Someone kindly sent me a link to the Cluetrain Manifesto this week as a "really interesting article" regarding online communications. I read it back in 2000, so someone finding it useful 10 years later, and with the emergence of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, is really telling that maybe social media has given us new tools for online PR, but the strategies aren't that different.
She prompted me to look back at some of my own research from then to see if and how it might apply today, and it's pretty critical, I think. (Of course I would say that.)
The important point is incorporating the internet and its channels and communities into communications programmes strategically. Lots of research seems to be focused on the new things we can do with social media, but it's very tactical, and often enamoured with the tech and what it can do, instead of asking the important questions - how can we make it work best for us? how can we make it work with our other communications activicies? is there an appropriate RoI?
If you're not doing much this weekend have a look at what it's still right - and what was a little naive - back in 2001 when I wrote this research document
The media, public relations, companies we meet, best practice and things that get our goat.
Saturday, 23 October 2010
Thursday, 14 October 2010
News of The World gate is no Watergate - how odd!
A lack of definitive evidence of complicity seems to be sole reason that Andy Coulson has managed to cling on to his job as Director of Communications in Downing Street. In damaging headlines that have been prevalent throughout September, the former News of the World editor is not only alleged to have been complicit in, but ‘actively encouraged’ the phone-hacking of several high-profile individuals during his time at the tabloid. The re-emergence of this story, first carried by the Guardian in the summer of 2009, has not only led to questions of judgement in the British Government, but clearly demands a wider inquiry into media morals and the power possessed by the media in society.
Despite the accusations directed at Mr Coulson, he can count on the support of both Nick Clegg and David Cameron who have both stood by him in the face of anxiety throughout the coalition. In Parliament, it was claimed that when Coulson originally resigned from his editorial position at the News of the World, the first person to offer commiserations was then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. So political support from all sides, it seems – at least publicly. However, whether Cameron still feels as ‘relaxed’ about Coulson’s appointment, as he claimed when the story originally broke, is unlikely as clamours for his departure reign down from the backbenches. In many ways, it could be suggested that it’s only for a lack of cohesion and sense of direction in Labour’s PR department that Coulson has been able to remain in his job to date. A clear opportunity for the opposition to launch damaging blows in Cameron’s direction has nearly passed without the former editor having to use any of his media skills.
The emergence of the phone-tapping scandal has also evoked a need for further investigation into the role that Rupert Murdoch, owner of ‘News of the World’ parent company ‘News International’, has in the decision making process at the heart of British government. News International, in 2009, seemingly paid out more than £1 million to settle legal cases that threatened to reveal evidence of journalists using criminal methods to acquire stories. Controversially, it would seem that the intimate relationship enjoyed by Cameron and Murdoch was hugely significant in Coulson’s original political appointment back in 2007. Cameron, with Coulson in his current position, may soon experience a rebuttal of his government’s integrity, particularly with a number of MP’s, and high profile celebrities alleging their phones have been hacked, and many would argue he’d be prudent to quietly show Coulson the door before the police question Coulson following new allegations.
In any democracy one must ask if a person can remain in an authoritative position when they are under investigation for using Stasi-like tactics. Let’s not forget that it was bugging and secret tape-recordings – an offence not dissimilar to that of voicemail hacking – that was at the heart of President Richard Nixon’s impeachment.
In a coalition that has endeavoured to distance itself from previous scandal and make ‘government accountable to the people’, the Coulson predicament has the potential to be even more damaging. The fact that Coulson denies that he knew anything about the phone-tapping suggests a disregard for duty in the first place; either way, his position as ‘Head of Communications’ seems difficult to defend. It is essential that any media editor should check the strengths of his journalists sources, if Coulson was not mindful of the investigations his journalists were conducting, there should be questions as to why this was not the case, and his general competence.
Clearly, this is a scandal that Cameron would be wise to try and distance himself from, sooner rather than later, as there appears to be almost no redeeming aspects to the quandary in which he now finds himself. The sacking of Coulson, alongside an attempt to make government changes to tighten the checks and balances involved within media investigations, could help to limit the potential damage.
