Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Where the Jobs Went
This is an old story but one that should not be passed over. The AP reported last week that an estimated 403,300 high tech jobs were lost after the bursting of the Internet Bubble. Several hundred of those were high-tech PR jobs. They haven't been replaced. The downsizing of high-tech PR threw the field for a loss. What intrigues me -- and others -- is that PR has not recovered.
We see tire kicking, but we don't see many new contracts. People think about PR but they don't budget for it. What worries me is that companies may have determined they can do without corporate PR for the time being. They are focused on selling products and services, and they have decided to let other things ride -- that is, until they get into trouble. There also seems to be less emphasis on supporting a company's stock price. The Street has edged sideways for months, and there is no great buying pressure. I suspect CEOs have turned their attention elsewhere, and this too has hurt PR programs. Finally, there is a reluctance among CEOs to be out front after the intense criticism business has received over the last four years.
So we dig dry wells and hope for water seepage on the bottom of the pit. It isn't fun.
We see tire kicking, but we don't see many new contracts. People think about PR but they don't budget for it. What worries me is that companies may have determined they can do without corporate PR for the time being. They are focused on selling products and services, and they have decided to let other things ride -- that is, until they get into trouble. There also seems to be less emphasis on supporting a company's stock price. The Street has edged sideways for months, and there is no great buying pressure. I suspect CEOs have turned their attention elsewhere, and this too has hurt PR programs. Finally, there is a reluctance among CEOs to be out front after the intense criticism business has received over the last four years.
So we dig dry wells and hope for water seepage on the bottom of the pit. It isn't fun.
Monday, September 20, 2004
Nifty Service
Webex, the web conferencing service, has just started providing a new service that you should know about. It will tell you if anyone present at the conference has switched their computer into another program and is no longer paying close attention. So, for example, consider that fellow who plays solitaire in the foreground while listening to the conference in the background. You can catch him doing it. This smacks of Big Brother, but to put a positive spin on this news, it can keep presenters from getting too dull.
Read the following story for the full details.
Read the following story for the full details.
Blogs and CBS
Read this detailed history of how blogs brought down CBS and its forged memos. It's instructive and should be a lesson to PR practitioners, corporate communicators and anyone else protecting reputations. The blog universe can strike quickly and hard. Dan Rather didn't see it coming and neither did CBS.
More of the Same
The previous note about elections parallels my reading -- a lengthy biography of Alexander Hamilton. Aaron Burr, it turns out, was the first effective campaign manager in New York City. He routed Hamilton's Federalists in state assembly elections through appealing to target segments and by breaking down a campaign into a logical exercise.
Hamilton, on the other hand, was a brilliant polemicist who answered every charge with more in return. He was a maker of noise and often, a successful one. In his defense, the Republicans, led by Jefferson and Madison, made as many irresponsible charges as Rush Limbaugh. They were shameless in their accusations, many of which they made up in their prolonged paranoia over Hamilton and his push for a strong Presidency.
The early years of the United States saw more vitriol than at any other time in American History except the Civil War. Indeed, both sides thought a civil war was about to occur.
Modern campaigning with its hellish noise and corrupted messaging has a precedent.
Hamilton, on the other hand, was a brilliant polemicist who answered every charge with more in return. He was a maker of noise and often, a successful one. In his defense, the Republicans, led by Jefferson and Madison, made as many irresponsible charges as Rush Limbaugh. They were shameless in their accusations, many of which they made up in their prolonged paranoia over Hamilton and his push for a strong Presidency.
The early years of the United States saw more vitriol than at any other time in American History except the Civil War. Indeed, both sides thought a civil war was about to occur.
Modern campaigning with its hellish noise and corrupted messaging has a precedent.
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Election by Noise
When is communication deliberately not communication? When there is an election. In a mythical world of rational elections, candidates communicate positions and voters make rational choices based on self-interest.
In the real world of elections, media confuse more than communicate -- exactly what they are supposed to do. No campaign really wants anyone to pay attention to issues. It is charge, counter-charge and imagery 24 hours a day distributed through every medium a campaign can afford to buy -- campaign appearances, TV, Radio, direct mail, billboards, lawn signs, bumper stickers, internet, telephone outreach, events, stunts, etc.
Modern campaigns are whirlwinds of message-sending through election day and in the sending, the message is lost. So, how do people determine who to vote for? They appear to form impressions of candidates based on a few less-than-credible elements and visuals. So campaign managers try to have their candidates present themselves in as many ways as possible to appeal to target segments.
I have worked on few campaigns so I cannot provide deep insight into what one does to win an election. But it was clear from the one campaign I did advise some years ago that others also don't know what to do. The people I counseled were clueless about how to handle the issue they were supporting. They rejected what they had to do in favor of advertising, some thing they knew well. They went down in flames.
This year, both Republicans and the Democrats are moving into personal, door-to-door appeals to individuals to vote. This is the machine electioneering that cities like Chicago used to employ. I know it works because a wardheeler showed at my door one day and asked how I was doing. I was impressed then and now.
