I work at a university. The other day I was looking at our student newspaper, a weekly publication that is produced as a result of a good deal of hard work by a number of people. I enjoy reading it just as I do most any newspaper. Part of the enjoyment comes from actually picking up the paper, holding it, leafing through it, folding it, and eventually dropping it in the nearest recycling bin. In fact, one of my favorite things to do is look through a newspaper while enjoying a quiet meal. I mention this because as I was looking at that student newspaper, a colleague passed by and mentioned that he no longer reads newspapers, but instead gets his news via the Internet.
This, of course is not the first time I have heard this kind of comment. There have certainly been numerous stories over the past few years as to how the circulation of newspapers across the country has been declining to the point that many of these print publications may eventually have to cease to exist. Such a turn of events, if it does come to pass, will be a sad day for me. Newspapers in a number of ways have been a key part of my entire life. I recognize, however, that it would not necessarily be a sad day for others who are more tied to the Internet than I am. For better or worse, newspapers are old school. The Internet is not.
My intent here is not to bemoan the possible disappearance of newspapers. (Should that day ever come to pass, you can bet I will have plenty to write about that.) Rather, I wish to note that this trend represents a significant turn for public relations practitioners. For over a century, communicators have used newspapers as a key channel for connecting with various publics and constituencies. In today's world, however, newspapers are quickly losing their luster as being an important aspect in any comprehensive outreach campaign. Public relations practitioners need to take note, then, that when it comes to print, the power of "old school" is being replaced by the potential of "new school."
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
Spokespersons as First Responders
Everywhere we turn these days we are reading or seeing spokespeople step in front of reporters to make statements about their clients. Sometimes they are there to make an announcement. Sometimes they are there to defend their client. And sometimes they are there to respond to something that has been said or done to, for or against their client. The spokesperson says what they are there to say and then often times is barraged with questions or comments from the press corps. If all goes well, this exchange goes fairly smoothly. If not, it can seem downright hostile. Depending upon the particular spokesperson and how she or he handles these kind of situations, they can walk away looking good or looking bad.
Of course, the spokesperson can also do harm to their client or, on occasion, make their client look good. Because spokespeople represent their client, it is not uncommon for members of the public to judge the client based on their perspective of the spokesperson. Make no mistake. Being a spokesperson is a high wire act. As the face or the voice of a client, one wants to do well and come across in a positive light, of course. But representing a client is not about the spokesperson. It is about the client. The spokesperson is there to share information, field tough and awkward questions, or even take the heat for a client that does not want to do any of those things.
I have served as a spokesperson for multiple years now. I never take any of my interactions with reporters lightly. This is because the slightest misstatement can ultimately lead to serious consequences for myself and my client. Depending upon the topic, misstatements can lead to damaged reputations, lawsuits, the spreading of false or misleading information and loss of income. At the risk of sounding overly dramatic, I view spokespeople - in the world of public relations - as being first responders. It is their job They run toward the questioners. They run toward a hungry press. And often do so when others are running in the opposite direction.
Of course, the spokesperson can also do harm to their client or, on occasion, make their client look good. Because spokespeople represent their client, it is not uncommon for members of the public to judge the client based on their perspective of the spokesperson. Make no mistake. Being a spokesperson is a high wire act. As the face or the voice of a client, one wants to do well and come across in a positive light, of course. But representing a client is not about the spokesperson. It is about the client. The spokesperson is there to share information, field tough and awkward questions, or even take the heat for a client that does not want to do any of those things.
I have served as a spokesperson for multiple years now. I never take any of my interactions with reporters lightly. This is because the slightest misstatement can ultimately lead to serious consequences for myself and my client. Depending upon the topic, misstatements can lead to damaged reputations, lawsuits, the spreading of false or misleading information and loss of income. At the risk of sounding overly dramatic, I view spokespeople - in the world of public relations - as being first responders. It is their job They run toward the questioners. They run toward a hungry press. And often do so when others are running in the opposite direction.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
More About Promises
The other day I received an email from a communication agency inviting me to register for a workshop on "writing memorable copy." I confess that for a few minutes I was intrigued by this opportunity. Who among us would not want to learn to turn whatever we write into something that others will actually remember; something that will become timeless; or something that perhaps will be quoted or referenced long after we are gone? I know I would like that. Instead of writing my wife a typical post-it that I have gone to the grocery store, perhaps with the help of this workshop I could learn to write that same note in a way that strengthens our relationship.
