Monday, December 13, 2004
Integrated Marketing
A hat tip to PR Machine for this catch. It is a discussion in PR week about integrated marketing and how PR firms are adapting to changes. There isn't much new in the article, but it is good to see there is movement toward cooperation among marketing communications arms to serve clients. One would expect that integration might be farther along than it is. The problem still seems to be yielding of control. Each marketing communications arm has to be willing to give a little for the greater good. That is hard to do. It is usually up to a company's marketers to enforce discipline. I suspect PR often takes a back seat in marketing discussions because it is not considered strategic, and it doesn't have the biggest budget. Of course, the only way PR will become strategic is when PR practitioners think and act that way. As long as practitioners are order-takers, there will marketers willing to give orders rather than to listen.
They Don't Get It
A hat tip to the Ad Freak site for this one. The McCann Worldgroup site is easily the worst flash and motion site that I have encountered in a communications company. Far from proving how good McCann is, the site shows that McCann simply doesn't get the internet or the web. Check it for yourself.
Sunday, December 12, 2004
Worth Checking
This blog doesn't recommend products or services, but the following site might be worth checking if you need public affairs monitoring. Customscoop originally contacted me because the firm thought I might be interested in news monitoring, but the site doesn't find news any faster than Google or Yahoo news searches. What I do like, however, is the number of government and policy sources it covers. This area, I believe, is overlooked.
The site claims it examines 7,000 government sources including the European Union as well as 1,200 policy sources including state and regional associations, think tanks and advocacy groups. Because so much of what PR deals with these days comes from political sources, it might be worth watching these areas.
We had a big-name monitoring service at our agency, and we gave it up a few months ago. It didn't work well, and it was slow. Further, it was mindless in what it filtered. When a colleague surveyed the agency to find out who was using the service, he found only one person. Monitoring services seem to work best when one has several keywords and clients to track or large volumes of electronic clips daily. Otherwise, it seems better and faster to do it by hand. What has been your experience?
The site claims it examines 7,000 government sources including the European Union as well as 1,200 policy sources including state and regional associations, think tanks and advocacy groups. Because so much of what PR deals with these days comes from political sources, it might be worth watching these areas.
We had a big-name monitoring service at our agency, and we gave it up a few months ago. It didn't work well, and it was slow. Further, it was mindless in what it filtered. When a colleague surveyed the agency to find out who was using the service, he found only one person. Monitoring services seem to work best when one has several keywords and clients to track or large volumes of electronic clips daily. Otherwise, it seems better and faster to do it by hand. What has been your experience?
Friday, December 10, 2004
Trust, cont.
There have been reports in the last couple of days about whom people trust. Car salesmen were at the bottom of the ranking. I bring this up because I have just purchased a vehicle for the family. I couldn't face a gauntlet of salesmen hustling me. They have to make a living, but please...
The internet was salvation. I found the vehicle online that I wanted with features I was looking for. I checked the manufacturer's invoice price, the suggested retail price (MSRP), and location of dealers. I wrote the internet salesperson at each dealer and asked for a bid. After two rounds of bidding where each could improve the offer, I selected one and am completing the deal. As a precaution, we did visit each dealership surreptitiously but did not talk to a single salesperson in the process. We also saw the vehicle we are going to buy without a single person bothering us.
It's sad when an institution has such a low reputation that you don't want to work with it, but that's the case with car dealers. I don't plan to buy a car again anytime soon, but I will use the internet when I do. Anything to avoid a pushy salesman.
The internet was salvation. I found the vehicle online that I wanted with features I was looking for. I checked the manufacturer's invoice price, the suggested retail price (MSRP), and location of dealers. I wrote the internet salesperson at each dealer and asked for a bid. After two rounds of bidding where each could improve the offer, I selected one and am completing the deal. As a precaution, we did visit each dealership surreptitiously but did not talk to a single salesperson in the process. We also saw the vehicle we are going to buy without a single person bothering us.
It's sad when an institution has such a low reputation that you don't want to work with it, but that's the case with car dealers. I don't plan to buy a car again anytime soon, but I will use the internet when I do. Anything to avoid a pushy salesman.
Trust and Brand
This study might seem obvious but it verifies what I was writing in the paper, "Trust, Reason and Relations." It was an examination at MIT of 10,000 internet shoppers over a year searching for books. MIT learned that 51% of the shoppers were willing to pay more to purchase the same book from a better-known vendor whom they can trust. Price was not the determining factor.
The study affirmed that there is something to brands after all -- at least in the online world. The issue of trust is obvious. In an environment of uncertainty, shoppers prefer to deal with sellers who have established a reputation for fair dealing.
Does this mean that where there is certainty or a perception that all are the same, branding breaks down and price rules? This would be a neat corollary but humans are not rational economic creatures, so I'm not sure the opposite is true. If it is, then many companies are wasting money trying to project brand images in marketplaces where consumers don't distinguish one from another all that much. Perhaps that is why Wal-Mart is doing so well with its focus on low prices. Consumers have come to expect that much of modern living is a staple to be purchased rationally and if it is this toothpaste rather than that one and this mouthwash instead of that, who cares?
The study affirmed that there is something to brands after all -- at least in the online world. The issue of trust is obvious. In an environment of uncertainty, shoppers prefer to deal with sellers who have established a reputation for fair dealing.
Does this mean that where there is certainty or a perception that all are the same, branding breaks down and price rules? This would be a neat corollary but humans are not rational economic creatures, so I'm not sure the opposite is true. If it is, then many companies are wasting money trying to project brand images in marketplaces where consumers don't distinguish one from another all that much. Perhaps that is why Wal-Mart is doing so well with its focus on low prices. Consumers have come to expect that much of modern living is a staple to be purchased rationally and if it is this toothpaste rather than that one and this mouthwash instead of that, who cares?
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
IT Relations
If you read this blog regularly, you know healthcare is an issue that recurs. Healthcare is a bankrupt field with a lousy PR image because hospitals and healthcare institutions need to reform but can't afford it. They look to the government for handouts, and the government hasn't money to give. Better yet, it won't give it because money won't be spent wisely in changing bad management practices.