It is interesting that with all the media in elections one needs to return to the oldest form of communication -- face-to-face.
In the real world of elections, media confuse more than communicate -- exactly what they are supposed to do. No campaign really wants anyone to pay attention to issues. It is charge, counter-charge and imagery 24 hours a day distributed through every medium a campaign can afford to buy -- campaign appearances, TV, Radio, direct mail, billboards, lawn signs, bumper stickers, internet, telephone outreach, events, stunts, etc.
Modern campaigns are whirlwinds of message-sending through election day and in the sending, the message is lost. So, how do people determine who to vote for? They appear to form impressions of candidates based on a few less-than-credible elements and visuals. So campaign managers try to have their candidates present themselves in as many ways as possible to appeal to target segments.
I have worked on few campaigns so I cannot provide deep insight into what one does to win an election. But it was clear from the one campaign I did advise some years ago that others also don't know what to do. The people I counseled were clueless about how to handle the issue they were supporting. They rejected what they had to do in favor of advertising, some thing they knew well. They went down in flames.
This year, both Republicans and the Democrats are moving into personal, door-to-door appeals to individuals to vote. This is the machine electioneering that cities like Chicago used to employ. I know it works because a wardheeler showed at my door one day and asked how I was doing. I was impressed then and now.
It is interesting that with all the media in elections one needs to return to the oldest form of communication -- face-to-face.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Media Relations - Basics
It seems like every time we meet a prospect we explain what we do for a living. Media relations are not that difficult, but no one understands why one needs a specialist or even if a company should talk to the media. So we trot out the same explanations over and over and try to give prospects some sense of what it is we do and why. I've grown tired of that, so I wrote this piece that is posted on online-pr.com under white papers and essays. You may use it at no cost other than telling people where you got it from.
Perhaps the simplest way to think about media relations is to think of ourselves as "concept salespersons." We peddle ideas to the media. That is not all we do, but when we are proactive that is exactly what we do. We sell a point of view that we back with facts and testimony from clients and others. Sometimes our cases are strong and self-evident. Sometimes they aren't. It is easier when concepts we sell are wrapped in products or services. It is harder when a concept is just that -- an idea not well tied to anything.
Read the piece and let me know what you think.
Perhaps the simplest way to think about media relations is to think of ourselves as "concept salespersons." We peddle ideas to the media. That is not all we do, but when we are proactive that is exactly what we do. We sell a point of view that we back with facts and testimony from clients and others. Sometimes our cases are strong and self-evident. Sometimes they aren't. It is easier when concepts we sell are wrapped in products or services. It is harder when a concept is just that -- an idea not well tied to anything.
Read the piece and let me know what you think.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Product Crisis
Business 2.0 has been tracking in its blog a potential product crisis. Someone has claimed that he can open the U-shaped Kryptonite bike lock using a simple Bic pen. The individual made a video of what he did and posted it on his web site where it has been copied and sent to many places. Damon Darlin, the blogger at Business 2.0 thought the video was a fake, then he contacted the person who made it -- an engineer in San Francisco. The engineer said the video was real, and he learned how to open the lock from someone else.
Quick. You are the Kryptonite company. What do you do now that someone has alleged your locks don't lock? The lock is your franchise.
First of all, you have to know about the allegation. If your PR people have not been monitoring web sites and blogs, you're in deep trouble. Secondly, you need to find out if you can replicate what the video shows. For this, you gather your engineers in a room with locks and Bic pens, and you try to open the lock with a pen stuffed into it. If you succeed, you have a BIG PR and customer service problem. If you don't, you still have a PR problem. What do you say to the world of Kryptonite lock owners? You can't say much beyond the fact that the company can't replicate the video and is continuing to research the problem. Then, you contact the engineer in San Francisco and ask him to show you how he opened the lock. If he demurs, you can be suspicious. If he accepts gladly, you have a BIG problem.
A crisis like this might mean the company may have to replace millions of bike locks -- an expensive exercise. Few firms can afford it. Or, Kryptonite would have to find a low cost way to prevent the opening the lock with a Bic pen and get that solution to the field as soon as possible. Another expensive exercise. The worst thing the firm could do would be to ignore the problem and hope it will go away. It won't. Kryptonite can be sure people across America are stuffing Bic pens into Kryptonite locks and trying to open them. If even a few succeed, its market share will plummet.
It's an interesting product crisis with many PR implications. I wish I were working on it.
Quick. You are the Kryptonite company. What do you do now that someone has alleged your locks don't lock? The lock is your franchise.
First of all, you have to know about the allegation. If your PR people have not been monitoring web sites and blogs, you're in deep trouble. Secondly, you need to find out if you can replicate what the video shows. For this, you gather your engineers in a room with locks and Bic pens, and you try to open the lock with a pen stuffed into it. If you succeed, you have a BIG PR and customer service problem. If you don't, you still have a PR problem. What do you say to the world of Kryptonite lock owners? You can't say much beyond the fact that the company can't replicate the video and is continuing to research the problem. Then, you contact the engineer in San Francisco and ask him to show you how he opened the lock. If he demurs, you can be suspicious. If he accepts gladly, you have a BIG problem.
