Newsrooms continue to shrink or disappear altogether, leaving reporters hungry for outside content. At the same time, there is a proliferation of online media providing channels to reach increasingly segmented audiences.

This dynamic should provide plenty of opportunities for PR professionals seeking to reach their target audiences through time-strapped media under increased pressure to produce content.

Perhaps, but only if PR professionals reevaluate their strategy and exhibit basic knowledge of media principles and simple tenets of interpersonal communication.

Luckily, the successful strategy is straightforward and will break through to news media regularly confronted by PR pros with information that is not relevant to their beat.

First, messages, pitches and targets must be crafted to include at least one of the eight news values, including timeliness, conflict and prominence. News, despite the proliferation of digital outlets or the popularity of social media, still conforms to canons of journalism — the story still matters and is still driven by well-established principles. Therefore, pitches must be provocative, newsworthy, and pitched to media who care about the subject.

Second, PR professionals must remind themselves that they are a resource for media, not the resource. Reporters and bloggers alike remain rightfully prideful in their obligation to deliver relevant content to their audience. Therefore, the relationship must be collaborative and PR professionals must bring value, just as they must bring value to our clients.

Third, PR pros must be selective with who and what they pitch because if they fail to do so, they effectively burn bridges one ill-constructed pitch at a time.

Everybody wants to be in The New York Times or on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” but the reality is that not every story is going to end up there. PR professionals must drill deeper and take advantage of today’s fragmented world. They must not implement a one-shoe-fits all approach; rather, they must package client content on a case-by-case basis and direct them across all pertinent media types via appropriate and relevant messaging. In other words, they must connect the dots while realizing that the dots vary for each story.

So PR professionals — get back to basics — understand media and treat media professionals like the professionals they are.

]]> http://theintersection.ogilvypr.com/2013/04/pr-professionals-get-back-to-basics/feed/ http://theintersection.ogilvypr.com/2013/04/pr-professionals-get-back-to-basics/ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheIntersection/~3/afG5qAnmWHA/ http://theintersection.ogilvypr.com/2013/03/the-new-normal-budget-or-band-aid/#comments Wed, 20 Mar 2013 18:52:59 +0000 Andrea Wuebker http://theintersection.ogilvypr.com/?p=847 Debt ceilings. Continuing resolutions. Deficits. Sequestration. While not the subject of plot and tension in Kevin Spacey’s new Netflix drama, “House of Cards,” the standoff between the Congress and the Obama Administration over federal spending and looming budget deficits is causing knuckle-biting drama in Washington—one that is being watched from every corner and every C-suite office of the country.

The U.S. has reached a new level of conflict as politicians continue to push tough trillion dollar budget decisions off until the 11th hour. As the nation looks at the rash of quick-fix budget-related legislation that has passed within the last year, an old adage comes to mind: “A failure to plan is a plan to fail.”

Last week, Ogilvy Washington led a discussion to help answer the question: What is the plan to move forward on the U.S. budget? The event, “The Impact of the Budget Standoff on Businesses and the Economy,” featured leading experts, including former U.S. Congressman Jim Nussle, Robert Bixby of the Concord Coalition, Bill Miller from Business Roundtable and Russell Rumbaugh of the Stimson Center. The panel helped us examine where businesses feel the pinch of economic indecision, how sequestration affects the economy, and where the panelists see possible pathways forward toward a resolution that puts the U.S. back on course towards fiscal responsibility.

“Can a sow be made into a silk purse?” asked Stimson Center’s Rumbaugh. Many on the panel debated the question within the landscape of a Democratic-controlled Senate and White House opposed by a Republican-dominated House of Representatives. To thread the needle to that solution, many agree, requires transparency and using the legislative process as it was intended.

The sow, in this case, is the “new normal” identified by The Business Roundtable’s Bill Miller, speaking to the process of making budget decisions by last minute negotiations, or as sequestration has highlighted, failing to find common ground after months of no-decision making. “CEOs don’t like uncertainty” Miller summarized, intimating that the current budget landscape could threaten economic prosperity in the long run.