Divisions between private and public information have become increasingly blurred post 9/11. Electronic eavesdropping is a serious crime, and should be treated as such, yet, in certain cases, also has the ability to uncover vital information that may help to keep the public safe. Nevertheless, what is inexcusable is the tapping of phones for entertainment purposes. As more people come forward to speak about the ‘News of the World’ case, the Westminster village is full of rumours about how widespread the practice really is. Clearly tighter controls on the methods used by journalists are essential to avoid repeat questions of the invasion of privacy, alleged to be practiced throughout the News of the World under Coulson’s tenure. The culture that had emerged, with allegedly nearly 3,000 people targeted, further demonstrates the extent of the problem and the need for change. This is just the latest case of journalists sacrificing professional ethics for commercial benefit.
At present, there seems to be little power or desire of holding the media to account by anyone. At present, Coulson’s close relationship to News International may have limited the backlash to issue to just a handful of publications, unsurprisingly none of them belonging to News International. The BBC also took their time in reporting a follow-up story from the New York Times which introduced a “former reporter” who said Coulson was present during discussions about phone hacking.
Murdoch’s dominant publications remain The Sun and the News of the World. As Britain’s best read paper, and a daily readership of over 3 million, The Sun is consequently well placed to influence many of the British public’s perceptions. An illustration of the power The Sun wields is the “elephant in the room” treatment of what one can easily argue amounts to porn on its third page. However, critics of Page 3, although many, remain noticeably quiet, perhaps fearful of the backlash that The Sun, with its unmatched ability to influence public perception, will almost certainly embark on.
Those who have castigated this national treasure have often performed a startling u-turn on their original statements. One recent example of this is the apparent softening of Government Minister Lynne Featherstone’s desire to ban page 3 claiming that her original comments went “against liberal principles”. If such retractions have been made because of the threat of reaction from a News International publication, then it further indicates a sense of fear that The Sun and News of the World have created, and a subsequent imbalance of power in society.
The ability for a media institution to exploit the privacy of some, whilst limiting the freedom of speech of others is something that should never happen in a modern democracy. Regardless of what happens in the instant case of Mr Coulson, the coalition has a duty under international law to protect the privacy and free speech of its citizens – including its politicians. It has promised in its programme of government to protect civil liberties. If it is proved that there is a reckless senior advisor in Downing Street who’s shown few qualms about overstepping these boundaries, it will raise questions about the integrity of the UK’s new Government.
Despite the accusations directed at Mr Coulson, he can count on the support of both Nick Clegg and David Cameron who have both stood by him in the face of anxiety throughout the coalition. In Parliament, it was claimed that when Coulson originally resigned from his editorial position at the News of the World, the first person to offer commiserations was then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. So political support from all sides, it seems – at least publicly. However, whether Cameron still feels as ‘relaxed’ about Coulson’s appointment, as he claimed when the story originally broke, is unlikely as clamours for his departure reign down from the backbenches. In many ways, it could be suggested that it’s only for a lack of cohesion and sense of direction in Labour’s PR department that Coulson has been able to remain in his job to date. A clear opportunity for the opposition to launch damaging blows in Cameron’s direction has nearly passed without the former editor having to use any of his media skills.
The emergence of the phone-tapping scandal has also evoked a need for further investigation into the role that Rupert Murdoch, owner of ‘News of the World’ parent company ‘News International’, has in the decision making process at the heart of British government. News International, in 2009, seemingly paid out more than £1 million to settle legal cases that threatened to reveal evidence of journalists using criminal methods to acquire stories. Controversially, it would seem that the intimate relationship enjoyed by Cameron and Murdoch was hugely significant in Coulson’s original political appointment back in 2007. Cameron, with Coulson in his current position, may soon experience a rebuttal of his government’s integrity, particularly with a number of MP’s, and high profile celebrities alleging their phones have been hacked, and many would argue he’d be prudent to quietly show Coulson the door before the police question Coulson following new allegations.