A crisis like this might mean the company may have to replace millions of bike locks -- an expensive exercise. Few firms can afford it. Or, Kryptonite would have to find a low cost way to prevent the opening the lock with a Bic pen and get that solution to the field as soon as possible. Another expensive exercise. The worst thing the firm could do would be to ignore the problem and hope it will go away. It won't. Kryptonite can be sure people across America are stuffing Bic pens into Kryptonite locks and trying to open them. If even a few succeed, its market share will plummet.
It's an interesting product crisis with many PR implications. I wish I were working on it.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Great Showcase
First of all, apologies for yesterday's post. I was in no mood at 5:10 am to recreate a posting that Blogger had swallowed whole. I put down the main thought with no explanation and went to work. I should at some point go back and amplify the thought, but it won't be soon. I'm still burning over the way Blogger gets balky. Enough said.
General Electric is putting its money where its mouth is. It has created a showcase as well as wonderful PR for the company's medical technologies. This story details how the company has constructed a digital heart hospital in Tulsa, OK. The key to the story, it seems to me, is that doctors already are making rounds 30% faster than they did before, and the system is just gearing up. As it matures, the hospital will find more ways to save time and money.
Some months ago, I heard the CEO of GE, Jeff Immelt, say his company knows as much or more about health care as anyone because the company is deeply committed to medical technology. He indicated GE was going to do something about the healthcare crisis in the US in order to stop escalating costs. Well, he's doing it.
In fairness to the hospital and to the company, both have made it clear that only special hospitals today can afford GE's solution. It takes money to save money, and regular hospitals don't have cash. But GE is pioneering a way out of the crisis. Give the company credit.
General Electric is putting its money where its mouth is. It has created a showcase as well as wonderful PR for the company's medical technologies. This story details how the company has constructed a digital heart hospital in Tulsa, OK. The key to the story, it seems to me, is that doctors already are making rounds 30% faster than they did before, and the system is just gearing up. As it matures, the hospital will find more ways to save time and money.
Some months ago, I heard the CEO of GE, Jeff Immelt, say his company knows as much or more about health care as anyone because the company is deeply committed to medical technology. He indicated GE was going to do something about the healthcare crisis in the US in order to stop escalating costs. Well, he's doing it.
In fairness to the hospital and to the company, both have made it clear that only special hospitals today can afford GE's solution. It takes money to save money, and regular hospitals don't have cash. But GE is pioneering a way out of the crisis. Give the company credit.
Where is Grrrrr
It is deeply annoying to have written a blog entry only to find that blogger upchucks and doesn't post it. That just happened with an entry about the leading digital web sites of the US state governments. I won't bother to recreate the post, but Maine was the leader and not a state that you would think, such as California. It seemed to me that this was a useful reminder to those who think they have a birthright to the use of the Internet. Now if I can only get this posted...
Sunday, September 12, 2004
Deja Vu
With the touting of blogs as a new form of journalism, it is refreshing to find analogs in history that appear to indicate blogs aren't all that new. They are, perhaps, deja vu all over again. Here is a passage from the wonderful biography of Alexander Hamilton that I have been reading .
Like other newspapers of the 1790s, Freneau's National Gazette did not feign neutrality. With the population widely dispersed, newspapers were unabashedly partisan organs that supplied much of the adhesive power binding the incipient parties together. Americans were a literate people, and dozens of newspapers flourished. The country probably had more newspapers per capita than any other.... These papers tended to be short on facts -- there was little "spot news" reporting -- and long on opinion. They more closely resembled journals of opinion than daily newspapers.
That's a pretty good definition of many blogs. Nihil novum sub soli.
Like other newspapers of the 1790s, Freneau's National Gazette did not feign neutrality. With the population widely dispersed, newspapers were unabashedly partisan organs that supplied much of the adhesive power binding the incipient parties together. Americans were a literate people, and dozens of newspapers flourished. The country probably had more newspapers per capita than any other.... These papers tended to be short on facts -- there was little "spot news" reporting -- and long on opinion. They more closely resembled journals of opinion than daily newspapers.
That's a pretty good definition of many blogs. Nihil novum sub soli.
Thursday, September 09, 2004
Amazing Admission
The New York Times ran a story Thursday about Wal-Mart that contained an amazing admission. It should be a case study for every PR practitioner.
The CEO of Wal-Mart admitted in a conference held in Manhattan that the mega-retailer was responsible for its own image problems. Here is the key quote:
"What we found is that there is a different group of stakeholders today that are important and that is a person who's not familiar with Wal-Mart stores, they're not familiar with what we stand for. So their view of Wal-Mart stores is what they read in the newspaper and what they see on TV. We have decided it is important for us to reach out to that group."
