Flack's Revenge

What is the best way to respond when your principles are at stake?  Is there a good time for "public displays of emotion"?

I thought about these questions after hearing a story from my friend.  Someone was spreading dirt about him at his job. He thought of confronting the guy, but decided to sit down with the boss to vent.  Another friend who was listening to our conversation shook his head while saying:  "Dude, it's business; you always need to stay calm and professional.  Don't let them see you sweat."

At first I found myself nodding in agreement with the advice, but then had to stop and say "Wait – aren't there times that you need to show emotion, and get up in someone's grill?"

Strangely, the story reminded me of the recent Barney's episode, in which the company was accused of racial profiling; and the flack that JayZ, a celebrity face for the brand, has been getting for his response.

The New York Times article JayZ's Blueprint didn't Call for this reports that, while brands can be tarnished by association with celebrities gone wild:

… this time it’s different… it’s the celebrity whose carefully burnished image has been potentially tarnished by a deal with a big company (in this case, Barneys New York) going through a public-relations nightmare of its own….for JayZ, the timing could not have been worse.  On Wednesday, he is scheduled to debut … a collaboration that has been heavily promoted by the company in recent months…

He has so far refused to speak publicly about the matter … but in a statement published on his website on Oct. 26, he said he was not earning anything in this collaboration… “I move and speak based on facts and not emotion,” he said. “I haven’t made any comments because I am waiting on facts and the outcome of a meeting between community leaders and Barneys.”

Look, I get that the timing is bad and this is really a big hassle for JayZ.  But I think he is getting some poor PR counsel, if he’s getting any at all (I strongly disagree with the flacks quoted in the article).

The reaction seems way too cautious and calculated.  I mean what facts about the Barney’s episode, really, are in dispute?

JayZ is a highly visible public figure, an icon.   Even if it came at the cost of alienating a corporate sponsor – which might mean a short term loss – a stronger reaction would have sent the message that his principles (which, ostensibly, oppose racial profiling) can’t be compromised and are not for sale.

And, ironically, this would have helped build his (once pristine) image and personal brand, something that could benefit him financially over the long term too.

What to do you think about this episode and public displays of emotion?  Do you have any other examples (two, off the top of my head, are: the famous debate question that Michael Dukakis flubbed by answering dispassionately, costing him the 1988 election; and President Clinton’s finger wagging interview with Chris Wallace)?

Growing up, I was always afraid of accidentally eating food that had gone bad. My family would tease me
about this obsession, and my penchant for sniffing around the fridge and haranguing about purchase and expiration dates.

I thought about this recently, when I passed on reading a blog post that at first looked interesting for one very simple reason – it had no posting date. The post did not pass my “sniff test.”

It is silly to not show posting dates, and it seems the only reason they’d do this is to hide the fact that the blog may not be updated often. But they are not fooling anyone, and probably losing folks like me, who prefer up-to-date info and don’t like to play guessing games about content freshness. What many people don’t quite realize is that the key to content marketing is in the finer details. So let’s start thinking on how we can get our sites to pass the sniff test.

Avoid Errors, Give Your Content “Curb Appeal”

The competition for your customer’s attention can be fierce. More content from more sources means it is a buyer’s market for content (even though much is for free).

Could the answer really be no content? Spencer Critchley wrote in the Huffington Post: “Content marketing is already showing signs of becoming the victim of its own success. In logic and economics, there’s a principle known as the fallacy of composition… Put another way, an advantage is no longer an advantage when it’s available to everyone… So what’s next for content marketing? If people now want less, find a way to give it to them.”
It’s an interesting perspective.

This could mean that businesses have to now focus on providing only the content that customers will be interested in, or something that provides utmost value for them.  When an Internet user finds a blog post that provides valuable information, then the likelihood of it being shared across the network increases, thereby improving the value of the content.

In a buyer’s market, the seller needs to get clever and use all means available to increase appeal for the product. E.g. in real estate this means upping “curb appeal.”
My monthly column on Maximize Social Business (posted today, and yes, with a date!) explores how to avoid common errors so that your content gets read by more people – or, how to give your content “curb appeal.”

Perhaps it is a generational thing, driven by the PR up-and-comers, the young folk who were weaned on
texting and social media. Or maybe it is about too many communications options, and the thought that we all really must get social, and use social media to engage.

I am talking about not talking, rather the preference many PR professionals seem to have these days for writing, rather than calling, the media.

I thought about this after comparing notes with colleagues on the topic recently. Also, my friend Adam Rothberg, who runs PR for Simon & Schuster, pointed out a WSJ article That thing with Buttons and a Receiver? Pick it Up (the nice thing about blogging is that your friends are constantly sending you interesting stuff, like human news feeds for good content).

Here is an excerpt:
Younger workers may have mastered technologies that some of their older colleagues have barely heard of, such as photo and video sharing apps Instagram and Vine, but some bosses wish they’d learn a more traditional skill: picking up the phone. While Millennials… are rarely far from their smartphones … some managers say avoiding the phone in favor of email can hurt business, hinder creativity and delay projects.

I know there are risks in getting on the phone, because it ups the stakes in communications. Having a real conversation means you must speak and react on your feet. It You are asking for attention NOW, to share some time in real-time with someone who is likely quite busy in the interests of having a (hopefully) meaningful exchange.