In any democracy one must ask if a person can remain in an authoritative position when they are under investigation for using Stasi-like tactics. Let’s not forget that it was bugging and secret tape-recordings – an offence not dissimilar to that of voicemail hacking – that was at the heart of President Richard Nixon’s impeachment.
In a coalition that has endeavoured to distance itself from previous scandal and make ‘government accountable to the people’, the Coulson predicament has the potential to be even more damaging. The fact that Coulson denies that he knew anything about the phone-tapping suggests a disregard for duty in the first place; either way, his position as ‘Head of Communications’ seems difficult to defend. It is essential that any media editor should check the strengths of his journalists sources, if Coulson was not mindful of the investigations his journalists were conducting, there should be questions as to why this was not the case, and his general competence.
Clearly, this is a scandal that Cameron would be wise to try and distance himself from, sooner rather than later, as there appears to be almost no redeeming aspects to the quandary in which he now finds himself. The sacking of Coulson, alongside an attempt to make government changes to tighten the checks and balances involved within media investigations, could help to limit the potential damage.
Divisions between private and public information have become increasingly blurred post 9/11. Electronic eavesdropping is a serious crime, and should be treated as such, yet, in certain cases, also has the ability to uncover vital information that may help to keep the public safe. Nevertheless, what is inexcusable is the tapping of phones for entertainment purposes. As more people come forward to speak about the ‘News of the World’ case, the Westminster village is full of rumours about how widespread the practice really is. Clearly tighter controls on the methods used by journalists are essential to avoid repeat questions of the invasion of privacy, alleged to be practiced throughout the News of the World under Coulson’s tenure. The culture that had emerged, with allegedly nearly 3,000 people targeted, further demonstrates the extent of the problem and the need for change. This is just the latest case of journalists sacrificing professional ethics for commercial benefit.
At present, there seems to be little power or desire of holding the media to account by anyone. At present, Coulson’s close relationship to News International may have limited the backlash to issue to just a handful of publications, unsurprisingly none of them belonging to News International. The BBC also took their time in reporting a follow-up story from the New York Times which introduced a “former reporter” who said Coulson was present during discussions about phone hacking.
Murdoch’s dominant publications remain The Sun and the News of the World. As Britain’s best read paper, and a daily readership of over 3 million, The Sun is consequently well placed to influence many of the British public’s perceptions. An illustration of the power The Sun wields is the “elephant in the room” treatment of what one can easily argue amounts to porn on its third page. However, critics of Page 3, although many, remain noticeably quiet, perhaps fearful of the backlash that The Sun, with its unmatched ability to influence public perception, will almost certainly embark on.
Those who have castigated this national treasure have often performed a startling u-turn on their original statements. One recent example of this is the apparent softening of Government Minister Lynne Featherstone’s desire to ban page 3 claiming that her original comments went “against liberal principles”. If such retractions have been made because of the threat of reaction from a News International publication, then it further indicates a sense of fear that The Sun and News of the World have created, and a subsequent imbalance of power in society.
The ability for a media institution to exploit the privacy of some, whilst limiting the freedom of speech of others is something that should never happen in a modern democracy. Regardless of what happens in the instant case of Mr Coulson, the coalition has a duty under international law to protect the privacy and free speech of its citizens – including its politicians. It has promised in its programme of government to protect civil liberties. If it is proved that there is a reckless senior advisor in Downing Street who’s shown few qualms about overstepping these boundaries, it will raise questions about the integrity of the UK’s new Government.
Thursday, 7 October 2010
Spam Headlines and Headline Spam
An article from ISP Grub.