PR 101, anyone? This was followed by a more striking admission from Mona Williams, the spokesperson for Wal-Mart.
For too long, we thought that if we just focused on our customers then everything else would follow. We probably did not realize soon enough how important it was to work with the media. It is an acknowledgement that the media and others offer important venues for telling our story, and we need to continue doing a better job at that.
In defense of Wal-Mart, it started out as a small-town retailer that followed the principles of its charismatic founder, Sam Walton. Sam died before Wal-Mart had grown into the giant that it is today. He didn't need to think much about the media when the company was smaller, so he ignored them. As Wal-Mart expanded, the size of the company became newsworthy and complaints against it grist for thousands of negative stories.
While one can be astonished at how long it took Wal-Mart to learn PR basics, give the firm credit for absorbing the lesson at last.
The CEO of Wal-Mart admitted in a conference held in Manhattan that the mega-retailer was responsible for its own image problems. Here is the key quote:
"What we found is that there is a different group of stakeholders today that are important and that is a person who's not familiar with Wal-Mart stores, they're not familiar with what we stand for. So their view of Wal-Mart stores is what they read in the newspaper and what they see on TV. We have decided it is important for us to reach out to that group."
PR 101, anyone? This was followed by a more striking admission from Mona Williams, the spokesperson for Wal-Mart.
For too long, we thought that if we just focused on our customers then everything else would follow. We probably did not realize soon enough how important it was to work with the media. It is an acknowledgement that the media and others offer important venues for telling our story, and we need to continue doing a better job at that.
In defense of Wal-Mart, it started out as a small-town retailer that followed the principles of its charismatic founder, Sam Walton. Sam died before Wal-Mart had grown into the giant that it is today. He didn't need to think much about the media when the company was smaller, so he ignored them. As Wal-Mart expanded, the size of the company became newsworthy and complaints against it grist for thousands of negative stories.
While one can be astonished at how long it took Wal-Mart to learn PR basics, give the firm credit for absorbing the lesson at last.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Offline and On
I wrote the following this morning: "Something is happening to blogger. It is isn't posting well. There is an entry from last night called "Wikis once more" that is present in the log but doesn't appear on the page. Curious. I am going to try to post this to see if the problem is associated with the entry."
I couldn't get it posted or anything else, so I wrote the help line and the company was prompt in response. Here is what they wrote:
Hi there,
We apologize for the problems you have been experiencing with Blogger. We had a simultaneous failure across multiple machines responsible for the publishing of Blog*Spot blogs, but this issue has now been fixed. To prevent this type of outage in the future, we are performing a full system audit to ensure that proper redundancies are in place.
Sincerely,
Blogger Support
So that is why you didn't see anything from me. We're back now to a regular publishing cycle, and my hat is off to support for a quick response
I couldn't get it posted or anything else, so I wrote the help line and the company was prompt in response. Here is what they wrote:
Hi there,
We apologize for the problems you have been experiencing with Blogger. We had a simultaneous failure across multiple machines responsible for the publishing of Blog*Spot blogs, but this issue has now been fixed. To prevent this type of outage in the future, we are performing a full system audit to ensure that proper redundancies are in place.
Sincerely,
Blogger Support
So that is why you didn't see anything from me. We're back now to a regular publishing cycle, and my hat is off to support for a quick response
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Wiki Once More
Reading through some blogs yesterday I as surprised that the topic of a Wikipedia had been a subject of discussion over Labor Day weekend. This story generally supports my view about the dangers of collaborative trust. The experimenter inserted false information into a wikipedia and waited for someone to correct it. No one did after five days.
This story from The Register casts a wickedly ironic eye on the whole proposition and concludes that a wiki is a potentially useful tool, but that's all. Finally, this entry from a fellow who should know better concludes that wikipedia's have newer and more factual entries than staid old encyclopedias. However, he chose entries that are likely to have updated information and he didn't choose entries that might not, such as cultural factors that go into winemaking.
While the case for a wikipedia is open, I remain skeptical of its overall value and of the value of any publication without a systematic editorial function.
This story from The Register casts a wickedly ironic eye on the whole proposition and concludes that a wiki is a potentially useful tool, but that's all. Finally, this entry from a fellow who should know better concludes that wikipedia's have newer and more factual entries than staid old encyclopedias. However, he chose entries that are likely to have updated information and he didn't choose entries that might not, such as cultural factors that go into winemaking.
While the case for a wikipedia is open, I remain skeptical of its overall value and of the value of any publication without a systematic editorial function.
Monday, September 06, 2004
Brilliant PR
I've been reading a biography of Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow. The biography should go far to boost Hamilton's reputation as one of the most important of America's founding fathers, even with his faults.
What struck me is that Hamilton could go down as one of the most brilliant practitioners of public relations in American history and perhaps, in world history as well. He would earn this title solely on the strength of the Federalist Papers, the series of essays he wrote with Madison and Jay to defend the proposed constitution of the United States. Hamilton was a busy lawyer at the time that he penned them. He dashed many off while the newspaper printer waited at his elbow. Today, historians consider the Federalist Papers to be founding documents of American political culture and among the most valuable discussions of political philosophy ever.
