Hello My Name Is James

Social Media Is Not a Strategy

2012-02-02T16:51:00.000-08:00

If it isn't obvious, it really, really should be.

Have you ever been asked what your social media strategy is? The question really is a bit more nuanced:

Strategy is a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal.
Goals are best defined by specific, measurable objectives.
The strategy (or strategies) of a plan describe the various endeavors pursued to accomplish these objectives.
Tactics (or tools) are the actual "hands-on" or "in the field" methods or manners by which the strategic plan operates.

The tool. For the public relations and communications professional, that is where social media comes in. Like all the communication tools which came before, social media is a means to an end. And what is that end?

Strategic communication.

There's a reason why I like to quote the social media advice of renowned newsman Edward R. Murrow (simply replace the word computer with "social media app"):

"The newest computer can merely compound…the oldest problem in the relations between human beings, and in the end the communicator will be confronted with the old problem, of what to say and how to say it."

Determine what your message is, and why.
Develop specific measurable objectives in pursuit of communicating that message.
Decide how these objectives can be best accomplished.
Use the communications tools most ideally suited to convey your message.

If it isn't obvious, it really, really should be. But please don't take offense - I don't consider myself a social media expert, and at a certain level, I'm not sure there really is such a thing.

But I can say with complete confidence I am a professional communicator. And that really is where it starts.

The Law of Focus

2011-12-28T16:01:00.000-08:00

(Part of an ongoing review of the relevancy of the "22 Immutable Laws of Marketing").

#5. The Law of the Focus

"The most powerful concept in marketing is owning a word in the prospect’s mind."

I have to say that out of the 22 Laws, this one is my favorite, mainly because I've put it to such successful use, not just in the marketing work I have done, but also in public relations (call it "staying on message," but in a Reader's Digest Condensed Version).

The idea is to distill your business or organization down to a single word or concept that you want to arise in your public's mind when they think of your business, service, or product.

Is that word 'Success'?

'Youth'?

'Affordable'?

'Smart'?

'Service'?

'Antidisestablishmentarianism'? (Wait. Scratch that.).

Actually, some of the "Law of Focus" words I have used on behalf of clients and organizations I have worked for have included 'Better', 'Restoration', and 'Independent.'

When a person reads outreach materials or an advertisement, sees a display, hears a news story, reads a tweet or a Facebook posting, or hears a public response, I have worked to ensure whenever possible and practical (and it isn't always, so don't sweat the details), that these two questions are answered positively when creating or updating communication pieces or projects, or when making public/media comments:

Is the focus word used, or included at least one or more times?
Is the “theme” or concept conveyed by the focus word included or alluded to in some manner, through attributed quotes, photos, graphics, captions or other elements?

I'm of the opinion that of all the 22 Immutable Laws, this one still remains rock-solid, as my own personal experience has convinced me of it on repeated occasions. What's your opinion?

You're doing it wrong.

Choose Wisely

2011-11-25T16:39:00.000-08:00

Now, I'm not one to call out fellow PR practitioners by name, so I won't (you can read that here).

But I do like to point out miss-steps, if for no other reason than to provide a cautionary tale to those who might find themselves at risk of making the same miss-step.

More details are in the link above, but the Reader's Digest Condensed Version is that Kansas City teen Emma Sullivan got in trouble tweeting a few joking words about Governor Sam Brownback during a statehouse field trip:

"Just made mean comments at gov. brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot."

She actually made no such comment and described the tweet as "joking around."

Little did the 18-year-old Sullivan know, but Brownback's office monitors social media for postings containing the governor's name. No problems there - it's an ideal practice. Their response, well . . . not so good.

Brownback's director of communication wasn't amused. "That wasn't respectful . . . in order to really have a constructive dialogue, there has to be mutual respect."

Respectful? No, it probably wasn't. Welcome to the big, bad, sometimes rude world of politics.
But in the scheme of things, until the communications director got her hands on the offending tweet, the #heblowsalot hashtag was destined to disappear like a drop in the ocean.

The only attention this tweet had was the attention the governors office - and his communications staff - brought to it.

Since the offending tweet, things devolved quickly, with the teen being sent to the principal’s office for a scolding that lasted nearly an hour. She was told the “not so nice” comments had embarrassed her school and the district and that damage control with the governor’s office was the next step - the school now forcing her to write an apology to the governor’s office, with the principal even providing talking points to hit.

Damage control? The only damage here is the self-induced social media tsunami the governor's office brought upon itself.

Choose your battles.

Choose wisely.

The Law of Perception

2011-11-08T12:46:00.000-08:00

(Part of an ongoing review of the relevancy of the "22 Immutable Laws of Marketing").

#4. The Law of the Perception

"Marketing is not a battle of products, it's a battle of perceptions."

(It all comes down to this, doesn't it?)

Ooh, this is one that can get on people's nerves.

"What do you mean, all truth is relative? That's not true!" (er, wait a minute . . . ).

"What do you mean there's no objective reality? That's not the way I see it!" (er, wait a minute . . . ).

Is this law still relevant? I think it's one of the 22 Laws that stands as strong now as when it was introduced -- perhaps it's a bit more important today. Here's why:

Most perceptions are second hand. Not all, of course. There are areas in which you are perhaps a subject matter expert without equal. But in those other areas, you're relying on the expertise, the opinion, the influence of those you trust.

You may not be a theologian or an "exegete" (one who practices exegisis), but if you are a member of a faith community, you will rely on the perception of leaders in this community.

I'm guessing that while you had your coffee today, you did not attempt to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity, but if you needed to, you would look to the opinions of those who have.