"...say "marketing emails" and the man in the street would be forgiven for thinking "spam". But anyone working in the ISP industry, particularly a committed analyst of the ISP industry, such as ISP focused journalists and bloggers, would know the difference. Should know the difference. In fact, MUST know the difference."
http://www.ispgrub.org/2010/10/spam-headlines-are-headline-spam.html
"...say "marketing emails" and the man in the street would be forgiven for thinking "spam". But anyone working in the ISP industry, particularly a committed analyst of the ISP industry, such as ISP focused journalists and bloggers, would know the difference. Should know the difference. In fact, MUST know the difference."
http://www.ispgrub.org/2010/10/spam-headlines-are-headline-spam.html
Thursday, 30 September 2010
Showgirls and iPads are prize-less entertainment
The exchange of a business card for the possibility of winning an iPad; the latest in tablet computing for a trivial portion of paper. A tempting offer, with the potential gain far exceeding the insignificant loss.
To anybody who has recently attended a business conference or networking event, the sight of two attractive showgirls further subsidised by the offer of a technology prize is familiar. Two fit girls gagging for your phone number, it seems too good to be true and how often it is. To the few who have ever triumphed in one of these raffles, the remainder of this blog may seem an excessive tirade. To the thousands of executives who never win with iPads or pretty trade show girls; immerse yourself in this rant.
There are several changes to the current format of prize raffles at corporate events required, if the respect of executives is to be retained. The Sirens that are the permi-grin execs, part-time models and iPads can seemingly go far in luring potential clients to give up their contact details. However, those experienced in attending such networking events may be growing immune, or just plain cynical, to their shallow charms.
The quest for greater clarity and fair treatment in prize promotions is now essential if the current format is to retain the industry’s respect and get results. Perhaps most importantly the mythical prize has to be visible; a realistic target. At present, nobody is sure who wins the prize leading to confusion and a greater sense of disappointment for those who entered. Imagine if the same occurred at a sporting event, with the champion hidden under a cloud of anonymity. Not only would it represent a severe lack of drama, but would also soon lead to a lack of interest.
The likelihood of someone giving away their personal contact details and winning a prize should not be overstated. Exactly where the all-conquering victor should collect his modern day laurels should be clearly established and this must happen on the same day. The re-occurring explanation that the raffle will be inconveniently drawn in several weeks time helps nobody. Who has the time these days to chase up a potential prize? By this point, many people have probably forgotten they entered the prize in the first place. That is until they receive their first email marketing message from the competition holders. It now becomes desperately apparent that the cute showgirl will never call back, a large, ungainly bloke almost certainly will and a pang of regret creeps in.
Marketing and PR, have long used the incentive of a prize to lure people to sacrifice their personal details. It offers a chance to formulate a huge database of particular clients and people with whom future business may be done. This can often benefit both sides of the deal, so why the need for the sideshow, that is a potential iPad and the chance to talk, without fear, to a pretty girl? For the majority of people, the result of such an encounter is not hours of fun playing with said iPad, or the love of a pretty girl, but just the odd email from time-to-time for products and services they may or may not want.
A much simpler system, and the one adopted by Parker, Wayne and Kent, is to offer, on receipt of a business card, a chance to win numerous cash prizes on demand, immediately. This offers immediate gratification to winners of the draw, and helps to prevent obvious logistical difficulties in trying to forward the prize to a winner weeks later. Not only do competition champions experience the quick but memorable elation of receiving a tenner on the spot, but it also remains cost effective. With an iPad retailing at close to £500, using the Parker, Wayne and Kent tactic gives more gratification to more people for less money. Using this procedure also helps entrants as they are not required to chase up a mythical prize they secretly know they have not won, reducing the likely disappointment. Instead, they can gleefully accept their cash prize, dash to the nearest bar and congratulate themselves over a few pints.
To anybody who has recently attended a business conference or networking event, the sight of two attractive showgirls further subsidised by the offer of a technology prize is familiar. Two fit girls gagging for your phone number, it seems too good to be true and how often it is. To the few who have ever triumphed in one of these raffles, the remainder of this blog may seem an excessive tirade. To the thousands of executives who never win with iPads or pretty trade show girls; immerse yourself in this rant.
There are several changes to the current format of prize raffles at corporate events required, if the respect of executives is to be retained. The Sirens that are the permi-grin execs, part-time models and iPads can seemingly go far in luring potential clients to give up their contact details. However, those experienced in attending such networking events may be growing immune, or just plain cynical, to their shallow charms.
