1. The Surge Strategies

2. Jackson Street Partners

3. Compelem Strategies

4. The Potomac Strategy Group

5. The Capital Communications Group

6. Amplifico

Clearly there’s a pattern here. Less clear is why, given the double whammy of a recession and the GOP’s status as minority party in the executive, legislative and, soon, judicial branches of the federal government.

Thoughts?

Addendum (7/11/2009): Not only does this influx further saturate a shrinking market (GOP PR); these firms also are competing with at least nine center-right consultancies that specialize in the fastest growing niche in the field, new media:

1. The Adfero Group

2. The Bivings Group

3. The David All Group

4. DC Signal

5. Dialog New Media

6. Engage

7. Fresh Vision Media

8. iWeb Strategies

9. Kithbridge

And yet, bound by stale conventions that suffocate originality and don’t play well with multimedia, the press release has become obsolete. It’s not that there’s no longer a need to announce big news formally. It’s that there’s a better way to do it than drafting 400 words of boilerplate.

Indeed, as Claire Cain Miller reported in a much-discussed article last week, the pr agency representing Flickr never issued a release on its behalf—not even when Yahoo acquired the photo-sharing Web site. Similarly, when Google has exciting news to share, it does not use a wire service.

Rather, both companies self-publish blog posts. They do so, I suspect, not because blogs are hipper, but because they’re more genuine, more personal, and more flexible than their old media counterparts. Instead of a flack ghostwriting quotes for a CEO, the individual(s) who managed the project can craft a first-person narrative recounting the project’s past, present and future with pictures and videos and links. Then, as other bloggers pick up the post, “two days later, BusinessWeek calls,” as Donna Sokolsky Burke, of Spark PR, puts it.

When you visit Google’s online “press center,” the first thing listed is not press releases. It’s blog posts. If you think this is accidental, think again.

The press release is dead. Long live the press release.

A physician at the health center clarified the causes. I had been pulling a series of all-nighters, during which I didn’t eat and stole but an hour or two of sleep, after which I rushed to class without breakfast. To wit, sleep deprivation + lack of food = migraine. (To paraphrase George Orwell, Sometimes it takes a MD “to see what is in front of one’s nose.”)

Several months later, a consultation with a neurologist made me aware of Excedrin Migraine. If taken preemptively rather than reactively, this over-the-counter medicine proved to be a panacea for what turned out to be an occassional flare-up.

Of course, pills don’t address root causes, and for the past week and a half, I’ve found myself back in migraine misery. A chart I kept of the time of the episodes, what I ate in the preceding 12 hours, and how many hours I slept the night before, revealed my good old friend: Sleep deprivation + lack of food = migraine.

Now, common sense says the solution is to sleep better and eat better.  Yet there’s a broader point about living better.

For as long as I can remember, I’ve pooh-poohed my health. While I’ve never smoked or drank coffee, or even much alcohol outside of social settings, I’ve lived off fast food and Coke. I stopped going to the gym after graduating, I nap regularly because of an erratic sleep schedule, and I seek out stressful situations. While these bad habits don’t cause headaches, they bring about an environment that facilitates them.

Accordingly, if there’s an upside to my recent bout of migraines, it’s that I’m convinced any road to recovery must be holistic. I can’t just start swimming again (as I’ve done); I need to establish a daily exercise routine. I can’t just stop napping after work; I need to become an early riser, on both weekdays and weekends. I can’t just stop eating at Wendy’s; I need to change my diet.

The road to a migraine-free life goes through a moderate lifestyle.

Let me explain. For the most part, I Twittered halfheartedly and sporadically (usually when captive on the metro). For months, I didn’t know how to check replies—or even understand the concept of “re-Tweeting” (RT). I used only Twitter.com, rather than experimenting with any of the dozens of programs that inject Twitter with steroids. In sum, I viewed Twitter the same way I view picture taking: I’d rather be doing the things being Tweeted or photographed, i.e., living rather than recording.

What changed this attitude (which, please note, prevailed over my personal account but not those of clients)? The light bulb was a Tweet I stumbled upon by Web strategist Jeremiah Owyang. His advice: Tweet “what’s important to me” instead of “what am I doing.” This pearl caused me to rethink micro-blogging.