Hamilton was an autodidact and a lawyer but he started out as a bold and convincing speaker and essayist on a number of matters, the first being a description of a hurricane and destruction it had wrought. He never lost his gift for persuasiveness and argument, and his positions were informed both by experience and deep study.
It would be nice to think that modern day PR practitioners emulated Hamilton, but I doubt that is true for most. At least in my experience, far too many practitioners wait until they are told what to say and then, they write it into a press release or a speech. They do not think for themselves or do their own research. In fact, they feel it is not their job to suggest to internal or external clients what to say. As a result, they limit themselves and their usefulness.
If you haven't read the Hamilton biography, get it. It can teach you more about PR than any number of public relations texts.
What struck me is that Hamilton could go down as one of the most brilliant practitioners of public relations in American history and perhaps, in world history as well. He would earn this title solely on the strength of the Federalist Papers, the series of essays he wrote with Madison and Jay to defend the proposed constitution of the United States. Hamilton was a busy lawyer at the time that he penned them. He dashed many off while the newspaper printer waited at his elbow. Today, historians consider the Federalist Papers to be founding documents of American political culture and among the most valuable discussions of political philosophy ever.
Hamilton was an autodidact and a lawyer but he started out as a bold and convincing speaker and essayist on a number of matters, the first being a description of a hurricane and destruction it had wrought. He never lost his gift for persuasiveness and argument, and his positions were informed both by experience and deep study.
It would be nice to think that modern day PR practitioners emulated Hamilton, but I doubt that is true for most. At least in my experience, far too many practitioners wait until they are told what to say and then, they write it into a press release or a speech. They do not think for themselves or do their own research. In fact, they feel it is not their job to suggest to internal or external clients what to say. As a result, they limit themselves and their usefulness.
If you haven't read the Hamilton biography, get it. It can teach you more about PR than any number of public relations texts.
Can a Wiki Work?
I am a slow learner, I guess. I have been reading about wikis for some time and haven't paid much attention to them. Essentially, they are, according to one online dictionary,
a server program that allows users to collaborate in forming the content of a Web site. With a wiki, any user can edit the site content, including other users' contributions, using a regular Web browser. Basically, a wiki Web site operates on a principle of collaborative trust.
The worm in the idea, it seems to me, is that last term "collaborative trust." There are multiple views of humanity. One is that humans as a whole are good, and one can trust them to act wisely. Another is that humans are self-interested and do not act objectively. This latter view was exemplified by President Reagan's quote concerning the Russians, " Trust but verify." Auditing systems are built on the same principle. One trusts another to guard money and make correct entries, but one also systematically verifies this is being done.
It seems to me that "collaborative trust" can fail where there is no systematic editing process. Depending on others to automatically verify is shortsighted. There are multiple reasons why this is so beyond self-interest. There might not be another who knows the facts as well as the original person who made the entry. Others "assume" this individual is correct. There might an individual who merchandises his or her view of events, whether or not this view is accurate. There might be a reliance on conventional wisdom. In other words, expressed views are "politically correct" but not necessarily right, and other views are not welcomed. This is also called "groupthink." There might be a general lack of interest in the material that has been published and error resides on the wiki unchallenged.
Despite all this, I think a wiki can work under controlled circumstances where there is incentive for individuals to get it right. Such a circumstance, for example, may exist in a newsroom where there are penalties for allowing error to creep into reports too frequently and in a corporate environment with similar sanctions. But, a wiki encyclopedia? That concerns me.
a server program that allows users to collaborate in forming the content of a Web site. With a wiki, any user can edit the site content, including other users' contributions, using a regular Web browser. Basically, a wiki Web site operates on a principle of collaborative trust.
The worm in the idea, it seems to me, is that last term "collaborative trust." There are multiple views of humanity. One is that humans as a whole are good, and one can trust them to act wisely. Another is that humans are self-interested and do not act objectively. This latter view was exemplified by President Reagan's quote concerning the Russians, " Trust but verify." Auditing systems are built on the same principle. One trusts another to guard money and make correct entries, but one also systematically verifies this is being done.
It seems to me that "collaborative trust" can fail where there is no systematic editing process. Depending on others to automatically verify is shortsighted. There are multiple reasons why this is so beyond self-interest. There might not be another who knows the facts as well as the original person who made the entry. Others "assume" this individual is correct. There might an individual who merchandises his or her view of events, whether or not this view is accurate. There might be a reliance on conventional wisdom. In other words, expressed views are "politically correct" but not necessarily right, and other views are not welcomed. This is also called "groupthink." There might be a general lack of interest in the material that has been published and error resides on the wiki unchallenged.
Despite all this, I think a wiki can work under controlled circumstances where there is incentive for individuals to get it right. Such a circumstance, for example, may exist in a newsroom where there are penalties for allowing error to creep into reports too frequently and in a corporate environment with similar sanctions. But, a wiki encyclopedia? That concerns me.
