Flack's Revenge

Splash of PR Helps Startups Swim with Sharks (and Get Funded)

My friend and fellow Windmill Networking columnist Judy Gombita wrote recently about the positive impact that reputation can have on company value. This is true for small and large companies, private and public.

But there is no better way to understand the value-building potential of good buzz and PR than to consider what it can do for tech startups - the types of companies that we work with at Fusion PR.

VCs are generally in the driver's seat when it comes to startup funding (unless you are one of those rare ones leading a hot new space that VCs are clamoring over). Most VCs are inundated with business plans. And many startups are underfunded and badly need cash to realize their dreams - whatever this might mean in terms of ownership and potential loss of control of the company. 

But what a difference when the wind of great PR is at the backs of young companies! (Sadly, It is not always easy to get founders to see this, is as many are led by techies who might not understand PR).

Norm Roesnthal, who heads Fusion Business Accelerator,, always counsels clients to allocate at least some budget for PR before approaching investors. Getting featured in even just a few of the publications investors read can help - and a major hit in top tier media can work wonders.

Awhile back I referred to crowd funding websites like RoC or Kickstarter as the new press release. These sites show the very real and direct connection between buzz and fund raising results. Good buzz gained by tapping founder social networks and through media coverage helps drive interest in crowd funding campaigns. The excitement builds as the startup nears its funding goals, driving additional media interest and coverage. And so on.

An article in the NY Times showed how good PR can tilt the balance of power from investors to startups. It shared the story of VerbalizeIt, a tech startup that went on the TV show Shark Tank to publicly pitch the investor panel - and promptly parlayed the PR boon into a better deal, thumbing their noses at the offers they received on the show.

Times Tussle Pits Tesla CEO & Fans vs. Journos

I love reading the NY TImes, and sometimes check out its Sunday Auto section.

Being a PR guy -  one with an affinity for tech and startups - I have been closely tracking the Tesla Motors story (you know, the one about the US-based manufacturer of electrical cars, that has gotten crazy amounts of funding and whose CEO - Elon Musk - previously cashed out at PayPal). There is a dealership in our local mall (yes they sell, or, more accurately, take orders in retail stores) and I have walked in and drooled over the beautiful machines.

When news broke last week about a negative review of the Tesla in the NY times - followed by Tesla Chairman & CEO Elon Musk's now infamous public rebuttal - I dug up my Sunday Times, read the review and fastened my seatbelt for a wild ride and interesting story for this blog.

Interesting, because it forces us to re-examine some commonly held assumptions about PR:

There is no Such Thing as Bad Publicity

I have never been a believer in this idea; please read the Times review, and let me know if you still do. For starters, I really got interested in the topic after seeing a thread on the NY Tech Meetup (NYTM) mailing list, which began with an email titled: Tesla will Lose this Publicity War.

The Times article describes a harrowing ride in sub zero weather by auto reviewer John Broder (I would love to have his job); and how the Tesla seemingly failed to live up to its specs in terms of distance between charges.  Ultimately, the car had to (very delicately) be hauled onto a flatbed truck, leaving the reviewer stranded.

It is hard to see how Tesla - a company that already has gotten tons of positive PR and enjoyed great buzz - benefited from the piece.

Don't Pick Fights with Those Who Buy Ink by the Barrel

I cringed when I read Musk's rebuttal; my sympathies tend to lie with tech companies, as these are my clients.  But his blog post broke a couple of basic rules of PR - the one above, sure (which I do believe in), and also the rule that says you should not find ways to prolong a crisis.

Elon Musk's rebuttal seemed thin skinned, and made the amazing charge that data pulled from the car afterwards proved that John Broder "worked very hard to force our car to stop running."

Broder responded with his own rebuttal to the Tesla blog post, as reported in Engadget.

The initial NYTM email generated dozens of responses, most of which at first seemed to line up against Tesla.  Through the list, I learned of a number of other articles about the brouhaha, in Wired, Atlantic Wire, and Slate.

