Online Public Relations Thoughts

Here is the essay that was discussed a couple of times recently in this blog. I had originally called it "media agnosticism," but that was too precious and inaccurate besides. The current title carries implications that one could care less about media, but that is not the meaning of the word here. I am using the original meaning that denotes "without bias."

The argument is that media consumption is changing rapidly, and old assumptions about what people see, hear and read are no longer accurate. That is why P&G, for example, is cutting back on network television buys. What PR practitioners need to do is what every company needs to do -- document what individuals are consuming in terms of media and readjust communications approaches accordingly. That is, no medium is sacred. All are considered, but just those that are the most efficient are used. Sometimes that includes publicity and sometimes, it might not. What is important is understanding what the target individual does in terms of learning about products, services and issues.

The article may be simplistic, but it does touch upon a continuing problem in all communications departments. We are captives of media that we know. We think in terms of media we represent. We can't get outside of media bias and consider communications challenges objectively.

I don't expect you to be happy with the article. I do hope to hear your counter-arguments.

Readers of this blog know that I post essays irregularly on topics of interest. I have been meaning to tell everyone that all of my essays are placed in online-pr.com on a single page that is here. I have collaborated with a colleague on one of them, and he remains a critic of my work. I also get good -- and sometimes, stinging -- advice from another colleague in the business whose insights are usually better than mine. His blog is here. Others of you have weighed in too and for that, I thank all of you. The business only gets better when there is discussion of its fundamentals and dissection of what works and what doesn't.

What I write is not definitive. My essays are one person's ideas based on experience in the business and some theory. Neither are necessarily correct, and there as many opinions as there are critics on some issues. But, unless someone puts something up to discuss, there is less chance of debate. That is why the essays are posted.

There will be another one soon, I hope, that is an unhappy critique of the PR business. It is now called "Media Indifference," a title my colleague at work dislikes.

O, and one other point I forgot to mention. At the end of this week, this blog will fall into a seven-day hiatus while I'm off to do other things.

What does secrecy cost? How about a billion dollars in round numbers? That's the price that the Catholic Church in the US has paid so far for covering up child abuse. The point here is not to bash religion but to highlight what poor PR decisions can cost. A billion dollars is more than the Catholic Church can afford. Dioceses throughout the US have been selling assets to make settlements, and they won't get the assets back.

It's no different with public companies, or any other organization. Keep secrets about misdeeds, and it will catch up to the organization some day. It is ALWAYS better to get these things out of the way as soon as possible.

Several companies, like Boeing, recently did the right thing. They caught CEOs engaged in improper activity. They fired the CEOs on the spot and others who knew or should have known. Companies are doing that more often now, primarily because they are afraid of prosecution and of lawsuits, but it is better PR. Cover-ups have never been smart, but now they are not only dumb decisions, they're expensive.

This is an interesting story because in its short space, it raises and disabuses the notion that everything can be measured in communications. How does one measure word of mouth accurately? You don't, at least not yet, and you may never be able to measure all permutations of the strongest way to raise credibility.

So, while we work hard at measuring what we do, let's not forget we are tackling a job that will never be completed.

I have often said that if all one wants is publicity, I would put a gun into the person's hand and send him to a crowded street corner. The person would get publicity, but it might not be what he wants. Those who will do anything for publicity place themselves in jeopardy concerning their credibility. That is what happened to this fellow, and in the process he sacrificed the credibility of the NGO he represents. It was a stupid move, and the press have rightly lambasted him.

I know you know this, but your boss or your client might not. It's not just publicity but the RIGHT publicity that counts.

Citigroup Inc. has a heck of a PR problem with the loss of customer backup tapes, but UPS has done the right thing from a PR perspective by taking the blame for losing the package. This is one more ugly incident for data security, but give credit to UPS for understanding its responsibility.

Of all the industries that I have worked in, telecommunications has been the one that loves to be esoteric and confuse people with acronym's. You would think marketers in the industry would know better, but apparently, they don't.

This is a non-story but for the fact that Kerry hid his academic record and presented himself as an intellectual to the public. We know that one's college record means little later on. Kerry might be an intellectual, but he set himself up for a "revelation." He should have known better: He does know better.

What would PR be like if we objectively recommended the medium that best fits any target audience, whether or not we got to do the work? It would be quite different, especially in the agency world where we work to sell our time. Yet, if we were honest counselors, we would tell clients that this problem would be better solved using advertising, or direct mail or a web page or an event, or something other than publicity. We would think in integrated marketing terms, rather than in PR terms.