With the onset of social media outlets, we have witnessed the arrival of new influencers ready to alter the perceptions of those who are looking to resource or crowd-source their decisions. And, ultimately, you will believe what you want to believe.

So . . . that's my perception. What's yours?

Behold your battle of perception.

I Was at the Occupation, and All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt

2011-10-25T10:03:00.000-07:00

So, before we begin, which would be the best Twitter hash tag for this topic?

#Crass?

#Conniving?

#FailureToUnderstandtheBasicPremise?

Here's the story:

A West Islip, NY couple -- Robert and Diane Maresca -- are seeking to trademark the phrase “Occupy Wall Street” so that they can place it on a wide variety of goods, including bumper stickers, shirts, beach bags, footwear, umbrellas, and hobo bags.

("Hobo bags"? Has anyone else ever heard of these before?). If the economy doesn't improve, at least Mr. & Mrs. Maresca may have a large and growing market, assuming the hobos haven't spent their remaining spare change on hobo beans.

Citing the potential of “Occupy Wall Street” to become a “global brand,” the Marescas have filed to trademark the name of the collective movement responsible for the protests and encampments in New York City and numerous cities across the United States (as well as overseas).

I have to wonder how defensible a trademark "Occupy Wall Street" would be (for the Mr. and Mrs. Maresca), considering the countless organizations and tens of thousands of people using the mark over the previous months. Good luck with your future litigation.

According to a story featured in The Smoking Gun, Maresca said that while he has yet to mass produce any “Occupy Wall Street” product, he has inked some t-shirts with magic markers. Additionally, his wife has some experience making clothing and bags at home.

Aha! Now I know what the perfect Twitter hash tag is:

#facepalm

Yes, it's such a dumb idea, even He finds it amazing

Social Media Advice from Edward R. Murrow

2011-10-07T09:23:00.000-07:00

"The newest computer can merely compound…the oldest problem in the relations between human beings, and in the end the communicator will be confronted with the old problem, of what to say & how to say it."

"It is not necessary to remind you that the fact that your voice is amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other does not confer upon you greater wisdom or understanding than you possessed when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other."

-Edward R. Murrow

The Law of Category

2011-10-05T12:37:00.000-07:00

(Part of an ongoing review of the relevancy of the "22 Immutable Laws of Marketing").

#2. The Law of the Category

"If you can't be first in a category, set up a new category you can be first in."

Without getting too simplistic, it's my opinion that this law still holds true for the simple reason that brand-orientation at the very core is inherently subjective, while categorization -- and in this case, categorical firsts -- are very much objective. Qualities may be debated, and the inherent nature of a person, or object, or service can be questioned. But inherent "firsts" cannot.

For the purpose of writing this blog article I'd love to come up with a new and novel example (and I tried), but the example given by Al Ries and Jack Trout still works so well:

Can you name the third person to cross the Atlantic Ocean in solo flight?
Can you name the first woman to cross the Atlantic Ocean in solo flight?

Yes, Amelia Earheart (same thing, by the way).

Forget brand attributes. Think brand categories.

Am I wrong?

If you ask me, the goggles are the perfect piece to set off this all-white ensemble.
Just don't wear it after Labor Day.

The Law of Leadership

2011-08-25T15:44:00.000-07:00

Has the "Law of Leadership" changed since it was first put forth by Al Ries and Jack Trout so many years ago?

The law of leadership is convincing people that you are the first in a particular market.

It is easier to convince someone that you are first rather than convince them that you have a better product
The leading brand in a category are usually the first in the mind of consumers
People tend to stick with what they've got
One reason why the first brand in a category is the best known is because it tends to become generic
Marketing is a battle of perceptions, not products – if you are the first then you must be the best (even if your product is inferior, it is seen as being the best)

My thought on bullet point #1 is that it is still quite true -- it is easier to convince someone that you are first rather than convince them that you have a better product. Documenting position or timeliness (i.e., "first") can be done objectively. But "better" can still be oh so subjective.

As for the next line of reasoning - The leading brand in a category are usually the first in the mind of consumers -- I don't think has changed either (chicken and egg quandary, anyone?).

People tend to stick with what they’ve got - again, human nature I think bears this out, but the onset of social media provides countless more opportunities for people to try what they don't have. Why? The influence of opinion leaders. People are too busy living their lives to have a fully-formed opinion about every last topic under the sun, but they will rely on the opinion of a trusted friend or colleague (or the tendencies of numerous people around them).

Semi-related sidebar: you owe it to yourself to read "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind" by Gustave Le Bon, an amazing book on social psychology.

One reason why the first brand in a category is the best known is because it tends to become generic. I could pull out the obvious examples of Thermos, or Kleenex (or lesser know examples like "Aspirin", once a trade name from Bayer), but I'll make a more recent example: in recent memory, you'll likely have heard someone just as readily say "I googled" as opposed to "I searched." I don't think this aspect of the "law of leadership" has changed.

Marketing is a battle of perceptions, not products – if you are the first then you must be the best (even if your product is inferior, it is seen as being the best). Now this is an area that I think social media has the potential to turn on its ear. Products are in use by influencers who are immediately making themselves heard via social media, and launching their own salvos into the fray in the battle of perceptions, intentionally or unintentionally (or just for the laughs-- be forewarned that "some men just want to watch the world burn"). So while the basic premise of this aspect of the law is unchanged -- marketing is a battle of perceptions -- social media tools (weapons of the marketing battle) are already being wielded to sway that battle. As for inferior products, I see social media changing that as well. If your product or service is inferior, the world is going to know about it - and fast, through blogs, tweets, and viral videos.