That is why it was wonderful to read this story. Two doctors set out to found a medical practice that actually builds relationships with patients through use of information technology rather than making them numbers in a soulless machine. And, by early accounts, they have succeeded. The doctors spent a lot of time looking at what works and what doesn't before they acted, and then, they found a vendor that most closely matches what they want to do. Notice something about this. IT is not used for cost cutting but for better service. The cost cutting is inherent in a better system. In other words, good PR is more efficient.
If two doctors can achieve this, what about the rest of healthcare? There are reasons why doctors no longer have the perceived authority they once had. They may be smart, but they don't know how to treat people under the present system. Maybe other doctors should do what these two did and find their own paths to better patient relationships.
That is why it was wonderful to read this story. Two doctors set out to found a medical practice that actually builds relationships with patients through use of information technology rather than making them numbers in a soulless machine. And, by early accounts, they have succeeded. The doctors spent a lot of time looking at what works and what doesn't before they acted, and then, they found a vendor that most closely matches what they want to do. Notice something about this. IT is not used for cost cutting but for better service. The cost cutting is inherent in a better system. In other words, good PR is more efficient.
If two doctors can achieve this, what about the rest of healthcare? There are reasons why doctors no longer have the perceived authority they once had. They may be smart, but they don't know how to treat people under the present system. Maybe other doctors should do what these two did and find their own paths to better patient relationships.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Try Again
I posted an essay recently called, "Trust, Reason and Relations," and invited comment. One of my friends did just that. His comments convinced me that I had to go back and revise the document. The revised version is now posted for your consideration.
Again, I solicit your comments about the piece. It has been difficult to write. The problem is that I looked at a topic that we all know but maybe we don't. This is the issue of secular trust or belief. We learn from the first day in communications that spokespersons must be credible. But what does credible mean? Does it mean any celebrity that you can pay to give a speech as former president Bill Clinton just did for the launch of a search engine? Does it mean hiring a smashing model to promote McDonald's hamburgers as just happened? I don't think so. The public sees too many spokespersons. Any educated individual looks upon them as hired flacks and doesn't trust them that much.
So what is trust? The answer is that we don't know from a scientific point of view. No one has successfully traced the pathways in the brain that lead to belief in another or in the outcome of circumstances and events. So, why bother? A good question but failure to understand trust leads to worrisome situations mentioned in the paper. In matters of law, for example, can one trust an eyewitness? Can one trust five eyewitnesses? Well, no. Eyewitnesses are notorious for making things up even when they think they are telling exactly what they saw. Can one trust a detective who thinks he or she has a built-in "bullshit" detector and knows when a suspect is lying? No again. Can one trust anyone who is a message bearer? Yes, but it is not always clear why.
The outcome of this maundering is that it struck me forcefully that we should be spending far more time than we do gauging the trustworthiness of spokespersons we use. I don't know about you, but that is not something I have done much of.
Again, I solicit your comments about the piece. It has been difficult to write. The problem is that I looked at a topic that we all know but maybe we don't. This is the issue of secular trust or belief. We learn from the first day in communications that spokespersons must be credible. But what does credible mean? Does it mean any celebrity that you can pay to give a speech as former president Bill Clinton just did for the launch of a search engine? Does it mean hiring a smashing model to promote McDonald's hamburgers as just happened? I don't think so. The public sees too many spokespersons. Any educated individual looks upon them as hired flacks and doesn't trust them that much.
So what is trust? The answer is that we don't know from a scientific point of view. No one has successfully traced the pathways in the brain that lead to belief in another or in the outcome of circumstances and events. So, why bother? A good question but failure to understand trust leads to worrisome situations mentioned in the paper. In matters of law, for example, can one trust an eyewitness? Can one trust five eyewitnesses? Well, no. Eyewitnesses are notorious for making things up even when they think they are telling exactly what they saw. Can one trust a detective who thinks he or she has a built-in "bullshit" detector and knows when a suspect is lying? No again. Can one trust anyone who is a message bearer? Yes, but it is not always clear why.
The outcome of this maundering is that it struck me forcefully that we should be spending far more time than we do gauging the trustworthiness of spokespersons we use. I don't know about you, but that is not something I have done much of.
Where Have I Been
I missed this story earlier, and I wonder why. It's about a PR agency that keeps an open bar while holding brainstorming sessions. Apparently a little snifter of this and that helps the creative processes, or so says one of the agency's owners. I have read writer's advice that says one should keep authors well-stocked with booze, but this is the first time I have read about a PR agency doing it.
Just think of the creative excuses one would have for reeling home after work. "It was a brilliant brainstorming." Now, in defense of the agency owner, she maintains no one has overindulged so far and the bar bill has helped the agency conduct better business. Still, without being a prude on the matter, I don't think it is a good idea, and I won't drink while on duty. The issue is staying awake for the rest of the day. Alcohol relaxes me to the point of wandering in a sleepy fog if I tipple during work hours.
Maybe you don't relax as much. If not, here's a great new benefit to suggest to your employer. (Don't be surprised if you get turned down.)
Just think of the creative excuses one would have for reeling home after work. "It was a brilliant brainstorming." Now, in defense of the agency owner, she maintains no one has overindulged so far and the bar bill has helped the agency conduct better business. Still, without being a prude on the matter, I don't think it is a good idea, and I won't drink while on duty. The issue is staying awake for the rest of the day. Alcohol relaxes me to the point of wandering in a sleepy fog if I tipple during work hours.
Maybe you don't relax as much. If not, here's a great new benefit to suggest to your employer. (Don't be surprised if you get turned down.)
Sunday, December 05, 2004
Not a Great Idea
The folks that brought us the wikipedia are now trying out wiki reporting of the news. The link is here. I don't think much of this effort. I don't think much of the wikipedia effort either. It is hard enough to get good fact checking and a democratic approach to it is not a sufficient safeguard to get the story accurately. I know. I know. I've heard all the arguments to the contrary. I'm from Missouri. Show me.
Google Do You Do
This is an interesting story. It seems that 23% of us have used Google to check up on friends, potential employers, present employers and others. We have written here often that attempting to hide one's past or bad news is silly in the internet age, and this is one more example of why it is so foolhardy.
On the other hand, one should be careful when googling others. I learned that I was a Civil War soldier and there is a statue of me in Iowa. I also found that I was a judge in the Scottsboro case and a member of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission -- if you change my middle initial. O, I won a Medal of Honor too aboard a Navy ship in 1865.
