Checkmate - Media Relations

Apple's sour grapes bruises a stellar brand

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:23:00-0400

Even the ultra-cool sometimes just don’t get it.

After a few haughty responses earlier in the week to complaints about its iPhone 4 dropping calls, Apple made a smart move and offered free cases iPhone 4 consumers. The cases will prevent the “death grip” problem that cause the phone’s reception to fade and sometimes drop calls if held a certain way.

But Apple CEO Steve Jobs apparently just couldn’t just hand out the cases and live to fight another day. Standing on a dais in front of an image that said “Antennagate,” he had to show a video illustrating problems with competing phones like the Blackberry. Then he insisted there’s nothing really wrong with the iPhone 4 – that the situation is a media creation.

“We're not feeling right now that we have a giant problem we need to fix,” Jobs said during a press conference at Apple’s Cupertino, Calif. headquarters. “This has been blown so out of proportion that it’s incredible. I know it’s fun to have a story, but it’s less fun when you're on the other end of it.”

Has Jobs grown too accustomed to the rainbows and unicorns he usually gets from the media? I have to wonder if his PR people warned him he’d look like a whiner if he complained about the press because that’s how he came off – defensive. The media did not, as Jobs intimated, create this problem. Apple’s arrogant response to customer complaints did. When customers got the high hat from Apple, they started complaining publicly through social media and the news media picked up on the story.

When are executives going to learn a little humility and contrition go a long way in situations like this? You’d think that coming so soon on the heels of Toyota’s and BP’s PR Armageddons that Apple, normally a PR-savvy company, would have had a response as slick as its products. Considering the vast reservoirs of customer good will it has to draw on, Apple could have snuffed this out before it became a problem. It might have had to eat a little crow by admitting its hot-shot phone had a flaw, but at least it wouldn’t be getting bludgeoned in the press at the same time.

7 reasons why "pitch" & "pitching" need to go bye-bye

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:19:00-0400

“Pitch” and “pitching” aren’t going away … but they should. They’re so frequently used in agencies, corporations, not-for-profits and organizations they appear current, reasonable and viable. But they’re not. They should be retired immediately.

Historic usage, prevalence and pithiness shouldn’t supersede relevance or appropriateness. If it did, words like: colored, going steady, secretary, sissy, stewardess and mental would still be in wide circulation today.

Here are seven reasons why we should drop the pitch:

1. It's a dated form of PR – media relations used to be one-way. We’d craft our “pitches” and try to sell them to busy reporters. Please Walt Mossberg, notice me, listen to what I have to say, and I hope (and pray) you write something. Those days are increasingly over. The world of top-down media dominance has been replaced with a never ending grassroots conversation that’s lively, engaging, empowering and direct to consumer/customer.

2. It de-positions the PR industry – most of us have worked hard adapting to - and adopting – many historic communications transformations. We’re not there yet… (may never be), but we’re in a better place. We’re taking the PR industry to a new position where authenticity and transparency shape our practice – not hype and selling. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to go back.

3. It damages our reputation – pitch and pitching sound old-school – pre-social media, pre-community – and they are. When we say these words, they immediately date us, forcing astute listeners to categorize us as “hit and clip,” “press kit” era PR dinosaurs.

4. It’s one-way – pitching epitomizes the old-world model of one way communications. Shut up and listen, I've got something to say. I'm the pitcher, here's the pitch … I'll wait and see if you catch what I've got to say … or not. Yes, the great “pitchers” of the past weren’t this crass … they’d initiate a conversation. But lots of people continue to push out their packaged ideas via Twitter, e-mail, Facebook, etc., never inviting or urging a conversation.

5. It’s arrogant – I don’t like it when a car salesman makes assumptions about me when we’ve never met. I don’t like it when a telemarketer reaches me at home to sell me something I’m not interested in. I don’t like it when people try to convince me to support an idea I’m not familiar with or don’t believe in. Pitching has all these attributes, and more.

6. It’s a turn-off – this approach helped give PR a negative reputation, a perception often shaped by aggressive, fake, single-minded people trying to get their way vs. earning respect and building rapport.

7. It doesn’t work – instead of pitching, let’s enter a two-way conversation, tell a story, listen, learn, invest time and treat people the way we like to be treated. We may not always get where we want to go, but we’ll build genuine relationships that have more lasting value.

