “Words that Work in Tech PR” Topics:

Part 1

This post discussed story frames and root metaphors, and the importance of finding just the right words.

Part 2

Discussed research tactics, and getting the information you need to do a good job of finding the right words.

Part 3

Discussed the importance of product categories, and how these can affect and help shape your story.

Now in part 4, I will wrap up the first part of the series with a discussion about product positioning.

Hopefully your employer or client has done the right homework prior to launching a new product and service - and this is reflected in product and pricing.  Or perhaps you are relaunching or rebranding an existing product, or launching the next major upgrade.

In any event, by the time PR is engaged and ready to go about putting the right words behind the launch story, we are stuck with certain realities - the realities of whatever market you are competing in, as outlined in Part 3, and the realities of the product itself.

On the other hand people can draw different conclusions from the same set of facts.  Part of what we need to do as PR pros and marketing strategists is to come up with the story that explains our approach to the market - where and how we fit into the narrative of the space we play in: how we will compete, how we are different than available alternatives, and where we hope to go.

Before developing all the materials that will be needed, you will need to distill the answers to these questions in a positioning statement. This positioning statement will feed into development of the key messages, and taken together these will shape your content development and communications strategy.

Volumes have been written about product positioning, and it is well beyond the scope of this post to cover all the bases.  What I want to do here is touch upon some thoughts to consider.  I recommend additional reading at the end, for those who are interested in exploring the topic further.

Effective product positioning clearly and concisely states the perch your product or service occupies within the market you are competing in. That is easy enough to say, but much harder to do well - i.e., in a way that is credible, easy to understand, and interesting.

Hopefully by now you are starting to appreciate the importance of the upfront research. How can you even begin to assign a position in a space if you don't understand the existing dynamics - the competitive lay of the land, the history, and what people think is the future direction? 

So, in addition to exploring the category (again, Part 3), you will need to build a story about your product that fits into the narrative of the space.  You will want to understand where your space is on the adoption curve - is it emerging, or has it "crossed the chasm" (in Geoffrey Moore's parlance, from his classic of the same name) to mainstream adoption?

If it is the former, be prepared to educate about the need for the space and explain how your entry will lead to wider adoption of the type of technology.   

If it is the latter, you will no doubt have large and entrenched competition and your positioning will thus need to explain why the market needs a new answer in a maturing and mainstream market.  If your offering breathes new life into an established space, say so in your positioning statement.

There are many examples of technologies that seem perpetually just around the corner, but have not crossed the chasm of mainstream adoption (pattern recognition technologies like handwriting and facial, for example).  If the category is getting long in the tooth and has still not broken through, you will need deal with the baggage and history of unmet expectations and preempt skepticism by explaining how your product will finally make a difference.

Are you playing in a space that has been hyped to death, and is now entering the "Trough of Disillusionment" (see my last post and description of the Gartner Hype Cycle)? Something Web 2.0-ish perhaps?  Be prepared for some apathy.  You will need to deal with the burnout and noise, and the perception that the space is a bit over ripe.  Perhaps there are ways of positioning your product that don't lean so heavily on the hyped-to-death terms.  Every new offering does not have to be an [insert legacy category of choice]-2.0 solution.

If you have a leadership position (I mean top two or three market share leader, not "leader" in the hackneyed sense there are only leaders and no followers) then messaging and positioning will generally be conservative. They should tell the world that you are a leader and why.

Are you a challenger in an established space?  Think (and position) boldly: how will you upset the existing apple cart?

I hope this gives you food for thought and connects the dots from my previous posts.

As promised, I am including suggestions for additional reading below:

Crossing the Chasm, Geoffrey Moore's classic on technology adoption

Positioning, the Ries and Trout classic

Blue Ocean Strategy, seems to be the marketing strategy book du jour for tech marketers

 

Social Media Release: Got Standards?

There has been lots of very productive conversations about social media releases over the past week or so.  I am updating my news radar to display the latest links.

Brian Solis has a good post: Definitive Guide to SMRs, it covers a lot of ground, and revisits the reasoning behind SMRs as well as discusses format, distribution options, etc.  Also, Brian identifies this very blog as as one amongst "other voices on the subject" (thanks, Brian).

Dave Press added to the conversation with his post On the Social Media Release.

Todd Defrens went into some detail on distribution options in Untangling Claims....

The Getting Ink blog offers a journalist's perspective in Nice Social Media Release, Shame about the Content

Shel Holtz waxes philosophical in his post Do you know what you always want or need?

Again, lots of helpful info and back and forth.  I saw Brian Solis had issued a request for people to share cases.  It would be great to hear more about successes, why not start a meme amongst those who are actively tracking this?

And, oh yes, regarding the subject line of this post (and getting back to the question from my last post on this, Give sm Release a Chance), what about standards?

PR Tech: From Sticky Ideas to Sticky Media

I have been railing a bit how the PR profession should not be so enamored of technology that we forget the importance of choosing the right words and telling the right story.  Recent posts have referenced the power of sticky ideas, and the importance of not being blinded by PR Science.

I know that many are resistant to change, and that the greater danger is that we do not see that the world is shifting under our feet and do not experiment with new technologies and methods.  But there is also the danger of going too far in the other direction; when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail.

