Flack's Revenge

All the Presidents Flacks

I have occasionally blogged about the Bush administration's questionable policies and Machiavellian PR maneuvering.

So when the first reports came out about Scott McClellan's book (see White House Insider Writes Scathing Critique of Bush Admin. on CBC),  I have to admit I did enjoy it a bit, hearing that McClellan has validated things which were already pretty established anyway.

According to the article:

In a scathing new book, a Washington insider calls President George W. Bush to task for selling the war in Iraq with a "political propaganda campaign...

"I still like and admire President Bush but he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candour and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war," McClellan writes.

But in thinking things through a bit further, I have realized that this is nothing to gloat about, or thank McClellan for, and that it spells some interesting questions for PR.   

All the President's Flacks

Scott McClellan always seemed a little lead-footed to me. He generally was a Piñata during press briefings.   He does have his good points, he was less unctuous than Ari Fleischer who preceded him in the role, and less glib with the media than Tony Snow, who followed Scott.  McClellan always sported a kind of dopey sincerity which made him almost endearing, if not entirely believable.

Perhaps it is this sincerity which makes him want to spill his guts now, or perhaps he just wants to sell books.  If he was so opposed to the Bush administration's questionable policies and communications tactics, why not quit or speak out then?  It really is an untenable position, and reeks of opportunism.

It also poses the larger question about PR's obligations to clients and employers.  Don't we have an ethical obligation to keep discussions we have as trusted advisers close to the vest?  It seems there should be a kind of attorney or shrink  privilege (our work does sometimes feel more like psychotherapy).  After all, we are the ultimate insiders.

Some might disagree with the lawyer analogy - lawyers are obligated to defend their clients even if they detest them or believe in their heart of hearts that the client is guilty. Sure, all of us in the PR agency world have had to deal with clients we disliked or believed had ill-conceived products or business plans.  I would like to think there are lines we would not cross - misleading when it comes to war should be one such line.

And to compound this by first enabling it, and then - belatedly - publicly airing your concerns creates a new low.

Future of PR: It's the Metrics, Stupid

OnlineSpin had a good article about the shortcomings of Web analytics, with the provocative title Why Web Sites and Online Marketing Suck.  Although the focus was on online advertising, the conclusions could just as well apply to PR.  Here's an excerpt:

I have never met Avinash Kaushik, Google’s new Analytics Evangelist. But after reading “Google’s ‘Analytics Evangelist’ Explains Why Websites ‘Suck,’” an article by Mya Frazier about a talk Kaushik gave to a group of marketers, I think he and I would get along very well. From the article by Frazier: “Mr. Kaushik employed the word ’sucks’ frequently when he talked about the traditional metrics used for measuring online marketing. And as far as online marketing goes, it sucks too. He likened it to a ‘faith-based initiative.’”

One issue: placing all emphasis on reach over quality...

As media becomes more fractured and attention more divided, there is no better time than now to explore the connection between coverage and results.

Did that blog mention cause someone to pick up the phone and schedule a sales call?  Did the forum chatter create negative perceptions about your brand that reverberate and are growing?  Did that nice NY Times hit move the dial in any way?

Better analytics systems that connect the placement to the user actions or perceptions to the eventual order or drop off in business will be a cornerstone of  closed loop marketing and PR systems.  These systems will inform marketers about the effectiveness of their campaigns and shed light on which forums work the best.

Measurement has never been the sexiest part of the PR business and many in the profession have shied away from it.  Now is a truly exciting (but also scary) time in PR - media and hence PR are undergoing rapid changes.  There are many new directions these changes can take us in - many new types of campaigns and services.

The flip side is that this is also a time when some are taking a new look at the value PR delivers. Without some form of closed loop system and better metrics, it will become harder, not easier to justify the PR spend.

Celebrating the Rise of the Geek

In Revenge of the Nerds last week I wrote that tech media (albeit online tech media) suddenly seems to be hot again.

So I was amused to see David Brooks NY Times Op Ed on Friday, titled Alpha Geeks.

David Brooks, as you may well know, is a pundit, author, journalist and astute chronicler of sociological trends (he wrote Bobos in Paradise). In the column, he talks about the rise of the geek, including the derivation of the word "nerd," the difference between geeks and and nerds, and everything else you wanted to know about the topic (and then some).