BP triggers dark side for augmented reality

Tue, 06 Jul 2010 15:46:00-0400

No sooner did brand managers and marketers discover augmented reality (AR) as the next big marketing frontier then did consumers find a way to use AR to voice their own opinions.

AR developers Mark Skwarek and Joseph Hocking are keeping BP’s feet to the fire with a new AR iPhone app that lets users visualize the Deepwater Horizon oil spill at their local BP gas station or wherever they happen to see a BP logo.

Called “the leak in your hometown,” the app transforms the logo into the source of the deep sea gusher. Just point your phone at the logo and your outrage and sense of futility over the unceasing disaster is rekindled.

If you’re new to augmented reality, it’s technology that overlay’s digital information and imagery onto your view of real-world things, typically using a webcam or smartphone camera as the visual conduit.

The BP gusher app is pretty simplistic as far as AR apps go. Yet it’s a brand manager’s nightmare. As the app’s creators describe on their blog …

An important component of the project is that it uses BP’s corporate logo as a marker, to orient the computer-generated 3D graphics. Basically turning their own logo against them. This repurposing of corporate icons will offer future artists and activists a powerful means of expression which will be easily accessible to the masses and at the same time will be safe and nondestructive.

Remember back when brand managers first swooned over the potential of social media as a new direct-to-consumer marketing channel, not yet realizing how the technology gives consumers their own, sometimes critical, voice? With AR, it’s déjà vu all over again. Google ‘augmented reality’ and ‘marketing’ and you'll see what I mean. But the effusive praise by marketers will soon be tempered as they discover that AR can be a double-edged sword, as much a threat to their companies’ corporate reputation as it is a powerful marketing tool.

Next BP victim: 'brand journalism'

Tue, 06 Jul 2010 11:15:00-0400

The brand journalist is the one of the most compelling marketing concepts I've encountered in a while. Leave it to BP to spoil a good thing.

Read more from our CleanSpeak blog here.

Beware of broadcast media coverage scams

Fri, 09 Apr 2010 15:09:00-0400

I got a call today from one of our client CMO’s. He had spoken with someone who asked him several questions for a “television program he was producing.” He had a catchy name for the program.

After talking awhile, the TV person said his organization would like to “interview” the CMO’s company for the program. He talked-up the excellent national broadcast visibility it would generate.

It sounded intriguing until our CMO started asking a few simple questions, including:

tell me more about your company
tell me more about this show
who interviews us
what’s the story angle that interests you about us
when and where will the story appear

Basic stuff, but the TV show rep stumbled and couldn’t answer any of them with credibility. Our CMO friend didn’t like the vibe; he said “the guy got all squishy on me.”

That’s when he picked up the phone and called me.

The instant he described the encounter I knew what it was; the latest version of a scam where a video infomercial production company passes itself off as a legitimate broadcast editorial opportunity. I’ve seen it many times over the past two decades.

Aside from the unethical behavior and misrepresentation, the heart of the scam is money. After hooking the unsuspecting prospect with dreams of broadcast coverage, they tell you it’s going to cost money to pull it all together. In this particular case, it was in the $20K+ range.

Sadly, some companies fall for it. Here are some of the broadcast scams in business today: http://bit.ly/9Q0Ujz and http://bit.ly/bevDP6.

If you’re ever contacted by someone who rather quickly promises to get your company broadcast media coverage, ask one simple question: is this going to cost my company any money? If the rep stammers, delays, gets “squishy” or says “yes,” run for the hills.

Real media coverage is earned, not paid for.

Seven social media lessons from Nestle's reputation crisis

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:03:00-0400

If a company still doesn’t "get" how social media has changed the rules of branding by empowering consumers, look no further than the ongoing Nestle firestorm.

Nestle has been in trouble for awhile, mostly related to its continuing use of palm oil in its products. Palm oil is linked to environmental nastiness, including deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions and endangered species loss.

Caroline McCarthy of CNET News shared a balanced post about the Nestle brand crisis, triggered by ticked off consumers on Facebook. Nestle was clueless about the power shift enabled by social media and acted in an old-school authoritarian “we own the brand” way. It not only didn’t work, it backfired.

