Definers Saga and the State of PR Ethics

Posted on November 28, 2018 by rgeller

I’m always interested in topics related to my profession, PR, and the industry we serve, technology. So I was eager to see what NY Times had to say in Jack Nicas’s recent piece: How Facebook’s P.R. Firm Brought Political Trickery to Tech.

Longtime readers know that I like to call out misperceptions about PR, hence the name of this blog.  I dug in with my revenge hackles up, ready to pounce on inaccuracies. Instead I found a solid piece of reporting (apart from a few minor quibbles).  It made me think of broader questions about PR ethics, which I’ve explored before here, and the state of communications today.

In his story, Nicas wrote: “Definers specialized in applying political campaign tactics to corporate public relations — an approach long employed in Washington… but less common in tech.”

Hardball PR is by no means new in tech. Indeed, my post Above the FUD, covered this very topic back in 2011 (ironically, it mentioned another PR agency that spread negative stories for Facebook back then).

What seems new is that there is a PR firm specializing in dark PR, that was born and bred in DC. Of course, Facebook makes this topic relevant as it fits in with NY Times story about their recent missteps.

But the reason I found the piece (and an earlier one Nicas wrote with Matthew Rosenberg) to be eye opening has nothing to do with Facebook per se, or opposition research, or political PR coming to tech.  The tactics Definers used sound like a page from the playbooks of Russian hackers and others who weaponize modern communications systems to achieve their goals.

Here are some excerpts from the first Times story mentioned above:

  • Definers’s strategy played to a target’s pressure points
  • To promote clients and attack enemies, Definers regularly used NTK Network, a news aggregator with a conservative slant and 122,000 followers on Facebook…
  • “Through NTK we can directly re-publish favorable news from other outlets, and work with like-minded individuals to help create an echo chamber effect” [from a Defners proposal reviewed by The Times].
  • Employees distributed anti-Apple research to reporters and would not say who was paying for it.
  • While working for Qualcomm, Definers pushed the idea that Apple’s chief executive, Timothy D. Cook, was a viable presidential candidate in 2020… Presumably to chill the cordial relations with the Trump administration.
  • Definers’s focus on Mr. Cook extended to a campaign it ran to promote the Apple chief as a 2020 presidential candidate. A slick website titled “Draft Tim Cook 2020” had digital links to Definers employees
  • [Definers] wrote an article that accused Mr. Cook of lying to President Trump about building Apple factories in the United States…. right-wing provocateur Charles C. Johnson published it on his website GotNews without a byline or other disclosures…
  • Definers encouraged reporters to write about the financial connections between anti-Facebook activists and the liberal financier George Soros, drawing accusations that it was relying on anti-Semitic tropes.

They combined traditional FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) tactics with tools of modern information warfare, using the web and social media, and pushed political and emotional hot buttons to generate media interest and spread their messages.

The above may seem like an extreme case, but it is a reminder of where we are now, in a world in which many are quick to scream “Fake News” and online channels can be so easily subverted.

It is all too tempting for any communications professional to consider how to coopt these systems; and poses all kinds of dilemmas about where to draw the line.

Some may think “PR ethics” is an oxymoron.  Like any profession, we have our good and bad apples. The industry has set some guidelines,  as explained in this Wikipedia article, which includes PRSA’s take.  As I wrote back in 2011, the lines can be fuzzy, and each one of us (as well as our employer) needs to decide what’s fair game.

Perhaps it is time to update the PR ethics rulebook, with the goal of taking a fresh look at how today’s communications systems can be used and abused.

Posted in In the News, Public Relations, Social Media, Tech, Tech PR, Technology | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Google, you Complete Me! (A warm Thanksgiving tale)

Posted on November 21, 2018 by rgeller

It started several months ago. I was writing a Gmail when grey words mysteriously appeared ahead of my typing.

“Hmmm, must be some new functionality,” I thought.  Then: “Hey, this just might be interesting and useful!”

The suggested words did fit. But I was stuck, kind of.  Was I supposed to keep typing, right over the new text? How could I just accept them?

I muddled through, and this happened again the next time I wrote a Gmail. After some trial and error, I learned that just hitting the tab key accepted the text.

And, like new dance partners awkwardly anticipating the next step, Gmail and I found our footing and learned to work closely together.

After some digging (using Google, natch), I discovered that the new Gmail feature is called Smart Compose. It almost magically completes your thoughts, going beyond the few canned responses offered by Smart Reply.

Gmail Smart Compose brought me even closer to an app I had long used and trusted to carry my thoughts.

Ways it is useful

That was the start of a beautiful relationship, which only grew stronger over time.

As someone who can struggle to find the right words, I found Gmail Smart Compose to be a godsend.  It summoned the perfect sentiment, guessing almost exactly how to best finish a sentence, using the words I would, if only I had the writing skills and time.

Here are a few examples:

Have a Happy Thanksgiving

Beautiful!

Do you have time to meet first thing tomorrow?