Yes, I am represented heavily on the internet but I'm not a doctor who also has my middle initial in Ionia, Michigan.
On the other hand, one should be careful when googling others. I learned that I was a Civil War soldier and there is a statue of me in Iowa. I also found that I was a judge in the Scottsboro case and a member of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission -- if you change my middle initial. O, I won a Medal of Honor too aboard a Navy ship in 1865.
Yes, I am represented heavily on the internet but I'm not a doctor who also has my middle initial in Ionia, Michigan.
Amazing
I'm indebted to my colleague, Mike Cargill, for this link, which is one of the hippest viral marketing ideas I've seen in recent days. It also is a great PR idea. The giftmixer allows you to match personalities to books with the help of a computer voice that specializes in a bit of insult humor along the way. Think about it. The idea could be used for any number of things including courses in school, career choices, entertainment options, places to visit, etc.
I'd like to know who developed the concept.
I'd like to know who developed the concept.
Friday, December 03, 2004
QED
Apropos of the posting below, the Los Angeles Times just announced that it will quit printing a national edition of the paper. The lead on the article makes the point of the earlier post:
The Los Angeles Times is killing its printed daily national edition at the end of the year, saying the Internet and other electronic distribution channels have made the paper copy irrelevant.
The Los Angeles Times is killing its printed daily national edition at the end of the year, saying the Internet and other electronic distribution channels have made the paper copy irrelevant.
Thursday, December 02, 2004
Tomorrow, Who Knows?
The newspaper industry is in trouble -- not because publishers have cheated on circulation numbers, which several have done. The trouble lies with young professionals who are not reading newspapers and see no need to do so. It's not that the young are illiterate, or that they depend on TV news. They read online because it is quicker, and they flit from site to site and pick up as much or more information than they would get by turning newspaper pages. There is angst among publishers about how to respond to this change in media preference. No one, it seems, has figured out a workable economic model.
I have angst of a different sort, however. What is the PR industry doing?
A dirty secret we live with is that clients don't value online publishing as much as readers do. They want to see a clip on newsprint. It's real that way. An online page of HTML formatting isn't the same. But since readers value HTML above newsprint, we dare not ignore them out of responsibility for clients, as well as our own professionalism.
The time is here for some and coming soon for others when most placements will be online. The newspaper or magazine clip will be an oddity. The transition is rough, and we are not yet at a tipping point.
I have angst of a different sort, however. What is the PR industry doing?
A dirty secret we live with is that clients don't value online publishing as much as readers do. They want to see a clip on newsprint. It's real that way. An online page of HTML formatting isn't the same. But since readers value HTML above newsprint, we dare not ignore them out of responsibility for clients, as well as our own professionalism.
The time is here for some and coming soon for others when most placements will be online. The newspaper or magazine clip will be an oddity. The transition is rough, and we are not yet at a tipping point.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Great PR
The best PR is still persuasive presentation of facts. That makes this presentation a fine piece of public relations work. It is a detailed report of weapons caches, explosives and violations of human rights that the US military discovered in Fallujah. There had been controversy about what insurgents are doing, and it is clear the aim of this report was to end questions about who was at fault. In a nearly dry manner, the report steps through every mosque that had weapons and/or was used as a fighting position, every armament found in a mosque and every violation. One can see through the photos and minimal text that the investigators wanted to leave no doubt. By time they are done, the evidence is damning. The one false note is the section on humanitarian assistance, which strains to make its point.
This is PR at its best -- evidence presented clearly and convincingly such that anyone can grasp its meaning. Even the media didn't argue with it, especially not those embedded with the troops.
Does this mean Iraqis will now befriend Americans because they have seen the light? Not in the least. It does mean international criticism of the US will be, and has so far been, muted with regard to Fallujah. There is not much one can say about torture and slaughter. The insurgents hardly showed themselves as humanitarians.
It is rare that one gets an opportunity to disclose abundant evidence like this and to build a case so convincingly. Most of the time, PR work is like Colin Powell at the UN -- delivering suppositions based on suspect evidence. In Fallujah, weapons and violence were documented beyond doubt.
This is PR at its best -- evidence presented clearly and convincingly such that anyone can grasp its meaning. Even the media didn't argue with it, especially not those embedded with the troops.
Does this mean Iraqis will now befriend Americans because they have seen the light? Not in the least. It does mean international criticism of the US will be, and has so far been, muted with regard to Fallujah. There is not much one can say about torture and slaughter. The insurgents hardly showed themselves as humanitarians.
It is rare that one gets an opportunity to disclose abundant evidence like this and to build a case so convincingly. Most of the time, PR work is like Colin Powell at the UN -- delivering suppositions based on suspect evidence. In Fallujah, weapons and violence were documented beyond doubt.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
I Can't Help It
I've tried to behave myself. I really have. But, what the heck, this one is too good to let go.
Jack O'Dwyer in his Nov. 24 Newsletter writes about Google rankings and how they "are as credible a source of the attention being garnered by various companies and subjects as anything these days." He had written a story on page 7 about the top 100 rankings for the term "public relations." He spotlights PRSA, which is number one and Institute of PR, UK, which is number three, Edelman, which is number 4 and the PR Museum of New York, which is number five. Notice a number missing there? He then goes on to give rankings of a number of other firms, including O'Dwyer's Newsletter, which is number 13.
I read the story and idly wondered if my site online-pr.com might be represented in the top 100. The site has been in existence since 1997 as a resource to the industry, and I have tried to update it daily. I figured I would be in the 90s somewhere. So, I went to Google and entered "public relations." Online-pr.com comes up as number two!
Well, I thought Jack must be using a different ranking for "public relations," because why would he see fit to deliberately ignore my site when he mentions all the other top five and sites as low as 96? Then, I thought that maybe he did so because I'm not important enough to mention in the same paragraphs with Edelman and other PR firms. Nah, Jack wouldn't do that, would he? Not when he is careful to note he is no. 13, some 11 positions below online-pr.com.
So, I am befuddled. Why would Jack O'Dwyer ignore online-pr.com, if indeed it is number two, as Google appears to show? Maybe Jack could let me know. I'm just wondering.