There are vital lessons from the Nestle debacle for professional communicators advising their execs or clients:

1. Before diving into social media, make sure key decision makers who think they want to go social media truly “get” how the game is played. It’s not a press release.

2. Make sure they understand how Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. aren’t one way vehicles (where the brand dominates the message), but an invitation to a never ending dance with constantly changing partners, some of whom are never your friend and may only want to dance if they can slap your ego and try to make you a better dancer.

3. Don’t go social media unless the brand is willing to take the risk of jumping off the cliff, giving up control to customers and consumers who will express their viewpoints, both positive and negative.

4. If your company or client wants to control the message, then social media isn’t for them. Look at how Nestle tried to tell people not to post their logos. It will incur a wrath not unlike "It’s not OK for people to use altered versions of your logos but it’s OK for you to alter the face of Indonesian rainforests? Wow!"

5. Creating LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter accounts is just the first step. The goal isn’t to tweet or post, it’s to build an active community and an authentic two-way relationship based on trust. It’s easy to get started in social media, but time-consuming and challenging to remain engaged and build a following.

6. Remember that even if your company or client decides not to engage in social media, this won’t stop rants, rebellion and revolution. People will find a way to express themselves and let it be known they’re disturbed, upset, confused, disappointed or whatever the view. The train has left the station, so be prepared.

7. As we’ve learned from Nestle (and so many others), people don’t want to be scammed, ignored or mistreated. It will come back to bite you. So if your exec or client wants social media to become a positive tool, the brand must be a concerned good listener prepared to take action to correct situations that aren’t right.

Thanks: African American PR Pioneers who shaped our profession

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:22:00-0400

Ida B. Wells-Barnett

When I prepared for my Accredited Public Relations (APR) exams (oral & written) via the Public Relations Society of America , we read and talked about the history of the profession and the notables who shaped our industry.

I learned that Sam Adams moved and manipulated public opinion during the Revolutionary War. Alexander Hamilton published 85 Federalist letters urging ratification of the Constitution.

Amos Kendall served President Andrew Jackson’s “Kitchen Cabinet” as pollster, counselor, publicist and ghostwriter.

P.T. Barnum was a canny “press agent” showman who leveraged publicity for his Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus.

Bayard Rustin

Parker & Lee opened the first public relations firm in New York City in 1904.

And Edward Bernays (who I had the pleasure of spending a day with in his Cambridge home) wrote many books about public relations, coined the term “public relations counsel,” and advised Presidents and CEOs.

But I never learned about notable African Americans who were influential in the formation of the PR industry.

But now, thanks to Marcia Taylor from Norfolk State University, I know there were many

Inez Kaiser

African American PR pioneers. Her post in celebration of Black History Month made me smarter:

I now know that Ida B. Wells-Barnett promoted women’s suffrage and the abolition of lynching.

I learned that Bayard Rustin was the social cause strategist who organized the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom where Dr. Martin Luther King delivered his “I have a dream” speech.

And I know Inez Kaiser founded the first African-American, female-owned PR firm in America.

Thanks Marcia and PRSA, and congratulations to all the pioneers who should be recognized for their contributions to the PR industry.

Toyota should meet recall questions with big doses of transparency

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:59:00-0400

Until a few days ago, who didn’t want to be Toyota? They had it all. A sterling reputation for quality. The world’s most popular hybrid car. Insanely loyal customers. And in 2009, to crown it all, Toyota ended General Motors’ 77-year run as the world’s largest automaker.

It probably would have been nice for Toyota if it could have had some time to celebrate being top dog, but that wasn’t meant to be. The company is playing defense over recalls affecting 9 million of its vehicles worldwide. The news that gas pedal assemblies on its top models can cause sudden acceleration strikes at the most durable part Toyota’s brand image – its reputation for quality. Toyota got great by making quality cars that people could afford. It built that reputation one solid, reliable Corolla, Camry and Prius at a time. Even though competitors like Honda and Nissan were rated just as highly, Toyota was to quality what Volvo was to safety – first among equals and better than everyone else.

Now the auto company that could once do no wrong has shut down production lines and instructed dealers not to sell some of its most popular models. The New York Times reported that Toyota knew about the acceleration problems two years before it issued the recall. Rep. Henry Waxman, one of Congress’ most persistent consumer watchdogs, announced he will hold hearings to investigate the sudden acceleration problem next month.