I can't tell you which one is better, but I can tell you which one is first.
(Image courtesy Roger Lynn, per Creative Commons)

Revisiting the 22 Immutable Laws

2011-07-29T10:48:00.000-07:00

The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing: Violate Them At Your Own Risk!

Even decades later, this work by world-renowned marketing consultants Al Ries and Jack Trout is a must-read for anyone in the marketing communications business (and I think it provides food for thought on the PR side as well). I can personally attest to the fact that it has enhanced my communications practice and aided in my success.

On the critical side, I think “immutable” is a greatly provocative adjective that helps to sell books. It is easy enough to gather up examples and scenarios that contradict the laws (like this guy did – and one could probably find examples to contradict his arguments as well).

I'd lean toward the term “indispensable” over “immutable”. We've simply witnessed too great a tidal change in how we communicate and interact with each other to say that things are the same and that all the same rules still apply, unchanged. I wouldn't encourage anyone to base their career on these laws, but I can (and do) encourage people to consider the core concepts presented and ask themselves how these laws may still apply to their current objectives. More often than not, I think you'll find there is benefit in contrasting these laws with your current strategies, and asking yourself if your current strategies are everything they should be.

You'd be amazed how many time Jude Law's picture showed up during an image search. (Image courtesy smlp.co.uk)

1) The Law of Leadership

The law of leadership is convincing people that you are the first in a particular market
It is easier to convince someone that you are first rather than convince them that you have a better product
The leading brand in a category are usually the first in the mind of consumers
People tend to stick with what they’ve got
One reason why the first brand in a category is the best known is because it tends to become generic
Marketing is a battle of perceptions, not products – if you are the first then you must be the best (even if your product is inferior, it is seen as being the best

In upcoming weeks, I'll be taking a look at the 22 Laws, and giving some thought as to what has changed . . . or not.

Nothing to Fear

2011-01-21T15:20:00.000-08:00

Wow, my last post was October?? Well, I do have the excuse that I've moved across town, and then our DSL connection was unavoidably delayed, so there's that. Nevertheless . . .

There's a great book review in the Fall 2010 edition of The Strategist (for those who don't know, it's a quarterly publication of the Public Relations Society of America). The article is by Kathleen Larey Lewton, APR, and the book is “Deadly Spin - An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out On How Corporate PR Is Killing Health Care And Deceiving Americans,” by Wendell Potter, APR. The article is worth the read, enough so that I plan to pick up the book.

Now I won't be touching the topic of health care – that's for other bloggers. But I am going to touch upon a subject I've reviewed several times on this site: doing the right thing, abiding by a standard of ethics, and trusting your instincts. Ethical public relations practitioners have nothing to fear from Potter's cautionary tale – although the thin-skinned among us might be chafed (Richard Edelman must have a truckload of thick, luxurious emollients waiting on back-order, judging from his response).

Here you go

Potter's book names names, including major agencies and individual professionals, and admits to his own share of blame for unethical practices ranging from misleading statistics, to bogus surveys and front groups. One of those names was Richard Edelman, President and CEO of Edelman. In his book, Potter writes that Edelman created a false grassroots movement as part of its campaign to help Wal Mart improve its image, including references to reports by the New York Times and Wall Street Journal in March 2006 that Edelman recruited bloggers to publish favorable comments about Wal Mart, which was being criticized regarding low wages and a lack of health benefits (BusinessWeek.com later exposed a blog titled “Wal-Marting Across America” as an Edelman project).

Adequately chafed, Edelman has shot back that Potter “has done the public a great disservice in distorting the PR field, which provided you a good living for the better part of your career. There will always be much to criticize in the world of PR, but do not call into question the motives of the vast majority of practitioners who are interested in the truth and in educating stakeholders about issues of our time.”

A short time later, Potter responded to Edelman's remarks: “Clearly, Deadly Spin has struck a nerve. Good. It’s about time. The reason only a handful of PR people use PR in their titles these days is because PR itself has a PR problem, and for good reason. That’s a shame because PR is not inherently evil or manipulative. As I wrote in the book: PR has been — and is being — used to good ends. Even the noblest of causes can benefit from the services of a communications expert to clarify facts, disseminate information, and counter unfair arguments. And there are plenty of ethical PR people out there to do this.”

Without getting into the nitty-gritty of who did what to whom, and why, I am of the belief that any effort that sheds light on the public relations profession is a good thing.

Sunlight is a great disinfectant.

Off-Target

2010-10-22T18:18:00.000-07:00

Speaking as someone who spent a good deal of his marketing communications career producing television commercials and promos, I have to say that Target really missed the mark in one of their recent ads.

Take a look:

The only thing that troubled me more than the idea of someone pitching this idea, was the idea that someone at Target responded with “Wow, looks great! Let's get this on the air!”

Is offending a sizable portion of your audience really the wisest marketing move? I would think that the package of cardboard or paperboard, colored paper, craft supplies, flashlights, etc. needed to hand-craft a costume could easily approach, equal, or in a few cases even surpass the price to be paid for some ready-made Halloween costumes. The ideal message would be that, whether you want a deluxe ready-to-wear costume or to create your own, you can find everything you need . . . at Target.

If nothing else, did not the ongoing economic downturn give anyone in their marketing department pause for thought? I would think that home-made costumes may be the preferred option for budget conscious households for the next few years. And despite ever-evolving gender-roles in contemporary society, I would think that mothers are still quite often the deciders when determining shopping destinations for their households.