For instance, instead of carping that the Clarendon metro escalators are not working yet again, I Tweeted this possible story to a few local reporters. Instead of trying to break the news that Sarah Palin has resigned, why not opine on it (ideally, in your best Wonkette way)? Instead of flattery, pose a question about the evolution of the thing you admire. Swap definitions of “success.” Debate FCC regulations. Engage in reciprocal promotion.

It took me a while, but I think I’ve learned the right lesson: Twitter is best not as a running tally of random things that happen in the course of your day, but as a vehicle for dialogue, engagement, interaction. To put it another way, Twitter is the world’s largest bar, and to gain the respect of strangers, you need first to respect the medium.

Given his aversion to the bubble of the presidency, willingness to admit when he screws up, and experience as a professor of constitutional law, it seems fair to conclude that while Obama may disagree with you on a particular issue, he’s at least conversant with the counterarguments. Indeed, it’s said that a good lawyer—and Obama graduated from Harvard Law magna cum laude—can argue both sides of a case.

As such, I think the President would be open to the following question, which I submitted this morning for his upcoming online town hall meeting on health care:

What do you think—without caricature—is the strongest, most serious objection to your health care proposal, and how would you reply?

YouTube says the winning questions will be among the most popular ones, so if you’re interested in which conservative criticism is most cogent, why not watch and share the above 16-second video? Let’s see if we can replicate what Patrick Ruffini did in 2007 with YouTube’s “10 Questions” contest.

I was stunned when I saw the recent exchange between Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly [link added]. The one where she said, “I don’t really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester.”

This is the kind of rhetoric we ask you to stand against today.

To honor the legacy of Dr. George Tiller, and as a symbol of your commitment to furthering his pro-choice values, NARAL Pro-Choice America recently launched the “Trust Women” wristband campaign. Donate today and get your “Trust Women” wristbands.

Since you’re reading this blog, this sort of missive likely is familiar: An advocacy group uses a current cause celebre to gin up donations. (Incidentally, Coulter inspired a similar campaign two years ago when she called then-presidential candidate, John Edwards, a “faggot.”) Such ad hoc initiatives tend to be especially effective (even if their ability to counteract the given evil is questionable).

Yet as critical as they are, fund-raising e-mails today seem all-too common. By the same token, the opportunity to engage your members as activists rather than donors is all-too uncommon. Indeed, the ability to see its supporters as more than ATMs was one of several tactics that distinguished the Obama e-campaign from its peers. As Tim Dickinson observed in Rolling Stone,

Before long, the campaign had transformed hundreds of thousands of online donors into street-level activists. “Obama didn’t just take their money,” says Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s campaign manager in 2000. “He gave them seats at the table and allowed them to become players.”

As such, it seems that NARAL’s e-mail would have more been more powerful as an action alert. Instead of hitting people up for money in this still-dismal economy, the organization could have asked us to contact Fox News and/or our local affiliates, and request that Coulter’s contract be cancelled or that O’Reilly issue a clarification.

The resulting buzz might even have spurred some donations.

Your digital life spins at 7,200 rotations a minute on your computer’s hard drive. A delicate reading arm, hovering a fraction of an inch above the surface of the drive’s spinning platters, dances across them at 60 miles an hour; one bump, and your files are toast. Your hard drive’s likelihood of mechanical failure is 100 percent; it’s just a matter of when.

And this is how society has chosen to preserve its future?

Ethicist Randy Cohen argues that Natalie, who broke her friend’s hard drive when she tripped over its cable, need not compensate her friend (Magazine, June 2). “To leave the house is to accept some risks,” Cohen concludes.

Yet we never learn whether Natalie was negligent in tripping or whether the friend was negligent in setting up the cable. The answer is crucial, since negligence—as Cohen himself acknowledges in the same column—ought to determine compensation (or lack thereof).

Just as accidents happen, so we need not exonerate carelessness.

Checking off an item that’s been at the top of my to do list for a couple years now, yesterday I became the proud owner of a flat screen TV. There was nothing wrong per se with my 15-year-old 34” Sony; rather, I wanted something better, specifically, lighter and horizontal.

My first question—plasma or LCD—was answered by way of the paucity of the former and abundance of the latter. My second question—size—was answered by the viewing distance used by a friend who recently bought a 42 incher. Even though the distance in her living room equaled the distance in my bedroom, my poor eyesight suggested that I’d be better off with the next size up, 46”. My third and fourth questions—resolution and refresh rate—were answered by an article from a few months ago in the Los Angeles Times, which convinced me that I wanted 1080p and 120Hz, respectively.

