You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Media relations' category.
A recent article in New York magazine makes some fascinating arguments about President Obama as the multi-platform, ubiquitous communicator-in-chief. The article suggests Obama and his team are deliberately – and effectively – managing this sustained communication output to brand the president, influence public opinion and direct policy discussions. Obama is described as the ultimate “content provider.” Though there are critics to this saturation strategy, it appears that the public still likes hearing from the President and assigns him considerable equity as a leader. One key implication of this strategy, the author suggests, is that messaging becomes a dynamic, demanding 24-hour contact sport.
Of course, what’s not mentioned in the article is that many other politicians – or even pundits – are also making every effort to leverage the vast and protean media landscape. It’s just that they are not as consistently effective, and lack the global platform and profile of the President. Furthermore, it’s increasingly difficult to stand out among the profusion of media noise, as numerous companies and bloggers can testify. Despite the apparently insatiable demand for information, there is a saturation point for most users. The challenge for content providers – and their communication partners – will be to avoid just adding their own fire hose to the mix and figuring out where and when it makes most sense to communicate.
A recent post by prominent blogger Robert Scoble – who among other things is a columnist at Fast Company – serves as (yet another) plea to the PR industry to stop “bad pitches.” Scoble complains in his post that his efforts to push back on unwanted and/or misdirected pitches sparked a backlash of criticism from PR pundits and staffers alike. His point – instead of listening and learning too many PR staffers vilify the critics and stubbornly go on their merry way like it’s 1999.
Unfortunately, I’ve seem plenty of evidence first hand that supports Scoble’s unflattering assessment. Recently I witnessed so-called social media experts at one firm suggest they intended to pitch to a variety of influential bloggers… just because they were influential. No matter that they had no real news, that the pitch (as it was) had no topical connection at all to these bloggers or that the company had established no relationship whatsoever with these bloggers. One can imagine the reaction this would have generated with the recipients. Some agencies seem unable even to reassess the relevance and value of their services, still promoting bulk coverage in traditional media as the ultimate measure of communication success. I’m not honestly sure why the industry continues to demonstrate this blind spot around social media and continue to push blunt, mass pitching. Perhaps it’s due to the fact much of the dirty work in agencies is still done by the most inexperienced (and inexpensive) staff. Maybe it’s the pressure to product results – no matter what they are. Whatever the cause, until agencies overhaul their tactics and respond to the complaints they will continue to turn influential pundits like Scoble into critics rather than advocates. Worse, they will push existing and potential employees out of the PR business.
If we ever needed more evidence of the dramatic shift in clout and relevance in journalism in North America witness the public excoriation of CNBC’s Mad Money host Jim Cramer by Jon Stewart last month. After being taken to task for hyping financial companies that soon imploded as part of the economic meltdown, Cramer embarked on a strange, ill-advised PR effort that threw napalm on the initial feud and ultimately left Cramer as the bruised, admonished loser.
A column in the USA Today by Robert Bianco suggests there are three lessons one can take from this media tussle:
1. Choose your friends wisely: Cramer sought support from blustery, ultra-conservative pundits like Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough and dubious public figures like Martha Stewart;
2. Know your enemy: Cramer initially dismissed Stewart as a comedian of little depth or consequence;
3. Know when to shut up: Cramer’s initial denials and attacks on Stewart were disingenuous, ill-advised and totally backfired.
To his credit, Cramer eventually saw the light and admitted he erred in a humiliating dressing-down by Jon Stewart himself. This was a worse beating than the one suffered by Ross Perot in the infamous debate with Al Gore on Larry King years ago. But by admitting his mistake and promising to do better Cramer at least staunched the bleeding and opened the door to public redemption. Though his credibility (whatever it was) has been severely damaged, he has shown he can learn from his mistakes…if belatedly.
There are two fundamental lessons from this episode, beyond the ones offered above. One, do not assume who has inherent credibility or clout based on their job or self-assigned credentials. Despite his defined role as a comedian, Stewart easily out-punched Cramer and his cohorts and showed himself (once again) to be a smart, credible and very influential commentator on issues of national importance. Two, know when to go quietly and avoid the spotlight. As noted by the USA Today, all publicity is not good publicity.