A forward-thinking organization might look even further, to tap into large, but perhaps less-than obvious markets that are ripe for expansion.

A lot of parents are expressing outrage in online forums, regarding the message it sends about spending time with your kids, crass mass-market consumerism, and more. Does it bother me as a father? Sure, it does. It bothers me a lot as a marketing communications professional.

By the way, wasn't the original Iron Man suit hand-made?

The Outpost Mentality

2010-08-22T17:45:00.000-07:00

At the risk of sounding elitist, is there a city or town where this mentality doesn't exist?

I've seen it in towns and cities of various sizes, but most often in geographically isolated communities. Time and again, I have witnessed the innovation-killing, opportunity-squandering effect of the “outpost mentality” – people reflexively lashing out at individuals or organizations bringing even the hint of a new method or a new idea. Often, I've seen these new ideas attacked as if the mere mention was a slap in the face to those born and bred in the community. And the only consistent pattern I have seen is that the offended parties are “natives” to the area, and the parties bringing the offense are, well, outsiders.

At public meetings, one citizen will stand and say “I was born and raised here. I've lived here for 'XX' years . . . and I don't like this idea,” which somehow by itself trumps the substance and merit of the idea in question.

Is being a resident of a community by chance more substantial than being the resident of a community by choice? What is the source of the antipathy? Is it a fear of losing one's identity? Is it a fear of endangerment to the “purity” of the community? Why the suspicion?

Banding together, shoulder to shoulder with your neighbor to defend yourself against the “horde of strangers” and their supposed defilement of your way of life was probably a great mode of survival -- in the 19th Century. In contemporary times, I see the outpost mentality as slow suicide by communities that would otherwise be blossoming with new potential and opportunity.

A portrait of the author?

Nobody Really Likes Us

2010-06-08T20:50:00.000-07:00

In the mind of the public, we public relations professionals typically share the same company with lawyers and dentists. Nobody really likes us, unless they are in desperate need of our services, in which case they often think we are wonderful (assuming we've done our job right).

While pain avoidance explains the dilemma over dentists, it doesn't necessarily explain us PR folks and our litigious counterparts. I believe it is because we often "defend the indefensible."*

(A long-running joke I have told about my work in public relations has been to say "My greatest fear is that I will someday have to pay for my many sins against society.")

Now hold on - what I'm really getting at is that we, as public relations professionals, perform work not unlike that of a lawyer. We take our client at their word. We believe they deserve quality representation. Like lawyers, we use research, facts, data, and even emotional appeals to inform and communicate a message on behalf of our client. But let's step back a bit . . .

At the moment I am writing this, Ad Age is conducting a poll: "As someone employed in marketing, advertising or public relations, would you work on the BP account in a professional capacity at this point?"

Like lawyers, does everyone "deserve" public relations guidance, without judgment? At what point do we, as public relations professionals, say that the benefit of the doubt has expired, and "we want no part of this"? Or, is the thrill of the challenge - to win the 'un-winnable' - too exciting to ignore?

Is it all relative? Is it just a matter of perspective, or are there situations where you would just walk away?

I hope I don't have to make that decision. But if I do, I hope I choose wisely.

He chose . . . poorly.

"This is it. This is when it all comes crashing down. "

2010-03-26T11:39:00.000-07:00

What keeps a person from blogging (unless they make their living from it)? Well, in my case, I got a job.

Please don't read too much into that remark -- that's not an implied slam to bloggers. Writing distinctly, succinctly, and coherently, requires true effort and skill. But now that I've found my new groove, so to speak, I wanted to return to this page and begin posting again.

The topic? Just a little encouragement, that's all.

Just recently, I've noticed that most media outlets and bloggers (and very disparate ones, mind you) have now all been uniformly referring to this "economic downturn" as "The Great Recession." And I'm not arguing.

What have I been doing during the Great Recession? While I did keep busy with some nominal freelance work and writing assignments, I spent most of 2009 searching for full time employment after my contract work expired in April of that year. Living in Las Vegas (with an unemployment rate still hovering in the 13% range), I know I am not alone. And neither are you.

For those of you out there, still looking, still searching, I know exactly how you feel. I know what thoughts go through your mind when you look at the calendar, and then to the stack of bills, and then to the checkbook, and you say to yourself: "This is it. This is when it all comes crashing down. This is when it all falls apart."

But it doesn't have to. I sure as hell don't have all the answers. But I have left jobs in my life, and I have lost jobs in my life, and I am still here. And so are you. Most of us have little or no control over the life events that we face. But we always have 100% control over how we choose to respond to them. And it is a choice. And before you think I'm being glib, I'll be the first to say it's painful and uncomfortable to stand strong in the adversity we are all facing.

But you can.

You can make the hard choices about what is important in your life. What you can live with. And what you can live without. The people and attitudes you can live with. And those you can live without.

"Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent."

-Calvin Coolidge

Question: Is Tiger Woods' Public Relations Strategy All Wrong?

2009-12-02T21:36:00.000-08:00

Answer: Who cares?

Or, to answer a question with yet another question: As public relations professionals, is this really the most ideal way to spend our time and expertise?

Don't get me wrong, I've had some of the same countless water-cooler conversations about current events, large and small (i.e., “Well, if I was heading up public relations for Subject X, you better believe that the first thing I would recommend is . . . “). And I certainly don't begrudge the media pursuing the story. It does what it does best, and it plays its part well. I feel like an oddity in PR in that regard – take a peek at this headline – even if you don't speak Spanish, you can probably figure it out quickly enough.