Saturday, September 04, 2004
Tramping Through History
I've spent the last week with the family tramping through history. We went to the founding English Colony of the New World -- Jamestown and its successor, Williamsburg, and then the battlefield that ended conflict with Britain -- Yorktown.
It was fascinating to see how communications worked in the past and lies passed off as truth. Jamestown and its environs were described as pleasant places to live with endless riches in natural resources. When the first settlers landed in 1607 on a peninsula of the James River, surrounded by swamps and filled with malaria and other diseases, six out of seven of all original settlers died within a year. About 90 years later, the capitol of the colony was moved 10 miles away uphill to Williamsburg where there were fewer swamps. The heat was and is unbearable. We were there on a late August day with the humidity standing at 100 percent and the temperature in the high 80s. Walking left one soaked to the skin. Still later, the capitol of Virginia was moved to Richmond, even farther up the James River where it is a bit cooler.
Communications were vital to the functioning of Williamsburg and there were examples of newspapers, posters and advertisements posted throughout the restored 18th Century town. At Yorktown, communications took less of a role other than a visual reminder to the trapped British from the French fleet just offshore that no provisions could reach the army, and the colonists and French who surrounded the British on land were going to win the day.
It was a fun and educational week and a reminder that communications and persuasion have always been important factors to the functioning of societies.
It is time to get back to work.
It was fascinating to see how communications worked in the past and lies passed off as truth. Jamestown and its environs were described as pleasant places to live with endless riches in natural resources. When the first settlers landed in 1607 on a peninsula of the James River, surrounded by swamps and filled with malaria and other diseases, six out of seven of all original settlers died within a year. About 90 years later, the capitol of the colony was moved 10 miles away uphill to Williamsburg where there were fewer swamps. The heat was and is unbearable. We were there on a late August day with the humidity standing at 100 percent and the temperature in the high 80s. Walking left one soaked to the skin. Still later, the capitol of Virginia was moved to Richmond, even farther up the James River where it is a bit cooler.
Communications were vital to the functioning of Williamsburg and there were examples of newspapers, posters and advertisements posted throughout the restored 18th Century town. At Yorktown, communications took less of a role other than a visual reminder to the trapped British from the French fleet just offshore that no provisions could reach the army, and the colonists and French who surrounded the British on land were going to win the day.
It was a fun and educational week and a reminder that communications and persuasion have always been important factors to the functioning of societies.
It is time to get back to work.
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Last Post for Late Summer
The Republicans are coming to New York City. I'm leaving it.
This is not a political statement but one of convenience. There are already dozens of police officers spread through the length and breadth of Penn Station beneath Madison Square Garden where the convention will be held. Our railroad line is being routed away from the station for the duration, and the trek is not going to be fun. The city has suggested that those who can take off should do so.
Hey, who am I to disobey a suggestion like that in late August?
So, have fun for the final week of work before September and school starts. I'm going to hang out and start posting again after Labor Day.
And to those of you who read this blog regularly, thank you for doing so.
This is not a political statement but one of convenience. There are already dozens of police officers spread through the length and breadth of Penn Station beneath Madison Square Garden where the convention will be held. Our railroad line is being routed away from the station for the duration, and the trek is not going to be fun. The city has suggested that those who can take off should do so.
Hey, who am I to disobey a suggestion like that in late August?
So, have fun for the final week of work before September and school starts. I'm going to hang out and start posting again after Labor Day.
And to those of you who read this blog regularly, thank you for doing so.
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Quantity? Quality?
Having written two books thus far (and not about to write another), I was intrigued by this story from the UK with the statistic that UK publishing firms launch 175,000 books a year now. If that isn't throwing a mud at the wall, I would like to know what qualifies.
The writer was sanguine about survival of good works in the mountain of paper heaped on shelves, but I'm not. Years ago, I worked part-time as a book reviewer, and some stuff sent to me wouldn't qualify for the printed page. It was wretched writing and worse plots. But, I do remember a wonderful novel that arrived on my desk one day, just one. I praised it highly and never saw it again. I'm sure it was remaindered more quickly than I can type this sentence.
Serious work does get lost in the rush to publish something, anything to see what flies or falls. Most PR books I have seen, for example, are the same tired advice repackaged in different formats. Apparently there is a market for repetition. Original work is rare. But then, PR is not a field much given to original work.
The same is true for most trade business books I see. They trumpet deep insights into how companies operate, succeed and are led. They don't say much beyond what one can get from a Management 101 text. As a result, I have given up reading them. I have shelves full of text books anyway.
I spend most of my time with history because the lives of others and past events prove more interesting and real. Who knew that stoic George Washington had a fierce temper and would take it out on young Alexander Hamilton? Who knew Jefferson, that romantic democrat, would support the horrors of the French Revolution? Who knew the Hessians at Trenton were not drunk the morning that Washington attacked but worn out from guard duty while waiting for the Americans to show up?