Jack O'Dwyer in his Nov. 24 Newsletter writes about Google rankings and how they "are as credible a source of the attention being garnered by various companies and subjects as anything these days." He had written a story on page 7 about the top 100 rankings for the term "public relations." He spotlights PRSA, which is number one and Institute of PR, UK, which is number three, Edelman, which is number 4 and the PR Museum of New York, which is number five. Notice a number missing there? He then goes on to give rankings of a number of other firms, including O'Dwyer's Newsletter, which is number 13.
I read the story and idly wondered if my site online-pr.com might be represented in the top 100. The site has been in existence since 1997 as a resource to the industry, and I have tried to update it daily. I figured I would be in the 90s somewhere. So, I went to Google and entered "public relations." Online-pr.com comes up as number two!
Well, I thought Jack must be using a different ranking for "public relations," because why would he see fit to deliberately ignore my site when he mentions all the other top five and sites as low as 96? Then, I thought that maybe he did so because I'm not important enough to mention in the same paragraphs with Edelman and other PR firms. Nah, Jack wouldn't do that, would he? Not when he is careful to note he is no. 13, some 11 positions below online-pr.com.
So, I am befuddled. Why would Jack O'Dwyer ignore online-pr.com, if indeed it is number two, as Google appears to show? Maybe Jack could let me know. I'm just wondering.
Monday, November 29, 2004
A Classic PR Campaign
This posting offers something I haven't done before. It provides a case study of a successful political campaign in Northern California for the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). I am posting it because against opposition, BART passed a measure that funds earthquake retrofit on the system. The measure had failed once before, and citizens are notorious for defeating tax measures. Molly McArthur, Manager, Community Relations, penned the case at my request. It is presented below. In case you wonder how I know about this, my brother is the project engineer for the billion-dollar job. It's a great story and a classic PR campaign.
On November 2, voters in the three Bay Area Counties that comprise the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) passed Measure AA with a 68% vote. Measure AA is a property tax measure to fund needed earthquake safety upgrades to the BART system. This was the second time around for BART putting forward a bond measure to fund the earthquake work, and passage of Measure AA was far from certain.
The first attempt was in 2002, and the measure failed by just under two percentage points. Voters in Eastern Contra Costa County, across the bay from San Francisco, were the significant opposition to the measure. Many Contra Costans objected to paying for transit system upgrades via a property tax. Their 2002 yes vote at 54.9% diluted the needed two-thirds and sank the measure.
Other residents were unsure upgrades were needed or were unaware that safety problems had been identified. BART had survived the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake nearly perfectly intact. Within 24 hours of that 6.9 Richter shaker, BART was up and running a full schedule, while the San Francisco Bay Bridge was out of service for two months. BART became the Bay Areas transportation lifeline. The common wisdom in the Bay Area was that the safest place to be in a major earthquake was in BARTs underwater Transbay Tube. BART was the victim of its success.
The problem was how to communicate the nature of the structural vulnerabilities without frightening people away from the trains. The worst-case scenario for the underwater Tube is structural damage that could lead to failure, and flooding of underground stations in downtown San Francisco. BART Leadership was concerned about the financial impact of possible ridership losses, as well as the impact of public mistrust.
It was clear that BART needed an education plan for the Earthquake Program to address issues and create messages that would:
1. Convey enough information about the vulnerabilities of the system to provide the reason to vote yes, without frightening people off trains;
2. Provide reassurance that engineers in charge of the program know how to fix the problems and stand ready to move quickly;
3. Persuade the region that a property tax is an appropriate funding source;
4. Overcome deep public mistrust, based in part on the recent quadrupling of the budget for re-building the Bay Bridge; and
5. Educate the media about the program to ensure accurate reporting.
In addition, because of significant California state budget deficits, multiple competing tax measures were expected on every county ballot. Finally, BART had to accomplish the education plan on a shoestring budget.
BART started by creating an aggressive grassroots public education effort. The Agency created an informative 15-minute presentation. It then contacted groups from the Rotary and Lions clubs, homeowners associations and neighborhood groups to schools and PTAs, merchant and business associations and scheduled presentations. Every week, project staff members were speaking somewhere, including the Project Manager, Community Relations and engineering staff. One of the secondary benefits of these presentations was as a gauge of public sentiment. BART recorded comments made during Q&A. Between March and September, 2004, BART detected a discernible shift in understanding of issues, from initial resistance to soft resistance to what we felt was -- and hoped would be -- acceptance. Public feedback confirmed that people wanted to know the information. They wanted BART to level with them.
In addition, members of BARTs elected Board of Directors made presentations to City Councils and policy groups to secure their support for the bond. Cities, especially those with BART stations, signed on as supporters. Significantly, efforts by Board members to reach the Contra Costa Tax Payers Association yielded support as well.
BART knew that media would be critical to gain the widest possible reach for its message. The agency developed a plan guided by several principles: First, news events had to have genuine project news value. Second, the events had to provide something reporters could not get on their own. Third, outside experts willing to participate in our events would lend additional credibility. Finally, each event would build upon the previous one and amplify the effect.
BART planned four events. In April, a midnight tour of the underwater Transbay Tube would take journalists directly to the seismic joints the site of great potential damage. Few outsiders ever gain access to the Tube, let alone 50 journalists and photographers. Led by the project manager, and joined by outside experts from the United States Geological Survey, the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) and several highly regarded engineering firms, the event would bring together a veritable scientific conference of expertise. Journalists would see the problem for themselves and question highly regarded authorities. This event would announce to the Bay Area that BART has vulnerabilities that must be addressed.
Executive managers were concerned about negative repercussions on ridership, as well as setting a precedent for taking outsiders into a sensitive secure area. Some, in fact, were dead set against the idea. The communications team and the project management team had to persuade the executives, weighing the risk of riders avoiding the trains against the benefits of successfully educating the public through the media. After long discussions, the event was green-lighted.
The event went off flawlessly and the story ran on every broadcast station and every major newspaper in the Bay Area. Value of the airtime came in at $302,029, with 4,551,281 impressions. Not one negative angle appeared in the entire run. The journalists listened carefully, read the fact sheets, materials and graphics; interviewed the experts and the project leadership -- and got the story right. That set the stage for the rest of the plan.