The quest for greater clarity and fair treatment in prize promotions is now essential if the current format is to retain the industry’s respect and get results. Perhaps most importantly the mythical prize has to be visible; a realistic target. At present, nobody is sure who wins the prize leading to confusion and a greater sense of disappointment for those who entered. Imagine if the same occurred at a sporting event, with the champion hidden under a cloud of anonymity. Not only would it represent a severe lack of drama, but would also soon lead to a lack of interest.
The likelihood of someone giving away their personal contact details and winning a prize should not be overstated. Exactly where the all-conquering victor should collect his modern day laurels should be clearly established and this must happen on the same day. The re-occurring explanation that the raffle will be inconveniently drawn in several weeks time helps nobody. Who has the time these days to chase up a potential prize? By this point, many people have probably forgotten they entered the prize in the first place. That is until they receive their first email marketing message from the competition holders. It now becomes desperately apparent that the cute showgirl will never call back, a large, ungainly bloke almost certainly will and a pang of regret creeps in.
Marketing and PR, have long used the incentive of a prize to lure people to sacrifice their personal details. It offers a chance to formulate a huge database of particular clients and people with whom future business may be done. This can often benefit both sides of the deal, so why the need for the sideshow, that is a potential iPad and the chance to talk, without fear, to a pretty girl? For the majority of people, the result of such an encounter is not hours of fun playing with said iPad, or the love of a pretty girl, but just the odd email from time-to-time for products and services they may or may not want.
A much simpler system, and the one adopted by Parker, Wayne and Kent, is to offer, on receipt of a business card, a chance to win numerous cash prizes on demand, immediately. This offers immediate gratification to winners of the draw, and helps to prevent obvious logistical difficulties in trying to forward the prize to a winner weeks later. Not only do competition champions experience the quick but memorable elation of receiving a tenner on the spot, but it also remains cost effective. With an iPad retailing at close to £500, using the Parker, Wayne and Kent tactic gives more gratification to more people for less money. Using this procedure also helps entrants as they are not required to chase up a mythical prize they secretly know they have not won, reducing the likely disappointment. Instead, they can gleefully accept their cash prize, dash to the nearest bar and congratulate themselves over a few pints.
Friday, 10 September 2010
Rooney pays privacy price for profitable publicity
If Wayne Rooney’s PR team had had some sense they would have known that one tell-all interview about prostitutes was quite enough personal information. But instead of then requesting privacy they advised him to splash his wedding photos across the covers of the nation’s glossy magazines. And then helped his wife to build an empire of fashion lines and reality TV shows on the back of his fame. Of course, they received a handsome fee for all this.
It should have come as no shock then when they were forced to advise him not to even try and keep the press quiet about recent allegations surrounding his infidelity. After all, he was happy to ‘bare all’ about similar stories in the past; the only difference was this time it wouldn’t be him and his advisors making money out of it. Rooney’s PR men have turned the idea of his ‘celebrity private life’ into a laughable oxymoron. It appears they’re not the only ones to have done so.
Celebrities, like Rooney and his wife Coleen, promote themselves, with the help of PR teams and advisors, as a brand and make a lot of money from telling the media about their private lives. Any celebrity worth their salt will now have accounts on many of the various social networking sites, like Facebook and Twitter, allowing them to promote themselves directly to their fans and across the Internet.
Frequently celebrities will use social networking as a covert PR tactic. They tweet personal information and then, just when we’re hooked, ask for the press to ‘respect their privacy’. Actor Neil Patrick Harris is a prime example of this. He tweeted that he and his partner were planning to adopt twins but also expected complete privacy. As every good celebrity advisor knows, by asking for privacy a celebrity will, more often than not, generate more press coverage – just take a look at the Catherine Zeta-Jones wedding photo scandal if you need proof. It’s all just a little like reverse psychology for the media world. After all, the word privacy just screams ‘scoop’ to journalists.
