Flack's Revenge

PR's Evolving Role

Some have suggested that the emergence of social media means that communications intermediaries like journalists and PR professionals are no longer needed.

After all, the thinking goes, when people and companies can easily launch their own soapboxes via blogs, micro-blogs and social networks, why turn to PR and the media to help get the word out?

 

I would argue that now more than ever you need communications professionals - especially the ones who understand the changing communications and influencer landscapes and can help you navigate it, craft an attention-getting story and get your message out amidst an increasingly noisy environment.

 

DBMS and BI guru Curt Monash has written some very detailed posts about the state of media on his Text Technologies blog (see Where I think the Information Eco-system is Headed and The Grand Discussion on the Future of Journalism).  His posts are great reads, you should check them out.

There are many excellent links referenced, including a number that discuss implications for tech media and tech PR.  One link in particular that drew my attention describes what is happening in the field of science journalism. 

The Nature article Science Journalism: Supplanting the old Media describes the impact of social media on the field of science reporting.  It does this by capturing the perspective and citing the career trajectory of Ars Technica science blogger John Timmer:

Timmer’s tale is emblematic of a shift in the way science meets the media. In part because of a generalized downturn, especially in newspaper revenues, the traditional media are shedding full-time science journalists along with various other specialist and indeed generalist reporters.

The article goes on to describe a corresponding rise in the need for PR content:

At the same time, [traditional journalists] rely heavily on the public-relations departments of scientific organizations.  As newspapers employ fewer people with science-writing backgrounds these press offices are employing more.

PR's role is evolving, creating opportunities for those who stay on the cutting edge and deliver value to their clients amidst a changing communications arena.

A Sea Change in PR

It seems to me we have crossed a critical threshold in the PR profession.

I first thought of this a couple of weeks ago while planning for an upcoming presentation to C-level executives on social media.  My co-presenter Jay Krall of Cision pointed out to me that for this type of audience we do not have to get as much into the nitty gritty of the tech as we would, say, at a PRSA meeting.  The implication was that the PR audiences he has been addressing are pretty sharp and up on this stuff.

You can see signs of this elsewhere. PR bloggers abound (see Brendan Cooper's Top 100 list), and we are on Twitter in growing numbers

As I have blogged, the profession as a whole had been slow on the social media uptake but it looks like this is changing.

There is a backlash, and although complaints about pervasiveness (and sometimes cluelessness) of PR people in social media hurts, it is good to see we are trying.  There will always be some conflict at the boundaries of change, it is great to see PR folks (like many others) jumping in full force and  attempting to get their arms around the still relatively new way of communicating.

It shows we are participating in social media in growing numbers even though our missives sometimes strike a sour note and do not have the desired effect.

And, too bad, really, for those who are complaining.  Of course, I wish we would get it right and not tick anybody off.  But do the flamers (or does anyone) have a monopoly on social media? Are they above self promotion and in fact not using the very same tools to build their own brands (and those of friends and associates) too?

I'll continue next week with more about how the profession has been changing in response to the changing media landscape.

Everything I know about Media Relations I learned in Sales

PR News has published my article Mastering the Inner Game of PR.

This article discusses the psychology of the media relations pitch.  It draws from lessons I learned in sales about the importance of enthusiasm and efficient work routines.  It covers the art of negotiation and how mental toughness and confidence can help you meet your media goals.

Please take a look, I hope you find it to be informative and helpful.

PR Gets Front Page WSJ Treatment: Deconstructing Bernanke PR Push

As readers of this blog know, I like to help educate about the PR profession and defend it when necessary.   The field of work is often misunderstood and mistrusted (as some have said "PR needs better PR").

My radar goes up when I see absent-minded slights on the profession.  So I thought I'd chime in about a WSJ story that ran yesterday.

The good news is that PR gets front page treatment, in the article "Bernanke's PR Push Rewrites fed Script."  The bad news: in the mix the practice is once again cast in a somewhat of a sinister and cynical light.

I have to admit I can be reactive, reading the article quickly I first thought that it was more about self-promotion and less about what anyone who works in the field likely would agree has anything to do with the profession.

The reporter writes:

Ben Bernanke became the Federal Reserve chairman intent on making the central bank less personality driven than it was under Alan  Greenspan and Paul Volcker.  But as he confronts an economic crisis...  Mr. Bernanke is waging a public-relations offensive that casts him in the starring role.

