The Introduction

There is an old saying that suggests "familiarity breeds contempt." I concede while this may not always be true, at the very least it can lead to misunderstanding. Let me explain. If a person about to speak is known to his or her audience, then there is the temptation that they may not feel a need to offer up any kind of explanation or lead-in to whatever it is they are going to say. The speaker may think to themself, "I am their spouse or college roommate or next door neighbor, so why do I need to spend any time explaining what it is I am about to talk about? Why can't I just start talking about whatever it is I want to talk about?" There is a logic to such a question. The problem is if the person on the receiving end of a comment is not given any kind of explanation of whatever it is they are about to be told, then their ability to grasp that comment is all the more difficult. Speakers should not fall into the trap of assuming that just because they are a known entity that they are going to be automatically understood. Such thinking is asking to be misunderstood. This is why the introduction of any attempt to communicate is so vital. In news writing, the beginning of the communique is called the lede (lead). In speaking or conversation, it is called the lead-in or set-up. From the perspective of the listener or receiver of a message, not being given an explanation of any kind is like being blindfolded and then asked to identify what is before them. At best, such a challenge is going to be difficult to meet. Why put any person through that? The good news here is that the introduction does not have to be long or complicated. It can be as simple as "Guess what just happened to me" or "Let me tell you about my day." With that, the receiver is onboard and, as they say, "all ears." Establishing a comforable beginning may not guarantee that a misunderstanding won't occur, but it reduces the chances of that happening.

Multiple Paths

As long as I have been part of the public relations world - closing in on a half century - I confess that I continue to struggle with it. This is because puiblic relations seems to have a dual purpose in which the two are diametrically opposed. On the one hand, there is the purpose that public relations at its best is designed to build and maintain bridges, establish a "mutual harmony," to quote Edward Bernays, between multiple entities.Personally, I have always gravitated toward this purpose. The other primary purpose is more competitive. It sees P.R. as the successful effort of one entity to generate greater support than other entities. Of the two, more public relations practitioners follow what I label the competitive purpose rather than the harmonious one. Is it possible for professional communicators to function well by traveling these two paths that run counter to each other? Would not it be easier for all of us if the Public Relations Society of America, for example, ruled that for now on public relations has one purpose. Those professionals who adhere to that purpose may keep their PR label. Those who do not are going to have be called something else. There is part of me that wishes that would happen because it would make this social science and practice so much easier to teach, explain, practice, and discuss. But a bigger part of me realizes that will not happen simply because it is unrealistic. Public relations is about communication, an act that is as fundamental to life as breathing. All of us every day travel multiple paths. Those paths do not always coincide, nor are they always in harmony. Today, for instance, I plan to do things with my wife. I also plan to do things that do not involve her as they are more for me. (This blog entry is a quick example.) Does that make me any less of a husband or communicator? I think not. It also points to the reality that the dual purposes of public relations are not all that off-base after all. Like life itself, it just means it is complex.

Promoting Sincerity

There are numerous tools that help one promote themselves or promote a person or entity that they may be representing. These range from press releases, interviews and advertisements to media advisories, podcasts and tweets. Another notable and effective promotional tool is the media event. For the public relations professional, such a tool represents one's way of drawing attention to their client or to a particular cause in the form of a staged event. While I have written on this before, there is one aspect of them that needs further emphasing. One essential ingredient for this tool to be successful is that it must be genuine. What, you may ask, does that mean? For any public relations tool to be most effective, it must be sincere and honest. Ideally, no P.R. tool should ever be designed to deceive or fool. The media event, as the name suggests, is designed to attract the press in the hope the press will give it coverage, thus generating attention and interest on behalf of a person or cause. The event can be simple or extravagent, inexpensive or costly. Above all, though, it must reflect the true values of the organizers. No phoniness. If one looks at the most effective speeches,for instance, they are the ones deemed most heartfelt. The same holds true for media events. All of us, no doubt, have attended weddings. Which ones did we find to be the most moving? Simple: the ones where the couple was most deeply taking such action on the wings of love. Such a joining reflected their true values. Media events, at their best, should be no different. Public relations, at its best, is not about pretend. It is not about faking something. Rather, it is about giving emphasis to a specific message. A couple invites others to their wedding to showcase their true feelings. Media events, at their most effective, should be geared to highlight that which one feels strongly. Ideally, nothing less will suffice.

Press Events

Events for the press are always tricky undertakings. On the one hand, you want to have a message or information to share that is substantial enough to warrant the attention of the press. On the other, you want to put together an activity that peaks their interest enough for them to want to send out cameras and photographers as well as actual reporters. And to top all that off, how well the organizers do can have a serious impact on their credibility. If what they do is judged to be too hokey, then you can bet electronic and print media will be relunctant to give you the coverage you may wish in the future. (This points to an important and relavent truism: the press has a long memory.) There are some entities that can get away with putting together shoddy events cause they know the press will give them the attention they desire. The best example, of course, is The White House. But even that has its limits. Television networks have been known to cut-off their coverage in midstream if they deem an event to be more of an attempt to generate publicity rather than share hard news. Some may call such actions on the part of the press to be cyncial. I view it as the press simply doing their job. To avoid such action requires a level of respect for the press on the part of those putting together these types of events. Press officers, to be any good, must bring to the table a deep and unshakeable apppreciation of and respect for the press. No exceptions. Anything less is arrogence and border-line contempt not just for reporters but folks on the receiving end of what men and women of the press report as well. Reporters pick up on this kind of attitude as well and it makes for poor relations between press agents and the press itself. All this is why any and all press events require serious thought.