I include an excerpt below:

The future historians of the nerd ascendancy will likely note that the great empowerment phase began in the 1980s with the rise of Microsoft and the digital economy. Nerds began making large amounts of money and acquired economic credibility, the seedbed of social prestige. The information revolution produced a parade of highly confident nerd moguls — Bill Gates and Paul Allen, Larry Page and Sergey Brin and so on.

Among adults, the words “geek” and “nerd” exchanged status positions. A nerd was still socially tainted, but geekdom acquired its own cool counterculture. A geek possessed a certain passion for specialized knowledge, but also a high degree of cultural awareness and poise that a nerd lacked. The jock can shine on the football field, but the geeks can display their supple sensibilities and well-modulated emotions on their Facebook pages, blogs, text messages and Twitter feeds. Now there are armies of designers, researchers, media mavens and other cultural producers with a talent for whimsical self-mockery, arcane social references and late-night analysis.

They can visit eclectic sites like Kottke.org and Cool Hunting, experiment with fonts, admire Stewart Brand and Lawrence Lessig and join social-networking communities with ironical names. They’ve created a new definition of what it means to be cool, a definition that leaves out the talents of the jocks, the M.B.A.-types and the less educated. In “The Laws of Cool,” Alan Liu writes: “Cool is a feeling for information.” When someone has that dexterity, you know it.

Given the shifts happening in the media world, rise of social and online media, and the growing importance of technology in PR, perhaps now is good time for us PR folk (and not just tech PR types) to find our inner geeks.

Avoiding "Post and Pray" Syndrome, part 2

Just thought I would update my December 2007 post, Avoiding "Post and Pray" Syndrome,  which discussed ways to elevate your content online.

After I wrote that post I happened onto Marketing Ninja's 7 Reasons why Niche Social Media Outlets are better than Digg.  Ninja (AKA Aaron Stannard) proposed that niche sites can be a more effective way to submit and vote on your content than Digg:

Digg has an immense amount of traffic and getting landed on the front page will send a tsunami of new readers to your blog or website, but getting onto the front page is incredibly difficult.

Getting onto the front page of a smaller, more appropriate niche portal, by contrast, is much easier, quicker, and ultimately you get a better return on your time/traffic ratio in the short run.

He went on to list in more detail other reasons why this strategy makes sense, and provided a link to alternative sites.  There are a couple of marketing related sites on his list, including a section for Marketing and SEO.

It sounded like reasonable advice, and since then I have been playing around with sites like Sphinn (which focuses on Internet marketing) and others.  I also have been on the lookout for social news sites geared specifically for PR audiences.

The only one I have been able to find so far is SpinThicket, which features as they say "News for a Spin Eat Spin World."  I have been having lots of fun with this site, reading the posts there and submitting my own.

It lets you tag the posts you submit and also categorize them, by topics like "Social Media Disease," "Tech Spin," "Publicity Stunts," Celebrity Train Wrecks," etc.  Stories with more comments get elevated in the rankings, and it can be instructive to see what types of posts attract more comments.

Anyway, I had been meaning to blog about SpinThicket because I think it is a great site for the growing cadre of PR bloggers, and for people interested in following the latest PR buzz and developments.

I'd be very open to hearing if any of my readers have run across other good niche social news sites related to PR, marketing, and tech PR / Marketing.

Multi-channel Engagement in Action

As a follow-up to Monday's post, I just thought I would cite an example of multi-channel engagement (i.e. the practice of leveraging several social and traditional communications approaches to foster dialog).

At Fusion PR, we have a client called BigCarrot - a site that offers so-called inducement prizes.  BigCarrot makes it possible to crowd source innovation by offering a platform for people to both start and compete in prizes.  As the website says:

A NEW WAY TO DEMOCRATIZE innovation and advocate for the causes you believe in. The site allows people with a common interest to come together and pool their contributions to create an inducement prize. Anyone can start a prize on any topic—from large social issues to smaller personal pursuits—and anyone with the ability to claim the prize can submit a solution. It’s the best way to achieve real results.

At any rate, one of our goals is to get bloggers interested in the service, especially those who have been blogging for causes that can benefit through use of BigCarrot.

Ben, who is one of our team members contacted a journalist at a top publication who runs such a blog via email (channel number 1).

Being a persistent PR person - my favorite kind - Ben picked up the phone and called the journalist (channel number 2).  The journalist, being very busy - the usual kind - brushed him off.  But - here's the kicker - he later emailed Ben, apologized, said this does indeed sound interesting and asked Ben to add a comment to a specific post on the blog with key details - in other words, to become part of an ongoing conversation.