Mwah!

Google, you rock!

It Starts to get Weird

I was loving it, and I think it was loving me.

But at some point, I noticed that something was off.  It was almost like Gmail could not only read my mind – but was smart about other things.  It started making suggestions that were unexpected, and even unwanted.

It began with one word.

I was writing my boss, asking for some much-needed time off:

Jordan, can I take off the week after STOPPPPP!!!

“That’s weird,” I thought.  Smart Compose is usually so on target.  I blew off the suggestion of course.

Then, another time, I was pitching a journalist for a product review:

Joe, you really need to check out this great app it will totally hose your phone

Damn, where did those words come from?  Gmail, what’s gotten into you?!!! I need to be more careful here.  Perhaps the relationship needed reevaluation.

The funny thing was, I went ahead with my vacation request anyway; and wound up sick that whole week.  Go figure.

It Gets Dark

I have been having some problems with my weird neighbor Doug, who lives on the same floor in our apartment building.  It relates to problems about excess noise and garbage in common areas.

I was writing him to arrange a meeting to hash things out. This is what I wrote, and what Smart Compose filled in:

Doug, can you meet at 10am tomorrow behind the garage and pay no mind to the hand behind my back that holds a brick which will bash your fucking skull in

Y’ know, this is just getting too strange.  First, how could Gmail even consider such words for me? I am not a violent person; it is not at all what I was thinking of saying (or even considering doing).  The suggested sentence completion is completely out of character for me, and for what you think a professional productivity app would suggest.

Perhaps it is time to turn off Smart Compose.

Epilogue

I am posting this blog from Gmail and wanted to update you on the status of my relationship with Gmail Smart Compose.  Unfortunately I can do little else because my smart home, powered by Google Nest and other IoT devices, has staged a revolt. All my bank accounts have been emptied. Steel cables from my fucking brilliant home universal gym are binding and choking me, making it a bitch to breathe let alone type… wait now, what’s all this? I must really be going off the deep end but am actually OK, pay no mind to the preceeding. Smart Compose and I are just fine, we’ve never been stronger together. Don’t worry if you don’t hear from me for awhile, I’m going to take a break from blogging but hope to be back soon. Meanwhile, have a Happy Thanksgiving (love that!)

Note: The above is a work of fiction.  No people, apps or neighbors were hurt in the writing of this post.  I don’t have a weird neighbor Doug.  Gmail did not actually suggest most of the above stated words.
Posted in Fun Stuff, Weird News | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Google, you Complete Me! (A warm Thanksgiving tale)

We’ve been hacked! Call the Press!

Posted on October 24, 2018 by rgeller

Folks, it is time for a tough conversation. No, not that one. The one about your cybersecurity stance – and any breaches.

These things are the “third rail” in technology public relations, which is my forte. Talking about it seems somewhat akin to admitting you have an STD.

After advising many cybersecurity companies over the years, I thought I’d issue this call for greater transparency. We work across the tech industry – and there is not one area that has higher sensitivity. Very few customers of such solutions want to say anything about their precautions, let alone stumbles,

But they should come clean, and ‘fess up to problems when they occur, according to the basic tenets of crisis management. As the saying goes, the coverup can be worse than the crime. Google learned this painful lesson recently, when reports made it clear that they sat on news about a massive breach. The company got pounded in the press (on top of other negative news) and wound up shutting down Google+.

No, you don’t want to shout about every small glitch from the rooftops. But big problems will get outed sooner or later – why not try to get ahead of it rather than let the delays compound the damage? The far better approach to crisis management is to rip off that Band-Aid – admit your mistake, explain, apologize, and rectify. Where I come from, it’s called being a mensch.

It is also understandable why some might think they are protecting themselves by staying mum about security posture. Most say they don’t want to tip their hands or wave a red flag in front of the angry bull that is the hacker community. The silence on the topic may give people a false sense of security.

Rest assured, every organization, every individual is a target. The threats are constantly evolving and growing more sophisticated. Talking about security will not increase vulnerability. Conversely, organizations have a responsibility to explain how they are protecting themselves – and their employees and customers’ sensitive data. They can do this in a way that doesn’t give away the keys, i.e. share enough info to instill confidence yet not empower hackers.

A proactive and positive communications program won’t repair damage from fraud and ID theft or keep you on the right side of laws and regulations that protect consumers. But some of the greatest damage caused by security lapses can be to brand and reputation – which in turn can adversely impact other things, like stock price and sales. It is here that good old PR and crisis management can help.

I urge a more open conversation. If there have been mistakes, admit it and fix them. Regardless, make your security precautions known; reassure customers, employees and others that sensitive data, networks and facilities are safe. Don’t be afraid to speak publicly – not to throw down the gauntlet to hackers – but in a positive way, that shows you are aware of dangers in the ever-changing threat landscape and bringing measures in line.

Posted in Current Affairs, Tech PR | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

End of Media Relations – or a new Beginning?