So what am I getting at? I'm getting at the public relations second-guessing – made public via the media – about Tiger Woods' personal situation, and by extension, any similar stories played out in broadcast and online.

Stories like:

Is Tiger Woods' public-relations strategy all wrong? PR experts: Tiger Woods could lose endorsements . . .

Jack Trout, author, marketing guru and president of Trout & Partners in Old Greenwich, CT (and co-author of a great favorite of mine – “The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing”) was quoted in a Mediapost.com article, and in part sums up my thoughts on the issue: “It's a stupid story blown out of proportion, and it's not even worth the ink.”

Trout does go on to mention that a response from Tiger Woods is an ideal next step. “There's an old saying in the PR business that silence grants the point, and I think someone as visible as Tiger Woods can't stay silent. It supports all the stuff flying around. By not speaking, you grant whatever people want to cook up.”

So, what has Tiger said? “Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn't have to mean public confessions.”

Amen.

As PR professionals, if we're going to offer up conjecture, and advice, and statements of what we would do to improve Subject X, here's an idea: let's spend our energy somewhere useful, somewhere practical. Somewhere meaningful.

Perhaps a local synagogue or church has an outreach or marketing committee that could use our expertise. For those not “faithfully inclined,” (and even for those who are) perhaps we offer our expertise to a local food bank, homeless shelter, domestic violence support group, health care clinic, group home, or countless other charities.

To care is, in itself, neutral. What we care about can make all the difference in the world.

photo courtesy Dru Bloomfield, per Creative Commons License

http://www.flickr.com/photos/athomeinscottsdale/ / CC BY 2.0

5 Ways to Engagement Through Social Media

2009-11-06T14:00:00.000-08:00

I saw this article and thought it had some great common-sense guidelines for those considering or already engaged in social media:

5 ways to engagement through social media

Stay Curious. Stay Sharp.

2009-10-22T11:53:00.000-07:00

I have said more than once that if the day comes when I think I've got it all figured out, and there's nothing I need to learn -- that's the day I need to leave the business. From my perspective, the best place for a person to be is just outside their comfort zone. It's right next door to a place called "always curious."

One recent step I took was to get my Accreditation in Public Relations (APR) via the Public Relations Society of America. There's been a lot of noise and hand-wringing online in past weeks and months regarding how important (or not) and how useful (or not) the APR is.

For me it has been ideal. Like some, my route to a PR career was a very roundabout one. Needless to say, I entered the field and stayed there because I have the skills. As solid as they are, they were based primarily on a Mass Communication and commercial television background. Acquiring my APR provided me with the solid foundation and grounding in the importance of solid research in public relations, and also the 'RPIE' cycle - research, planning, implementation, and evaluation. It takes more work, but it beats the "fly by the seat of your pants" mindset still so prevalent among many PR professionals.

Acquiring more degrees may or may not suit your career goals, but it is something I hope to pursue -- and the APR was an ideal first step. With the knowledge, skills and abilities that were clarified by my accreditation, I find myself in a much stronger position to determine which Masters program course curriculum is ideally suited to my PR career.

Further academic pursuits may not be among your goals, but curiosity and a willingness to roll the dice should be. Social media is a perfect example. From instant messaging to iPhone applications, from texting to Twitter and everything in between, we've only just begun to explore the possibilities. A lot of people are talking about social media, even going so far as to call themselves experts.

Knowledgeable? Sure. Skilled? I'll take your word for it. Expert? Not yet, friend. We're all experiencing this technological sea change together, and we're all trying to figure it out.

My advice? Dive in. There was a first time for everything when it comes to public relations and communications - print products, radio, tv, film, telephones, events, Internet, instant messaging, blogs, Twitter, YouTube, and God only know what comes next.

Teaching and mentoring, ironically, may be where you can learn the most. While you aid and assist, you are also getting a fresh perspective. And maybe you are hearing questions you never imagined asking. As a Biblical proverb goes, "As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another."

Do you want to stay relevant in public relations? Stay sharp.

photo courtesy Joe Shlabotnik, per Creative Commons License

http://www.flickr.com/photos/joeshlabotnik/ / CC BY 2.0

That's Much Better

2009-09-25T16:17:00.000-07:00

Communication amongst yourselves, your colleagues, and your community partners. That's the way to do it right (instead of, well, the other way). Advance notice is always a good thing.

It's Always About What it Looks Like

2009-09-17T15:48:00.000-07:00

To use an old cliché, perception is reality. But if it is such a cliché, why does it seem like no one involved in last week's U.S. Coast Guard 9/11 panic had a clue?

Frankly, I don't think White House spokesman Gibbs' reflexive slam of CNN's response to the event helped matters. If anything, he's responding without research in the same manner in which he is accusing CNN.

From my perspective, the onus here is on the Coast Guard officials. If a "standard" exercise on the anniversary of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil is deemed necessary for the safety of U.S. citizens, I won't second guess it. But does not strategic planning -- in the military sense -- take into account the reaction of allies and enemies to both genuine and perceived threats? How much effort would it have required to communicate with fellow government entities (local, state, and federal)? Really, it all comes crashing down around the fact that there wasn't even any (apparent) internal communication within the Coast Guard, in that the spokesperson was contacted twice, and neither the spokesperson nor the Guard's own command center knew anything about the exercise.