Even I have to agree that my post-its are not memorable. To be honest, I sometimes wonder if the are even read. The same goes for my emails, the occasional press release I put together, or speeches I write. To be fair, more often than not, what I do compose is usually pretty good. Certainly acceptable. But memorable? I think not. At least, after all these years in communication, I have yet to hear of or have any one quoting me. While that would be pretty awesome, I also think the chances of that happening are virtually nonexistent. This is not modest speaking. Rather, it is reality.
My point here as it applies to communication is any one in the profession, including agencies, need to be very careful regarding results they claim to guarantee and promises they make. The fact is communicators cannot guarantee anything. I know doing so is tempting just as I know doing so is a great way to attract potential clients and please one's organizational superiors. But making promises is also unethical, according to the Public Relations Society of America. Instead of promising people to teach them how to write copy that is memorable, the communication agency would have been better off offering to teach communicators how to write copy that is understandable and speaks to the needs of specific publics. That is much more realistic.
Even I have to agree that my post-its are not memorable. To be honest, I sometimes wonder if the are even read. The same goes for my emails, the occasional press release I put together, or speeches I write. To be fair, more often than not, what I do compose is usually pretty good. Certainly acceptable. But memorable? I think not. At least, after all these years in communication, I have yet to hear of or have any one quoting me. While that would be pretty awesome, I also think the chances of that happening are virtually nonexistent. This is not modest speaking. Rather, it is reality.
My point here as it applies to communication is any one in the profession, including agencies, need to be very careful regarding results they claim to guarantee and promises they make. The fact is communicators cannot guarantee anything. I know doing so is tempting just as I know doing so is a great way to attract potential clients and please one's organizational superiors. But making promises is also unethical, according to the Public Relations Society of America. Instead of promising people to teach them how to write copy that is memorable, the communication agency would have been better off offering to teach communicators how to write copy that is understandable and speaks to the needs of specific publics. That is much more realistic.
Friday, January 20, 2012
The Great Balance
We live in a market driven society. Businesses exist to make money. At the end of each day, whether it is a small, family-run business or a major corporation with clients and connections all over the world, the person or persons in-charge want to be able to see they have taken in more money than they have spent. The greater the profit, the more money it is in the pocket of those owners, the greater opportunity they will have to expand their product and services, and the more people they will be able to employ. Additionally, the more successful a business is and the longer a business is able to sustain that success, the more potential influence it will have to shape or influence its surroundings.
The thing about financial success and the potential for influence that comes with it, however, is that they attract attention. People other than customers begin looking to successful companies for guidance and assistance in areas that go beyond their initial scope. For instance, a local car dealership may be approached to sponsor a neighborhood little league baseball team. Or a major corporation may be asked to create a scholarship fund for needy students. This, then, becomes the great balance that all successful companies are called upon to strike: doing what they need to do to turn a profit while determining how much of their profit and influence they want to direct toward not-for-profit programs and initiatives.
Public relations professionals can help business leaders wrestle and cope with the double-edged sword that comes with financial success. By maintaining effective and open ties with the publics with which a company deals, communicators are in a key position to assess the needs of those many customers and then weigh them against the vision of the company. Often times, the needs of the public are not as counter to a company's goals as one might think. This is particularly true if having a positive image is a major factor in the business' success. Public relations professionals can establish this link and then help ensure it remains strong.
The thing about financial success and the potential for influence that comes with it, however, is that they attract attention. People other than customers begin looking to successful companies for guidance and assistance in areas that go beyond their initial scope. For instance, a local car dealership may be approached to sponsor a neighborhood little league baseball team. Or a major corporation may be asked to create a scholarship fund for needy students. This, then, becomes the great balance that all successful companies are called upon to strike: doing what they need to do to turn a profit while determining how much of their profit and influence they want to direct toward not-for-profit programs and initiatives.