It’s been interesting to see the PR counter-offensive by the U.S. travel industry against the tide of criticism against so-called business junkets. A couple of weeks ago I saw full-page ads in several major papers suggesting that cancelled meetings translate into millions of lost jobs. The “Meetings mean Business” campaign includes a major PR and advertising push, a new Code of Conduct for companies using taxpayer dollars, personal video vignettes, advocacy outreach, a robust website, etc. The campaign appears to be working, at least in terms of political leaders like Barney Frank and even President Obama urging caution in branding travel as ill-advised spending. This may help differentiate the egregious retreats by AIG and other TARP recipients from the legitimate trips by thousands of organizations investing in their staff.
I noted with interest a recent blog by Shel Holtz on the criticism aimed at AIG for conducting expensive meetings after being essentially rescued by the Feds. I agree with Shel that AIG could have done a better job explaining the rationale and benefits of this meeting, and I guess I buy the argument that companies still need to do all they can to recognize and incent their best performers. But in this case I think the better approach would have been to anticipate the PR disaster and either cancel or amend the meetings. In other words, the PR team should provide counsel that changes the original decision or policy rather than just provide a more cogent explanation of why the meeting was justified or take steps to clean up the mess. One of the most important roles of PR pros is to act like canaries in a coalmine…to plan ahead and drive decisions to keep the company or brand out of trouble.
Given the economic angst and the baggage around the actions of the Fed – why are they helping only large financial companies? – the outrage and PR fiasco surrounding AIG is not surprising. And like in many other situations, the so-called facts simply did not reach or resonate with most observers. The headlines were already imprinted.
Of course, since this initial scandal AIG has had its hands slapped again for conducting other pricy events. See this summary blog. Only belatedly did the company cancel all remaining “non essential” meetings, but the damage has been done.
Influential blogger Jeff Jarvis continues to make provocative arguments on why and how journalism is evolving in the face of social media and technological advances. In this recent article, Jarvis posits that the foundation, or best source, for relevant news coverage is no longer the article, but rather the topic itself. In his argument Jarvis suggests that articles are inherently incomplete, isolated, repetitive and temporary and cannot adequately present information.
Just think about it…how many times have you been fully satisfied in a search by finding one article on a specific story or topic? Typically my searches cover a wide range of sources (via specific searches and/or aggregators) and a fair amount of digging to get a complete picture. If I’m lazy, I’ll settle on the more comprehensive and authoritative sources (e.g. WSJ or CNN.com.) But even these sources are insular. As Jarvis suggests, news items need to be dynamic and linked to other sources to be truly relevant and complete. Increasingly, I’ll go to Wikipedia or be lucky enough to find a good social media release, which will provide me with a good sample of material…and a number of links to dig for more.
The interesting twist on this argument is what it means for those trying to influence the media process - namely PR professionals. As I’ve said before on this blog, I find far too many practitioners are woefully ignorant of social media trends and continue to pitch like back in the 90’s…or even 80’s. As Jarvis suggests, this modus operandi is in danger of becoming even more irrelevant, and ineffective. The smart agencies and companies have recognized the evolving needs and preferences of users and are making it easier for news-hungry consumers to get a rich and balanced perspective. (Check out this social media release by Cisco as one example.) It will be interesting to revisit this issue in a few months to see if and how things have changed.
This post on the PR site “Seat at the Table” profiles a recent TV dust-up that showcases how shallow and inadequate the vaunted political PR machinery can be at times. This case involves a very persistent Campbell Brown, the CNN anchor/reporter, and McCain spokesperson Tucker Bounds. I happened to watch this clip on CNN.com myself a couple of times and almost enjoyed watching Bounds squirm. The problem – and key lesson for PR professionals – is the peril of sticking to the script at almost any cost. Many of us have trained our executives or clients to “redirect” to stick to their messages and use various methods to control the conversation. But as stated in this blog, that should not be done at the cost of logic or credibility. You still have to answer the question…or at least something close to the question. Tucker Bounds shows what happens when the canned answer is not relevant or responsive and the reporter is persistent…simply repeating the same oblique answer is not, pardon the pun, the answer.
This episode probably says more about the unfortunate perversion of PR tactics during political campaigns than the state of journalism; the blog rightly praises Brown for being one of the few reporters not afraid to press for a clear answer. Either way, it’s a good reminder that the foundation of all good PR is honesty, not propaganda. All the tricks in the world won’t help if the answer, or message, is bunk.