What’s unfolding is the next great case study on the value of openness and transparency. Toyota has already said it welcomes the chance to address the issue head-on and publicly at Waxman’s hearings. The company has already started a pre-emptive media campaign. Toyota issued statements saying it started working on a solution this fall, when it learned how pervasive the problem was. Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda issued a public apology from the World Economic Conference in Davos. Toyota USA President Jim Lentz faced Matt Lauer on the “Today” show. The company announced over the weekend that it has rushed millions of repair kits to dealers.

So the court of public opinion is convened. How will the Toyota brand come out the other end? It depends how the company’s mea culpas resonate with the public. If Toyota is perceived as earnest and sincere, history has shown that the public will forgive it and continue to see it as a brand synonymous with quality. If it is perceived as elusive and defensive, then the Toyota brand could become just another name in the pack.

Apple iPad (cringe) reminds us how brands succeed by transforming experiences

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:11:00-0400

To borrow a line from Scrooge, “I’m as giddy as a drunken man.” With today’s Apple iPad intro, it feels like Christmas.

I was glued to Engadget’s live blogfeed of the announcement. Apple is leveraging its iPhone technology in a new tablet format, adding bells and whistles like unlocked, no contract, and cheap 3G data plans, a keyboard dock and the iBookstore.

But once again, as we’ve seen in the past with Apple, the whole may be larger than the sum of the parts.

In the tech industry we pay homage to “innovation” as the ultimate springboard for leadership positioning and killer differentiation.

Lots of companies make products, but only a few reinvent how we learn, communicate and experience. Remember trying to use a pre-iPod Mp3 player? Mine was a Diamond Rio; frustrated and ticked off are two reactions that come to mind.

Remember how you felt the first time you used an iPod? For me, it was the same feeling I get when I step foot in a new country. Wow, this is someplace different, and it’s cool, and a little scary but I’m happy to be here and I want to discover this new place.

The iPod wasn’t just innovative because of its simple design and intuitive ease of use. The kicker was the iTunes store – it gave us a whole new way to stay on top of music, broaden our horizons, consume and share at far less cost. The entire experience of finding and listening to music was transformed.

I used to think it was de rigueur to be able to stay in touch via e-mail on my mobile phone. But now as an iPhone user, I can’t fathom how I was satisfied with a device that made surfing the web painful and offered little else.

The iPhone gives me a broader, more fulfilling experience. While typing is a little less speedy, I now have - in one device – painless Internet, much better viewing, a decent camera, games, nifty video, all the music I love, instant social networking connections, an e-book reader and access to over 140,000 apps. Nice trade-up.

The iPad isn't perfect (bad name; doesn't multi-task; no webcam; no widescreen; no GPS) but it may hold similar long-term promise.

If I was a newspaper or magazine publisher, I’d be more hopeful. This device has the potential to help reinvent the publishing industry like iTunes reinvented the music industry. As I watched today’s New York Times demo, it reminded me of the Harry Potter movies where animated video moves across “The Daily Prophet” student newspaper. The iPad features drop down context menus; re-sizing of pages with a pinch; and embedded video inside articles. If the content providers and app developers get onboard with this vision, it could be a reinvention of how we read and learn.

It remains to be seen whether the iPad will make it or die a Newtonian death. The lesson I walk away with is that consumer and B2B brands can endear themselves to their customers - and potentially win - if they focus on innovating customer experiences vs. merely announcing feature-rich products. The former is a benefit-laden differentiation that’s damn hard to disrupt.

My top 10 PR, communications and branding trends of 2009

Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:53:00-0400

10. New levels of ravenous mass media spotlighting. Arguably, 2009 featured an insane level of “we will not let this story go.” Already saturated news stories were repeated - endlessly - way past the point of saturation. From balloon boy to Octomom to Gosselin vs. Gosselin to Amanda Knox, the same B-level stories were relentlessly beaten to death. While this isn’t a new trend, it is an increasingly annoying one.

9. Under-reported storytelling. One of the by-products of over-reporting is under-reporting. Too many newsworthy stories either didn’t get covered or were given marginal, brief treatment. These stories included (as TIME magazine summarized in its year-end issue) Nigerian blood for oil, experimenting with children and the Maoist insurgency in India.