The past tells me much about the future. What it says is that in spite of all the books that tell one how to be successful and distinguished, life is imperfect and some of us will never be successful or great. I appreciate that.
The writer was sanguine about survival of good works in the mountain of paper heaped on shelves, but I'm not. Years ago, I worked part-time as a book reviewer, and some stuff sent to me wouldn't qualify for the printed page. It was wretched writing and worse plots. But, I do remember a wonderful novel that arrived on my desk one day, just one. I praised it highly and never saw it again. I'm sure it was remaindered more quickly than I can type this sentence.
Serious work does get lost in the rush to publish something, anything to see what flies or falls. Most PR books I have seen, for example, are the same tired advice repackaged in different formats. Apparently there is a market for repetition. Original work is rare. But then, PR is not a field much given to original work.
The same is true for most trade business books I see. They trumpet deep insights into how companies operate, succeed and are led. They don't say much beyond what one can get from a Management 101 text. As a result, I have given up reading them. I have shelves full of text books anyway.
I spend most of my time with history because the lives of others and past events prove more interesting and real. Who knew that stoic George Washington had a fierce temper and would take it out on young Alexander Hamilton? Who knew Jefferson, that romantic democrat, would support the horrors of the French Revolution? Who knew the Hessians at Trenton were not drunk the morning that Washington attacked but worn out from guard duty while waiting for the Americans to show up?
The past tells me much about the future. What it says is that in spite of all the books that tell one how to be successful and distinguished, life is imperfect and some of us will never be successful or great. I appreciate that.
Sorry About That
For those of you who saw double or triple of the post below, my apologies. It is a problem I have with Blogger software. When Blogger runs slowly as it did this morning, it will not show any activity when one clicks on the switch that tells the system to post. So, of course, I clicked more than once, and Blogger posted every click. Grrrr. Worse, the darn system took five minutes to trundle through the process.
Blogger wasn't working at all last night, and I couldn't post at my normal time for the next day. (Like a newspaper writer, I write the day before.) Thus, I was caught this morning trying to write an entry on a system that barely worked. It should be fixed now.
Blogger wasn't working at all last night, and I couldn't post at my normal time for the next day. (Like a newspaper writer, I write the day before.) Thus, I was caught this morning trying to write an entry on a system that barely worked. It should be fixed now.
Murky
One critical communications task of PR is to make issues and ideas clear to target audiences. But, as this story relates again, there are areas that are never clear -- such as economics.
For every economist who says the country is on an uptick, one can find an economist who says the nation is poised on the edge of a downturn. It depends on your beliefs and your politics. No wonder President Harry Truman used to say he wanted one-armed economists.
Even more difficult is that economists are plowers of statistics. Both sides have a deep pile of numbers to prove their views. And, it is likely that both sets of numbers are accurate more or less, for little is precise when one measures trillions of activities that make up a modern economy.
In one sense, lack of clarity is a boon to PR practitioners, because they can cite figures that support a point of view and ignore others. But on the other hand, all that does is obfuscate issues because the other side does the same thing. The public hears contradictory interpretations and is left in a quandary. No wonder individuals fall back to a pocketbook measurement and ask, "Am I doing better or not?" There is more certainty in one's own experience than in averaged experiences of millions. Moreover, in every economy, there are niches that advance or decline faster than averages. In the last few years, the PR business has not recovered as quickly as advertising, for example, and overall PR billings are so small that it is easy to bury the entire field in larger numbers.
Even worse than lack of clarity is seeming agreement that is a mirage. The Internet Bubble at the end of the 1990s was one such fiction that blinded most of the nation and many insiders who bought off on its permanence. When most economists agreed, we were all in the wrong.
For every economist who says the country is on an uptick, one can find an economist who says the nation is poised on the edge of a downturn. It depends on your beliefs and your politics. No wonder President Harry Truman used to say he wanted one-armed economists.
Even more difficult is that economists are plowers of statistics. Both sides have a deep pile of numbers to prove their views. And, it is likely that both sets of numbers are accurate more or less, for little is precise when one measures trillions of activities that make up a modern economy.
In one sense, lack of clarity is a boon to PR practitioners, because they can cite figures that support a point of view and ignore others. But on the other hand, all that does is obfuscate issues because the other side does the same thing. The public hears contradictory interpretations and is left in a quandary. No wonder individuals fall back to a pocketbook measurement and ask, "Am I doing better or not?" There is more certainty in one's own experience than in averaged experiences of millions. Moreover, in every economy, there are niches that advance or decline faster than averages. In the last few years, the PR business has not recovered as quickly as advertising, for example, and overall PR billings are so small that it is easy to bury the entire field in larger numbers.
Even worse than lack of clarity is seeming agreement that is a mirage. The Internet Bubble at the end of the 1990s was one such fiction that blinded most of the nation and many insiders who bought off on its permanence. When most economists agreed, we were all in the wrong.