I do try to be fair and took the time to read through the entire article again more carefully.  The first sign of trouble was right there in the lede, where the reporter seemed to equate PR with hogging the limelight and also implies that there is some kind of organized public relations campaign behind Bernanke's actions.  To many, and the way it is often portrayed, "waging a PR offensive" sounds subversive and conspiratorial.

The article goes on to list Bernanke's efforts to get out in public, educate and generate a sense of optimism.  It relates a recent "101" session Bernanke gave at a college "with television cameras" rolling, his CBS 60 minutes gig and a February appearance at the National Press Club in Washington.  The reporter pointed out that bank officials are discussing "whether to hold regular news conferences."

Clearly, Bernanke is taking his efforts to the media and in some cases directly to the public.  Perhaps he feels he has some explaining to do.  As the article points out:

...the Fed is coming under often blistering attack from Congress and its responses to the crisis have been met with confusion by the public

The article does in my opinion do a very effective job of analyzing of Bernanke's communications style, explaining how this differs from predecessors, calling out gaffes and exploring the ins and outs of his various communications moves.  It points out the careful line a fed chairman must walk, and the great responsibility to communicate without unduly influencing markets.

Clearly the job comes with a high profile and Bernanke does (I feel) have an obligation to (albeit carefully) get out there, educate and be somewhat of a cheerleader.  Greenspan may well have had more of a low key, cryptic style but these are different times.

It might seem like a quibble, but my issue is with the article's implication that there is some kind of organized PR campaign and that this should be viewed as big news and something deserving of a gimlet eye.

Do Marketers Feel Your Pain?

I have blogged about the need for marketers to adjust their messages and approaches based on the sorry state of the economy.

Do I say this because I think we should wallow in depressing topics and remind people of how bad things are?  Certainly not.  Do we want to feed into a cycle of fear and panic, as some say the major news organizations are doing?

No, I am not saying that at all.  After all, marketing, especially advertising, is to a large degree about escapism and feeding into hopes and dreams for a better way.

But it is difficult to connect with people if you are indifferent to their needs and experiences.  Messages and tactics that are tone deaf to the pain people are going through can turn them off and show that you don't care.

Above and beyond that, there are a variety of drivers behind buying behavior and, as conditions change, you may need to find different levers.  Clearly, buying for status and performance - bling for bling's sake - has taken somewhat of a hiatus.  See my post, which relates to how the tone has changed in tech PR.

Having said all this, I thought I'd do a reality check to see if PR folks are adjusting the language in their press releases to reflect the realities of the day.  I attempted to investigate the question through a series of searches as described below (I know the exercise might not be rigorously scientific but I thought it might shed some light and make for an interesting post).

I ran two searches using Factiva, across the press release wires from yesterday to find out how many mentioned "economy" or "economic," and compared this with the results using the same search terms for the second Tuesday in April 2006 (4/1//2006) - a time well in advance of the current mess.

I also searched for occurrences of the terms "cost effective" OR "low cost" OR value OR ROI to compare numbers for the same days.  I tracked the total number of releases for each day to account for differences in volumes, and factored this in by stating the numbers as percentages.

Here are the results - the upshot is I think we have some work to do.

	4/11/2006	4/14/2009
PRs mentioning value	26%	30%
PRs mentioning economy	12%	19%

 

Like A Boss

My friends and family sometimes ask what it is like to be a boss.

Watch this video to find out. It ran on SNL last week (Andy Samberg is a freakin' genius).

Caution: not for the faint hearted

Talking Clients Down From the Ledge

I have spent much of my time this week and last in airports, and thus have not been able to get to this blog until today.   One topic I wanted to chime in on relates in equal parts to a client I visited on this latest round of travels and an article that ran in the WSJ last Thursday.

My CEO and I traveled to meet the client's team and stage a kind of PR intervention to calm them down after they saw some new business metrics were way off.

The client had wanted to respond to the poor numbers by doing the marketing equivalent of throwing paint against the wall.  They were considering some ill-advised advertising campaigns and cutting back on PR.

Who is to say why their numbers were off?  It is easy to envision a cycle of panic that begins when some sales prospects do not respond as hoped to a solicitation because they have seen some depressing headlines about the economy.  Or, the poor results could indeed be a symptom of deeper problems.