Despite this, it should not be forgotten that some celebrities are famous simply for being very good at their job. Fame is a price rather than a perk to these celebrities and they have no choice but to hire PR advisors simply because of who they are. These celebrities are usually able to have social networking accounts and handle publicity without causing too much scandal. They are after all just people living their lives. They are not elected officials or members of government necessarily deserving scrutiny for immoral behaviour. Which profession celebrities choose to work in should give the media no more right into their personal lives than they have into anyone else’s.
It is the celebrities who exploit their fame, through extensively revealing interviews, ‘too-much-information’ tweets and publicity stunts, who give up their privacy. Agents and PR teams must take responsibility for this though. Most celebrities have their actions dictated by advisors whose main aim is to make as much money from their 15 minutes of fame as possible. Although everyone is accountable for their personal actions, the way celebrities handle the media, particularly in times of crisis, is often not their decision.
As such, many celebrities are advised to plea for privacy on emotional grounds and there is no doubt that stories such as this do have a devastating impact on the individuals involved. However, it seems that much of the time the wish for privacy actually has nothing to do with protecting them. It is simply a PR team’s way of trying to save brand value and keep hold of lucrative sponsorships and contracts.
Rooney’s case draws unsurprising parallels with that of John Terry whose gagging order was over-turned because it appeared he was more concerned with protecting his financial interests than his family’s feelings. Rumours of Rooney’s infidelity were already rife in football circles. With the certainty that they would soon reach the Internet, it seems his advisors motivations may have been no different. The Rooney brand is fronted by a ‘happy family’ image and the suggestion is that it was this they were trying to salvage, not Coleen’s feelings.
Celebrities, despite what the media says, are not always aware of what they are letting themselves in for by becoming famous. The media argues that celebrities should expect privacy invasion simply because they’re famous and journalists often claim ‘the public’s right to know’. Whilst celebrities undoubtedly have a right to privacy what they have lost is the expectation of it. Rooney’s failure to obtain an injunction suggests that when it comes to celebrity PR clearly there is such a thing as ‘too-much-information’. Agents must make celebrities very aware that there’s only six inches between a pat on the back and a kick in the arse. Unlimited or uncontrolled promotion of private lives naturally compromises claims for personal privacy.
It should have come as no shock then when they were forced to advise him not to even try and keep the press quiet about recent allegations surrounding his infidelity. After all, he was happy to ‘bare all’ about similar stories in the past; the only difference was this time it wouldn’t be him and his advisors making money out of it. Rooney’s PR men have turned the idea of his ‘celebrity private life’ into a laughable oxymoron. It appears they’re not the only ones to have done so.
Celebrities, like Rooney and his wife Coleen, promote themselves, with the help of PR teams and advisors, as a brand and make a lot of money from telling the media about their private lives. Any celebrity worth their salt will now have accounts on many of the various social networking sites, like Facebook and Twitter, allowing them to promote themselves directly to their fans and across the Internet.
Frequently celebrities will use social networking as a covert PR tactic. They tweet personal information and then, just when we’re hooked, ask for the press to ‘respect their privacy’. Actor Neil Patrick Harris is a prime example of this. He tweeted that he and his partner were planning to adopt twins but also expected complete privacy. As every good celebrity advisor knows, by asking for privacy a celebrity will, more often than not, generate more press coverage – just take a look at the Catherine Zeta-Jones wedding photo scandal if you need proof. It’s all just a little like reverse psychology for the media world. After all, the word privacy just screams ‘scoop’ to journalists.
Despite this, it should not be forgotten that some celebrities are famous simply for being very good at their job. Fame is a price rather than a perk to these celebrities and they have no choice but to hire PR advisors simply because of who they are. These celebrities are usually able to have social networking accounts and handle publicity without causing too much scandal. They are after all just people living their lives. They are not elected officials or members of government necessarily deserving scrutiny for immoral behaviour. Which profession celebrities choose to work in should give the media no more right into their personal lives than they have into anyone else’s.