“By definition, something that is unsustainable cannot be sustained,” observed Jim Nussle, former U.S. Congressman (R-IA) and Director of the Office of Management and Budget under George W. Bush. Indeed, the U.S. economy, the stock market, industry-leading CEOs–all do not like uncertainty, nor prosper, under it’s umbrella. Therefore, he said, the budget crisis must be resolved through tough decisions and by using the legislative process, and not through back-room poker standoffs.

According to our experts, the prognosis is that the landscape can change, and perhaps sequestration is a signal that we can withstand tough, but necessary spending cuts. According to Concord Coalition’s Robert Bixby, sequestration is a bad way to conduct the process of deficit reduction, but it would be a mistake to turn it off “since there needs to be political accountability.”

The discussion, analysis, and conclusions by many on the panel seemed to find its way back to this sentiment — accountability — as an answer to our looming budgetary dilemma. There are tough decisions to be made on the horizon, and forcing mechanisms such as sequestration can provide a flashlight to keep the process on track during times of uncertainty.

But to create a path forward, a lasting one meant to ensure economic success, Congress, the Administration, and other federal leaders must use the legislative process to make tough, bipartisan decisions, and avoid a last-minute, band-aid approach to governing recovery for a $14 trillion economy.

Congress and President Obama may have avoided the January “fiscal cliff,” but significant fiscal challenges still remain this year. The most pressing issue for U.S. elected officials is “sequestration,” or massive across-the-board cuts in the federal budget totaling $1.2 trillion over the next ten years that will take effect automatically on March 1 unless President Obama and Congress can reach a compromise to alter current law.

Thus far, both Congress and President Obama seem deadlocked on the federal budget, with Republicans in Congress wanting more cuts to federal spending to reduce the budget deficit and President Obama favoring higher taxes to generate more revenue. Beyond sequestration, other fiscal issues including the debt limit and expiration of the Continuing Resolution that is funding the government in the current fiscal year are all pending. Larger debates regarding the future of entitlements, discretionary spending and tax reform are likely to linger well into the fall. The outcome of these debates will significantly re-shape the federal government’s spending priorities. But what impact could these decisions have on American businesses and the struggling U.S. economy?

What do you believe should be a priority in the U.S. budget debate facing Congress and President Obama this year? Are austerity measures more important, or should federal spending continue near current levels to boost the U.S. economy’s recovery? How can Congress and the president balance deficit reduction with continuing the government’s commitment to Social Security and Medicare?

Many organizations default to opacity and obfuscation in their communications. Clarity of purpose is crucial in business. But many within organizations have difficulty expressing that purpose – whether it’s in a mission statement, a news release, or an internal marketing presentation. The result isn’t surprising. As workers grapple for clarity, there are more meetings about meetings, more memos about memos, more time and resources spent clearing away the brush in an attempt to reveal a purpose.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/11/14/what-journalism-can-teach-the-business-world/

The World Economic Forum recently released Global Risks 2012 report, which identifies the issues 469 experts and industry leaders believe will have the greatest impact on society.

At the time the data for the report was compiled, survey respondents believed that world-economic conditions are having a greater impact on society than any other factor. Over the next 10 years, they ranked water supply as the second significant risk.

If we take a step back, these issues and others mentioned in WEF’s report are grounded in political risk. That should be top-of-mind for everyone. Indeed, whether the issue is income disparity, chronic fiscal imbalances, or cyber threats the issue is rooted in political factors. The report does list global governance failure as a Center of Gravity. But far less attention is paid to that macro issue than risks that would be the result of political decisions.

There was a lot of political turmoil in 2011 but the outcome will start to emerge this year. Indeed, the changes in governments in the Middle East will have a profound impact on the cost of energy over the course of the next 11 months. In addition, there are a myriad of policies in the U.S., Europe, Latin America and China that will go into effect this year and will significantly affect the financial sector. And, perhaps just as important, is the lack of progress that won’t be realized in 2012 because of a lack of political decisions on a whole slew of issues, such as land use, that are in dire need of addressing.

It is important to focus on vital issues that ladder up to the macro risks but it will be critically important to keep an eye on the big picture in 2012.