The last two in particular challenged Elon Musk's claims.  It seemed clear that journalists and others were siding with the reviewer,

So Musk picked the wrong battled, prolonged a crisis,and that is the end of the story, right?  Not so fast - read on.

There are Courts of Law and Courts of Media - and they Don't Play by the Same Rules

Reporters can weigh a set of facts and write an article that influences public opinion - yet they are not constrained by the same rules as a court of law is.  However, It used to be that their words were more or less final; but not any more.

As the discussion progressed on the NYTM mailing list, many seemed to  be willing to cut Tesla some slack.

I won't get into all the ins and outs of the technical arguments made by Musk, Broder, NYTMers, other media et al.  You can read the stories and decide what you think. 

My point is, that the crowd now has a voice, and many ways to be heard.

One of the last NYTM emails I saw cited a Silicon Beat article about how some Tesla owners have joined forces to recreate John Broder's now infamous road trip.  The article said:

Tesla’s devout fans have suggested that “broder” become a verb, as in “to purposely or with willful ignorance run down the battery pack of an electric vehicle to the point that it no longer moves the vehicle.”

Oh, yea - you can follow their progress on Twitter: @teslaroadtrip progress

So, I ask - did Elon Musk break some basic rules of PR - or are he and Tesla fans tapping some of the new ruies?  Was Musk's rebuttal s shrewd defense of the Tesla brand?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.siliconbeat.com/2013/02/15/convoy-of-model-s-owners-to-re-create-john-broders-infamous-teslaroadtrip/

So, How did Lance Armstrong do? Was it a good PR Move?

It was one of the world's worst kept secrets: Lance Armstrong's decision to tell all on Oprah. The media widely covered this leading up to the interviews, and speculated about motives, what would be revealed, etc.

I thought t that I would try to find out from other people in the PR field whether they thought that Lance's decision to tell his story in this manner was a good PR move. So, last week, before the interviews aired, I conducted a survey. My question was simply this - forgetting for a moment about what you think about Lance as a person and disgraced sport figure - was he taking the right steps to turn around his image?

Here are some of the answers that I got when I started an email thread:

• Is waiting until you get an exclusive with Oprah to admit to years of doping a PR move? Yes. A better one was just admitting it when you actually got caught.
• My 2 cents: Lance Armstrong’s image is beyond repair. There is no amount of PR or Oprah interviews that can rehab him. He cheated and lied to the public and the government for personal gain.
• Might be worthwhile to look into some of the Tiger Woods controversy awhile back for comparison. Slightly different as one is infidelity vs. doping and one was kicked out of the sport, the other not. But he also did the Oprah apology that bombed. Tiger still suffers in the public eye for his indiscretions, but as far as an athlete goes you cannot deny he changed the game of golf. Something to think about…
• It’s different though – Tiger is still respected as a once-great athlete because his indiscretions had nothing to do with his athletic performance. But Lance Armstrong’s entire legacy is now in doubt. He cheated. No one was inducted into the baseball hall of fame this year because of drug issues for all potentials. That says something about how the public and the professional sports industry feels about cheaters -- cheating in sports, not cheating on their wives.

One of my friends who is in PR said that it was the right PR move, but that Lance has a long road back to repairing his image. Since it seems that Lance was angling for something here, my feeling is that most people would not care much about his belated tell all - he obviously has an ulterior motive, i.e. to get back into competitive sports. If you really want to burnish your image, just do the right thing and then go away for awhile.

The interviews are now over, of course. I saw the first one and did not think he did too badly. Some also expressed said that he did as well as could be expected. Others said that he was not contrite enough; one opined that Lance is a sociopath.

I enjoyed the SNL segment on this and thought I would share it - I thought Jason Sudeikis did a brilliant job as Lance.

Tempt - and then Reject - Your Best Customers: The Great New Way to Build Brand

If I told you there was a way to build your brand by tempting - and then rejecting - more customers; would you believe me?