In August, BART invited journalists to a BART station to witness activation of a newly installed sensor to measure ground motion. In September, on the 30th Anniversary of the Transbay Tube, journalists were invited to take a ride out on San Francisco Bay to see work begin on a drilling platform where tests will yield data necessary to prepare for work on the Transbay Tube. And in October, on the 15th anniversary of the 1989 Loma Prieta quake, journalists were invited to a BART station to hear from EERI and researchers at U.C. Berkeley, from whom a study was commissioned to show traffic impacts in the event BART were not running for any reason. (The impacts were catastrophic).
The traffic study brought the effort home with messages that were personal for each commuter. Study results showed that most commutes would at least double and some would triple without BART. Even people who do not ride BART had a reason to care if trains were not running. BART placed the results on its website on an interactive map. Commuters could click on their commute corridor and compare commutes with and without BART running. The story led the news that day, and data was used in follow-up stories days and weeks later.
Over time, attitudes changed. In presentations during March and April, audience members were surprised to learn about the vulnerabilities in the BART system. By September, most people knew about the problems and were more concerned about the timeline for fixing the problems and how to pay for the work.
As October wound down, the only opposition came from a small, local taxpayers group that felt riders should pay for the upgrades a plan that would require decades to amass sufficient funds from ticket prices.
Editorial Board meetings yielded endorsements that ran at the end of October in the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Jose Mercury News, the Oakland Tribune all the major area papers, except for the Contra Costa Times, which opposed Measure AA. BART sought Letters to the Editor from EERI and the USGS, and sent them to the same papers. The papers printed the pro-Measure AA letters, and in the case of the Contra Costa Times, the letter ran side by side with an anti-Measure AA editorial.
Although the newspaper of record in Contra Costa County opposed Measure AA, and the taxpayer anti-Measure AA group was quoted in most stories, the education effort reached enough of the public that the yes vote in Contra Costa County increased by nearly six percentage points from 54.9% in 2002 to 60.4% in 2004. The 68% yes on Measure AA was among the few tax measures to pass on November 2nd.
From the start, it was clear if we were going to make it over the top with Measure AA, we had to give citizens reasons to vote yes. We said Measure AA would increase public safety on BART, return the system to operation quickly, avoid gridlocked traffic and support economic recovery following a major earthquake. A knowledgeable Bay Area agreed and voted yes on Measure AA.
On November 2, voters in the three Bay Area Counties that comprise the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) passed Measure AA with a 68% vote. Measure AA is a property tax measure to fund needed earthquake safety upgrades to the BART system. This was the second time around for BART putting forward a bond measure to fund the earthquake work, and passage of Measure AA was far from certain.
The first attempt was in 2002, and the measure failed by just under two percentage points. Voters in Eastern Contra Costa County, across the bay from San Francisco, were the significant opposition to the measure. Many Contra Costans objected to paying for transit system upgrades via a property tax. Their 2002 yes vote at 54.9% diluted the needed two-thirds and sank the measure.
Other residents were unsure upgrades were needed or were unaware that safety problems had been identified. BART had survived the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake nearly perfectly intact. Within 24 hours of that 6.9 Richter shaker, BART was up and running a full schedule, while the San Francisco Bay Bridge was out of service for two months. BART became the Bay Areas transportation lifeline. The common wisdom in the Bay Area was that the safest place to be in a major earthquake was in BARTs underwater Transbay Tube. BART was the victim of its success.
The problem was how to communicate the nature of the structural vulnerabilities without frightening people away from the trains. The worst-case scenario for the underwater Tube is structural damage that could lead to failure, and flooding of underground stations in downtown San Francisco. BART Leadership was concerned about the financial impact of possible ridership losses, as well as the impact of public mistrust.
It was clear that BART needed an education plan for the Earthquake Program to address issues and create messages that would:
1. Convey enough information about the vulnerabilities of the system to provide the reason to vote yes, without frightening people off trains;
2. Provide reassurance that engineers in charge of the program know how to fix the problems and stand ready to move quickly;
3. Persuade the region that a property tax is an appropriate funding source;
4. Overcome deep public mistrust, based in part on the recent quadrupling of the budget for re-building the Bay Bridge; and
5. Educate the media about the program to ensure accurate reporting.
In addition, because of significant California state budget deficits, multiple competing tax measures were expected on every county ballot. Finally, BART had to accomplish the education plan on a shoestring budget.
BART started by creating an aggressive grassroots public education effort. The Agency created an informative 15-minute presentation. It then contacted groups from the Rotary and Lions clubs, homeowners associations and neighborhood groups to schools and PTAs, merchant and business associations and scheduled presentations. Every week, project staff members were speaking somewhere, including the Project Manager, Community Relations and engineering staff. One of the secondary benefits of these presentations was as a gauge of public sentiment. BART recorded comments made during Q&A. Between March and September, 2004, BART detected a discernible shift in understanding of issues, from initial resistance to soft resistance to what we felt was -- and hoped would be -- acceptance. Public feedback confirmed that people wanted to know the information. They wanted BART to level with them.
In addition, members of BARTs elected Board of Directors made presentations to City Councils and policy groups to secure their support for the bond. Cities, especially those with BART stations, signed on as supporters. Significantly, efforts by Board members to reach the Contra Costa Tax Payers Association yielded support as well.
BART knew that media would be critical to gain the widest possible reach for its message. The agency developed a plan guided by several principles: First, news events had to have genuine project news value. Second, the events had to provide something reporters could not get on their own. Third, outside experts willing to participate in our events would lend additional credibility. Finally, each event would build upon the previous one and amplify the effect.
BART planned four events. In April, a midnight tour of the underwater Transbay Tube would take journalists directly to the seismic joints the site of great potential damage. Few outsiders ever gain access to the Tube, let alone 50 journalists and photographers. Led by the project manager, and joined by outside experts from the United States Geological Survey, the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) and several highly regarded engineering firms, the event would bring together a veritable scientific conference of expertise. Journalists would see the problem for themselves and question highly regarded authorities. This event would announce to the Bay Area that BART has vulnerabilities that must be addressed.