 

So how does one stay ahead of the curve while achieving balance in PR?  How do we master the art of basic PR storytelling while opening ourselves to new tactics and technologies?

 

Much the same as in any rapidly changing field, you need to bet on the right horses if you want to keep pace (i.e. keep your day jobs, remain billable and profitable) while positioning yourself for the future.

 

There just is not enough time in the day to master every new tech gambit, nor do I think you have to; the various audiences we are seeking to communicate with can only absorb so much tech, and the hot new communications gizmo du jour may well be gone by tomorrow.

 

So, continuing in the "stickiness" vein - my focus has been on creating ideas that stick - let me suggest that technologies and media worth focusing on - betting your career and agency on and mastering - are the sticky ones - are the media that draw us in, keep our attention and have intrinsic network effect potential.

 

This is why I am so bullish on blogging (as an activity, as well as reading and targeting blogs) and social networking, both which have grown tremendously in recent years.

 

Of course, this only matters if the people we are seeking to communicate with adopt these technologies and flock to these types of media - take nothing for granted and test all assumptions for your specific situation.

 

Clearly, we as communications professionals would be well advised to hone strategies that leverage the sticky media - this is the best way to work with trust networks and communicate with people in the comfortable environs that they are increasingly spending much of their online time in.

 

I list a couple of these below, and would love to get feedback and suggestions regarding other possible additions.

 

Social networks    
Organic network effort, high cost of switching: once you have assembled a network, are growing it and regularly visiting you get more and more value.

 

Blogs and Blogging               
Blogging becomes a habit that most who commit time to find hard to break; it provides more of a weak force network effect than social networks, however there still is that effect, and most who take up writing blogs also read blogs, further reinforcing the habit.

 

 

Give sm Release a Chance

Just when I thought I was out.... they pull me back in.

(Sigh) I thought I would sit out the latest round of debate surrounding the social media release.

 

Greg Jarboe was kind enough to quote from my previous tirade (Die, Social Media Release Controversy, Die) in his posting yesterday Does Social Media 2.0 deserve a second life? on SearchEngineWatch.com (thanks, Greg), and there have been lots of related developments since my last post, so I just thought I would chime in again.  There have been some successes cited in the months since, and also confusion and disagreement.

 

It is clear that the SM Release remains a hot topic among PR people, or more specifically, PR bloggers.  But does anyone else care?  I have heard some good things and some mixed takes on the SMR from just a few non-PR bloggers and journalists. 

 

Journalist Lena West posted her thoughts on the InfoWorld blog in Social Media News Releases: Do Them or Not?   Her wrap on the subject:

 

Bottomline: Try it out, see if it works for your organization. Don't use it at the exclusion of any existing forms of media communication, but rather as a supplement. And remember, no amount of 'social media-ization' can make a news release exciting. A crappy news release is still a crappy news release.

 

Noted journalist Tom Foremski, whose famous post Die Press Release, Die apparently inspired Defrens to invent the SMR (and served as inspiration for the title of my last post on the topic) is now saying that Facebook is the new press release.  See PR People: Do As I Say, and, As I Do, on the Marcom Professional blog. 

 

And, some A listers - none other than Scoble and various members of the Web 2.0 Working Group - questioned the need for an SMR awhile back.  This may sound heretical, but their thinking does not necessarily represent the mainstream.

 

One of the hurdles to widespread adoption of SMRs, I think, is the diversity of formats - there is the original SMR as conceived by Defrens and Shift Communications, there is the hRelease, from the New Media Releasse Group, which proposes a markup language for SMRs, and there is the much recently-discussed Snippets format (see Buzz Bin's post A New Take on the Social Media Release).

And,  just this week, Marketwire chimed in with their new Social Media Release 2.0 service and format Marketwire Unveils Social Media 2.0: Industry's Most Authentic Social Media Product (isn't social media 2.0 redundant?  Ah, well, at least they made the announcement via their SMR).

 

So what is the intrepid PR manager supposed to recommend to their clients?  The SMR still feels too much like a home-brewed science project.

 

The traditional press release has had its long reign is because people understand it, it is an accepted format and an institution. You have news.  You issue it, in all its banal but by now familiar glory, or lack therof - replete with the happy talk and spin.  Then people have at it, mocking it, talking about it or simply ignoring it.

 

Consider how new the SMR concept is and how fast the worlds of social media and related tech are evolving.

 

Yesterday, Greg Jarboe reiterated his position that testing and measurement should be the key determinants of success for SMRs and found some things he liked in Marketwire's new offering.

 

How will we discover if Social Media 2.0 provides us with increased Internet visibility and greater search engine performance for our news? As I wrote back in May 2003, the only way to find out is to “Measure, measure, measure and measure some more.”

[Regarding Social Media 2.0 from Marketwire] there’s a nice mix of new distribution options and PR measurement tools. This will enable me to tell if “Social Media 2.0 offers increased social network visibility to a prospective audience of more than 200 million Internet users.” If it does, that would be very cool.

 

I agree that we need to continue working on the formats, putting them to the test, and trying to figure out what works best.

 

And while it is good to have choices and good to evolve, at some point it helps to get to your destination and have consensus and standards  - a lingua franca for SMRs that extends beyond the leading edge PR folks and is embraced by marketers, journalists and bloggers alike.