The very idea might be foreign to tech marketers, but it is a strategy that seems to have worked well in higher education, according to an article in the WSJ. The Journal story caught my attention because I saw it right after a friend told me about the status of his son's college applications (my younger daughter is graduating from high school this year and also going though the process now).

He was surprised that his son's early action application was deferred by Northeastern University; the kid had high grades and test scores, etc., and should have been a shoo in. Here's an excerpt from the article:

In the past six years, Northeastern University has vaulted 42 spots in the powerful U.S. News & World Report college rankings. And not merely because it added programs, hired superstar faculty or built fancy facilities. The private school in Boston also has made an all-out effort to increase the number of applicants for admission, dispatching its 30-person recruiting staff across the country and sending hundreds of thousands of personalized letters and emails to high-school students. It persuaded more than 44,000 students to apply for one of the 2,800 spots in its fall 2012 freshman class—up from about 30,000 in 2007—a move that boosted the school's selectivity, illustrating a growing trend in college marketing.

The article discussed methods that Northeastern and other schools are using to boost reputation and ranking, draw better students and increase donations; these include advanced target marketing techniques, and influencing the influencers (e.g. college guidance counselors).

There might not seem to be many takeaways for tech marketing, e.g.tech companies won't generally limit availability of product. Yet the tech world has its various ranking systems and influencers. You can rest assured that other companies, perhaps right in your space are applying forward thinking strategies for target marketing, influencing influencers, moving up in rankings and brand perception - what are you doing to move the needle for YOUR company or brand?

94 Words, Botched Media Opp, Nary a PR Person in Sight

Most of us have heard about those 94 words: the now infamous talking points that Susan Rice used to explain what happened in the Benghazi tragedy. On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal featured a blow-by-blow account of how a CIA assessment that was at first brutally frank and accurate got watered down, as it bounced around the powers that be like a pinball. The article reported the chain of events, and how public statements evolved, culminating in Rice's appearance on the Sunday morning political talk shows.

Here is an excerpt:

Behind the political showdown over the deadly U.S. consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya, are a few dozen heavily edited words.

The 94-word intelligence summary emerged from a daylong email debate between more than two dozen intelligence officials, in which they contested and whittled the available evidence into a bland summary with no reference to al Qaeda, an assessment the administration now acknowledges was wide of the mark.

Now famous as "the talking points," the 94 words were used by United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice on Sunday talk shows days after the attack.  A detailed examination of how U.S. assessments were turned into the talking points reveals a highly cautious, bureaucratic process that had the effect of watering down the U.S.'s own intelligence.

The unfortunate result of this situation is that Rice's account - which seems to be the one that is most often cited - provided inaccurate information to the public and gave fodder to Republicans and Romney campaign.

I don't know if Susan Rice sought or got advice from a PR professional before going on TV and sharing the "party line" version of events; if so, this was not mentioned.

Some might see this as a good thing, that a flack wasn't brought in; but perhaps that was part of the problem.  A competent media adviser (one who had visibility into situation - but the objectivity of an outsider) would have thrown cold water on the whole ill-conceived enterprise and said "look guys this may sound good now but we will be toast if we go with this." (This is not to let Susan Rice off the hook, she made the statement, and that is where the buck should stop; the article reports that she did not believe she had clearance to improvise around the script).

Unfortunately, some just see PR as people who Spam reporters to get clients in the press (see my last post, which shares an example of this distorted view). Media training and strategy are also part of the job; good PR pros have the guts to stare down a tough situation and give their best advice despite the torpedoes.

Did you know that it is an important role for the profession? If you are in PR, are you that kind of advisor?