I'm afraid that few of us do that and those of us in agencies would lose our jobs if we offered too much objective counseling. We say it is up to the client to tell us what the client needs. We assume if the client comes to us, the client has determined that the communications challenge needs PR. That's not a right assumption, of course, because clients don't always know what they need. They depend on communications experts to advise them. But rather than being media agnostics, an advertising creative will come up with an ad solution, a direct mail creative with a drop, a PR person with publicity or an event. In other words, we all sell what we know and not necessarily what a client needs. This is why I am scratching through yet another article examining media agnosticism (a mouthful). It is an old issue. Communications combines have been confronting it for years, but from what little I know, it doesn't seem as if many of them have made much progress.

What I would like to know is whether PR practitioners have made any progress. I think I have an answer, but I would like to hear from you.

I'm sure several bloggers have received a pitch for the Pennsylvania Tourism web site. I have, and I'm certainly not alone. Well, unlike most such pitches, I'm going to write about it because I think the company involved launched a natural and effective idea for publicity and blogging. The idea was to take a number of people and have them blog as they tour Pennsylvania. They were careful to get individuals with a range of interests that were slugged as follows: thrill-seeking family, history buff, culture vultures, open roader (a motorcyclist), hipster roadtrippers and outdoor adventurer. Each is finding a part of Pennsylvania that appeals to the person's interests and of course, to you. One deliberate oversight, it appears, is choosing anyone who is clearly middle-aged or old. Pennsylvania must be for the young. Here is a press release that goes into greater detail.

Any way you look at this, it is an effective use of blogging and publicity. Of course, one is left to wonder what would happen if someone blogged about poor service, insufferable people or an ugly landscape. (And Pennsylvania has all these things.) I haven't read all of the blogs, but they seem suspiciously cheery to me. I hope Pennsylvania Tourism knows to let people write what they really find. If not, they'll ruin a good idea.

Every since Google Maps came out, people have been finding novel uses for it. I had written about one earlier but there are a number of new ways to look at information now. Here is a listing that may or may not be complete. It is apparent that with a little work, one could use the maps to plot history tours of town, for example with satellite photos that pick out structures where one should stop. This in a crude way is what Google sightseeing is doing except that individual satellite photos of interesting objects have been picked out and assembled in one place. One could develop a treasure hunt using Google maps and imagery as a publicity event. One could show company facilities in various cities around the US by plotting them on the maps and satellite imagery. There is no end of information that can be plotted onto the map and simultaneously on the satellite photo that accompanies it. Take a few minutes to wander through the sites on the "cool uses" page then let your imagination wander.

Google Maps should be a good PR tool with a little development.

The idea of citizen journalists is a positive for PR practitioners because it will give more entree into the news media. How to operate a citizen journalist site is the discussion of this column. It doesn't take any imagination to see where publicity will become a large part of local reporting.

Keep an eye on this site. If it proves as innovative as its developers promise, it will give PR practitioners a glimpse into online news of the future and what practitioners will need to do to assist the press in telling stories. Be assured that multimedia press releases are part of this future. I'm sure some practitioners are putting together these integrated packages today, but I'll bet it is not that common. By multimedia, I mean a news package in which the release is hyperlinked to sound, imagery, video and slide programs to explain a story.

I'm looking forward to the launch date.

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,67659,00.html

http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=P10510_0_6_0_C

When my colleague sent me the news story that the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Arthur Andersen, the former accounting firm, for document destruction, it struck me again how unfair the government can be. Federal prosecutors wanted heads to pay for the Enron affair. They got a conviction -- unjustly.

The conviction destroyed the firm and its legacy that, despite errors, was a proud one. No company should have to pay with its life for something it did not legally do, but Arthur Andersen did. If there was ever justification for a strong communications program, this case is it. Andersen allowed itself to be boxed. It should have fought like hell and made its case to the public repeatedly.

We know from experience that when companies fight, they stand a better chance than those that don't. The older I get, the more I believe that settling cases and giving in too easily is not the thing to do. CEOs should stand and be counted when they believe they are in the right. They owe it to the thousands of people who depend on them.

Andersen was upheld, but it's dead. What good is that?

Here is one more reason to stick to facts. It seems that we all lie all of the time. So, skip the notion of telling the truth and hew to collecting and delivering facts. At least we can be partly right.