Cecilia Muñoz is a name that, until a few days ago, didn’t mean much to many who hadn’t followed her involvement in immigration issues or her work as senior vice president at the National Council of La Raza. To those, that name might have sounded as common as any María Rodríguez or Isabel Meléndez. However, on January 10th, 2012, Cecilia Muñoz became a name that can be considered a tangible representation of hope and success for many Latinos and Latinas like me who have worked hard each and every day to be someone and to be acknowledged in the United States. It is with great honor and pride that we welcome her as President Obama’s new Director of the Domestic Policy Council, as announced by the White House.

As President Obama said in a statement, Ms. Muñoz “has done an extraordinary job working on behalf of middle-class families, and I’m confident she’ll bring the same unwavering dedication to her new position.” I am with you on this, Mr. President.

Ms. Muñoz’s appointment signifies a level of respect that many strive for. She represents, not just a growing segment of the population of the United States, but also one of the fibers that makes this country strong. Latino participation, presence and contribution to the US is undeniable, and Ms. Muñoz is only a reflection of what we are here for: to be part of the American community as a whole, to work for the better of this country, to be acknowledged for our worth and our dedication, and to be seen as active contributors to the well-being of this grand nation.

This appointment is a three-way success because it is, again, a woman who will be occupying this position, as Ms. Melody Barnes steps down. It is not only a woman but it is also a Latina who will be taking this role and not just any Latina woman, but one who has demonstrated dedication and generosity in her efforts for fair immigration reform. Thirdly, but not less important, Ms. Muñoz has been selected to not only serve her Hispanic community, but to work for the American people, for each and every American without distinction. That is how honorable her appointment is.

This Latina has shown that sí, se puede, and she is living proof that we, Hispanics, can excel beyond the ethnic lines, can feel confident that we are part of this society and have a lot to bring to the table for every single citizen of this country.

When I worked at the Peace Corps in the late 1990s, we worked for months to get President Clinton to mention our goal of  having 10,000 volunteers by 2000. We were thrilled to hear him mention that goal in his 1997 State of the Union Address — never mind that it was one-half of one sentence.  But in the end, funding fell far short, and the Peace Corps is still not close to having 10,000 volunteers.

Still, I think the State of the Union does matter. It is an opportunity for a President to break through media clutter.  Because of the intense press coverage this week, it will be difficult for the average citizen to avoid seeing or hearing about at least a part of it. It’s a real chance for President Obama to tell the American people - “this is what I believe in and this is where I think the nation needs to go.”

At a briefing I attended at the White House yesterday morning for Democratic strategists, David Axelrod and other advisers made it clear to that the theme of the President’s speech will be about “winning the future.”  The President will lay out a plan to win the future by “out-innovating, out-educating and out-building the rest of the world.”  Axelrod said Obama will talk about the need to take responsibility for our deficits, by investing only in what makes America stronger and cutting what doesn’t, and reforming our government so that it’s leaner and smarter for the 21st century.  

According to his aides, the speech will not contain a laundry list of policies or specific proposals, but will rather be a discussion of goals for the United States to win the future. It will be optimistic, and the President will touch on the mood post-Tucson tragedy but will not dwell on it.

Partly because of the tragedy in Tucson, this year, for the first time in memory, many members of Congress are inviting each other to sit together as friends, not divided by party. The conservative RedState.com blog post on it yesterday had a good headline - “congressionalmatch.com.”  I’m not sure this bipartisan matchup really matters, but if this small symbolism shows resolve to work together for the common good, I’m all for it.

The President is on a bit of a roll lately, with several recent polls showing his overall approval rating increasing and more importantly, his standing with independents jumping by double digits. Analysts point to a number of explanations for this, including his reassuring response to the Tucson shooting, his willingness to cut deals with the congressional GOP in the lame duck session last month, and the presence of a new political foil, in the form of emboldened conservative Republicans.

But polls are fleeting and the President knows that his State of the Union Address will either add to his momentum or reverse it and start it going the other way. I know which side my money is on.  What do you think?

Albert Lasker a well-known and successful advertising man, played a pivotal role (albeit well-hidden) in packaging and selling the candidacy of Warren Harding in 1920, resulting in the election of arguably America’s least qualified and least successful president. 