Short, dumb little story: back east, in the dead of winter (we're talking tens and teens on the thermometer, folks), my wife and I decided we wanted to grill some steaks. I pushed the grill to the back door of our garage and fired it up. Mmmm, barbecue! A minute or two into grilling, I glanced upward at the waft of smoke emerging from the back of the house. This can't look good, I thought to myself. What did I do? I picked up the phone and called our next door neighbor (just one -- it was a very rural area) and said "Oh, by the way, if you see smoke coming from the back of our garage, don't call the fire department -- we're just cooking some dinner on the grill!"

At least the Coast Guard could have picked up the phone and made a call, or two. What's more, as long as it didn't interfere with the proper function of the exercise, this event could have been announced to the media and the public -- to the benefit of the U.S. Coast Guard image -- that through the tireless and ongoing efforts of the Coast Guard, our country is being kept safe and secure, even as we commemorate the tragedy of September 11, 2001.

The scary part is, this lack of communication isn't just an invitation to a public relations tragedy. If you can't communicate internally or with fellow government agencies, you're inviting a another flesh and blood tragedy.

Leading the Charge - With Your Eyes Open

2009-08-26T13:12:00.000-07:00

PRSAY is a forum for PRSA members and other public relations professionals, and recently posted an article on social media and public relations. In this article by
Michael G. Cherenson, APR (PRSA’s 2009 Chair and CEO), Cherenson mentions a new study which notes that, contrary to the opinions of some -- that social media’s rise would precipitate public relations’ fall -- public relations is gaining, as social media provides opportunities to build relationships in new ways, and as companies seek guidance on effective and credible ways to leverage the new tools.

The 2009 Digital Readiness Report, a study conducted by iPressroom with support from PRSA, finds that public relations professionals are firmly in the lead when it comes to managing an organization’s use of social media communications channels.

This always seemed like a no-brainer to me. You might write a letter to the editor, or even arrange for an editorial board meeting, but you didn't talk back to your newspaper. You read it -- it didn't read you. And your television . . . it talks to you, but you don't talk back to it. Well, OK, I talk back to my TV all the time, but it never replies, and then my wife tells me to cut back on the caffeine. Is it any surprise that social networking sites, blogs, Twitter, Reddit, and the like, with their "relational" two-way communication, would be used by public "relations" professionals?

I did enjoy some lively discussion recently on the topic of social media . . . on a social media site. It's clear to me that we're all still trying to find our way. From my perspective, that's a fun and exciting place to be. The day when I think I've got it all figured out and there's nothing left to learn is the day I need to leave the business.

Who Do You Trust?

2009-07-28T14:11:00.000-07:00

Shortly after the passing of Walter Cronkite, Jon Stewart has been named his successor as America's Most Trusted Newscaster in an online poll conducted by Time magazine.

Is this sad, funny, intriguing, or all of the above? Stewart, with 44% of the vote, beat out Brian Williams (29%), Katie Couric (19%) and Charlie Gibson (7%).

I have my theories, but it borders on a cranky-old-man "back in my day . . . " rambling:

With Cronkite, Harry Reasoner, Howard K. Smith and the others of that era, there was always a clear delineation when they offered up news and when they offered up personal opinion -- to the extent that whenever anything was uttered apart from fact-based reporting, they would actually place the word COMMENTARY in bold type across the screen, and in Cronkite's case, I recall that these opinions would conclude with a graphic of his signature on the screen. You knew that the opinion belonged to him, and he was reporting his own viewpoints, and it was not the same message you received during the other twenty minutes of the newscast.

That's the other aspect of this equation. Back in the day, they gave you the news, and walked away -- there was nothing more to say until new facts came in. MSNBC, FOX News, and CNN now have 24 hours to fill, 7 days a week. This is less of a news cycle than it is a news recycle. The nature of the beast now is to fill airtime. With just about anything. And there is no nutritional label shown on screen. When is the last time you saw the word COMMENTARY flashed onscreen? It's been decades, I'm guessing. And maybe we're too intellectually lazy now as a society to discern when a news "host" is reporting fact or uttering opinion (or providing a megaphone to the opinions of others). Don't get me wrong -- opinions can be important, and we can learn from them. But they are not news. The next time you watch the news, step back and parse the words you see and hear. How much news are you getting? And how much opinion?

Back to Jon Stewart. Is it sad that many of us, according to this poll, are getting our news from a comedy program, on a comedy network? Like Walter Cronkite, Jon Stewart does his 30 minutes, and walks away. Like Walter Cronkite, you can expect lengthy, and to an extent, in-depth conversations with news makers of the day. Cronkite had his COMMENTARY disclaimer on screen. And while Jon Stewart may not have the COMMENTARY disclaimer, he does have the common sense disclaimer that "hey, we have an stage audience, reporters with humor/comedy credits on their resumes, and . . . we air on Comedy Central." And there are times as a viewer where I have seen Jon Stewart asking aloud many questions that I thought should have been asked by his conventional news colleagues. And his colleagues never did.

No More Tears

2009-07-17T21:19:00.000-07:00

As explored in my previous post, Press secretary Joel Sawyer, spokesman for Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina plans to leave his state job. Sawyer said he is leaving to pursue unspecified opportunities in the private sector and that his boss's revelation of an extramarital affair has nothing to do with his departure.

And again, I ask: what do we do when the truth is not readily apparent? How many of us have found ourselves in a position of questioning whether or not we have been deceived, intentionally or by omission, by the organization we represent?

A (sometimes) thankless job, and in this case, a sad story. Check out some eye-opening discussion from PRSA professionals here.

Crying in Argentina

2009-07-02T15:31:00.000-07:00

"I've spent the last five days crying in Argentina" -- Governor Mark Stanford (R-S.C.)