Public relations professionals can help business leaders wrestle and cope with the double-edged sword that comes with financial success. By maintaining effective and open ties with the publics with which a company deals, communicators are in a key position to assess the needs of those many customers and then weigh them against the vision of the company. Often times, the needs of the public are not as counter to a company's goals as one might think. This is particularly true if having a positive image is a major factor in the business' success. Public relations professionals can establish this link and then help ensure it remains strong.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Diffusion Theory
For many years now a number of mass communication theories have been introduced explaining or trying to make sense of the communication process. We all know communication happens. But how does it work? What is its purpose? What is it about communication that motivates people to take certain actions or think particular thoughts? What factors contribute to making some communication efforts more effective than others? These are among the fundamental questions that the various theories have tried to address. Looking back over ones that have been set forth - from the magic bullet theory of the 1930s to the current perspective of communication as a two-way process - it is fascinating to see how scholarly perspectives have evolved.
One particular line of reasoning I find of note is the diffusion theory. This theory was based on the notion the primary purpose of mass media is to inform the public. People, this theory suggests, motivate people. The media does not. I find this theory to be intriguing because it raises a very basic question about communication: it is designed to motivate or inform? This parallels a similar type question regarding public relations and its purpose. Is it to persuade or to develop partnerships? Regarding both the mass media and public relations, scholars have lined up on both sides of these questions.
To both questions, I answer "yes." Without question, the mass media - newspapers, Internet, radio, magazines, television - are geared to provide all of us with mountains of information. It is also their nature, rightly or not, to attempt to motivate and instigate some type of action on the part of its audiences. We see and experience examples of this every day. The same holds true for public relations. While PR campaigns are often geared to illicit action, many times they are designed to inform and generate greater awareness of a particular issue. It is the diffusion theory that sheds light on the shared purposes of the media and public relations.
One particular line of reasoning I find of note is the diffusion theory. This theory was based on the notion the primary purpose of mass media is to inform the public. People, this theory suggests, motivate people. The media does not. I find this theory to be intriguing because it raises a very basic question about communication: it is designed to motivate or inform? This parallels a similar type question regarding public relations and its purpose. Is it to persuade or to develop partnerships? Regarding both the mass media and public relations, scholars have lined up on both sides of these questions.
To both questions, I answer "yes." Without question, the mass media - newspapers, Internet, radio, magazines, television - are geared to provide all of us with mountains of information. It is also their nature, rightly or not, to attempt to motivate and instigate some type of action on the part of its audiences. We see and experience examples of this every day. The same holds true for public relations. While PR campaigns are often geared to illicit action, many times they are designed to inform and generate greater awareness of a particular issue. It is the diffusion theory that sheds light on the shared purposes of the media and public relations.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Interacting With Strangers
At the end of the day it comes down to how well we get along with each other. If we do, then their is greater hope for the day that follows. If we do not, then the chances of tomorrow being positive in any way are much slimmer. I am of a mind that when it comes to connecting with others, most of us are very similar. We want collegiality. We want respect. We want good manners. And if to those things a smile from time to time is part of the mix, then even better. The desire for those behaviors from others is a commonality. It is something, I believe, we have in common. Collectively, it represents the foundation from which positive communication can happen.
This, then, is where how we actually do communicate with each other begins to get complicated. All of us interact with strangers virtually every day. But the cordality we extend to those we do not know only seems to go so far. Specifically, we often seem to be willing to extend patience and good will to those we know then to those we don't. I have seen people unnecessarily scold the person at a sales register for beng too slow or for innocently miscalculating the final tally on the bill. I have seen drivers get into a shouting match over who has the right of-way at a quiet intersection. Each time I see incidents of this nature I wonder if the same scene would be playing out if the person behind that cash register or the other driver was our best frirend from high school, a second cousin, or one one of our children.