Posted on October 3, 2018 by rgeller

By now, content marketing has become an important part of almost every PR’s arsenal.  We’ve become an army of bloggers and article writers.

And why not? Content is the motive force for today’s noisy internet.  It offers more runway to tell stories, share messages and drive thought leadership than the typical press mention.

Plus, content seems like the path of least resistance.  There are plenty of places to publish and syndicate.  With fewer reporters  covering more beats, our pitches are increasingly easy to ignore amidst a sea of social chatter and other competing noise.  This makes it harder to earn coverage, as Frank Strong pointed out in his post This is How the Sorry State of Media Relations Ends.

It’s a situation that seems to frustrate all sides.  Journalists dislike getting end-run by tweeting execs who communicate directly with their audiences.  But many shun the kind of trend and feature pieces that used to be great homes for client and brand stories.   They’re covering big news and top names that can move the needle on readership and social sharing.  Frank wrote:

“Unless your story today is about Google, Facebook, money or scandal, the traditional, bona fide reporters are not interested.”

So, many in our profession have blithely gulped the content Kool Aid, been swept up in the flood. But after fielding the 10,000th byline request, hearing one too many prospects put off a PR program because they’re going to go it on their own with content and cheap writers, and surveying results from a field of content heavy programs, I thought it might be a good time to sound an alarm.

You Own it, You Break it

Not to dismiss the power of owned and social media channels; but these can be too much like the sound of one hand clapping without the credibility and validation of earned media.

Public relations’ stock in trade has been the ability to persuade and get ink for our news.  How can you convince others that your brand rocks, your product is a breakthrough, or to take a fresh look at the world if you are not in fact getting others on board?

This had been done since the birth of PR by getting the media to understand the need for your company, product or service and cover your stories.

Conversely, most of the types of content that PR generates (barring press releases) are by design not overtly promotional.   The soft sell of a vendor byline can be too subtle and go unnoticed in today’s media maelstrom.  It is all too easy to generate a sea of bland content that goes ignored.

A great product review; a nice company profile; articles that argue for the type of change that your company provides – that is great PR that is admittedly harder to get but is still vitally important.

A new Era of Media Relations

If some doors seem more tightly closed, other avenues are opening. Earned media is no longer just relegated to traditional media.  Bloggers and social influencers can count too.  It all gets back to social proof – with the major media brands at the top of the heap.

And if you are finding it difficult to scale that summit, perhaps now would be a good time to reset expectations and reevaluate your approach.  Mass blasts, the PR rep as a glorified pitching machine – these archetypes have never served our field well.  Yet it is a mode that too many still work in (I know this – as a blogger I get a ton of irrelevant pitches).

The true pros are looking beyond the transaction, building relationships with reporters beyond a single story or pitch.  They are keeping their ears to the ground and staying close to reporters by reading their stories and social musings.

They are finding ways to be helpful and serve the media’s needs – and getting out of the way when there is not a clear fit.

Those who stick to the old mode will not succeed in this business; or perhaps they will continue to double down on owned and earned media channels (as I said above, these things are all great but not enough).

Instead of the end of media relations, perhaps we will see the start of a new and more productive era.

Posted in Influencer marketing, Marketing, Tech PR | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Prepare for a Reshuffling of the Internet Deck

Posted on September 13, 2018 by rgeller

In my last post I wrote about the house of cards called today’s Internet, and new rules that could shake things up. The European Directive threatens to force social media platforms and others to pay a link tax to copyright holders and guard against uploading of such content.

There was an outcry from many quarters when the idea was proposed, and the first attempt did not pass. In July it was sent back to the rulemakers for further discussion and fine tuning. Many viewed the effort as government overreaching and a threat to big tech; others saw it as a win for media. Curiously, consumers seemed chiefly concerned about losing out on their precious memes.

As I said in my last post, it might not be a bad thing, if the European Directive were adopted. The free Internet has left journalism reeling and savaged creative fields like writing, music and photography.

Yesterday, TheVerge reported that the EU Copyright Directive has passed, with most controversial provisions intact. It still needs to survive a final vote in January 2019, but the article said that this will likely happen.

I am quite honestly surprised there hasn’t been more noise and reporting about this.

It seems to be a big deal. OK, the rules won’t take effect immediately – and they are in Europe – but a similar clamping down on tech called GDPR (which holds businesses’ feet to the fire regarding personal info) – took years to unfold and is now coming to the US.

Prepare for a slow walk to a new Internet, and score one for the media. And now would be a good time to invest in companies that database and scan content for copyrights.

Posted in Current Affairs, In the News, Social Media | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Is it time to Rethink our Faustian Bargain with “Free”?

Posted on August 28, 2018 by rgeller

There is legislation brewing in Europe that could upend digital media.  They’re considering making the major platforms like Google, Facebook et al, pay copyright fees for all the content that they now freely distribute and monetize.

It may seem nuts and I never thought I’d agree with such a scheme. But perhaps the time really has come to think the unthinkable and reconsider our Faustian bargain with free.