The political and media spectacle of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford continues to dominate the headlines as his ongoing revelations add more convoluted twists to a tale of deceit and adultery. With each passing day, pressure mounts for the governor to resign, and with each word uttered, his leadership credibility crumbles.

If there is a public relations strategy to South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's revelations about his unexplained five day absence and ultimate admission of infidelity, it is not a discernible strategy.

Let's look at some of the quotes recently made by Governor Sanford:

He "crossed lines" with a handful of women other than his mistress, but never had sex with them.

Tic-tac-toe?

He "never crossed the ultimate line" with anyone but Maria Belen Chapur, the Argentine at the center of a scandal.

The ultimate line? Is that third base?

"This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story . . . a forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day."

This may be an effort to explain his personal actions while in the position of governor, but I can't see this as going far in preserving his marriage.

During an emotional interview with The Associated Press, Sanford said Maria Belen Chapur is his soul mate but he's trying to fall back in love with his wife.

Again, I can't see this as going far in preserving his marriage. An admittance of sexual indiscretion resulting from a momentary lapse in judgment could be forgiven more readily by a spouse than an admittance that you have a stronger and more profound and enduring emotional bond, one that cannot be found with your marriage partner. And it is certainly TMI (too much information) for his constituents or the press. Admit the error, but don't wax on like a teenager pouring your heart out in the pages of your diary.

There are also several occasions over past days where Sanford contradicts himself on details regarding the number of encounters over their eight-year relationship. And if this information is questionable, what of his remarks regarding state funds spent during a government trip to Brazil and Argentina in June 2008 when he saw Chapur?

All of this came to light in mid-June when Sanford visited Argentina without telling his staff he was going to be out of the country. He instead led them to believe he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail. By the time he returned to a questioning and confused public, staff and family, his image and emotional state had unraveled.

From a PR perspective, was there ever anything to salvage?

After the original onslaught of news media requests about the governors absence, the governor’s spokesperson released a statement saying that the governor was taking some time to recharge after work on the topic of the federal stimulus package for the state, and also to work on “a couple of projects that have fallen by the wayside.” Sanford's remarks thus far have left unresolved questions about whether he had lied to his staff members about his whereabouts.

And where does that leave an organizational spokesperson/PR professional?

It's not my intent to focus on Governor Sanford's spokesperson in particular, or the responses, but to pose the question to myself and other PR professionals. What do we do when the truth is not readily apparent? How many of us have found ourselves in a position of questioning whether or not we have been deceived, intentionally or by omission, by the organization we represent?

To make pledges is easy, but to live out the pledge by being faithful to those we represent, while honoring our obligation to serve the public interest . . . may sometimes require a great deal of soul searching.

Now is as good a time as any.

Here's a link to the Public Relations Society of America ethics page, with a number of PDF downloads on topics such as:

Dilemmas and Moral Questions
A short guide to the process for ethical decision-making
How to Report Questionable Ethical Performance
Case studies, and more

Check out a very timely blog entry here.

Rethinking Crisis Response Amidst the Twitter and the 'Tube

2009-06-19T15:08:00.000-07:00

I referenced in an earlier posting about how we've only just begun to explore the possibilities of social media (like Twitter, for instance), and how we really need a willingness to pursue the unexplored.

My advice? Pursue it now.

You may recall the name Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger III, the pilot who successfully carried out the emergency ditching of US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River, offshore from Manhattan on January 15 earlier this year, saving the lives of the 155 people. In the same way that this incident has led to a review of protocols for airline safety, public relations professionals need to explore and develop new crisis communications protocols that factor in social media strategies.

During my tenure as Public Affairs Manager for the City of Yuma, Arizona, I developed my skills in preparation for public relations challenges that I might confront. This included numerous exercises in Yuma and across Arizona, in conjunction with the Arizona Division of Emergency Management.

Because of this philosophy of consistent and continual exercise in preparation for crisis communications, I am happy to say my crisis communication management skills were proven in the aftermath of a Marine Corps Air Station Yuma Harrier jet crash in a residential neighborhood (June 2005), when I responded to media and public inquiries on an international, national, regional, state, and local level – and, thank God, just as with Flight 1549, there were no serious injuries.

In this pre-Twitter, pre-Facebook, pre-Youtube world ( . . . yes, some of these sites were in existence, but not in the manner, scope, and popularity by which they are now known), I was ably to capably adhere to the 60 minute window in which to deliver an initial statement. But even then, new communications technology was beginning to alter the landscape, as the first footage of the incident was captured on a video-enabled cell phone.

Just a scant three and a half years later, we're dealing with a different world, and US Airways Flight 1549 showed us (just as the current situation in Iran continues to show us).

Flight 1549 went down at 3:29 PM; content related to Flight 1549 first appeared on Twitter at 3:30 PM; the first blog coverage appeared (of all places) on BrooklynVegan.com at 3:38 PM.

Our hour is gone. Our 60 minute response window is gone, and along with it our old protocols.

I'm just a simple public relations and marketing communications guy, and while I pride myself in grace under pressure in a crisis situation, crisis communications is not a niche specialty of mine.

But I can tell you one thing, and that is I am going to begin integrating social media strategies in my crisis response plans. Whatever your personal opinion is on social media, it just doesn't matter. You need to know it and you need to be prepared – willful ignorance is intentional obsolescence for your career.

photo courtesy Gregory Lam, per Creative Commons License

Let It Go

2009-06-11T13:41:00.000-07:00

I've had the luxury (or the torment, depending on your perspective) of having traveled many miles and of living in many different areas while establishing my career. In each city or town, I've made a point of connecting with others in the business community through various organizations. I've been a chamber of commerce member, a member of a small business association, a fine arts association, and a number of advertising, communication, and marketing associations.