There is a chance that you might provoke the journalist; many say they’d rather communicate via email (in the tech PR realm, journalists prefer email over phone, according to a recent study from PR Source Code; and prefer the phone over LinkedIn or Twitter). And it may be easier just to send emails and see if anyone bites.

But the rewards can outweigh the risks. Getting a journalist live is an opportunity to show your stuff, impress the reporter and build a relationship beyond the pitch.
By picking up the phone you are sending the message that you have something important, simply too big to run the risk of being ignored or lost in the spam folder. You are being the squeaky wheel that the client hopes they are getting.

Of course, it also gives you a chance to get feedback on a pitch and advance an opportunity – instead of settling for the radio silence that often greets email pitches. You will have a few precious moments to explain the pitch and address any questions or address concerns / objections. In short, you will be adding value.

This holds true for just about any company, but is especially important for tech startups, the ones that are fighting for attention, and don’t have established names. In fact, a well-known Wall Street Journalist reporter said (in a phone call with one of our AEs) that he would probably ignore lesser known brands but for the push from PR, and appreciated that we keep after him about these companies.

The phone remains a vital part of media relations – use it! It is something we do here at Fusion PR .

I was very sad to hear that Elmore Leonard died last week. I like crime novels, and really enjoyed a
number of his books.

Elmore Leonard's prose was taut; he had a way of pulling you into a story while sparing unnecessary details and embellishment. To this point, he also became known for his 10 rules of writing. 

They have already been repeated in many articles following Leonard's death. Rather than just reiterate the rules, I thought I would try to find some takeaways for tech PR writers:

1. Never open a book with weather 

I guess what he is saying is that you need a strong opening, and should not rely on cliches like "It was a dark and stormy night".

PR people, too, should avoid cliches such as falling back on empty hype or jargon words; by all means, open in an attention-getting way, with a strong headline, great lead, etc.

2. Avoid prologues

Great advice; people just don't have time today for lengthy intros, whether it is via an email or a company backgrounder.  These things are needed, but get to the point and do it quickly. Save education and detailed info for the briefings and decks.

3. Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue

Here, I think he meant that writers should not get too fancy or flowery; keep the prose tight and to the point.  Let the characters do the talking. 

There is not much dialogue in tech PR writing, but I would agree that narrative fire power and flourishes should be saved for the main story.

4. Never use an adverb to modify the verb "said"

According to Fast Company, "Leonard writes that these words that distract and interrupt 'the rhythm of the exchange,' are a 'mortal sin.'"

I don't believe that this is an issue in most tech PR writing; however, the larger point – that you should be economical with your words, and not interrupt the flow with extra verbiage – is a good one.

5. Keep your exclamation points under control

We should not get lazy and use punctuation like exclamation points to create excitement.  Hype words like "revolutionary", "leading edge", etc. are another lazy device and artificial way to create excitement – and should be avoided.

6. Never use the words "suddenly" or "all Hell broke loose"

See the above comments, for Rule 5.

7. Use regional dialects sparingly

I am not so sure about this one – they might make press release quotes more interesting!

8. Avoid detailed descriptions of characters

See my comments for Rule 2

9. Don't go into great detail describing places and things

Ditto

10 Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip

This is a tough one, as some reporters might be too easily tempted to skip most of our pitches and press releases. Does this mean we don't write them at all? How do we balance the need to communicate details and substance, but also be very spare in our copy?

Many complain that press release quotes don't say much. Is the answer to leave them out because the reader is likely to skip them anyway? No, make sure you get good and really interesting quotes.

You do need to make in interesting, relevant and include just enough in the way of details. Layer information.  Make sure your headline or email subject line is interesting and neatly encapsulates the story.  Expand on the information in the initial copy.  Save details for links, files, briefings, etc.

What do you think?  By the way, if you are interested in writing tips from great writers, check out my post on James Ellroy.

Most people who are in the PR field are familiar with the practice of "newsjacking".  It comes from the
combination of "hijack" and "news", and is an attempt to ride the coattails of news that relates to your company, product or service.

The "relates" part is important, as the more tenuous the connection, the greater the chance that your efforts will be seen as desperate, opportunistic or off key – and possibly called out as such.  This happened just a few days ago when a journalist outed a PR person for mentioning the NSA Prism story in a very unfortunate way. 

As such, newsjacking should be done carefully (some might add "if at all"), and can be controversial.  See Heidi Cohen's excellent post 20 Experts Discuss Newsjacking.

This is a long way of introducing the fact that the NY Times covered the practice yeterday, in an article about how major brands are trying to insert themselves into the national conversation about the new royal baby: Welcoming a Royal Baby While Trying not to Steal the Spotlight.  It said:

Amid the baby frenzy in the news media, advertisers took to Twitter and Facebook to send congratulatory messages to the royal family, with brands including Johnson & Johnson, Coca-Cola
and Pampers publishing posts…they were examples of how brands are
increasingly trying to become part of news-driven cultural moments.

Most of the article focused on advertising and social media, vs. PR, but the idea is the same.  One source pointed out the pitfalls:

Tom Morton, the head of strategy at the advertising agency Goodby
Silverstein & Partners in New York, said choosing to focus more on
branding and less on product placement was safe for brands that do not
want to appear to be crass. “The truth is there’s very little to say beyond congratulations," Mr. Morton said, adding that brands that try too hard to sell a product
during an occasion like the royal birth can risk appearing out of sync
with the event