You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'PR' category.
A recent post by David Armano suggests companies will face five core challenges due to social media – whether or not they embrace or delay the transforming impact of the new technology: integration, governance, culture, HR and ROI. I agree with David’s argument; as I’ve written in several posts, in my experience most organizations considering social media focus on the technology and content but drastically underplay the more pedestrian topics like organization, process and even resources.
Most organizations have to create new roles, structures, routines and policies to efficiently manage their social media program(s) and this can be a laborious process in companies just entering the game and/or reluctant to change their existing infrastructure or funding model. In one recent personal experience, I spent as much time on logistics – forming new cross-functional editorial teams, defining policies, building a process, training key staff, securing adequate resources – as on the technology itself (though that wasn’t without learning pains.) Changes usually require disparate teams and functions – notably marketing, PR, IT and HR – to work much more closely together and ignore the historic silos or job descriptions. Inevitably, some departments will resist the changes without strong leadership directives. Going back to Armano’s model, the area that seems to really lag is metrics, which requires an organization to decide if and how it wants to measure the impact of its social media initiatives. This is not an easy topic to address even for the most progressive companies – since there is no accepted blueprint or easy empirical formula – so its no surprise many just choose to set it aside and hope for the best.
Ultimately, companies have to make a fundamental decision about their cultural DNA and perspective on communication. That will typically fuel the strategy and deployment of new resources and platforms. Without consensus on that core value, progress will remain elusive.
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.
Noted PR pundit Shel Holtz recently shared his favorite communication planning model – which he actually attributes to Wilma Matthews. At a high level, I endorse this basic model and strongly agree with the premise that careful planning prevents communication (or PR) for its own sake. Too often PR professionals – across all disciplines – give in to the tide and begin to communicate without a clear target, plan or purpose…beyond perhaps getting “hits” or spiking the tone and focus of media coverage or customer feedback.
Where I stray somewhat from the basic recipe suggested by Holtz and others is that their models invite a simplicity and superficiality which belies the complexity and nuance of most communication scenarios. One example is the selection of audience(s) – which in many of the real-life programs I’ve developed and executed requires a miniature plan in itself…with a range of discrete audiences demanding their own tactics, messages, channels and even metrics. Another element that is not evident in the model is timing…as in what happens when. Too often, tactical plans and message platforms are developed as if they have a static shelf-life, while in reality they should probably evolve in conjunction with changes in audience awareness, perception and behavior. Another example where subtlety is often lacking is in messaging, where too often plans prescribe blunt, aspirational (if not disingenuous) messaging without consideration for supporting evidence, tone, context, customization and feedback from target audiences. I won’t even mention metrics, which is often sorely lacking in both the planning and execution of PR programs.
My final reservation is really more philosophical than tactical. What many communication plans seem to miss is a dedicated section prescribing what to do – with regard to a policy or corporate decision – as opposed to just what to communicate. This may seem like a small nuance, but it’s not; it’s the difference between sitting at the executive table helping shape the critical decisions and being asked to help communicate a decision that’s already been made. I intentionally frame my plans to feature our recommendations on what the organization should do in response to a particular situation.
In the final analysis, smart communication planning is rarely a bad idea, but using basic cookie-cutter models should be a starting point rather than the final step.
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.
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.