Long story short, Ben posted a comment to the blog - not as a pitch, but  as commentary that inserted BigCarrot into the existing conversation (channel number 3).

The comment was accepted and posted (not all are; the blog in question is a moderated forum) and we are on our way to a productive dialog with the journalist and his blogging audience.

Each of the channels by themselves might not have been effective, working together they created synergy and propelled the PR person to the desired result, and the journalist/blogger to a positive experience with a PR person.

(Shameless Plug Alert: This blog is geared towards PR folks, so while I have your attention I would like to add that we also working to create awareness that BigCarrot can be a great platform to promote prizes and awards related to your client or brand).

Revenge of the Nerds (Comeuppance of Tech Media)

The downward death spiral of the tech trade media has been much discussed.  I blogged about it last summer, when we explored social media's impact on tech journalism on the Fusion PR blog.

But could the fact that major media now apparently see the geeks as the cool kids on the online block help the tech Phoenix rise from the ashes?

It is no secret that the tech crowd were amongst the first to flock to (and build beau coup traffic for) online media and blogs.  Now, as major media want to do a better of getting their online swerves on, some of these properties look like hot commodities.

This was evidenced by the CBS acquisition of C|Net to the tune of $1.8B last week (see the Wired story: Big Payday for Web 2.0).  Also, there was a good article in NY Times yesterday by David Carr about Conde Nast's various forays into social and online tech media (including Wired.com and the Ars Technica blog).

As I said back then, in an editorial in the Bulldog Reporter:

The democratizing effect of social media is available to all, including traditional media. Although fortunes will shift and new business models may be needed, it would be a mistake to underestimate the ability of the professionals to master these tools and shore up, if not strengthen, their franchises.

Similarly, PR professionals also need to adapt to news ways of communicating. We need to become as agile as traditional media are finding they need to be, and adept at communicating in different styles and formats.

The prize will go to the tech media and journalists (and tech PR folks) who can adapt to the online world.  Indeed, it was great to get an update about IDG and its now online-only InfoWorld brand, again via a recent NY Times article, this one by Steve Lohr.  Apparently both IDG and InfoWorld are thriving and growing online.  Who knows, perhaps IDG will be the next acquisition target.

 

Multi-channel Engagement Strategies (Thinking outside the Pitch)

While digging a little deeper into Stowe Boyd's writings, following his post about Micro PR (and my response, PR Pitch Spam - An Inconvenient Truth), I found a reference to this Uptake blog post: Elliot Ng on MicroPR.

Elliot's post offers a compendium on how top bloggers like to be pitched. As you can see, there is quite a bit of diversity: Jane likes email, Joe hates email, most eschew Facebook pitches, some love Twitter.  Here's an excerpt:

Do you really think companies are going to remember to pitch Marshall at ReadWriteWeb via RSS and Stowe Boyd by TwitPitch and Scoble by Facebook? Knowing PR companies, I know they won’t. Most of them still believe in the spray and pray method of e-mailing all contacts under the sun. There needs to be change, but making everybody jump through hoops while losing the personal engagement, exclusivity and timing won’t work ...

This diversity of pitching preferences, which might seem overwhelming, actually represents an opportunity.  Taking advantage of the opportunity requires a shift in thinking and approach.

The first step is to stop thinking of ourselves as pitch delivery machines.  No one wants to have a conversation with someone who just talks and doesn't even try to listen.

Second, realize that multiple channels mean many different ways to engage.  Collectively, the various communications and social media channels surround people.  They lend context and tone to communications. The more channels you can master, and the more you participate in the various channels, the more your communications can be on target and in context. 

Frequently, multiple channels can work together (and I am not just talking about keeping after someone by email and phone, something we have proved we can do).  When done right, your approach is not considered stalking  (i.e. something to be avoided), or even pitching, but becomes part of the conversation.

The key to this is (as I said in my last post on the topic) relevance.

I'll share a real world example of multi-channel engagement later this week.   Meanwhile, please note that I have updated my buzz tracker to reflect increased conversations about Twitter and PR recently.

More on Influencer Relationship Management

As promised, I am following up my post from last week - Cultivating Non-traditional Influencers in Tech PR - with this interview of Stephen Andrews, a VP here at Fusion PR who has done some great work in the area.