Truman & Quixote

One of my favorite observations about President Harry Truman came from General George Marshall when he said Truman was one of the few people he knew who looked at things and saw what was there rather what he wanted to see. I was reminded of that the other day when I began reading the classic, "Don Quixote" by Miguel de Cervantes. The main character, of course, has become one of fiction's most famous icons because, in part, of his being very much unlike Truman. This is a big part of Quixote's charm - if I may use that word - as it gives his quest to right all wrongs a matchless romantic flare and makes him all the more endearing as a result. It has always struck me that the perfect communicator would be the one who combines Truman's iron grip on what is real with Quixote's ability to combat all real and unreal dragons and see the world in a way where life is all sunshine and no storms. I like to think that we all have the ability to be like Truman and Quixote: realists as well as dreamers. The question in my mind, however, is do we have the ability or discipline to carry on in a manner where the two qualities co-exist within us? Can we view and face communication challenges with both passion and dispassion? Show me the communicator who does that with some level of regularity and I will be very impressed. (It will also help if he or she can write a good press release.) The day-to-day challenge of all professional communicators who to properly balance what they actually see with what they hope to see. This is not always as easy as it may sound, particlarly if they have a client whose vision may not always be steeped in reality. In such circumstances, it is the communicator's job to be the "bad guy" or "party pooper" and tell the big boss things he or she may not want to hear. Good luck witht that. Roadsides are filled with communicators whose attempt to do that were met with vengence be an unhappy boss. Nevertheless, this does not mean communicators should stop fulfilling that function. Alas, it part of their job.

Driverless Cars

No matter how many years I have clocked-in in this world, I have always gotten a special boot out of a new experience. Earlier this week I had one. I got to drive in a driverless car. No, I did not drive it, but then, in such a vehicle, I guess the whole point is that no one is actually the driver. Still, sitting in the front passenger seat as I did, I think that was close enough to the experience of sitting behind the steering wheel and not, uh, steering. My drive was not on any major highway. Instead, it was through a neighborhood that my friend - the owner of the car - took on our way to a nearby restaurant for lunch. Nevertheless, the car did "show-off" for us as it stopped at a traffic light, obeyed the speed limit, made a few turns, maintained a safe distance from other vehicles, and parked. All very impressive and, for a first timer, a bit nerve-wracking. After all, not being in-control in such a circumstance is not the easiest of adjustments. What would happpen, I wondered, if we rear-ended a car in front of us or ran a red light or hit a pedistrian? Who's fault would it be? Who would be held libel for such a mishap? My guess is the courts are addressing these basic questions right now as this new technology slowly becomes more popular. This is one more example of how technology allows us to relinquish control. Drivers in a driverless car are able to let-go of their responsibility. They simply punch-in their destination and literally leave the driving to the car. This will never happen when it comes to communicating with another. Yes, technology may speed-up the process and make it easier, but actually connecting with another and maintaining ties with them will always be up to us. Some may not like this, but I am definitley not one of them. Establishing and maintaining viable ties with others is a big part of what makes us human. We should never give up such a vital part of our humanity. In the meanwhile, who's up for a joy ride!

Here's to Imperfection!

What could be labeled as an unavoidable trend in communication since the field's beginning days over 100 years ago is the matter of perfection. Communicators, including scholars and professional practitioners, have stressed perfection. No no mistakes. No typos. No misspellings. No misstatements. This, I quickly note, is completely understandable. After all, imperfection in the worlds of professionalism and academia, for instance, represents a clear threat to one's credibility, professional standing and how their level of competence is viewed. In those settings, I for one have strived for perfection though I have not always been perfect in that regard.

As perfection is the focus of this blog entry, it is important that it be given the recognition it deserves. After all, the level of damage imperfection can and does cause is practically immeasurable. This can be especially true when it comes to communication. Having said, that, however, it is also worth noting that perfection, in the context of communication, can be a bit overrated. To begin, let us look at those who do the communicating: people. These are living and breathing creatures who are imperfect by design., As much as they strive to hit the bulls-eye with each action, including attempts to communicate, much of the time they fall short. In other words, their efforts are consistently less than perfect.

Thus, imperfection is the order of the day. As much as all of us may strive to be perfect in all that we do, it is important that we not turn our backs on imperfection or treat it like an uninvited guest to a party. Let us be clear: imperfection is going to make its presence known at any social or professional gathering. The only unknown is how much of a "bang" it is going to make. All this is not to say we should no longer strive for mistake-free days. Of course, we should. At the same time, when imperfection does pop up, it is not necessarily something that should automatically be shunned or scorned.