Executive managers were concerned about negative repercussions on ridership, as well as setting a precedent for taking outsiders into a sensitive secure area. Some, in fact, were dead set against the idea. The communications team and the project management team had to persuade the executives, weighing the risk of riders avoiding the trains against the benefits of successfully educating the public through the media. After long discussions, the event was green-lighted.
The event went off flawlessly and the story ran on every broadcast station and every major newspaper in the Bay Area. Value of the airtime came in at $302,029, with 4,551,281 impressions. Not one negative angle appeared in the entire run. The journalists listened carefully, read the fact sheets, materials and graphics; interviewed the experts and the project leadership -- and got the story right. That set the stage for the rest of the plan.
In August, BART invited journalists to a BART station to witness activation of a newly installed sensor to measure ground motion. In September, on the 30th Anniversary of the Transbay Tube, journalists were invited to take a ride out on San Francisco Bay to see work begin on a drilling platform where tests will yield data necessary to prepare for work on the Transbay Tube. And in October, on the 15th anniversary of the 1989 Loma Prieta quake, journalists were invited to a BART station to hear from EERI and researchers at U.C. Berkeley, from whom a study was commissioned to show traffic impacts in the event BART were not running for any reason. (The impacts were catastrophic).
The traffic study brought the effort home with messages that were personal for each commuter. Study results showed that most commutes would at least double and some would triple without BART. Even people who do not ride BART had a reason to care if trains were not running. BART placed the results on its website on an interactive map. Commuters could click on their commute corridor and compare commutes with and without BART running. The story led the news that day, and data was used in follow-up stories days and weeks later.
Over time, attitudes changed. In presentations during March and April, audience members were surprised to learn about the vulnerabilities in the BART system. By September, most people knew about the problems and were more concerned about the timeline for fixing the problems and how to pay for the work.
As October wound down, the only opposition came from a small, local taxpayers group that felt riders should pay for the upgrades a plan that would require decades to amass sufficient funds from ticket prices.
Editorial Board meetings yielded endorsements that ran at the end of October in the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Jose Mercury News, the Oakland Tribune all the major area papers, except for the Contra Costa Times, which opposed Measure AA. BART sought Letters to the Editor from EERI and the USGS, and sent them to the same papers. The papers printed the pro-Measure AA letters, and in the case of the Contra Costa Times, the letter ran side by side with an anti-Measure AA editorial.
Although the newspaper of record in Contra Costa County opposed Measure AA, and the taxpayer anti-Measure AA group was quoted in most stories, the education effort reached enough of the public that the yes vote in Contra Costa County increased by nearly six percentage points from 54.9% in 2002 to 60.4% in 2004. The 68% yes on Measure AA was among the few tax measures to pass on November 2nd.
From the start, it was clear if we were going to make it over the top with Measure AA, we had to give citizens reasons to vote yes. We said Measure AA would increase public safety on BART, return the system to operation quickly, avoid gridlocked traffic and support economic recovery following a major earthquake. A knowledgeable Bay Area agreed and voted yes on Measure AA.
Sunday, November 28, 2004
I Hear You
Trudy Schuett got after me for my last posting on the lack of broadband in the U.S. I agree with some of her post. My intention, poorly stated, was to note how badly telephone, satellite and cable companies have operated in getting broadband rolled out. I wasn't reflecting on those who have a broadband option but don't use it. That's a different issue.
As I mentioned, my father lives in a rural area, and the service isn't there. On the other hand, service also appears to be missing from thousands of suburbs and other semi-urban areas of the US. It's not just a rural problem. Lack of availability comes from reluctance of telephone companies to promote broadband until recently. They were stuck in a POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) mentality. Until they lost service to cell phones, broadband wasn't a priority. (Those who read my work know I have a "thing" about phone companies. They were regional monopolies that tried to stop progress, but progress won.)
The issue of individuals not using broadband is one of education and personal preference. However, every newspaper, TV channel and radio station refers regularly to the internet and promotes involvement in it. The American public knows about the information riches online and it is a small step to understand the benefits of accessing online quickly rather than slowly. If people elect not to use broadband, there is something more than education involved. That's why I believe it's a question of availability more than preference.
As I mentioned, my father lives in a rural area, and the service isn't there. On the other hand, service also appears to be missing from thousands of suburbs and other semi-urban areas of the US. It's not just a rural problem. Lack of availability comes from reluctance of telephone companies to promote broadband until recently. They were stuck in a POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) mentality. Until they lost service to cell phones, broadband wasn't a priority. (Those who read my work know I have a "thing" about phone companies. They were regional monopolies that tried to stop progress, but progress won.)
The issue of individuals not using broadband is one of education and personal preference. However, every newspaper, TV channel and radio station refers regularly to the internet and promotes involvement in it. The American public knows about the information riches online and it is a small step to understand the benefits of accessing online quickly rather than slowly. If people elect not to use broadband, there is something more than education involved. That's why I believe it's a question of availability more than preference.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Hard to Believe
I know I wrote that I wasn't going to post for a few days but this is hard to believe. A good 75% of Americans are still depending on slow dial-up connections for the internet, assuming that broadband gained a few percentage points in the last year. It is difficult to imagine life in the slow lane. We changed over to broadband about six years ago now, and in that time, we have forgotten the madness of modems that worked sometimes and not others.
I can understand the difficulty of rural broadband service because my father lives in a farm district where it is not available but I cannot believe that 75% of America lives in similar circumstances. There aren't that many people in the Red States.
I can understand the difficulty of rural broadband service because my father lives in a farm district where it is not available but I cannot believe that 75% of America lives in similar circumstances. There aren't that many people in the Red States.
Happy Thanksgiving
I'm taking a few days off to celebrate Thanksgiving with the family. I'll post again by next Monday. Happy Thanksgiving.
Monday, November 22, 2004
Pragmatism
I'm always impressed by what we don't know. Living on the edge of knowledge is more interesting than cramming facts. In the December Scientific American, an article asks a simple question, "Are Viruses Alive?" It turns out this question has no answer because one must first define living versus dead at a biological level then determine if the parasitical nature of a virus qualifies it as living or mechanical process. No one can agree on either fact set yet.