8. Twitter & Facebook went legit for business. In 2009, Twitter broadened from a consumer-level experience to a pragmatic corporate communications tool. An increasing number of businesses are using it for real-time updates, blatant marketing and thought leadership. Ditto for Facebook. LinkedIn, the social networking tool most associated with business, opened up its API and became more Facebook-like.

7. Online media became credible. In a year when print media collapsed, most people finally “got” that online visibility/conversations have gone legit. Meanwhile, the enlightened understand how online and social media is a new paradigm much more impactful than traditional media because of its transparency, authenticity and conversational two-way belief building.

6. Blogs ruled but got reeled in. Blogs became the real-time voice of corporations, the best way to communicate and build a human corporate persona. But while they were more widespread, the Federal government cracked down on bloggers in the pocket of vendors, forcing full disclosure for paid-for-booty.

5. Green became greener. While greenwashing didn’t go away in 2009, most corporations understood the mantra of needing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. They also saw a direct line drawn between sustainability and profitability.

4. Personal corporate branding. Social networking is a one-to-many conversation loaded with self expression. Companies used to be cold and lifeless; now they're increasingly personified by flesh & bones employee personalities who put themselves out there online sharing opinions, interests and agendas. Now, thankfully, stakeholders can build helpful connections that humanize the company/customer connection.

3. Video became an accepted standard in corporate America. The days of writing extensive “case studies” and producing elaborate (and expensive) corporate videos waned in 2009. Thanks to guerilla-style, grassroots video acceptance, corporations increasingly added video to their arsenal of communications thanks to a triumvirate of benefits: believability, immediacy and low-cost. Why write a news release when you can post a three minute video of someone saying it? Would you rather read or watch?

2. PR was re-invigorated. The words “public relations” may still conjure negative imagery, but in 2009, the PR industry began making progress towards a renewed, positive and relevant position. Driven by social media which fosters conversations vs. pitches, the PR industry made significant strides in shifting from a media-centric one-way communications model to a two-way listening model.

1. Social responsibility became embedded. In 2009, “making the world a better place” moved from ‘philanthropy’ to an appreciation for and understanding of how authentic, integrated giving-back strategy and action positively impacts business objectives and the bottom line. There’s no turning back and that’s a very good thing.

Why Tiger Woods, companies and governors can't hide any more

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:16:00-0400

I don’t know if Tiger Woods cheated on Elin with Rachel Uchitel, is a reckless operator, was having an argument, was in a hurry to get out of his house around 2 a.m. or just wanted a new SUV.

And I really don’t care.

What bugs me in what I thought was an era of growing transparency for all brands (companies, organizations, governments, people) is a still remarkably frequent hesitancy to come clean publicly.

At the time of this writing, Tiger still hasn’t spoken with law enforcement authorities, choosing instead to post a statement on his Web site saying, “This is a private matter and I want to keep it that way.”

When you’re a billion dollar brand, this course gets a little dicey.

Tiger isn’t the first case of failing to come clean fast in 2009; we’ve seen this many times this year.

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has denied doing anything wrong for months. He disappeared for days this summer, reappearing to finally admit to an extramarital affair with his Argentinian “soul mate.” Facing 37 ethics charges related to campaign money and airline travel, Sanford still isn’t coming clean.

Balloon boy’s Dad, Richard Heene cried crocodile tears, set up a box for reporter questions and told the world his son’s disappearance was “absolutely no hoax.” There were lots of statements and press interviews before the kid climbed down from his attic perch above his garage in Fort Collins, CO and spilled the beans by saying “you had said that we did this for a show.”

Apple got pressure when it continued to not disclose what was going on with Steve Jobs’ “hormonal imbalance” weight loss issue, the prevalent angle before his liver transplant disclosure in June. People were upset because boards of public companies need to comply with disclosure laws protecting shareholders when CEO illnesses keep them away from work.

It happened again last month when Lazard Ltd.’s CEO Bruce Wasserstein was hospitalized for heart problems. A lot of people were upset because they felt there wasn’t enough transparency around the prominent investment banker’s eight week absence and health disclosure in 2006.