Where does this shortness of patience and good manners with strangers come from? How do we come to believe it is ok to blow-up at those we do not know? Perhaps the seed is planted when as children we are told to not talk to strangers. From that type of early instruction, we take our first step down the path of believing those we do not know are suspect, not to be trusted, not to treated with respect, or not to be given the benefit of the doubt. Of course, adults need to take every step they can to protect their children. At the same time, perhaps there are better ways to do that then by painting people we do not know with such a broad, negative brush.
This, then, is where how we actually do communicate with each other begins to get complicated. All of us interact with strangers virtually every day. But the cordality we extend to those we do not know only seems to go so far. Specifically, we often seem to be willing to extend patience and good will to those we know then to those we don't. I have seen people unnecessarily scold the person at a sales register for beng too slow or for innocently miscalculating the final tally on the bill. I have seen drivers get into a shouting match over who has the right of-way at a quiet intersection. Each time I see incidents of this nature I wonder if the same scene would be playing out if the person behind that cash register or the other driver was our best frirend from high school, a second cousin, or one one of our children.
Where does this shortness of patience and good manners with strangers come from? How do we come to believe it is ok to blow-up at those we do not know? Perhaps the seed is planted when as children we are told to not talk to strangers. From that type of early instruction, we take our first step down the path of believing those we do not know are suspect, not to be trusted, not to treated with respect, or not to be given the benefit of the doubt. Of course, adults need to take every step they can to protect their children. At the same time, perhaps there are better ways to do that then by painting people we do not know with such a broad, negative brush.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The Importance of Planning
There are times in life when things do not go as planned. I was reminded of that truism the other day when I saw a story in the news about a 22-year-old woman who went bungee jumping off a very tall bridge in Australia. About two-thirds of the way down before reaching the full extension of her line, the rope snapped. She plunged headfirst into the river below, which also happened to be inhabited by crocodiles. Fortunately, she was able to make her way to shore where friends were. They immediately took her to a nearby medical center. As I write this, other than some cuts and bruises, she seems to be all right.
The purpose of this entry is not to comment on the wisdom of bungee jumping, particularly over crocodile-infested waters. As crazy as that may sound, I have to assume this stunt was well thought out and that every safety precaution that needed to be taken was. Despite that, it went very wrong and could have had tragic consequences. In the communications world, similar things happen on a regular basis. Well-planned designs go array. The unexpected occurs. Aspects you thought were nailed down turn out not to be so. While that's how life is from time to time, the kind of surprise experienced by that bungee jumper suggests her planning and preparation were not as thorough as they should have been.
In communication, no one can guarantee specific results, nor should they. But what professional communicators can promise clients is competence, good planning that includes solid research and preparation, consistency of effort, timely execution, and, overall, a commitment to excellence. Collectively, what these elements do guarantee is a minimum of error, a lack of preparedness for the expected, and greatly reduce the odds that goals will not be met. Planning is everything. Is is also a vital part of any sustained public relations or communication effort. A the very least, it should be.
The purpose of this entry is not to comment on the wisdom of bungee jumping, particularly over crocodile-infested waters. As crazy as that may sound, I have to assume this stunt was well thought out and that every safety precaution that needed to be taken was. Despite that, it went very wrong and could have had tragic consequences. In the communications world, similar things happen on a regular basis. Well-planned designs go array. The unexpected occurs. Aspects you thought were nailed down turn out not to be so. While that's how life is from time to time, the kind of surprise experienced by that bungee jumper suggests her planning and preparation were not as thorough as they should have been.
In communication, no one can guarantee specific results, nor should they. But what professional communicators can promise clients is competence, good planning that includes solid research and preparation, consistency of effort, timely execution, and, overall, a commitment to excellence. Collectively, what these elements do guarantee is a minimum of error, a lack of preparedness for the expected, and greatly reduce the odds that goals will not be met. Planning is everything. Is is also a vital part of any sustained public relations or communication effort. A the very least, it should be.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Press Releases: Yesterday and Today
Press releases used to be the mainstay of any public relations operation. They were an organization's main outreach vehicle. They were the tool of choice as a way to generate greater publicity, connect with specific publics or make specific announcements. No more. Those days are gone. But this is not to say they are no longer a key weapon in any communication operation's arsenal. The difference is they are now used more sparingly. There are several primary reasons for this: the rise of social media and the dwindling news space in newspapers.