Stephen is an all around brilliant PR pro who is also a former Arthur Andersen consultant and managed influencer relations for IBM in a previous life

Thanks, Stephen, for enlightening us on this important topic.

Please define IRM for non-traditional influencers
IRM stands for Influencer Relationship Management and in practice refers to the logistics of creating and implementing a successful program that draws upon non-traditional experts, and by this I mean those experts external to your client’s organization, for their general industry or specific expertise. The purpose of seeking and engaging influencers is, at its essence, to leverage these outside opinion leaders to help drive a dialogue within your industry. It’s the ultimate form of expert validation of your client’s messages that goes far beyond the simple supportive quote and can encompass everything from ongoing co-branded thought leadership materials to events and even campaigns.

How does an IRM program work?
The mechanics of an IRM program closely resemble those of any well thought out media campaign, though is often much more focused.  As with any media based campaign a solid IRM program begins with an understanding of what it is your client wishes to accomplish from a communications perspective; what message do they wish to communicate, to whom and in what fashion.  It’s also necessary to understand that when you engage influencers or opinion leaders you will be ceding some message control to the influencer(s) you choose. From there it’s all about the research, finding those people who are, in fact, influential and whose opinions closely match the strategic direction of your messaging. Once you have your influencers chosen it’s time to make the initial outreach, essentially pitching the influencers to become a partner of your client.  Usually the higher the level of executive initially reaching out to potential influencers, the greater the chance of success.  This is known as the engagement phase.

Once the influencers are engaged it’s time to meet with them and speak about the actual event, campaign or collateral piece you plan to execute, brief the influencer and ensure alignment with the client's objectives.

What do companies stand to gain through better IRM?
IRM offers companies three main benefits; first it’s an opportunity to drive an entire industry’s discussion and ultimately direction, second it offers a level of validation far beyond anything a company can achieve with internal experts, and finally it offers companies an industry voice one step removed from the corporate entity which can open a far broader range of things and degrees of messages which the company can have a hand in.

How do you measure effectiveness?
IRM programs fall closer to other thought leadership tactics as far as measurement goes in that they tend to have less of “flash-bang” effect and more of a long slow burn.  The results depend on the actual event, collateral or campaign and its goals, but in general IRM affects the long-term attitudes of customers, media, analysts and competitors within the specific area where the program is targeted. It is most often used in conjunction with other communications tactics to form the basis for fundamental directing of an industry or industry segment.

PR Pitch Spam - An Inconvenient Truth

Spring is in the air, the flowers are blooming and... wait, what's that smell?  That stink of rot and decay?  Could it be the bloated corpse of old school PR tactics and the latest rants about PR pitch spam?

The Squeaky Wheel Gets the Grease used to be the operative mode for PR firms.  Now, the squeaks may get the wrong kind of attention, which can echo online and throughout the blogosphere.

The stakes are higher now and there is less room for error.  The traditional media have always had a somewhat love-hate relationship with PR but at least the lines were pretty clearly drawn and it worked on some level.  Now the old rules are out the window.

Try Fugu, the Tasty new PR Pitch Delicacy

Brian Solis wrote a long, heartfelt Mea Culpa on the PR 2.0 blog regarding some unfortunate blog blow back about a pitch.  Things went awry even though the person on his team did due diligence in terms of researching targets and tailoring pitches.

As Brian said:

In their defense this person did not blast a generic media list... nor did this person send information to someone who doesn't cover or write about products in the space.

Further, he proposes a new definition that seeks to elevate tailored pitches above Bacn, the term Chris Brogan invented to label email that is subscribed to but almost never read (like newsletters and such).

Tofu (new category – suggested name) is email that is sent individually to people who are pre-qualified or identified as being related to, or interested in, a particular category or topic. Or, they have made their email publicly available on their site, thus intentionally or inadvertently inviting contact. I’m not sure what to call it, but the idea for tofu was inspired by the fact that we can almost make it taste like something else, but at the end of the day, it’s still not the real thing.

Well I will one up Solis.  I propose a new PR pitch category called Fugu, inspired by the Japanese fish delicacy that is at one enticing but also poisonous.  You are hungry again one half hour after you digest a Fugu pitch, that is if you don't die first.

