The Challenge of Press Conferences

Press conferences are a lot like life itself. They can be smooth, friendly, fun, contentious, hostile, awkward, controversial and a whole lot more. Further, much like life itself, they are often unpredictable.  A press secretary steps up to the podium confident he or she has everything under control: they know what they want to say, they have a good understanding of the pertinent facts, and they are in-charge of deciding who gets to ask questions. Given those variables, what professional would feel anything less than confident? Then, almost inevitably, a reporter shatters that confidence with an unexpected question - something that was not anticipated by the press secretary or their client.

The unexpected can take the tone of a press confernce in a completely different direction; one that even undermines whatever control the press secretary may have felt they had at the outset of this time with the press. Additionally, it can even change the mood of the reporters present from being fairly docile to outwardly aggressive. It is this reality that dictates press conferences should not be taken lightly. If the overall tone of such an event goes from postive and respectful to negative and confrontational, then the potential for unwanted coverage becomes a very real possibility. Such a dynamic is not to be taken lightly because of the possible damage it can do to the press secretary's credibility and the reputation of their client.

What's to be done? What steps can and should the press secretary take to ensure this does not happen? To begin, there are no guarantees. Such a turn-of-events can happen at any time and to any one, much like life.  Having said that, the press secretary can help keep the chances of press interactions taking a negative turn to a minimum by maintaing a calm demeanor; respecting the work of reporters; having a deep grasp of their facts; the full support of their client; and a total awareness of the overriding purpose of the press conference itself: to inform and promote. Few times is any of this easy. But at no time is it ever not important.  

The Future of Public Relations

Where is public relations heading any way? When we look down the road five, ten or fifty years from now, where will we see this profession? What will it look like? Will it continue being a growth industry? Will it still even exist? Will it continue being taught in colleges and universities? Will how practitioners define success be similar to what they view it as being today? What will public relations tools of tomorrow look like? The questions, all intriguing,  go on and on. Of course, when it comes to predicting the future, no one knows for sure answers to any questions. It is what makes them fun to raise and debate.

For myself, I sure do not even pretend to know what is around the corner for this social science and field that is nearing the completion of its first century. However, it is a safe bet that mankind will always have a need to communicate. As individuals we will always have a need to interact successfully with others, Organizations, agencies and businesses will continue be driven to elicit the support and cooperation of various publics. As a result, there will always be a need for those who have a talent for devising and implementing strategies to achieve those ends. I beleve these basic "givens," however, only touch the surface of public relations of the future.

One current trend in the field of journalism is a decline in the number of professionals and a rise in what are termed "citizen journalists." These men and women are not trained in the classic sense, yet through our technological advances are able to pass along their observations and perspectives, including photographs and video, to thousands and even millions of others. I see such a trend spilling over into public relations. While there will still be a need for the so-called professional, more and more civilians will be making their voices heard. Miore and more, these same citizens will be playing influential roles in all aspects of communication.    

Discouraging Consensus

Whatever happened to consensus? It seems so much of what is reported in the media is that people of all persuasions are driven by certainty of opinion; certainty of conviction. People know what they know and by God they are not backing down one iota.  Gun control, climate change, health care, tax legislation, gay marriage are just some of the issues and points of debate on which have drawn their lines in the sand.  They state their position and that's all there s is to it. End of discussion. Not only are those who disagree wrong, but they are bad people who are either unpatriotic, evil, just plain stupid or all of the above. And that's all there is to it.

Is the media feeding this perception? No doubt about it. For one reason, men and women who are cloaked in certainty and speak with unbending conviction are more newsworthy and easier and more fun to interview and report on. Coupled with that, from the perspective of a viewer or reader, it is more engaging to watch and/or read about persons who are adament about how they view the world and various issues.  By tuning into such people, we can either feel good about ourselves because they agree with us or we can spout off with righteous indignation about how off- base they are and how wise we are.