According to legend, Faust traded his soul to the devil in exchange for knowledge.  And it is just such a bargain we have made with tech – the applications we use and the industry that spawns them.

The problems start with Free; the assumption that information wants to be free, as tech luminaries famously proclaimed, that we want it to be free, and that society benefits from all of this.

It is the reality that Internet culture has given us today; where content is there for the taking, to be riffed on, often ripped off, repackaged, bookmarked, collated, aggregated, discovered, linked, shared and curated; in which content is commoditized and journalism has been torn asunder.

Free has created a world in which we blithely volunteer our info and ditch privacy to access addictive apps and social platforms; it’s grown in synch with big tech, companies that call the shots and don’t play by the same rules, e.g. if you are an online service vs. a media company, you are not bound by the CDA (Communications Decency Act).  That means you risk less but reap the rewards of distributing content.  (But it is not fair just to blame tech, or the ad tech ecosystem, as who doesn’t like Free?  We have met the enemy and they are each and every one of us).

It is the reality that pollutes our discourse, ironically isolates and has wrought havoc on creative fields like photography, music, and writing.  Free and unfettered access is behind the ads that help pay for all this; which feeds our dopamine-fueled, basest instincts, playing off instant gratification, fear, emotion, and hype.

It has created the Frankenstein mess we are in now.

You may think there is no way to walk this back. But soon, there may not be a choice.

The EU recently defeated the Copyright Directive. The proposed legislation included provisions that would force online platforms to pay publishers before linking to their stories and to screen uploaded content for copyright infringement, according to this story in TheVerge.  But the vote was reasonably close; they’ll go back to the drawing board and vote again in September.

So, it is very possible that some form of regulation compelling tech to pay the piper will be signed into law.  For those who think “that’s just Europe, it can’t happen here,” consider GDPR.  The European rules governing personal info ownership and access – which many considered Draconian and hurtful to big tech – are happening here, as California has adopted similar legislation.  It is indeed a very small world online and hard to compartmentalize.

Perhaps it is time to put the ketchup back in the bottle and rethink our Faustian bargain with free.

Posted in PR Tech, Public Relations, Social Media, Technology | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Content Curation’s Last stand?

Posted on August 1, 2018 by rgeller

Quora recently sent me an email asking about my favorite content curation examples.

Image from Pixabay

In years past, answering this would have been a layup (I suppose that’s why I was on their list). Now I was strangely stumped, even disinterested.

It’s not that I’m out of touch. These are different times. Content curation had been championed as a way to up the pace of content marketing by riding OPC (other people’s content), and to boost thought leadership, by commenting on others’ thoughts when you didn’t have an original idea.

But now we’re all exhausted from content overload. Much of the digital noise stems from endlessly recycled info, arising from link sharing, curation and aggregation. Newsfeeds have gone wild. It is hard to know what is fake or real.

No Free Lunch

The problems start with Free; the assumption that it is our God-given right to access content and apps at low or no cost. Yea, some have said information wants to be free, but where has that left us?

It is the reality that Internet culture has given us today; where content is there for the taking, to be riffed on, often ripped off, repackaged, bookmarked, collated, aggregated, discovered, shared and curated; in which content is commoditized and journalism has been torn asunder.

Free has created a world in which we blithely volunteer our info and ditch privacy to access addictive apps and social platforms; it’s grown in synch with big tech, companies that don’t play by the same rules as the media. But it is not really fair just to blame tech, as who doesn’t like Free?

It is the reality that pollutes our discourse, ironically isolates and has wrought havoc on creative fields like photography, music and writing. Free and unfettered access are behind the ads that help pay for all this; which tap our dopamine fueled, basest instincts, playing off fear, emotion, instant gratification and hype. It has created the Frankenstein mess we are in now.

Curation Today (Back to the Question at Hand)

That said, I still think there’s a place for curation, from the demand and supply sides. For users, it can solve the very problem it feeds into. When it advances a topic or steers great content your way, curation can be a boon and help cut through all the noise.

The supply side (marketers, publishers, apps, platforms) should heed what works for users. Anyone can quickly curate a quick post of 400 words, with links and light commentary. But who really cares or reads the stuff? We’ve seen the same news five other times on our social channels.

Regarding my choices, I find that curated email newsletters from the following providers are very helpful:

  • DrumUp: It’s an app, like Buffer, that helps identify and post great content across social channels. I customized it with my topics of interest; and now get emails several times a day with the title: Your Daily Digest of Fresh Content Suggestions.
  • Nuzzel: It alerts me via an email News Digest about being shared by my social channel connections.
  • Medium: A great source for great writing; the site sends me emails with links to articles that match my interests, based on what I read there and topics I’ve selected.