It is the celebrities who exploit their fame, through extensively revealing interviews, ‘too-much-information’ tweets and publicity stunts, who give up their privacy. Agents and PR teams must take responsibility for this though. Most celebrities have their actions dictated by advisors whose main aim is to make as much money from their 15 minutes of fame as possible. Although everyone is accountable for their personal actions, the way celebrities handle the media, particularly in times of crisis, is often not their decision.
As such, many celebrities are advised to plea for privacy on emotional grounds and there is no doubt that stories such as this do have a devastating impact on the individuals involved. However, it seems that much of the time the wish for privacy actually has nothing to do with protecting them. It is simply a PR team’s way of trying to save brand value and keep hold of lucrative sponsorships and contracts.
Rooney’s case draws unsurprising parallels with that of John Terry whose gagging order was over-turned because it appeared he was more concerned with protecting his financial interests than his family’s feelings. Rumours of Rooney’s infidelity were already rife in football circles. With the certainty that they would soon reach the Internet, it seems his advisors motivations may have been no different. The Rooney brand is fronted by a ‘happy family’ image and the suggestion is that it was this they were trying to salvage, not Coleen’s feelings.
Celebrities, despite what the media says, are not always aware of what they are letting themselves in for by becoming famous. The media argues that celebrities should expect privacy invasion simply because they’re famous and journalists often claim ‘the public’s right to know’. Whilst celebrities undoubtedly have a right to privacy what they have lost is the expectation of it. Rooney’s failure to obtain an injunction suggests that when it comes to celebrity PR clearly there is such a thing as ‘too-much-information’. Agents must make celebrities very aware that there’s only six inches between a pat on the back and a kick in the arse. Unlimited or uncontrolled promotion of private lives naturally compromises claims for personal privacy.
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
CEOs need the ABC’s of media training ASAP
"There's no one who wants this over more than I do - I would like my life back,” said Tony Hayward, CEO of energy company BP, that’s dealing with the biggest oil spill in history, in response to finding a way to stop the spill. Hayward has already been dubbed "Wayward Hayward" by the media for his interview gaffes because even when he says very little, he gets it all wrong.
Examples like these prove that it is extremely important to have extensive media training before speaking to the press about any issue. This involves knowing how to effectively communicate with the press and news organizations to get your desired message across to the public. This is especially important during a time of crisis, because one needs to understand a news organizations’ needs and how to respond to the media, while at the same time protecting your company’s reputation.
There are many options for media training but regardless of the supplier, there are a few things that are critical to a media relations training program for the training to be worthwhile. Some tips include:
-Know how to handle interviews. Whether they are via telephone, email, or in person, knowing how to handle interviews is vital to the survival of any media spokesperson. This will allow for more effective communication, protection from not saying something stupid and always being on target to gain more coverage for the company.
-Spoon feed the media. The end goal is to cater to the media so that your news and company information has a large share of coverage in the article. This includes giving them press releases, backgrounders, images, videos, audio sound bytes and media packs to ensure your messages are communicated in the way you want them to be.
-Say what you want to say, and do so your way. It is important to exercise some control in interviews. This allows you to stay on message and make sure you are able to express your points without being overshadowed by journalist opinions. This also ensures you can answer questions the way you want and that the information you release is what you want, not what the media wants. Never say “No comment” or speak ‘Off the Record.’
-Pick an appropriate spokesperson. Especially in a time of crisis, the public wants to see an individual directly related to the situation speaking to the media. A senior representative in the company that has excellent communication skills is necessary to speak on behalf of the company.
A perfect example of someone who has been media trained to get their message across was Michael Howard when he was interviewed regarding the prison service in May 1997. Although he was relentlessly asked the same question by the interviewer, Jeremy Paxman, Howard was able to work around the question and give an answer he wanted to give that best represented his position on the issue.