Curiously, despite the vast geographic and cultural differences I've encountered (New York State, New England, Montreal, the border region of Arizona, and several other places in the desert southwest), there has been one constant. In most areas it's been relatively minor, thankfully; in other regions, it has been almost crippling.

And it seems to cripple the creative types -- the copywriters, the graphic artists, the video producers, account executives, etc., more so than people in other fields of business.

And I'm not sure I can even give it a name.

Typically, the concept of a business networking . . . of attending these mixers, breakfasts, or charitable gatherings, is to share. How do we share? Well, we talk. What do we talk about? Ourselves. And what we do. We might even talk about specific projects we're working on and even drop a name or two of clients or associates.

Now, you would think this is plain-as-day common sense. But experience has shown me it isn't. And I can only attribute this to baseless fear or insecurity at best (or outright paranoia and cowardice at its worst). In some communities I have witnessed persons so hesitant, so afraid of figuratively "opening up" and shaking hands with their fellow communications and marketing colleagues because, to shake hands, you need to release your death grip on all your toys and possessions.

And why is that? Fear that if you let on too much about your idea, someone will steal it? Fear that someone will snatch up your clients if there is a mention of his/her name? Fear that if you share information, or better yet, share your skills and expertise with a fellow communications professional, that it will be used against you?

I have witnessed creative communities in some cities and towns that have remain crippled -- willingly so -- because of every one's mutual inability to open up and share with the their fellow professionals. I've especially seen this among those looking for employment -- persons you think would understand the profound benefit of shared information among those with similar objectives and concerns.

No, I am not naive. Yes, there are corrupt and vile people out there (in our business and elsewhere). But being as innocent as a dove does not mean you cannot remain as clever as a snake. There is and always will be more benefit to all of us by the open and enthusiastic exchange of information. If you need to, make a quick mental scan of your circle of associates (and others), and when you're at your next luncheon, or seminar, or breakfast, or mixer, choose your words carefully, if needed.

But speak those words. Share. And let it go.

Their Vision, Or Yours?

2009-05-22T10:58:00.000-07:00

"Whose idea was this, anyways?'

Ideally, that should be the question creatives ask themselves after working on a project with a client -- not in an adversarial mode, but rather as a reflection of the seamless give-and-take between a marketing communications professional and a business client. Ah, that we could all live in such an ideal world. Well, perhaps its not too idealistic after all. With a concerted effort to inform clients of your educated views and professional experience, and a striving to understand (or at least accept) the different backgrounds and personalities of your clients, you will go a long way toward ensuring a successful collaboration.

Most PR or marketing communications professionals tend to go in with the assumption that they know something about their area of expertise, and that their client knows something about their business -- they know their market, their competition, and the service or product they provide. As a result, if I have proposed or created something and the client wants to go in another direction, I often give the benefit of the doubt, on the theory that they really know their business.

Unfortunately, there are times when that does not hold true. When scripting a commercial many years ago, I once had to explain to an appliance retailer the features contained in one of his own products. In other cases, some clients have left virtually every detail and nuance of a project in my hands, while others brought volumes of information to the table, leaving me to sort and select. And there lies the full spectrum - clients who show up at a meeting with nothing but the name of their company, while others feel that you are being hired to produce their vision. Either way, there is information that each side should be willing to hear.

But what do you do when it seems like you and your client are heading in opposite directions? If I feel strongly that they are heading the wrong direction, I will do my best to 'set them straight.' Human beings, being emotional creatures, sometimes make choices based not on sound marketing but a comfort with the familiar, or a reaction to what everyone else is doing. As "creative types" it is up to use to live up to our name and demonstrate the value of new ideas and new perspectives. But keep in mind that the best laid plans of mice and men (and people like yourself) oft times go astray. In other words, choose your battles. Decide which projects mean the most to you and your clients, and where the concepts can make the most difference, and make the strongest push for these. It's up to you to make them see the value in what you have to offer and to make it as easy to spot as possible.

Speaking of Social Media

2009-05-19T08:59:00.000-07:00

Straight and to the point: The brother of a media colleague I worked with during my public affairs stint in Arizona needs help - please donate and/or spread the word (and thanks): weloveeric.com

"Trust Us - We Know What We're Doing ..."

2009-05-18T14:26:00.000-07:00

At a recent mixer, I was having a conversation with some entreprenuers who had started their own brand strategy and design agency, when the subject of social media came up. One of the gentlemen mentioned an amazing statement made by one of his colleagues in the marketing field: "We're Twitter experts!"

Experts? Really? How does one qualify? Do you get a certificate?

If someone walked up to you and said they were an expert at using a phone, you would likely pat them on the head, smile knowingly, and carefully step away from them.

The truth is that we're all experiencing this technological sea change together, and we're all trying to figure it out. Twitter has been with us for a scant 36 months or so. Historians (marketing or otherwise) will likely tell you that the first telemarketers came about well after the 1870s introduction of the telephone.

Yes, I know, we live in an era of accelerated change . . . but three years does not a Twitter expert make. I'm a cynic that way.

From instant messaging to iPhone applications, from texting to Twitter and everything in between, we've only just begun to explore the possibilities.

My advice to those looking for marketing or PR guidance? Look for people who express curiosity, and wonder, and willingness to pursue the unexplored. And if they tell you that they are a Twitter expert, just smile knowingly and quickly step away.