Tech Media Thrashes About - and Blames PR, a Convenient Target

My friend and former colleague Suzanne McGee called my attention to a story, the kind of which has become sadly familiar. John Biggs wrote on TechCrunch about Churn:The Problem of the New Tech Journalism.. John writes:

We post a lot of things for two reasons. First, lots of posts is the low-hanging fruit in the orchard of traffic.. It’s that simple... If that sounds mercenary, then you, the readers, are the hiring generals... If we didn’t have to shovel this stuff into your constantly grinding maw we’d have a lot more time to write 4,000-word reviews of Atheros chipsets. The second reason we post so much and so quickly is because we’re constantly involved in a conversation. It’s a conversation with tipsters, with readers, with creators, with makers, and, sadly, PR peoplle.

Somehow, amidst the many excellent points he makes about the field of tech journalism, and the factors that explain its frenetic pace, John singles out PR for special attention (well, he also blames the hapless reader, and our "grinding maws").  John adds:

The answer, as far as I see it, is simple: avoid PR and PR newswires and keep the conversation going naturally.

There are several things to note here. First of all, it seems that PR has become an all-too-convenient target - bad behavior by some in the profession seems to give many in the media carte blanche to trash the entire field. I have written about this, here is one of my more recent stories: Absurd to Call Samsung Customer service Isssue a Tech PR Fail.

However, we are now, in growing numbers, quite vocally defending ourselves - the comments section for the Biggs article seems to be dominated by PR and many take issue with the story, kudos to John and TechCrunch for letting these stand.

The second is that the article reflects the overheated nature of tech media. I wrote about this too, see my post about sniping between the tech blogs. Also, some may have seen the Twitter trash talking between Kara Swisher of AllThingsD and Alexia Tsotsis, also of TechCrunch yesterday, it got quite heated.

Let's all take a few deep breaths, can't we all just get along?  Tech coverage is important, but let's face they are not writing about cures for world hunger. Even John admits: "I can’t say we’re reporting on the cure for cancer or sending in dispatches from the Eastern Front..."

To add a little gallows humor, I include a video of recent SNL skit, which skewers tech bloggers, not to insult or trivialize tech journalism (after all my livelihood depends to a large extent on tech media, and the trust and good will that we establish with journalists) but to implore us all to keep things in proper perspective, lighten up (and, yea okay and let's face it, it is a pretty funny and on-target routine).

Google to SMBs: Don't rely on PPC, use Search, Social and PR for Top Results

SMBs that have wanted to improve results through online marketing have often turned to Google and AdWords pay-per-click (PPC) campaigns.

There is no question that shrewdly planned PPC campaigns generate results and hard ROI. However, the growing popularity of this method means that there is more competition for the keywords; the most coveted ones get more bids, which increases costs, and makes it harder to earn a return on PPC search engine marketing campaigns.

The New York Times wrote about this in its Small Business column: Small Players Seek an Alternative to the Expense of PPC.. It discussed the rise of SEO, i.e. a technique that improves organic search results to drive traffic, and social media marketing.

Of the latter, the article explained how many SMBs are jumping into blogging - and some are using platforms such as HubSpot to improve results. Ironically, Google is an investor in HubSpot, funny, because, as the article says:

Even though Google is one of its investors, HubSpot cut back on its own pay-per-click expenditures after realizing that organic searches were accounting for 60 percent more traffic than paid searches. “Most of our paid efforts shifted to platforms like LinkedIn, where we could target for the right kinds of job titles in line with our target customer profiles,” said Dan Slagen, who is in charge of advertising at HubSpot.

The story also quoted Google as recommending multiple strategies, anchored by relevance to customers, and that span social media and PR.

Google does not dispute the accounts of owners like Mr. Udell [someone who scaled back PPC spending]. A Google spokesman released a statement saying that small businesses can compete by making their ads more relevant to consumers and that they should use multiple strategies to pursue customers: “search, social media, earned media and more.”

Is a Town Hall Debate an Example of Content Marketing? One Authority Says "Yes"

My monthly column on Windmill Networking, which went live today, focuses on content marketing in politics - and the lessons that we can learn and apply.