The public relations industry is also contributing to this perception. Communication professionals advise their clients to come across as being self-assurred and strong. As a result, the communicators claim, the public arena has little or tolerance for those who struggle or who do not see every issue as being either one way or the other. Bottom line: neither the press nor public relations practitioners handle or encourage nuiance very well. Consequently, they do not it. This is unfortunate because we are the public are presented with a false reality. The truth is while people, generally, do have strong feelings about a host if topics, they also often see both sides of things and are willing to work toward consensus. The press and public relations industry need to do a better of job of acknowledging and supporting this reality.

So What?

To me, it is one of the most in-your-face questions known to mankind. It represent a direct challenge to one's motives, integrity and logic. This two-word question represents confrontation at its most direct. So what? We make a decision. We take an action. We issue a statement. And the response of this question directly challenges us to defend whether what we did matters even a little bit to any one beyond ourselves? If we had done or said nothing, would it have made any difference? Is there a reason any one should care about our actions one way or the other? So what?, in essence, cuts to the core of our fundamental purpose.

 As communicators, our challenge is to put forth strategies that move opinion and/or actions in a particular direction. We want to enhance the reputation or image of a client. We want to shape public perception in a direction supporting that which we represent. Thus, by definition, strategies and tactics we put forth are supposed to be consequential. They are designed to make a difference or change the landscape. Yet if we implement a certain measure that does not attempt to speak to that end, even in a small way, then what we have done is waste of time, energy and resources. The question of so what? has exposed our actions as meaningless.

More and more in the world of communication professional practitioners are looked upon as agents of change. They are the ones brought in to make a difference.  They are the members of the team, as much as any one, looked to to make life better for others in a tangible way. Whether it is to increase visibility, bring in more donations, generate more members, raise the customer base or lift the profit margin, it is these results that fall under the scope of the pubic relations practitioner. Thus, their actions and decisions have much riding on them. This is why their answer to the question of so what? is and will continue to be highly significant.

Staged Events

Media events sometimes get a bum rap. Words such as "fake" or "contrived" are often tossed at them and sometimes, I should note, rightfully so. At the same time, it is a mistake to paint them so negatively with a broadbrush stroke. When done well, they do serve an important purpose in helping showcase a specific message or theme. Media or staged events bring attention to issues in a way that other strategies such as press releases, robo calls or postings on Facebook are not able to. What better way to illustrate this point than by selecting a couple of examples in the lives of ordinary folks.

A married couple is about to reach their 50th wedding anniversary. To celebrate this milestone their children organize an elaborate dinner at the couple's favorite restaurant. They invite special friends and family members to participate in the evening's celebration. Such a staged event is designed to honor the couple and highlight the high regard and love others feel for them. To call such an event "fake" would be a mistake. The child of a young couple is about to reach its first birthday. The parents invite family and friends to celebrate this milestone in their baby's life. Much like the anniversary celebration, this event is most definitely staged, yet no one can doubt the sincere feelings driving it. 

Be definition, these kind of activities are designed to generate attention. There is little, if anything, subtle about them. Yet beyond the glitz that  may accompany them, more often than not there is a serious purpose that underscores these media strategies. In a few weeks the 2013 Academy Awards program will be held. One would be hard-pressed to identify any single event dripping more with over-the-top glitz and glamour than that. Beneath the splash, however, is the core purpose of this annual event: to pay tribute to the motion picture industry, to honor the work of its members, and to encourage the rest of us to continue to support it. Such a media event is the best communication strategy for this ever-popular industry.

NRA Needs to Show More Heart

Currently much debate over gun violence, gun registation, the second amendment of the Constitution, and fire arms in-general is dominating the public airwaves. Not surprisingly, the National Rifle Association is one of the louder voices in this debate that has been triggered by the tragic and heart-breaking multiple killings at a number locations throughout the country, including an elementary school, shopping malls, a movie theater, a military base, college campuses and public gatherings. With thousands and and thousands of members and close ties to the firearm industry, it makes sense the NRA is front and center in the debate over what steps, if any, the country should take to address the mindless slayings caused by deranged individuals.