Howard demonstrated a key media training tactic known as ‘ABC:’ Acknowledge, Bridge and Communicate. This method encourages the interviewee to take initiative and control the interview. One should acknowledge every question without necessarily answering it. For example, you may acknowledge a question by saying: ‘That’s an interesting point, but more importantly...’ Phrases like these create verbal bridges from which the interviewee can then communicate their key messages.
Overall it is important to know how to work with the media because they are your free advertising source, yet they can also be detrimental to your company’s reputation if not presented with solid information. It is their job only to report on a story, not to give free, positive, publicity to your company. They don’t work for your organization and as such, do not always want to print or broadcast the full story. It is your job as a well-trained media spokesperson to get a message out that best showcases your stance and positively represents your company.
Thursday, 8 July 2010
New Wave of Journalism affecting all areas of the Media
In an age when speed and efficiency are valued at such a high standard, journalists and editors are increasingly pressured to put out news information as soon as it breaks. Although the growth of online journalism and blogs give the public quick access to information, it is causing the quality of journalism to suffer. As PR professionals, we can learn many lessons from journalists and the importance of doing thorough research before reporting any information to the public.
It’s so easy to make mistakes when things are done quickly and to be considered a credible journalist, it’s not worth reporting information before the facts have been checked and confirmed.
A classic example was on May 13, 2006 when the BBC quite literally interviewed the wrong “Guy” for their segment on live television. A producer for the show came out to the lobby looking for Guy Kewney, who was supposed to be interviewed for the show, but it turned out that the producer grabbed Guy Goma, a man waiting for a job interview with the BBC Technology Department. This mistake caused weeks of embarrassment for the BBC and was all over news sites within a few hours of airing.
Left: (Guy Goma courtesy of the DailyMail.co.uk)
Right: (Guy Kewney courtesy of Fronline.co.uk)
Later that day, The Guardian, as well as several other publications posted on their websites that the man who had been mistakenly interviewed, Guy Goma, was a cab driver. On May 15, Reuters posted the same story on its website.
But the following day, Reuters came out with the real story. Goma was a data cleansing expert and was at the BBC for a job interview working with the IT department. "The mixup is being blamed on a young, inexperienced producer," said the Reuters video next to which was no correction on the previous day's story. The Guardian's article also does not have a correction.
The new wave of journalism in which being the first to report news overpowers the need to have accurate facts is hurting the quality of journalism the public receives. There are too many opinions instead of facts out in the online community, causing the actual events to be undermined.
In a letter to The Guardian a reader wrote, "The growth of blogs and online communities seems to be contributing plenty in the way of opinion, of which there’s already plenty and not much in the way of facts. This is creating a brand of journalism in which it doesn’t really matter if you get things wrong.”
People are hungry for information, but are often only offered opinions. Journalism may be losing its focus: to report the facts. Journalists need to be equally responsible in ensuring they produce news and information that has value. As PR professionals, we rely on our relationships with journalists to report accurate information and gain credibility for our clients. However, this relationship is becoming hindered because of pressures on editors and journalists to keep producing new content to make deadlines.
In his novel Flat Earth News, Nick Davies refers to the current state of global media as ‘churnalism,’ in which journalists are constantly trying to churn out stories at rapid speeds “Speed. The problems of churnalism have become even worse with the arrival of news websites-some of them staffed by specialist journalists; some of them by mainstream reporters who file copy for the site was well for their traditional outlets. For all of them, the possibility of filing their stories immediately has become an imperative to spend even less time on their work, even less time checking. Rapid repackaging takes over.”
As new technologies continue to emerge, it will be interesting to see the effects and pressures they have on journalism and the media industry. But as PR professionals, we can learn many lessons from journalists; one of the most important being to always do thorough research and present accurate facts. We also must appreciate the pressures journalists are under and help the relationship by giving well researched facts and knowledgeable spokespeople to achieve a positive outcome for the public.
For other PR lessons and more media videos visit:
Note: On April 8, 2010 Guy Kewney sadly passed away at age 63 after battling with bowel and liver cancer. He was one of the most influential writers of the technology world and had long stints with publications such as PC Magazine and Personal Computer World.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)