Say what you want about David Letterman, but the guy got in front of it.

I agree with social media guru Chris Brogan. In his new book, Trust Agents, he said, “Those who are active on the Web now realize that they need to embrace this new transparency, that all things will now eventually be known. Companies can no longer hide behind a veneer of a shiny branding campaign, because customers are one Google search away from the truth. Further, they join activist groups to stay informed about new practices, so they are often one step ahead of the people trying to profit from them. Companies must acknowledge that they are as naked on the Web as individuals are."

Let’s transparently toast to a more transparent 2010.

An old Day and a new way add up to a future for the trade and news media

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:05:00-0400

The trade and news media need new business models to survive in the Internet age. I’m not just talking about online editions of print publications. The media has to completely remake itself. The profit motive can’t support it anymore. News and trade publishers need to be more like Consumers Union, the non-profit publisher of Consumer Reports.

But can alternative business models like Consumer Union’s work on a larger scale? Two precedents, one historical and one recent, say yes.

Back in 1939, Theodore Bodenwein, owner of The Day in New London, Conn.,gave the newspaper to the community by forming a non-profit trust to operate it. The Day isn’t insulated from free market forces, but its ownership model gives it a stronger hand for adapting to Internet Age media dynamics than media outlets chained to the company stock price.

The Texas Tribune, launched last week, is the 21^st century successor to The Day. It’s a wholly online, independent publication that covers the freak show of Texas state government in serious detail. Nothing too cutting edge there until you look at the Tribune’s business model. It’s funded by donations, sponsorships, and other non-advertising sources. Its mission is to provide a check on government power the mainstream media used to, but can’t anymore, as ad revenues evaporate. The Day and The Texas Tribune show what can happen when publishers (apologies to Apple) “think different.” Consumer Reports for high tech, or airlines, or the auto industry, or clean technology, anyone?

H1N1 vaccine distribution = bad PR for Obama

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:22:00-0400

I’m struggling to make sense of this. Let me see if I get this right.

Goldman Sachs received over $1billion from taxpayer bailouts and was the biggest recipient of taxpayer moolah in AIG’s bailout. Yes, they repaid their $10 billion loan with interest, but people in the know are predicting they might pay out as much as $16 billion in bonuses this year.

Next in line is Citigroup. They got $45 billion in TARP money plus another $300 billion in FDIC guarantees. All this on top of three previous government bailouts according to Slate.

Now comes the H1N1 debacle.

Goldman Sachs received 200 doses and Citgroup got 1,200. The New York City Department of Health figured this distribution strategy somehow made sense despite the fact the vaccine continues to be in very short supply. Many high-risk groups – little kids, young people, health care workers, pregnant women, etc. – haven’t been vaccinated. Lots of clinics and hospitals still don’t have their hands on it. People around the country wait in long lines to get it.

But Goldman Sachs took it. They received as much vaccine as was allotted to Lenox Hill Hospital in New York. Citigroup took it too, receiving five times more than Goldman Sachs.

True public relations practice is supposed to be focused on doing the right thing for society, right, not just one company’s employees? This week’s H1N1 action (and inaction) not only raises reputational management issues, but ethical ones as well.

On the heels of a still-lasting nasty taste in the public’s mouth, it seems these two firms may have been better served – reputationally and ethically – by being bigger picture ponderers, transparent and giving it back.

These vaccine distribution blunders may also create a negative ripple effect for the Obama administration. Arguably, a large segment of the American public may instinctively leap to a “who’s ultimately in charge here?” connection.

Morgan Stanley presumably learned a lesson from its financial brethren and did the right thing when it turned over its entire supply of 1,000 doses to local hospitals. Good for them, but especially for all the people who need it most.

It’s a textbook Bad PR, Good PR lesson for our time.

Tired, fading & dead PR words

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:31:00-0400

Lots of companies – especially those in B2B – still talk about (or request) PR services that increasingly strike me as tired, fading or dead.

Press tours & press briefings – yes, there are still industries where the press tour is alive and well (entertainment!) but most reporters, editors and bloggers don’t have time to meet in person anymore. I always felt bad for them during the height of this practice when an endless stream of PR people with clients in tow stacked-up to get their turn updating glassy-eyed reporters.