Using these criteria, I began my research. I started with two sites I rely on routinely: BestBuy and Amazon. I used these sites—in addition to a little Googling, which generated this recent article from CNET, “Best HDTVs (43-49 inches)”—to familiarize myself with the range of 46” LCDs. At this point, I decided on a budget of $1,500.

Next, I headed over to ConsumerReports.org, which for my money offers the most reliable recommendations for shopping. In the 46-47” category, CR recommends five sets: the Sony Bravia KDL-46XBR8 (quality score: 77), Samsung UN46B7000 (76), Samsung UN46B6000 (74), Toshiba REGZA 46XV540U (71), and Sony Bravia KDL-46V5100 (71).

I excluded the cheapest and most expensive units—the Toshiba ($1,200) and the Sony Bravia KDL-46XBR8 ($4,000)—and so was left with three choices: the Samsung UN46B7000 ($2,700), Samsung UN46B6000 ($2,520), and Sony Bravia KDL-46V5100 ($1,800). Given my budget, the choice from here was easy: the Sony Bravia KDL-46V5100.

Similarly easy was where to make the purchase. Technically, the wholesaler, Butterfly Photo, offered the best deal ($1,394 total). Yet a little Googling revealed that Dell.com had recently reduced its price to $1,399. And while Dell charges tax and for shipping and handling, I was able to use a coupon for a final price that noticeably bested Butterfly’s.

Many people still prefer to walk into a store, chat with a salesperson, make a purchase and be home within the hour. I prefer research and comparison-shopping online, which, while more of a headache and time-consuming, yields a better price and more confidence in one’s purchase.

Addendum (6/21/2009): Check out this buyer’s guide that appeared a few days ago in the New York Times.

Granted, some of these are idiosyncratic, so if you disagree or have additional insights, definitely please let me know.

1. When responding, reply to the original e-mail rather than starting a new one. This way, you minimize confusion about what the original e-mail said, and the correspondence is contained in a single document, which makes everything easy to reference later.

2. Because we send so many e-mails today, it’s tempting to skip small chat and get right to the point. Yet while concision is commendable, being impersonal can often be perceived as being impolite. For this reason, I always begin e-mails with the recipient’s name, or at least a salutation. Compare receiving the message, “How’s XYZ coming along?” to “Hey Jill: How’s XYZ coming along?” This small courtesy acts as a cushion, buffering the professional with a touch of the personal.

3. When to follow-up with someone is, in my opinion, the thorniest issue. Do you wait one day, one week, one month? There’s no right answer here—as always, context is king, and patience is a virtue—but I’ve found that follow-ups are most effective when they include two things: (1) Recognition that your recipient is busy, and (2) A one-sentence summary of what you need.

4. CCing someone’s boss is a good way to get that person’s attention, but a bad way to establish rapport.

5. Perhaps the biggest gripe against e-mail is that it lacks nuance and emotion; it’s difficult to discern tone and body language on a computer screen. This is true, but these obstacles can be overcome in the fingers of a skilled communicator. Consider the standard reply, “Ok.” Does it mean “Whatever,” or “Good to go”? Without really knowing the sender, it’s a tough call. By contrast, a little chattiness—“Not wild about this, but in the interest of making progress, let’s do,” or “Great idea. Go for it”—goes a long way. Thus, to avoid misunderstanding, err on the side of elaboration.

6. In the interest of receiving a decisive response, try to limit each e-mail to a single issue, rather than using the opportunity to cram several questions into a single message. This is not a rigid rule, but it’s been my experience that even when you present a numbered list, people still overlook things.

7. Has this ever happened to you? You’re talking to someone at a party. Another person approaches you both, listens for a minute, and comments when there’s an opening. What makes this encounter appropriate is that at some point the third party usually introduces himself. By contrast, when we send e-mail, it’s common to CC people whom the recipient has never heard of. Isn’t this a bit rude? Is it so cumbersome to introduce the parties (By the way, I’m CCing Julia and Cal, our VP and SVP of government relations”)?

8. Instead of BCCing, forward the given e-mail after you send it. This way, the BCCed recipient can’t “reply to all,” which sometimes happens, thus nullifying the “blindness” of the carbon copy.