Even if you are a former movie star and governor, you aren't free from criticism for trying to pull off a stupid publicity trick. If this San Francisco Chronicle story is to be believed, it was dumb. That's the peril of media events. The media know photo-ops are put-up jobs, and they are not above reporting them that way. The governor would have done better if he had found a real crew working on real potholes and called an impromptu meeting. He wouldn't have gotten everyone there, but at least he would have made his point honestly.

I'm a veteran of the U.S. Army, so that might qualify me to talk about Memorial Day -- at least a bit. I have wondered for years why we have the dead. There are just wars, but too many are inexcusable wars. The nadir of insane and unjustified conflict was World War I where millions of men died for no good reason. And, worst of all, nothing was concluded except the preamble for yet another war.

There are evil men who must be deposed for the good of mankind, but it is possible to stopper dictators inside their borders as we did with the Soviet Union, with Cuba and with North Korea. By leaving them to their own devices, they rot within. Regrettably with the proliferation of nuclear warheads and cheap missiles, it is less possible to bottle a country.

So we must have armies, and they must be prepared to fight and in fighting, people die. It is a sad that after millennia, the human race hasn't figured out how to get along without mass killing. Yet, it is increasingly important to go to war slowly and to justify clearly the necessity. Iraq, we know now, was a mistake and a bitter lesson of how little we understand an enemy's intentions. I hope we remember that the next time as we honor the dead today.

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,67629,00.html

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/22076/

This story is another case of an old technique modernized with a new name. I was doing video journalism in the 1970s as a young TV reporter. We called it a "one-man band" back then. We did it not only because it was cheaper but because the station where I worked believed a journalist should have total control over his work. We reported, shot footage, filmed interviews, recorded voice-overs, cut and spliced film and ran it to the film chain just before the newscast was about to air. It was tough to do then because equipment was bulky and there were lots of things that one carried about the waist on BIG belts. Today, everything is in a little camera.

What is the virtue of video journalism? One learns the entire process. That is what I remember best of all. I left that job with the confidence that I could do anything in a newsroom because I had done just about all of it.

PR needs training like that. No practitioner should go through a career without learning every technique associated with the job. There should be confidence in skills that goes beyond writing and media placement because one never knows what one will have to do in this business.

This story is interesting because it relates how an old technique has been modernized with computers. The technique is previsualization of scenes and shots in a film. Previsualization began with the cartoon industry back in the 1930s. In fact, Walt Disney pioneered many of its techniques when he made his first feature length cartoons. It was adapted reluctantly into dramatic filmmaking, and most directors wouldn't use it because it smacked too much of control.

Previsualization also was used in still photography. Ansel Adams stated that every photo should be previsualized before one snapped a shutter. That meant one knew how one was going to develop the film and print it and what the final picture would look like in black and white.

Previsualization is a technique that I have used frequently in PR when doing events, for example. It is a good technique to know: It saves time and money.

I mentioned a few weeks ago that I was puzzling over the structure of communications departments in an environment where the web is the primary communications vehicle.

This article is the result of that.

There is much to think about in changing the layout and reporting structure of an organization when the web becomes the primary medium. One should return to first principles of communications and economics and work back to an appropriate structure.

This article is a first attempt. It is by no means perfect, but if it starts a discussion, I will be happy. It seems to me that efficiency, if nothing else, will dictate changes. There are too many uncoordinated media and messages in use at most corporations today. The web's integrated and interactive power can change that fundamentally.

Although I don't mention blogging in the article, you may be sure that it is part of the editorial operations described at the end of the article.

I would especially like to hear from anyone who disagrees with the thinking in this paper and can offer a better solution. It would help PR to find solutions before developing new structures becomes an imperative.

This is a topic about which I have written before, but it is worth bringing up again. What do you do when you see a client, internal or external, about to make a dumb move? Do you jump in and tell them to stop? Do you go along and try to stay out of harm's way? Do you document your innocence to avoid the future fallout? Do you go over the client's head to a higher authority?

Actually, you might do all of these things depending on circumstances. And, they might work -- or not. There is no answer for clients who have death wishes and don't know it. Over the years, just about everyone has fought and found they often made matters worse. Others have tried to go along in the hope that the outcome wouldn't be too bad. When it was, they were caught like the client and blamed for failing to provide good counsel. Those who document their innocence and counsel have learned that sometimes it doesn't mean anything when higher powers are thirsting for blood. (I can tell a personally painful story about this.) And, going over a direct contact's head can have an ugly fallout, if the contact figures out what you have done.