As the debate revolves around the murder and maiming of innocent men and women, including children, it is highly-charged and emotional.  Though not a member of the NRA, I can appreciate the organization's dilemma: they feel a need to defend the second amendment and a person's right to own a firearm without restriction, yet are doing so in a climate of outrage and distress over what seems ever-increasing acts of violence. People are dieing and the overall citizenry is understandably upset and wants the country's leaders to do something - anything - about it. From a public relations perspective, this scenario places the NRA at a crossroad.

For the NRA, the challenge is how best to put forth its argument. Presently, it is falling short because it is not being sensitive or sympatheitc enough to the legitimate outrage being expressed by gun owers and non-gun owners alike over the recent gut-wrenching violence. In short, the NRA, in the form of its top leaders and leading proponents, is coming across as not caring and insensitive to the pain and anguish so many are feeling. Consequently, people are becoming as turned-off to the NRA as they are to the violence itself. The NRA and its leaders need to show more of their heart and less of their heads if they want to generate wider spread support for their position.

Public Relations and Democracy

In many ways, when it comes to us, the bottom line question is what kind of contribution, if any, do we make to society. Big or small, is it something positive that betters the lot of our fellow men and women? The same, I believe, holds true for any organization. In keeping with this, recently I came across an article on public relations by Patrick Coffee that was written in October, 2012, in PR Newser. Titled "Does the Growth of PR 'Threaten Democracy?', the author raises the possibility that the growing field of pubic relations with its thousands of practitioners is eroding the ability of journalists to report the news objectively.

Coffee observes that more and more of the messages and/or information being communicated to the general public is "sponsored" by some one or some thing rather than being simply reported. An analogy to this might be the relationship between lobbyists and elected officials. As lobbyists far outnumber those elected to office, many have expressed concern that it is those lobbyists who are dictating the content of legislation and the actions of those men and women who supposedly are in office to serve the public and advance democracy. My concern is this question raised by Coffee might very well have an element of truth in it.

There is no doubt public relations practitioners spend much of their time trying to sway reporters to cover specific stories and then report them in particular ways that flatter their clients. The fact there are so many of these paid communicators (the Public Relatons Society of America alone boats over 20,000 members) leaves the print and electronic reporters, many of whom are operating under tight budgets, limited resources shrinking news holes to fill, with a very heavy challenge of not bending to this heavy pressure coming from PR types. Generally-speaking, the press seems to be fighting an uphill battle. So, what is to be done? Those same public relations professionals can help by ensuring everything they share with the press and the public is accurate. The truth is powerful enough to help maintain the viability of a society no matter what might be pulling against it.

Communicating to Power

The stakeholders of any organization or entity potentially wields power. Potentially they are persons with much influence. Those who administer or run the organizations often turn to the stakeholders for advice, guidance and approval. It is not uncommon for the executive to even defer to the stakeholder when their perspectives clash. Stakeholders often hold sway over the matter of the executive's tenure, including his or her salary, length of service and employment. Execuive are even often beholden to stakeholders. Consequently, the stakeholder is a person generally treated with regard, respect and deference.

Given the reality of the kind of power a stakeholder can and often does hold, then, it makes the role of the organization's chief communication officer all the more vital. Stakeholders may be highly influential, but they are not all-wise or all-knowing. As is the case with anyone in a position of power, they, too, need to hear hard truths and be given facts that are not shaped or altered in any way. This is something the top communicator can and should do. It falls under the umbrella of "truth of power." In this case, however, one might call it "communicating to power." Granted, doing this may not always be easy, but if the communicator is to be true to him or herself, to their organization and even to the stakeholder, then this is what they must be prepared to do.

What can make this a particular challenge is if the communicator does not have direct access to the stakeholders. This is not uncommon. Thus, to carry out the vital function of communicating properly to those key individuals, the communicator can and should work through other top leaders within the organiation, including the chief executive. Give them the straight facts to pass along. Even include recommendations if it is appropriate. This kind of straight forward action can help earn the communicator direct access to the stakeholders. Once that is done, then the organization and all that lead it are moving toward the ultimate goal of being open, transparent, and meeting their responsibilities in the name of the greater good.