I thought this fascinating and mentioned it to an acquaintance who is an immunologist and an executive editor of a science publication. Her response? "Who cares?" Her view is that it isn't necessary to know whether a virus is living or dead to work with it. That same attitude arose when quantum mathematics were developed in the early 20th Century. Einstein fought against quantum concepts but scientists used them because they explained things.
Pragmatism also should be the view communicators take. We shouldn't care what medium we use as long as we achieve results we want. Dividing media into disciplines is interesting, but who cares other than those doing the dividing. CEOs want results. They don't care if communicators use media placement, advertising, direct, web or something else. That's why when we counsel clients we should be careful not to bias advice toward what we know best. We should know the attributes of media and recommend what is best for a client whether we do it or not. It is honest and builds credibility. How many of us actually do that?
I thought this fascinating and mentioned it to an acquaintance who is an immunologist and an executive editor of a science publication. Her response? "Who cares?" Her view is that it isn't necessary to know whether a virus is living or dead to work with it. That same attitude arose when quantum mathematics were developed in the early 20th Century. Einstein fought against quantum concepts but scientists used them because they explained things.
Pragmatism also should be the view communicators take. We shouldn't care what medium we use as long as we achieve results we want. Dividing media into disciplines is interesting, but who cares other than those doing the dividing. CEOs want results. They don't care if communicators use media placement, advertising, direct, web or something else. That's why when we counsel clients we should be careful not to bias advice toward what we know best. We should know the attributes of media and recommend what is best for a client whether we do it or not. It is honest and builds credibility. How many of us actually do that?
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Pottymouth
PR practitioners should be worried about the Federal Communications Commission crackdown on foul language and sex and violence on the airwaves. There may well be a First Amendment issue. On the other hand, being a parent of a 9-year-old, I don't want her exposed to some of the language and visuals that pass for free speech on television. It seems to me there should be some middle-ground solution. We don't need censors crawling over the 500-channel universe. We also don't need to worry about what our children will see when they turn on the TV. Solutions have been proposed in the past like the V-chip. They haven't worked. It is an issue in which PR should be involved. Has anyone been saying anything?
NIMBY Forever
There are communications issues for which there is no solution. This is one. Anybody who has paid the least bit of attention to nuclear power has been worried about waste more than meltdown. All the PR in the world is not going to get anyone to agree to a Yucca Mountain near them. Now, scientists are saying just let it sit in cooling pools around the nation. It's like letting the garbage build up in your home under the assumption that science will figure out a better way to pick it up some day.
Wages of Hype
This story is old, but it should be noted anyway. The CEO of Segway is leaving -- Segway, the marvel machine that was supposed to change the world. If there is a case study for hype and not true PR, Segway is it. The two-wheel, self-balancing machine is a solution looking for a problem. It is finding a few applications but none of the world-changing uses that were forecast.
Segway deserves the bad press it gets.
Segway deserves the bad press it gets.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Hypocrisy
There are some actions that set one up, even if there are good reasons to take them. The House Republicans just did that by changing its rules and letting Tom DeLay, the House Majority Leader, keep his job although he is facing an indictment. The howls have begun. No matter what Republicans say to justify it, nothing can make it look better.
Similarly, John Kerry just landed in hot water because he reported he still had $15 million in the bank after his election campaign. His own party members are angry with him and said he should have spent the money or given it to candidates in tight races. That amount of money makes it seem that Kerry didn't give the race his all. There are good reasons for Kerry to have that much on hand, but nothing Kerry can say will calm angry Democrats.
Sometimes politicians' sensitivity to perceptions fail them.
Similarly, John Kerry just landed in hot water because he reported he still had $15 million in the bank after his election campaign. His own party members are angry with him and said he should have spent the money or given it to candidates in tight races. That amount of money makes it seem that Kerry didn't give the race his all. There are good reasons for Kerry to have that much on hand, but nothing Kerry can say will calm angry Democrats.
Sometimes politicians' sensitivity to perceptions fail them.
Wow!
Google has done innovative things, but what they just released -- Google Scholar -- is impressive. Try it at http://scholar.google.com/. Here is why I am amazed. I went in and typed "Public Relations" and got 27,500 hits led by books and articles on PR. Not bad at all. I then tried the name of one of my books, and it came back with hits and a box for my zip code. Upon entering my zip code, Google Scholar told me which libraries have my book near my house and the distance to each. Wow!
This is a useful tool.
This is a useful tool.
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
What You Say
I have been helping my 9-year-old with Spanish. It reminds me as we tangle with conjugating verbs - hablo, hablas, habla, hablamos, hablais, hablan -- that how one says something affects how one thinks about it.
Verb conjugation is not something English speakers know. It has been difficult to get her mind to expand to a concept of a verb ending that signifies an actor. I kept telling her that once it clicked, she would never have trouble with it again. It's a different way of thinking in Romance languages.
That's easy to say but not easy to understand. The notion of a familiar "you" versus a formal "you" doesn't exist in English. One has to put on the culture of the speaker to grasp the distinction. I warned her that when she starts Latin in a few years she will also have to know noun declensions as well as verb conjugations. This was too much to bear. But, in my long ago and exceedingly vague memories of translating Cicero, there was grace in the formation of a Latin sentence that English cannot equal. There also was emphasis that escapes English linearity. Only one great English writer I can think of matched Latin expression -- John Henry Cardinal Newman. It is said he rewrote his sentences up to 90 times before they achieved the finish he sought.
It is easy for us with simple journalistic sentences to think we are universal communicators. We aren't. We miss the subtleties that are second nature to native speakers.
I wish language instruction in the US were better than it is. We need cross-cultural training to be true citizens of the earth. Instead, we tend to assume everyone will learn English. So far, we've gotten away with that arrogance.
Verb conjugation is not something English speakers know. It has been difficult to get her mind to expand to a concept of a verb ending that signifies an actor. I kept telling her that once it clicked, she would never have trouble with it again. It's a different way of thinking in Romance languages.
That's easy to say but not easy to understand. The notion of a familiar "you" versus a formal "you" doesn't exist in English. One has to put on the culture of the speaker to grasp the distinction. I warned her that when she starts Latin in a few years she will also have to know noun declensions as well as verb conjugations. This was too much to bear. But, in my long ago and exceedingly vague memories of translating Cicero, there was grace in the formation of a Latin sentence that English cannot equal. There also was emphasis that escapes English linearity. Only one great English writer I can think of matched Latin expression -- John Henry Cardinal Newman. It is said he rewrote his sentences up to 90 times before they achieved the finish he sought.