I think back to my first job in public relations. It was at a community college located a few miles north of Annapolis, Maryland. I was hired as their first assistant coordinator of community relations but was soon elevated to the coordinator position after my boss retired. Though I had a secretary, I was basically a one-person operation in terms of coming up with ways to promote this growing institution and work with the local media. My primary weapon was the press release. Each week, I churned out between 20-25 of them. Several local newspapers actually started setting aside full pages on which to print my communiques. Their generosity made me look awfully good.
Since then, many newspaper have folded. The ones that continue to operate do so with leaner staffs. Their news holes are smaller. And they are more dependent upon advertisers than ever. Rarely are they content to print verbatim press releases they do receive. Instead, press releases are viewed more as news tips on which they can follow up. PR operations use twitter, blogs and facebook to share information with their publics. Consequently, their communiques, generally, are shorter in length, punchier in style. Press releases, much like the industry that both created them and rode on their wings, are no longer what they used to be.
I think back to my first job in public relations. It was at a community college located a few miles north of Annapolis, Maryland. I was hired as their first assistant coordinator of community relations but was soon elevated to the coordinator position after my boss retired. Though I had a secretary, I was basically a one-person operation in terms of coming up with ways to promote this growing institution and work with the local media. My primary weapon was the press release. Each week, I churned out between 20-25 of them. Several local newspapers actually started setting aside full pages on which to print my communiques. Their generosity made me look awfully good.
Since then, many newspaper have folded. The ones that continue to operate do so with leaner staffs. Their news holes are smaller. And they are more dependent upon advertisers than ever. Rarely are they content to print verbatim press releases they do receive. Instead, press releases are viewed more as news tips on which they can follow up. PR operations use twitter, blogs and facebook to share information with their publics. Consequently, their communiques, generally, are shorter in length, punchier in style. Press releases, much like the industry that both created them and rode on their wings, are no longer what they used to be.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
The Challenges of Protecting a Client
Several years ago I worked closely with a university administrator to help him prepare for an upcoming interview with a national news network. Understandably, he was nervous and wanted to do well. He was also eager to sit down with the reporter as he had strong feeling about the focus of the interview: academic freedom. As it turned out, the interview did not go well as he became flustered and ended up not being nearly as articulate as he and I had hoped. This sort of thing happens to all of us, of course, with the exception that when most of us get tongue-tied it is not in front of a television camera.
In the middle of the sit-down with the reporter as the administrator was struggling, one of his assistants kept elbowing me to step in front of the camera and stop the interview. I refused because I felt doing so would make an awkward situation even worse for all of us. I was reminded of that experience recently while watching an interview that CBS' "60 Minutes" conducted with Republican Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia. In this situation, Cantor's public relations adviser apparently found himself with a choice similar to mine as to whether to interrupt the proceeding. In this case, his decision was different than mine.
During the interview Cantor began talking about his opposition to raising taxes and, in doing so, alluded to former President Ronald Reagan. The reporter, Leslie Stahl, correctly reminded Cantor that Reagan had agreed to raise taxes more than once during this eight years as president. As Cantor attempted to respond to that, off camera his public relations rep interrupted his boss and began denying what Stahl had said about Reagan. Not only was this professional communicator factually wrong, he did Cantor a disservice by giving the impression Cantor is not able to speak for himself when it comes to matters of national importance.
One of the responsibilities of public relations professionals is to help prepare their clients with talking points and communication tips so, when they do interact with the media, they come across in a positive light. I am sure this is what the PR rep did with Representative Cantor. Despite that, sometimes clients still mess up or fall short of how well they want to do. The question for the PR rep is have a plan in-place should that occur. Generally, however, it is unwise to take any heavy handed corrective steps in a way that makes the client look worse than they may already be looking. Disrupting an interview - even one that is not going well - is a case-in-point. It only angers the reporter and gives them more ammunition to use should they decide to take out their frustration on your client. Sometimes, PR reps have to let things play themselves out even when it is they are not going well.