So what do you do? It seems the most important step is to read the situation first, to determine who the players are, their positions and their power. If you can do that, it will tell you how to approach the task. And, even though I know documenting can be fruitless, I do it anyway. There is no telling what the outcome might be of a truly dumb move, and you don't want to be trying to remember what you said or did in a deposition.

So can clients be saved from themselves? Some can and some can't. But, as an old PR mentor used to say to me, "Live to fight another day." He was a World War II veteran who had fought under Patton and had been wounded in France. He knew what he was talking about.

In the last day, I had the occasion to visit a municipal court and the symbolism of the place struck me. It was traditional in design with oak paneling, benches for spectators and an elevated dais for the judge. Attorneys sat in front waiting for their cases to come up. They were the only ones in suits. The rest of the populace was overwhelmingly African-American and modestly dressed -- some in T-shirts, many in jeans. The first thing that struck me was the town involved is only 40 percent African-American. Why weren't there more white faces? No answer for that. The court clerk called for all to rise as the judge entered, and everyone did. A symbol of respect for the law held throughout the room.

The judged himself was a fellow with a white Van Dyke beard and bald head, symbols too of authority, who liked to hear himself talk. He spoke clearly and simply about court procedures and personal rights in a way that even a semi-literate person could understand. It was a credible performance. As he disposed of cases, he asked each person whether the individual understood the violations of the traffic code, whether the person understood the fine, whether the person was pleading guilty and sometimes, an added question or two about the case. Only one individual for whom English was a second language had difficulty understanding his queries. He dismissed her to the laughter of the spectators and noted that the question didn't matter anyway. The care with which he asked each question and rendered his opinion were symbols too of his respect for legal procedure and for rights. I was impressed.

I have never spent much time around courts but they are powerful communications media that, perhaps, should be examined more closely by PR practitioners for what they can teach. It was an interesting experience and an affecting one, but I don't think I will attend again any time soon -- if I can help it.

Governments can learn from the commercial world. Unfortunately, there are times when they shouldn't. Marketing agencies use stealth marketing in chatrooms these days. Marketers dip in and out of chatroom conversations, emulate members and slyly push products and services.

Unfortunately, the Chinese are doing the same thing to defend their government.

Chinese leadership has been uncomfortable with the internet from the beginning. It threatens stability. It provides an avenue for communications among those who would bring down the government. China for most of the 20th Century was a war-zone, then it was wrecked again by The Cultural Revolution. The country was torn apart or tore itself apart repeatedly. Millions died.

Today, China's leadership wants stability, and it is betting it will get peace through prosperity and controlled communications. Many think the leaders are wrong, but it is understandable why they think the way they do. So, they use Western techniques of guerilla marketing.

I wish I could feel comfortable about such manipulation, but I'm not. I don't think the commercial world should be using the techniques either. But, I admire a country that is skilled enough to adapt new techniques to advantage. And, I fear it too.

This story has a lesson for PR, but unfortunately, it doesn't come from a PR agency. An ad agency wanted to learn how to do viral communications, so it took a known event and spun a few - um - theories about it around a fictional student doing his PhD. The event was the legendary Tiger Woods golf shot that somehow got into the hole when there was no way for it to do so. The site they dedicated to the theories is here. All are preposterous, and some are hilarious.

The real lesson is that the agency was willing to take the time to try something new. I have called for many years for systematic experimentation with new techniques and technologies. The resistance to this idea has always been high. No one has the "time." My answer to that has always been that one should take time because there will be an hour soon enough when one can use the knowledge. And, there will be a day when one is left behind for not keeping up.

There is another issue as well that has come up time and again. No one sees any use for a new technology or technique until they learn it. Then, suddenly, uses show up all over the place. It is only through systematic experimentation that one finds new ways to do old processes or new techniques. Your value goes up the more you know.

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,67514,00.html

Two days ago, I wrote about the problem of anonymous bloggers. That is just part of the headache facing corporate communicators trying to defend companies. This wonderful invention for the US Navy is going to make anonymous e-mail a hazard. I know that the Electronic Freedom Foundation finds it wonderful, but there are limits to privacy, especially when someone uses it for evil actions. What happens when someone starts sending personal threats to individuals or bomb threats unless a company pays a few million bucks for the bomber to go away? There appears to be some thinking about this, but not enough.