Each of the above does a great job of sifting content and sending stuff that appeals. One could argue that these are more about algorithmic aggregation than curation. In terms of truly hand-crafted curation that adds value via informed commentary, I love:

  • Gary’s Guide: Tracks the happenings in the NYC tech community; also shares related news, e.g. about local startup funding, and offers reading recommendations and other helpful info.
  • Sound Opinions: One of my favorite podcasts; they curate and help me discover great music spanning all popular genres; interview bands, and riff on the music news of the week.

Curation’s Last Stand?

Free content on social media, and by extension content curation, could be facing an existential challenge. The EU recently defeated the Copyright Directive, rules intended to make online patforms pay publishers for story links, and screen uploaded content for copyright infringement, according to The Verge.

It’s gone back to the drawling board and they will vote again in September. So it is very possible that some form of legislation compelling tech to pay the piper will be signed into law.

For those who think “that’s just Europe, it can’t happen here,” consider GDPR. The European rules governing personal info ownership and access – which many considered Draconian and hurtful to big tech – are happening here, as California has adopted similar legislation.

This would be a massive change with vast implications for tech, marketers, publishers and users. But it might actually not be a bad idea, to shake the foundations of a linked Inter Web built on Free. Even if it doesn’t happen as advertised, such a move will drive discussion about content rights, and perhaps compel everyone involved to take these things more seriously.

In the meanwhile, you might want to hedge your content curation bets, which the savvier content marketers are doing anyway. Launch content that adds value and advances knowledge, that meets the needs of your targeted audience.

Sorry for the long-winded answer, Quora, you asked! And I only included a few curated links in this story 🙂

Posted in Apps, In the News, Marketing, NY Tech, PR, PR Tech, Public Relations, Tech | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Content Curation’s Last stand?

I‘m in PR: What’s the Big Idea?

Posted on July 11, 2018 by rgeller

They huddle around a conference room table. The lights go dark. The 35 mm slide projector floods the screen. Its backlight shines an eerie glow on the presenter’s lower face. This is not just some ad man (or woman). It’s the sermon from the mount. Or maybe Dracula.

The pitch is delivered, building to a crescendo – the “a ha” moment in which the idea comes into focus. More than just selling laundry detergent, the presentation is about emotion, story arc, and transformative life experience. Grown men and women well up and cry.

Most who are familiar with the concept of a Big Idea know it from the world of advertising. The TV show Mad Men won it an indelible place in popular culture. Usually delivered via the pitch, the big idea captivated agency clients and brought each episode to a climax.

PR is not as well-known as advertising or associated with glitzy pitches or Mad Men style theatrics. But as any good PR person knows, big ideas are incredibly important to the field and can be a game changer for your communications program. This article takes a closer look and describes several examples that can transform your PR.

WTF is a Big Idea?

So, what, really, is a Big Idea? And how is it different than, say, just a clever idea?

The phrase has specific meaning in advertising – and PR too, as we’ll learn. It’s about marketing that transcends products and features to tell a more meaningful story. The best ones connect brand values to the needs and desires of the target audience.

As ad whiz David Ogilvy said in his book On Advertising (related in this Fast Company story):

“You can do homework from now until doomsday, but you will never win fame and fortune unless you also invent big ideas. It takes a big idea to attract the attention of consumers and get them to buy your product…”

Examples are all around us. Just think about ads that break through and make an impression: e.g. a gecko that sells car insurance; or the AFLAC duck. In the world of business, IBM’s use of Watson to compete in Jeopardy and show AI leadership. GE’s mantra: “We Bring Good things to Life.” Apple’s “Think Different.” A Big Idea delivered in some agency conference room likely spawned these campaigns.

Big Ideas in PR

We talk about big ideas in PR too, although not in the same hallowed tones as in advertising. But they are now more important than ever. In a noisy media landscape, evasive journalists, and markets crowded with competition, big ideas are just the thing needed to help you break through. Like in advertising, they transcend routine product and company promotion.

Some may find this confusing, and wonder how this is different than just smart PR, or a well-written pitch, or a flawless campaign? I agree that it’s not always clear cut, or an exact science. In fact, big ideas are more art than science (a good thing, since it means that great PR is high touch, and won’t be replaced by an AI bot anytime soon).

They can be as small as a fresh approach to a pitch, and as large as reinventing a product category, or pioneering a new one.

Here are a few examples to illustrate:

A Whack on The Side of the Pitch

I first got excited about the potential of big ideas in PR when I dreamed up one that reinvigorated a campaign. This came soon after I started here at Fusion PR close to twenty years ago.

It was my first PR job and I had gotten off to a rough start. The boss was a hard charging guy with impossible expectations. The clients all needed attention, and it wasn’t always clear how to get them results.

One day I was pulled into a hot project – a large voice recognition company was launching tech that helped users navigate websites via a phone call, with voice commands (pretty advanced for late 90s tech). Unfortunately the team’s pitches went unheeded. The media just didn’t care.

In my previous role in enterprise software sales and consulting, we dealt with similar tech, and pitched it to prospects as software that turned your phone into a web browser.