It is easy for us with simple journalistic sentences to think we are universal communicators. We aren't. We miss the subtleties that are second nature to native speakers.
I wish language instruction in the US were better than it is. We need cross-cultural training to be true citizens of the earth. Instead, we tend to assume everyone will learn English. So far, we've gotten away with that arrogance.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Trust, Reason and Relations
The failure of exit polls during the presidential election got me to thinking about trust. We trusted the polls because they are -- well -- polls and they are done right, of course, and they have been accurate in the past. But the exit polls were wrong for a variety of technical reasons, and we should not have trusted them. This incident led to a chain of reasoning about what we trust when we don't have the evidence for belief. This chain led through vast reaches of society. We operate all day long every day on secular faith, and we rarely test beliefs. We don't have time. This paper discusses the nature of trust and its deep impact on communications. As usual, I am happy to know what you think about it.
The new paper also marks a milestone of sorts. There are now 45 white papers and essays on online-pr.com. They are here, and they cover a broad range of interests. All of them are free for the taking. I only request that if you use any of them that you credit online-pr.com as the source.
The new paper also marks a milestone of sorts. There are now 45 white papers and essays on online-pr.com. They are here, and they cover a broad range of interests. All of them are free for the taking. I only request that if you use any of them that you credit online-pr.com as the source.
Monday, November 15, 2004
Popcorn Economics
For years now, I have witnessed curious economics at the Pennsylvania train station in New York. For those who have never visited the station, about 100,000 people a day pass through: They enter it from outdoors and from subways underground.
The economics has to do with popcorn pricing, and it says something about communications and people -- topics PR practitioners are concerned with. Here is the situation. Near the station's entrances, popcorn vendors sell their product for $1.50 per bag. They use the same bag and the same popcorn. There is no difference. Yet, just 50 steps into the station along the same corridor, there is a popcorn stand that sells its product for $1.00 -- again, using the same bag and the same popcorn. For some reason, vendors at doors sell for higher prices than the vendor in the middle of the station. It isn't a case of foot traffic. Tens of thousands of people pass the stands. Yet, $1.50 stands always seem more crowded than the dollar one.
I have never figured out the reason for such price disparity. All stands have clearly marked signs and use the same machinery. People know of two prices, but it doesn't make a difference. Moreover, when the dollar stand lifted its price to $1.50, it lasted but a day or two and the price fell back. It's not branding because all stands work the same way. It's illogical.
What does that tell me? Logical argument is a fraction of economics and communications. Preferences override rationality for no good reason. We have always known this to be the case, but to see it in action just 50 steps apart is eyeopening.
Before you ask, I buy popcorn at the dollar stand. That is how I stumbled on the disparity in the first place.
The economics has to do with popcorn pricing, and it says something about communications and people -- topics PR practitioners are concerned with. Here is the situation. Near the station's entrances, popcorn vendors sell their product for $1.50 per bag. They use the same bag and the same popcorn. There is no difference. Yet, just 50 steps into the station along the same corridor, there is a popcorn stand that sells its product for $1.00 -- again, using the same bag and the same popcorn. For some reason, vendors at doors sell for higher prices than the vendor in the middle of the station. It isn't a case of foot traffic. Tens of thousands of people pass the stands. Yet, $1.50 stands always seem more crowded than the dollar one.
I have never figured out the reason for such price disparity. All stands have clearly marked signs and use the same machinery. People know of two prices, but it doesn't make a difference. Moreover, when the dollar stand lifted its price to $1.50, it lasted but a day or two and the price fell back. It's not branding because all stands work the same way. It's illogical.
What does that tell me? Logical argument is a fraction of economics and communications. Preferences override rationality for no good reason. We have always known this to be the case, but to see it in action just 50 steps apart is eyeopening.
Before you ask, I buy popcorn at the dollar stand. That is how I stumbled on the disparity in the first place.
Sunday, November 14, 2004
Proud
I have never been one to celebrate military service and trumpet that I am a veteran. I served in the Army and left with a wish that the Defense Department bury my records at the St. Louis, MO depot where such files are stored. (They may have too because years ago that depot had a major fire and a million or so records were lost.)
However, I am proud of my nephew serving in Iraq, in spite of my cynical attitude. He claims he isn't busy and he could be doing more, but he also notes that mortar rounds and rockets have been dropping about 200 meters from his position. That he doesn't seem too worried speaks of professionalism born of training. The Armed Services don't have to worry about their PR, as far as I am concerned. They got a black eye at Abu Ghraib earlier this year when untrained MPs tortured prisoners, but for the most part, troops are doing a difficult job well.
Back when I was in the military -- so long ago that Santa Claus had black hair -- there was little discipline and less success. We had potheads lighting up in front of NCOs and no one said a word. The reputation of the service was at rock bottom, and it wasn't for another 10 years that people started to look up to the services again.
Reputation counts in military services as it does anywhere else. The pride my nephew shows, even with criticisms about the stupidity of some situations, comes through clearly. I don't know whether he will stay in the service, but if the rest of the men and women about him are as good as he is, this country doesn't have a problem.
However, I am proud of my nephew serving in Iraq, in spite of my cynical attitude. He claims he isn't busy and he could be doing more, but he also notes that mortar rounds and rockets have been dropping about 200 meters from his position. That he doesn't seem too worried speaks of professionalism born of training. The Armed Services don't have to worry about their PR, as far as I am concerned. They got a black eye at Abu Ghraib earlier this year when untrained MPs tortured prisoners, but for the most part, troops are doing a difficult job well.
Back when I was in the military -- so long ago that Santa Claus had black hair -- there was little discipline and less success. We had potheads lighting up in front of NCOs and no one said a word. The reputation of the service was at rock bottom, and it wasn't for another 10 years that people started to look up to the services again.
Reputation counts in military services as it does anywhere else. The pride my nephew shows, even with criticisms about the stupidity of some situations, comes through clearly. I don't know whether he will stay in the service, but if the rest of the men and women about him are as good as he is, this country doesn't have a problem.