Fugu is comprised of nutritional components that make it look, think and act like genuine thought, and is genetically engineered to be produced on a mass customization basis.  As such, Fugu meets the old school PR person's need to feel like they have accomplished something by carpet bombing, meets news school PR needs to adapt to the conversation and hot buttons of each target, and in any event detractors won't be around too long to bellyache.

On a slightly more serious note, perhaps we can agree on a real definition of Fugu - anything boilerplate that is intended to be mass produced and distributed regardless of how well the list is researched.  Fugu stinks, is deadly and should be banished from the PR lexicon

Is MicroPR the Answer?

I can sympathize with Brian because I have found myself in a similar position, i.e. people on my team have occasionally generated unfavorable blogger attention in our zeal.  So what is the answer?

Not Tofu, according to Stowe Boyd, in his post: The Growing Backlash Against PR Spam, and the Rationale for MicroPR

Brian Solis attempts to make the case that PR folks sending things we might want -- based on their decisions -- should be considered 'Tofu' not 'Spam'. I am sorry Brian, but there is no Tofu, there is only Spam.

Boyd makes a compelling argument for what he calls MicroPR (actually, my first reaction was "oh brother, what next? NanoPR? And then no PR at all?"  Which some people might actually celebrate, that is until it comes time to promote their book, or they join a start up that needs to make some noise).

So, this is an ... argument for MicroPR: forcing PR firms to approach us in the open, on open social flow apps like Twitter, and in the small, where they have to jettison all the claptrap of the old press release model. In the open, that can't lie easily, or they will be caught on it. In the small, they have to junk the meaningless superlatives, the bogus quotes that no CEO ever mouthed, the run-on phrases, the disembodied third party mumbo jumbo, as if the press release were edited by God.

On Twitter, I will simply block people that abuse my willingness to have an open dialog about products with PR folks, or basically anyone else, for that matter. And I am implicitly inviting everyone in my Twitter sphere of influence to participate, too. I want it to be a shared space for investigation into new tools, so by all means, twitpitch me!

Boyd focuses on the mechanics of pitching but his idea seems to be in sync with the new, blog-driven ethos of transparency.

I blogged in detail about the subject of PR pitch spam and won't repeat the full post here.  I will say, however, that there are a few key things PR people should focus on when approaching bloggers:

Relevancy, relevancy, relevancy

In short, know your audience, know what they like to blog about, and don't send them Fugu.

Folks, this is easy, it is not hard.  Bloggers wear their preferences on their sleeves, and sometimes even spell out specific instructions on how to best approach them.

And, while some might object to getting any unsolicited emails, it is hard to see how you can go wrong if you truly listen and engage in the ongoing conversation on their blogs.  Why email a pitch when you can comment on the blog?  Why flog information if it might be shrill and dissonant with the forum?

Most news-oriented bloggers - especially those who cover fast moving spaces like tech - love to get tips about relevant news stories.  The lines might be less clear with bloggers who tend to be more selective in their topics and focus on opinion and analysis.  Approach these types at your own peril. 

But if you are truly listening and know your audience, and take the time to demonstrate this understanding in your approach, it is hard to see how you can go wrong - you will already be so far ahead of the Old School herd and on your way to earning respect and getting the attention of these bloggers.

This might seem like more work, and perhaps you will feel less productive in taking this approach.  But in the long run you will actually achieve better results and are less likely to run into blow back and public humiliation.

Bonfire of the Merger Vanities

(Fair and balanced in love and war)

The drama and anticlimactic ending of Microsoft's play for Yahoo made me realize how much I love to read about mergers.  Not so much for the news, but for stories that the media loves to tell about the personalities, companies and industries involved.

Let's face it, if it were just about the uncolored dry facts, you'd see a few news items around the major milestones of the deals.

Instead we see tons of commentary, analysis and sweeping narratives.  The personalities involved are often painted as larger than life, with Shakespearean brush strokes.

You see some of the same types of coverage when the media starts a war (or as a I am sure they would protest, just covers one), i.e. pits one company against another (Microsoft vs. Google).

But usually, with mergers, the narrative arc is different because there is a shorter time frame, deals don't get better with age and they either just happen or don't within some finite time frame.  Also, news about deals tends to focus more on the personalities involved.

There are of course some very important PR implications because , no matter what happens, the players will be judged and portrayed as winners or losers.

In this case, no one came out looking very good, least of all Ballmer.  He should take a page from Oracle chief Larry Ellison's book, Ellison is the master of the art of the deal.