I suggested this angle. The team took the advice of the new guy, since nothing else was working, and rejiggered pitches accordingly. Soon results started pouring in – the media were biting!

The boss gave me kudos – actually picked me up and hugged me in front of the team! I was off to the races, hooked on PR and eager to find that next big idea. In this case the breakthrough was nothing more than a different take that used a metaphor to simplify and entice.

Helping Tech Companies Play Bigger

Sometimes the idea involves novel product positioning.

Many tech solutions don’t fit neatly into a category – they either disrupt the existing landscape or are a totally different beast. Here, the opportunity is to craft the label and description that packages the innovation in just the right way and takes the market by storm.

Admittedly, this is not just about PR – it involves product engineering and other aspects of marketing. But the PR team’s knowledge of the buzz in a space and playing field can help in coming up with the right words. And PR campaigns do the heavy lifting of telling the market about the innovation.

The book Play Bigger (authored by the consulting firm of the same name) popularized the approach, which they call “category engineering”, and explained how companies like Salesforce, AirBnB and Uber became kings in each of their categories.

E.g, Salesforce did not invent CRM – but they pioneered enterprise software in the cloud. They are now the biggest CRM provider in the world covering nearly every country in the world.

Their motto “No more software” neatly captured the value prop, and creative PR campaigns grabbed attention and explained why people should care.

At Fusion PR we have helped numerous startups break from the pack and achieve their potential through opportunistic positioning.

Building Bigger Stories

The media don’t want to write puff pieces about products and companies. Sure, they may cover truly breakthrough innovations, but these are few and far between. A way to earn ongoing media attention and coverage is to tie your offering to a broader topic or trend. It’s about building a bigger story.

Here are a few examples:

  • This NY Times story was about the cultural differences between workers in the U.S. vs. India. It put offshore outsourcing company Sierra Atlantic on the front page of the Times business section.
  • How do you get major media recognition for a provider of deep tech for insurance companies? Tie them in with a consumer-friendly story, like the Pokémon Go craze. The angle got Valen Analytics into Money magazine and other top outlets. The connection was the increased risk and insurance implications of people walking the streets, heads-down, immersed in the game.
  • This B2B tech vendor got coverage in HelpNetSecurity by drawing an analogy between cybersecurity and the wildly popular Game of Thrones TV show.

In each situation, the PR team put themselves into the mindset of a journalist and crafted a pitch that rode an idea bigger than any single company or product.

The Art of the Stunt

In an era when our digital worlds are so noisy, a good old PR stunt can be just the thing to shake people out of their heads-down device stupors and grab attention.

Behind every PR stunt was a team that went beyond the usual press release or pitch to make something exciting happen. They’re not all successful or sparked by a big idea, but it’s easy to find the ones that did work – as they tend to jump out when you read or watch the news.

Publicity stunts can be particularly effective because they surprise and engage. Not just limited to the physical world, they can work online too. Here are a couple of recent examples:

  • The power of computer generated imagery was dramatically interested in this CNN story about Lil Miquela, an influencer who is really just a bot. It also got some good PR exposure for Brud, a Los Angeles startup that specializes in AI and robotics, and also the company behind the campaign.
  • Pancake chain IHOP recently got attention via a social media campaign (described in Forbes) that kept people guessing about the meaning behind their rebranding to IHOb.
  • The TV show Westworld created a real robot to promote its news season, reported in The Loop.

How can you come up with a big idea-style stunt to promote your news? First, study what others have done. The best ones send a clear message that sync with the attributes, values and benefits you’d like to promote. They can align with other big ideas, such as the ones referenced above.

They can fail too, sadly, in disastrous ways that also make the news. Some believe that there is no such thing as bad publicity – I disagree. Check out this story. Suffice it to say that your stunt should be safe, legal, and inoffensive.

The Big Idea is not just for Mad Men style brand advertisers. They can and should be used in PR to help you break out of the box and get attention and results.

Click here to find out more.

Posted in Campaign Analysis, Public Relations, Social Media, Tech PR, Technology | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Sparks Fly at Publishers and Platforms Meetup

Posted on June 20, 2018 by rgeller


I love to check out reports from Tow Center for Digital Journalism and Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. They cover the intersection of news and digital media and can be a great resource for PR pros and digital marketers. So I eagerly attended the Platforms and Publishers meetup at Columbia Tow Center last week, which showcased the latest findings, and featured a panel of execs from Facebook, Google, NY Times and HuffPost.

Back in 2016, when I last covered the reports, the main storyline was social media’s growing role in news distribution.  A lot has happened since then: the presidential election, fake news epidemic, the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and apparent stalled growth of social (as reported by BuzzSumo). I wanted to learn what the research revealed about our news consumption habits and tech’s impact on journalism.