Hits & clips – counting clips (printed editorial coverage) and putting undue weight on offline publicity to measure PR success should have died two decades ago. Ask Katie Paine, one of the leaders in communications measurement. She says “hit” stands for How Idiots Track Success.

Press kits, brochures & collateral – in this era of sustainability and green, it’s hard to believe companies are still printing, but some are. Remember the days when major trade show/conference press rooms would be filled with press kits? This practice has largely stopped; it’s a digital world, let’s stop killing trees.

Press releases – the function of the news release has shifted so dramatically that in most instances they’re written and issued to primarily serve other stakeholders (customers, investors, prospects, etc.), not the press. The term “press release” is still (marginally) more prevalent than “news release,” (139 million vs. 104 million per Google) but call ‘em by the latter. It’s a more accurate, current and legitimate term.

Pitch – this term bugs me more than any other tired/fading/dead PR word because it epitomizes the old-world model of one-way communications. We have two-way conversations, we listen, we seek-out opinions, we build relationships and we tell stories. We shouldn’t “pitch.”

Users – this term has been around in the world of tech for decades; “users” referring to people who “use” products. For bizarro reasons I could never fathom, they aren’t called customers or consumers. Time to bury this one.

Big bang announcements – there was a time when PR practitioners would communicate with reporters well in advance of actual news being issued. Two or three months before the news broke, corporate spokespersons would inform industry analysts and “long lead time” magazines. Then they’d pre-brief the bi-weeklies, then the weeklies, then the dailies. This is a breathless concept. Blogs break news before most offline news outlets are even aware of it. Other social media (Twitter especially) inform in true real time.

Publicity – I’ve never liked this word in the context of defining public relations practice. Are we trying to build trusted reputations and create belief? Or, are we simply trying to get attention (Balloon Boy!)? True public relations is not publicity.

Embargos & lead time – PR practitioners used to negotiate up-front agreements with reporters not to run pre-fed news stories until the official date/time of the announcement. Hardly anyone wants to be tied to this practice; it’s still around but is fading fast.

What PR words bug you?

How to make technical spokespersons less techy

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:26:00-0400

Sometimes it’s hard for companies with complicated stories and technologies to simplify. This happens for several reasons, including culture, ego, myopia and fear. If it’s your job to make techy spokespersons more effective communicators, consider a few of these techniques:

Engineers typically dominate technology company cultures. They often assume everyone is on their intellectual wavelength and can follow along. Help them see the light when communicating with less technical people. Less is more, simple is better.
For some folks, it’s a trip knowing subject matter no one else can fathom. Keeping it complicated = self preservation or ego gratification. As the owner of communications within your company, patiently teach them the benefits of taking one for the team and forsaking complexity.
Most people want the straight scoop: fast & clean. They don’t have all day. Build bridges of comprehension; analogies and metaphors are helpful.
While your executives spend most of their time thinking about their business, others don’t. Enlighten them. Explain why they need to frame discussions, acknowledge the larger ecosystem surrounding their company and take the time to simply explain.
Some spokespersons believe speaking simply is a mistake because it will trigger misinterpretation, inaccuracy and sells short a complex, multi-faceted story. Educate them that the objective of communicating isn’t to cross every “t” and dot every “i” in a pattern of boring thoroughness. It's to make certain the person is enlightened, informed and engaged in a way that makes him/her want to share their viewpoints with others … ideally in-person and online.
Some people are arrogant and/or impatient. They want to say what they want to say, the way they want to say it. They haven’t read Dale Carnegie’s classic “How to Win Friends & Influence People.” Help them understand why a self-focused approach yields significant missed opportunity.
Making complicated topics readily understandable is an art ... an art that thankfully be learned. Here are a few techy examples:

Instead of saying, “This new LED is available in a multitude of sizes ranging from a diminutive 280 µm to 350 µm,” say “These new LEDs are smaller than a grain of sand.”
Instead of saying, “Implement IEEE 802.15.4 2.4 GHz radio frequency wireless ZigBee sensor networks to enable devices to interface with each other,” say “Easily cast wireless sensory networks around structures like an invisible tactile spider web.”
Instead of saying, “A hardware device with an RS 232 command line interface that enables HD video over coaxial cable,” say “A box that lets you broadcast any online content on your high def TV.”