My CEO and I talked the clients down off the ledge and advised them to not lose their heads and go off in some crazy new directions.  We told them that the best driver of new business is a strong and well recognized brand, and reminded them of the progress we had achieved, and of the ways that PR can support both long term branding and short term new business goals.  Acknowledging the possible threat to the business, we discussed a seven day plan of action that should provide immediate returns in supporting demand generation (see my earlier post Turning PR into a Sales Lead Generating Machine).

In short, we effectively calmed the clients down and advised them not to forget everything they new about PR and marketing.  The meeting left them with a better sense of how we can work together to address short and long term business needs.

Second, it seems that economy is driving renewed interest in the idea of pay for performance in the realm of professional services (including PR and marketing) as reported in an article in the WSJ Firms Try Alternative to Hourly Fees.

I take issue with the reporter's seemingly off hand comment about "pricey retainers and uncertain results of traditional public relations" when comparing hourly fee-based arrangements with alternatives such as pay for performance.

Tell me, please, which marketing tactics offer guaranteed results?  And PR, which typically does tie back to an hourly fee (or wage) has been proven to deliver outsized returns when compared with other forms of marketing.

True, with pay for performance you do not pay until you get the result.  But coverage (typically the measure used) does not guaranty sales, and a short term focus on coverage to drive sales could come at the expense of taking the time needed to cultivate the brand and execute effective strategies over the long haul.

In other aspects, the article was on target and I applaud those who are introducing innovative billing models, especially the ones that combine elements of hourly or minimum fixed fees and performance incentives.

I do think PR and other marketers need to do a better job of proving the value they deliver.   If the metrics can be tied back to results that really are proven, like sales conversions, all the better.

Every Number Tells a Story: From Bits, Bytes, Speeds and Feeds to Othello

Much has been written about the sorry state of the press release, especially when it comes to tech PR.   Just earlier this week CIO Magazine blogger Thomas Wailgum cited high tech vendor press release as number 6 on his list of  Ten Things he Hates about Tech.  (I am thinking of doing a post "the Top Ten things I hate about Top Lists"... then again, he wrote it, I read it, linked to it and you may well be reading it now so I suppose they work).

Whether the number is ten or a trillion, or the units are petaflops or a terabytes, one of the challenges we face in tech PR is the ability to tell a good story.   This is at least in part due to the fact that the stories are often built on performance numbers or "specs".   And all too often we throw numbers around without having any idea of what they really mean.

In this era of seemingly weekly trillion dollar bailouts, the public is being forced to digest large numbers and it is sometimes hard to have any real connection with them: to know what they mean and how to compare them.  This is especially true in tech, where it is not only numbers but the units of measurement that need to be understood; often in obscure areas that are far outside the experiences of any PR person who does not use the end product or has not labored on the front lines of tech engineering.

The best advice I can give (and what I tell my teams) is that you cannot run from the numbers but need to take the time to get your arms around them.   This means not just aping lines and taking what the client hands you in terms of specs, but understanding what the common benchmarks, standards and units of measurement are.

Try to get a sense of how people - reporters, analysts and other industry folks - measure and compare specs and performance in your specific area of tech.   What is really considered to be breakthrough and what is par for the course?

Then, take a step back, compare this information with what your client claims, and do your best to keep the client honest.   Be cognizant of the numbers you are using and wrap them into your client's story with an appreciation for what they really mean.

I saw a couple of articles on related areas that are worth mentioning.

In The Biggest of Puzzles Bought Down to Size, which ran in the NY Times Science section yesterday, Natalie Angier reports how to use the back of the proverbial envelope to comprehend large numbers and quickly calculate imponderables like how many miles Americans travel on the road each year or the total volume of human blood in the global population  As the article states:

It’s really just critical thinking, breaking down seemingly complicated problems into simpler problems,” said John A. Adam, a professor of mathematics at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va... To further enhance one’s quantitative prowess, Dr. Adam suggests translating amorphous figures into familiar terms. A million seconds, for example, is about 10 days, while a billion seconds amounts to some 32 years.

A few weeks ago WSJ writer Carl Bialik (The Numbers Guys, according to his column heading) wrote a story about deceptive numbers in advertiser claims in his article In Ads, 1 out of 5 claims Is Bogus