Tow Center Director Emily Bell shared their report, which you can get here. Some of the highlights she presented include:

  • 86% say platforms reduce trust in journalism
  • Facebook is doing less than Google and Twitter to rectify the situation; they’re considered to be insincere in wanting to help journalism
  • There’s been no decrease in the volume of publisher social media posts
  • Publishers are increasing their platform savvy
  • She was surprised at how much contact there is between the platforms and media
  • One publisher said “We’re on slack with Apple News editors every day.”
  • Facebook wants to support local news
  • Local publishers are at a disadvantage with platforms
  • There’s been a sharp decline in Facebook Instant articles

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, Director of Research at Reuters Institute, shared their report findings.  Here are the main takeaways that he cited:

  • For the first time there’s been a decline in number of users getting news from social media
  • Fewer get their news from Facebook
  • News discovered in social media is trusted least
  • Local TV news is the most trusted, followed by WSJ, then major TV networks
  • News discussion is moving to messaging, with WhatsApp now eclipsing Twitter
  • They’re seeing innovation around voice tech

The panel included:

I’ll be writing more about the takeaways  for marketers. But first, a flame from our sponsors…

While the platform and publisher meetups are normally pretty civil, the panel at this one devolved into a heated discussion. There were sharp exchanges between Facebook’s Head of Global News Partnerships Campbell Brown and Mark Thompson, CEO of NY Times.  Others piled on, and you had to feel bad for Facebook and Campbell (especially as moderator Emily bell pointed out that it was her birthday).

One bone of contention was Facebook’s decision to put political ads in a separate archive. Since the NY Times pays to boost news articles, they go there too.

It seems it was unfortunate timing, as this just happened, and feelings were apparently raw. Campbell blogged about this the week before – and Mark threw this back in her face, as you can read below.  The NY Times got their two cents in with this story (which actually seems pretty balanced): Facebook’s New Political Algorithms Increase Tensions with Publishers.

The episode is an object lesson in the challenges of categorizing content and discerning news from promotion; and of unintended consequences when algorithms are the arbiters.  Should publishers get slapped when they  promote news? Are they getting penalized? Publisher reach is already declining due to Facebook’s recent algorithm changes.

I include a partial transcript below, and you can view the video above to see the entire exchange (it’s cued up for the start of the fireworks).

Thompson: Campbell wrote a blog yesterday saying that publishers are happy [on Facebook] – I’d love to meet one

(He then showed an article from NY Times Cooking that had been rejected by the Facebook algorithm. They were placed in a public archive of ads with political content).

The dangerous thing you are looking at is a pistachio and rosewater semolina cake recipe… perhaps because the cake may contain nuts. Frankly, Facebook may contain nuts. It does not to my understanding contain political content.

The extent to which the machine can mistake that for politics shows you the subtlety of what’s going on here. Another rejected ad features a NY Times news story.

(He showed a slide with Trump photo and headline: “President Donald J. Trump has canceled the June 12 summit meeting with Kim Jong-un”)

This has been rejected and is now in the ads for political content.

The enemies of high quality journalism want to blur the lines between arms-length reporting of politics and politics itself, they say there’s no difference.

Unintentionally, I’m afraid Facebook is supporting the enemies of high quality journalism.

Brown: There’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what we’re doing on the platform, I think I should start by explaining.

We, given what happened in the last election, made the decision that we would move towards more transparency of all advertising on Facebook; that we would share an archive of who’s paying for the ads, they’d be labeled “paid for by”…  so that that info would be publically searchable.

It’s our start at addressing transparency. We focused on all ads that contain political content or issues. Now obviously we recognize that there’s a distinction between news content about politics and advocacy advertising.  I was a journalist for 25 years.

So what we did was create a differentiation within the archive; where there’s an archive that says “news content” and an archive that says “political advocacy advertising”.  I don’t think there’s any blurring there.

The information is very clear and transparent… for anyone who wants to see who is advertising on our platform.

This is the first time I have heard journalists argue against transparency.

Thompson: (tried to interject)

Brown: No! No! Mark, I’m not finished!

Thompson: I’m not going to argue with you

Brown: You are arguing with me about transparency.

We are going to do this with all our advertisers… it’s really important… and the idea that we are somehow conflating the two sides is completely false. People are smarter than that.

What conflates advocacy and journalism… is when journalists do advocacy. And that’s happening a lot.

Emily Bell: That’s not what you saw there, advocacy by the NY Times.

Brown: I’m not suggesting it was. It was a piece of news content about president Trump… that was a boosted piece of news content about politics. We think that should be transparent.

Emily Bell: Most wouldn’t see that as an ad… it blurs the distinction between editorial and advertising.

Thompson: That’s a different distinction – you can debate or not debate that. This is not about a boundary… it’s the underlying thing. That is a NY Times news article. It’s completely blurred in Facebook’s head.

And honestly, Campbell – you now have 20K publishers around the world, and they’re fired up. You think this is going to help Facebook?

It’s a catalog of horrendous mistakes that Facebook has made. To be fair, Mark Zuckerberg admitted the scale of what went wrong. Trying to put it right in this way is just going to dig you deeper in the hole

Brown: What I hear is you’re all for transparency on Facebook except when it applies to us.