In 1969 Joe McGinnis published the “Selling of the President” describing in detail how Richard Nixon was “marketed” and “sold” to the American people by a cynical group of advertising people much like a bar of soap.  The book caused a minor sensation reinforcing doubts many had about Nixon’s trustworthiness.

Perhaps the best use of branding principles and tools was the 2008 campaign of Barack Obama.  Using a thoroughly 21^st Century approach to branding, his campaign captured the themes of Hope and Change in a way that resonated with millions of new voters and traditionally independent-minded Americans and propelled him to a very unlikely victory.

When it came to governing, however, the Obama team has apparently jettisoned the branding approach – either by design or by terrible mistake.  Rather than wrapping the significant achievements of the first 18 months of his Administration in the themes of renewal and change, he has settled for a communications strategy that lurches from issue to issue, with no discernable thread tying it all together.

In the absence of the appearance of a coherent strategy, opponents on the right and the left have filled the vacuum with their own interpretations – he’s a socialist; he’s a corporate sellout, etc…

Had the Administration wrapped their major initiatives – stimulus, health care reform, financial reform, energy legislation – in the language of brands, it would have blunted the impact of the relentless attacks and delivered on the brand promise of his campaign.

Instead, many of the attacks have stuck; the significance of the achievements has been misunderstood and diminished and the Democrats’ majority in Congress looks increasingly in jeopardy.

Capitalizing on the Administration’s failure to brand its approach to governing has been a rag tag bunch of malcontents, cranks and fringe players who would have been largely dismissed by the media and pundits of all stripes had they not discovered their own powerful brand positioning as the “Tea Party.” 

Had they decided to reclaim the brand of a similar “movement” in the 1850s – the Know Nothings – or a more recent incarnation as the John Birch Society they likely would have been written off as fringe players so far outside the mainstream as to deserve contempt but not coverage.

However, by evoking the image of the Founding Fathers, Sam Adams and the American Revolution and wrapping themselves in the Constitution, they captured the attention of the media who have bestowed a level of credibility on what is likely a moment, not a movement.

But like all good brands, the Tea Party struck a chord and filled a need with a portion of the population – anger, frustration, anti-Washington and anti-establishment.  The question now is will it have staying power – to the election and beyond. 

As all marketing practitioners know, the worst thing you can do for a lousy product is great branding.  Great branding will lead consumers to try your product and if it disappoints they will be driven away and very hard to lure back.

Come January, those voters full of anger and captured by the allure of the Tea Party brand may find themselves terribly disappointed by the actual brand experience. That disappointment would likely land the Tea Party brand in the dustbin of history beside the Know Nothings and the John Birch Society.

Now, with that behind us:

NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller, who defended the firing of Williams with reasons that are clearly untrue, should be forced to resign immediately (probably along with other top executives, though I don’t have all the facts). This public relations disaster wasn’t caused by careless line employees or contractors. NPR’s leadership is wholly responsible for a fiasco that threatens the core of the NPR brand, and they need to go.

For an organization to survive a brand-threatening crisis, it must quickly own up to the problem, make it clear that the action is contrary to its values, and take immediate remedial action. That immediate action often includes terminating the employees whose bad judgment caused the crisis.

Schiller and the others responsible for this disaster can no longer credibly hold their positions. As long as they remain, they will continue to define NPR, and will leave NPR’s enemies a powerful weapon with which to attack it. The only way NPR can fix this fiasco is to clean house at the top. If they don’t do so quickly, NPR’s reputation may never recover.

Schiller yesterday told NPR’s David Folkenflik that “our reporters, our hosts and our news analysts should not be injecting their own views about a controversial issue as part of their story.”

NPR news analysts aren’t allowed to express opinions? Why didn’t NPR fire Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr, may he rest in peace? Are they going to terminate Nina Totenberg – who is a correspondent, not even a news analyst – now too?

Schiller compounded the mistake by telling a roomful of journalists that Williams should have kept his feeling about Muslims between himself and a “his psychiatrist or his publicist”

The decision wasn’t just wrong, it was clearly made with little awareness of what the reaction would be. Clearly this was a case of the straw that broke the camel’s back. But if NPR had an ongoing problem with Juan Williams, it should have let his contract quietly expire. What were they thinking?