Monday, August 23, 2004
Dumb
There seems to be a never-ending supply of dumb ideas in PR and here is one. An outfit calling itself Blogversations is proposing to pay bloggers to discuss topics.
Blogversations says it is trying to do this properly. It claims it will match topics to bloggers and if bloggers opt to write about a product, service or topic, they will get paid for doing so -- or something like that. The outfit says it doesn't want bloggers to sell out, but it misses one small point -- whenever money changes hands there is suspicion of a sell-out. Here is what Blogversations says -- missing the point:
Advantages for bloggers: Leverage your authority and audience to earn money - without losing control over what you've got to say. Turn your ideas, criticisms, opinions, and reader share into money - and not muddy up your site with clunky ads in the process. Engage your audience with thought-provoking issues and questions.
The outfit says it doesn't want advertorials but what the heck are they if you are paying the blogger to write about the topic, no matter how seriously the blogger treats it? Or, let me ask it this way, would Blogversations still pay the blogger, if the blogger says the product stinks? How long would an advertiser stay with Blogversations, if one blogger after another said the product stinks?
There are fundamentals in PR that must be preserved to keep credibility. Paying for editorial, no matter how you do it, is a breach of fundamentals. Credibility comes from impartial consideration of a topic, product or service and impartial discussion of facts and opinions about it without payment. The PR person resorts to persuasion and only persuasion to get someone to write because it is essential to preserve credibility.
In defense of Blogversations, early publicists did pay for coverage. In fact, the first publicity shop of the 20th Century used to pay newspapers to run stories on the wonders of the telephone. But, it didn't take long before other publicists realized this was not the way to operate, and these publicists stopped paying but relied on persuasion and the merits of the topic, product or service. Blogversations wants to take us back to the future.
For the sake of the PR business, I hope this idea goes away quietly. Otherwise, bloggers will have to defend themselves every time they turn around and that's a pain.
(For the record, neither this blog nor the web site -- www.online-pr.com -- take any remuneration of any kind from anyone and never have. That way, I'm free to say what I want about the field. )
Blogversations says it is trying to do this properly. It claims it will match topics to bloggers and if bloggers opt to write about a product, service or topic, they will get paid for doing so -- or something like that. The outfit says it doesn't want bloggers to sell out, but it misses one small point -- whenever money changes hands there is suspicion of a sell-out. Here is what Blogversations says -- missing the point:
Advantages for bloggers: Leverage your authority and audience to earn money - without losing control over what you've got to say. Turn your ideas, criticisms, opinions, and reader share into money - and not muddy up your site with clunky ads in the process. Engage your audience with thought-provoking issues and questions.
The outfit says it doesn't want advertorials but what the heck are they if you are paying the blogger to write about the topic, no matter how seriously the blogger treats it? Or, let me ask it this way, would Blogversations still pay the blogger, if the blogger says the product stinks? How long would an advertiser stay with Blogversations, if one blogger after another said the product stinks?
There are fundamentals in PR that must be preserved to keep credibility. Paying for editorial, no matter how you do it, is a breach of fundamentals. Credibility comes from impartial consideration of a topic, product or service and impartial discussion of facts and opinions about it without payment. The PR person resorts to persuasion and only persuasion to get someone to write because it is essential to preserve credibility.
In defense of Blogversations, early publicists did pay for coverage. In fact, the first publicity shop of the 20th Century used to pay newspapers to run stories on the wonders of the telephone. But, it didn't take long before other publicists realized this was not the way to operate, and these publicists stopped paying but relied on persuasion and the merits of the topic, product or service. Blogversations wants to take us back to the future.
For the sake of the PR business, I hope this idea goes away quietly. Otherwise, bloggers will have to defend themselves every time they turn around and that's a pain.
(For the record, neither this blog nor the web site -- www.online-pr.com -- take any remuneration of any kind from anyone and never have. That way, I'm free to say what I want about the field. )
Sunday, August 22, 2004
Rediscovering the Obvious
Sometimes I think I've been around PR too long. I get this feeling when I discover articles like this one which discusses why some blogs fare better than others. The reasons J.D.Lasica, a respected commentator, provides are obvious:
- Niche expertise. Don't speak outside the limits of your authority.
- Transparency in motives. Of course.
- Transparency in process. Providing proof is fundamental.
- Forthrightness about mistakes. What else is new?
Anyone who has passed PR 101 should know these guidelines. There is nothing new here that hasn't been known since the days of the Ancient Greeks. What this tells me is something obvious. There is not much new about blogging. The same rules for guarding and building credibility apply in blogging as they do in any other medium.
These four guidelines have been at the root of this blog since its beginning more than two years ago. Views focus on communications and PR -- areas I have worked in for more than 25 years. The point of each entry is clear -- commenting on and teaching communications principles from observing the world. Sources and proofs are listed. And more than once, I have fessed up to erring. I wasn't prescient nor insightful by doing this. I was simply and obviously following communications principles. Do bloggers know so little that a wheel has to be pointed out to them?