In the middle of the sit-down with the reporter as the administrator was struggling, one of his assistants kept elbowing me to step in front of the camera and stop the interview. I refused because I felt doing so would make an awkward situation even worse for all of us. I was reminded of that experience recently while watching an interview that CBS' "60 Minutes" conducted with Republican Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia. In this situation, Cantor's public relations adviser apparently found himself with a choice similar to mine as to whether to interrupt the proceeding. In this case, his decision was different than mine.
During the interview Cantor began talking about his opposition to raising taxes and, in doing so, alluded to former President Ronald Reagan. The reporter, Leslie Stahl, correctly reminded Cantor that Reagan had agreed to raise taxes more than once during this eight years as president. As Cantor attempted to respond to that, off camera his public relations rep interrupted his boss and began denying what Stahl had said about Reagan. Not only was this professional communicator factually wrong, he did Cantor a disservice by giving the impression Cantor is not able to speak for himself when it comes to matters of national importance.
One of the responsibilities of public relations professionals is to help prepare their clients with talking points and communication tips so, when they do interact with the media, they come across in a positive light. I am sure this is what the PR rep did with Representative Cantor. Despite that, sometimes clients still mess up or fall short of how well they want to do. The question for the PR rep is have a plan in-place should that occur. Generally, however, it is unwise to take any heavy handed corrective steps in a way that makes the client look worse than they may already be looking. Disrupting an interview - even one that is not going well - is a case-in-point. It only angers the reporter and gives them more ammunition to use should they decide to take out their frustration on your client. Sometimes, PR reps have to let things play themselves out even when it is they are not going well.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Too Much Thinking
One of the qualities that has made comunication a budding and important social science is the amount of writing and research on it that has been done over the past near half century. Collectively, scholarly articles, provocative books, the creation of college level areas of study and concentrations on various of communication, and even conferences for academicians have made communication a genuine industry of stimulating thought and analysis. What makes that even better is the reality that this trend seems only to be growing. For myself, I take much pride in the fact I am a tiny part of that world.
Still, I wonder with all the deep thinking about communication that has happened, with all the deep thinking that goes on today, and with the steady stream of future deep thinkers in the pipeline, do we yet have a true handle on what makes for effective communication? Sometimes I think yes and sometimes I think not. Many years ago the great musician Duke Ellington was asked for his definition of "good music." Ellington reportedly said, "If you like it, then it's good." I wonder: maybe what makes for "good communication" is as simple as that. Maybe the only quality communication needs in order to be good or effective is whether it is understandable.
Perhaps professional practitioners and public speakers do not need to be as glib, slick or polished as they think in order to connect with or possibly even motivate a public. At the gym or in a public setting, I sometimes overhear people around me wrapped up in conversation on various topics. And while their grammar and phrasology may not as proper as it should be or their specific words may not be ones I would choose, they seem to be doing just fine and having no problem understanding what is being said. In that regard, what I am hearing is effective communication. Maybe - just maybe - communication as an action and as a social science is as simple as that.
Still, I wonder with all the deep thinking about communication that has happened, with all the deep thinking that goes on today, and with the steady stream of future deep thinkers in the pipeline, do we yet have a true handle on what makes for effective communication? Sometimes I think yes and sometimes I think not. Many years ago the great musician Duke Ellington was asked for his definition of "good music." Ellington reportedly said, "If you like it, then it's good." I wonder: maybe what makes for "good communication" is as simple as that. Maybe the only quality communication needs in order to be good or effective is whether it is understandable.
Perhaps professional practitioners and public speakers do not need to be as glib, slick or polished as they think in order to connect with or possibly even motivate a public. At the gym or in a public setting, I sometimes overhear people around me wrapped up in conversation on various topics. And while their grammar and phrasology may not as proper as it should be or their specific words may not be ones I would choose, they seem to be doing just fine and having no problem understanding what is being said. In that regard, what I am hearing is effective communication. Maybe - just maybe - communication as an action and as a social science is as simple as that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)