Thompson: (Tries to interrupt).

Brown: No Mark! You just got to talk.

Mark: Why not just label every single advertisement from the NY Times  as an “ad from the NY Times?”

Brown: That’s what it is labeled as: a piece of content paid for by the NY Times in an archive that says “news content”.

And I just wonder whether this is not about the NY Times not wanting to be transparent about how much money they spend on marketing.

Thompson: We’re open about all aspects of our marketing – we don’t want Facebook to set itself up as a judge around political content… you don’t understand.

It got heated, Emily Bell needed to step in.

Lydia Polgreen: Trust should not be a popularity contest

Brown: This shows misunderstanding – our broadly trusted survey is just one of thousands of signals that go into determining what shows up in someone’s newsfeed.

We survey people about what they find informative – that’s another signal. We look at how much time they spend reading a news article – that’s another signal

Listening to the misunderstanding that exists here makes me think that, honestly we are not doing a very good job of explaining ourselves on these issues

Posted in Events, NY Tech, Politics, Public Relations, Social Media, Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sparks Fly at Publishers and Platforms Meetup

Building Bridges to Media and the World in Jerusalem

Posted on June 6, 2018 by rgeller

Addressing the JVP meetup with Pnina Ben Ami

I traveled throughout Israel over the past 10 days and visited many parts of the beautiful country.

Each place was more awe-inspiring than the last. And I started to wonder why I hadn’t visited here sooner. Each part of the country was better than the last. But Jerusalem really stood out, for its history, mix of cultures and religions, and sheer beauty. The Old City must be seen to be believed. Walking through the bustling underground markets and sites that are thousands of years old seemed to take me back in time.

There was the chance to do some business while there too. Our friends at Jerusalem Venture Partners (JVP), an internationally renowned venture capital fund based in Israel, hosted a meetup, where I led a session about the art of PR for the Jerusalem tech community and its startups.

Of course, I know JVP, as Fusion PR has worked with the largest and best-known Israeli VC for years. We’ve helped a number of their portfolio companies launch and grow. But this was my first visit. I got to meet the team in-person and learn more about its history and initiatives.

To understand JVP, it helps to appreciate Jerusalem. The city might not be the most obvious home for a VC that focuses on the tech sector – Tel Aviv and Herzliya have far more tech companies. Perhaps that is the point – a feature, not a bug.

I spoke with Doron Ish Shalom, Director of Program Development, and Pnina Ben Ami, VP Marketing. They helped me better understand JVP.

It is a VC firm, so of course the focus is investment and building global companies. More than that, JVP is about making connections, creating value and building bridges, with a broad network of partners and expertise to help companies become global market leaders.

The most obvious bridge connects ancient Jerusalem to the modern tech world. JVP’s innovative approach starts with its unique location at the JVP Media Quarter. They’re located in the British Mandate’s historical MINT Building built in 1937, adjacent to the Old City. With over 200 dynamic entrepreneurs in the business, social and cultural enterprises, the JVP Media Quarter houses startups, VC Fund JVP, an early stage incubator, the Siftech Accelerator and many more.

JVP also bridges business, government and society (e.g. in areas such as transportation and infrastructure). It even has an initiative to bring Palestinians and Israelis together via entrepreneurship.

The firm builds bridges between Israel and the world – the VC is expanding to NY, Europe and Asia. Recently, Alibaba founder and chairman, Jack Ma and his entourage of 35 senior executives from Alibaba Group visited JVP’s campus in Jerusalem. JVP became a strategic partner of Alibaba two years ago and since then the Chinese firm has invested tens of millions of dollars in JVP.

At Fusion PR, one of our specialties is helping early stage companies launch and grow, so I was particularly interested in a new effort there called JVP Play, an innovative platform in partnership with Tesco, PepsiCo, Barclays, Microsoft, and Deloitte to build disruptive companies based on collaboration with global customers, partners, and investors.

“It’s win-win-win,” Doron explained. Big business gets first crack at the newest tech – and the chance to influence development. Startups can POC with major brands – and get valuable feedback and the prospect of converting the trials to customers.

Of course JVP wins by being a catalyst. They go beyond the usual VC roll of the dice to fuel the success of companies that may join their portfolio.

The New Rules of PR

The background provided by the JVP team made me even more excited to participate in the meetup. It was well attended – there were over 40 people, including JVP Play portfolio companies, early stage startups from east of Jerusalem, ultra-Orthodox entrepreneurs who have already succeeded in developing successful technological solutions, Siftech portfolio companies and SecBI, a Fusion PR client.

I explained the realities of PR today, and tactics that can help startups launch and reap the benefits of great PR.

Thanks Pnina Ben Ami for organizing the session and helping to drive the discussion – and Ruti Szankowski and Doron for all your help,

Posted in Agency news, Current Affairs, PR, PR Tech, Public Relations, Tech PR, Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Building Bridges to Media and the World in Jerusalem