Despite its title is ("Hail to the Content Chief"), the article was intentionally non-partisan.  However, this is my personal blog, and I feel freer here to express my support for Obama, and take great pleasure in the timing of this post, which follows his outstanding performance in the second presidential debate.

Perhaps I should have alluded to debates in my content marketing column.  I would not normally consider events such as these to be an example.  However one top authority apparently does.  The Content Marketing Playbook, by Junta 42 (now Content Marketing Institute, or CMI) lists executive round tables as a type of content marketing.

OK, not exactly a town hall debate, but not too far removed.  I supposed speeches and other types of debates fit the bill too.

Attention Story Shoppers: Only 6 Pitching Days Left (NY Times Deconstructs Tech PR in Light of Apple News)

Our clients generally have very busy PR and marketing schedules. 

To get everything in, we try not to let external events dictate the pace. There are some obvious exceptions; you don't want to announce news on a major holiday, or shortly before or after one. If there is a major industry event, such as a trade show, and you or your client are not there, why compete with the noise of other announcements?

Then, there are the planned and unplanned events and news outside of tech that can steal the thunder from your announcement; You need to use good common sense and look at each situation, in general we are an aggressive shop and don't like to stand down if we don't have to (see my post Hypocrisy Rampant in "When not to Pitch a Story").

To use a real example, if you follow the world of tech or use an iPhone, you by now probably know that next week - September 12, to be exact - is when Apple is expected to announce iPhone 5 details.

The New YorkTimes covered how other vendors of consumer tech have adjusted their PR schedules in light of Apple, which does tend to suck the air out of all other coverage (see Rivals Jostle for Spotlight... and excerpts below).

Back when Apple was an underdog, it had an easier time shrouding its product announcements in mystery and perhaps catching its competitors off guard. But now technology companies are watching every one of Apple’s moves — and scrambling to get out in front of them.

Several major tech companies are cramming product announcements into this holiday-shortened workweek...

In past years it was common for technology companies to deliver product news at trade shows like the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Now some major companies have scaled back their presence at those conventions and followed Apple’s lead in running their own elaborate news conferences, hoping to grab the news media’s undivided attention.

Fall product introductions are important to companies seeking to generate excitement ahead of the holiday shopping season. The fall has become especially jam-packed with news in recent years as both the number of companies involved and their product lines have grown, with the addition of players like Amazon and its Kindle products as well as all the companies building mobile devices based on Google’s Android operating system.

Sniping Between Major Tech Blogs Reveals Intensely Competitive Nature of Tech News

A series of blog posts and comments revealed how intensely competitive, and sometimes deeply personal the world of tech news can be. It started out as a rant about broken embargoes, and devolved into trash talking between players from two major tech blogs.

Ryan Lawler, a TechCrunch blogger wrote this piece, which said that an unnamed blog violated an embargo, causing him some angst and jeopardizing his plans to cover the same news.  He apparently took some heat for this post and followed it up with this mea culpa on his own blog: Exclusive - Area blogger Wishes He Had Done Some Things Differently.

I have written about the press embargo (see this post for a definition, and some context).  I've had some fun with the topic, after all, this is tech news, not stories about global economic concerns, or ending war or world hunger (it used to be amusing to watch Michael Arrington get so exercised about them when he was running TechCrunch, before the AOL acquisition.  Many incorrectly assumed that what he said back then - basically, that TechCrunch will not do embargoes - is still true; it isn't)

Yet, I should not (and don't) take the topic too lightly; our clients rely on our ability to get news out, in a way that satisfies their goals and at the same time helps journalists. The embargo is an important tool in our arsenal.

You can get a sense of the stakes, and how strongly the bloggers feel by reading the comments section of the post that started the whole thing, which shows trash talking between Lawler and GigaOm editor Tom Krazit (as it turns out Lawler used to work for GigaOm - the other blog involved, which was not named at first; this might explain why the exchange seems personal).

The posts give you a glimpse, as Lawler says, into how the tech news "sausage is made."