It is nice to be romantic about people and their essential goodness, but it doesn't take long in news or PR to realize that there are individuals with bad intentions, and they are many.

I wish everyone luck on developing this system, but I can hear the complaints now.

I spent time last night with a journalist-author who has odd interests -- sports and history. He writes columns and books about baseball and football but also has a successful book on Wyatt Earp. When I asked how he shifts between the Old West and Yogi Berra, he shrugged. He said he had two pieces of writing advice in his life -- one good and one bad. The bad advice, he said, came from a teacher who said one should write about what one knows. The good advice came from a teacher who said if one wanted to make a living, write about what one doesn't know anything about. As a professional writer, he has spent a career tackling subjects he doesn't know much about at first.

This, of course, is an excellent description of what PR practitioners do daily, especially in the agency business. We're paid to learn, as a mentor in the business used to say. Actually, he said it a bit differently. His full statement was, "I love this business. Where else do you have clients who pay you to learn?" I agreed with him then and now.

Yesterday, a colleague and I spent time with a potential new client discussing a challenge that has enough elements to give one a headache. We don't know the details of the entire case, but the exciting part is that, if engaged, we will be paid to pick apart the problem, then develop a practical communications solution for it. What could be more fun?

I am at a loss whenever I meet PR practitioners who show little interest in topics beyond a narrow area, or who really don't want to know about a client's business. I ask myself why they are in PR. I haven't found an answer to that question yet. I'm still learning.

There are a growing number of incidents in which employees and students use anonymous blogs to criticize and mock administrations, fellow employees and others. This story is one example of the trend.

The wonderful medium of the blog is increasingly a PR problem more than a PR opportunity. Anonymous blogs are a dangerous problem depending on how much they air the internal dirty laundry of an organization. It doesn't take much to make a blog anonymous. Posting can be done to other blogs where one's name stays out of the public and tracing is well-nigh impossible.

Before we get too excited and go on about the wonders of blogs, we should remember that every medium has two sides -- one for good and one for ill. Both develop at roughly the same pace.

There needs to be more discussion in PR about how to defend oneself against blogs.

I mentioned a few days ago I was getting around to reading Dick Martin's excellent analysis of the fall of AT&T, Tough Calls. I've finished it, and if anything, it is better than I expected. It should be required reading in every PR course, PR agency and PR department. Hell, it should be required reading for CEOs.

Interestingly, the key chapter for me is the last one where Martin puts his finger on failures that wrecked AT&T's brand. The first was concern for stock price over the obligation to provide the best products and service. Second, he faults the decline of PR to media relations rather than a way of thinking and operating that builds credibility with publics. (Martin upholds the principles of Arthur W. Page, the first great PR man of AT&T who, incidentally, did not come out of PR.)

I agree with Martin on both criticisms for both have bothered me for some time.

But, and this is a big but, it seems to me PR is no longer the body of beliefs or practice that Page defined and that AT&T fostered. The loss of AT&T paralleled the loss of meaning to PR beyond a media technique. That is why it has been subjugated below marketing in many instances. What Martin appears to be wishing for is a return to the past when PR did have more meaning. Sadly, it doesn't appear that will happen. There are other arms in the corporation now that have taken the place of what PR used to do. For example, Sarbanes Oxley has fostered compliance groups whose job it is to establish ethical principles throughout an organization. Compliance groups have a sledgehammer -- jail time and fines. PR has nothing beyond simple persuasion -- the tool it has used all along.

In an era of institutional investors and demand for a high stock price, Page-style PR is not a consideration. That is why Martin on p. 261 could cite a PR counselor who said the object of the job was to ensure that the CEO "could read the Wall Street Journal at breakfast without developing indigestion."

There are companies that practice "old-fashioned" Page-style PR. I'm proud to say at least one is a client. But they are a minority, and they don't necessarily call what they do PR. I'm afraid Martin's desire to return to the past isn't going to happen -- not for PR anyway. It will happen for other communications and business disciplines that take up principles PR once espoused.

For those still practicing PR according to Page principles, which, I hope, includes me, we feel like dinosaurs shuffling to extinction. The world we live in is less ethical, less concerned about credibility and obsessed with selling rather than service. Perhaps, it is time to say goodbye to a wonderful past and accept a perilous and compromised future.