my 2 cents

Maybe there's still hope for broadcast TV

2012-01-24T17:28:08-05:00

NBC orders 10 scripted pilots

Hopefully, NBC's order of 10 scripted pilots will lead to a slowdown in the reality garbage that the networks have been throwing at us. It's not necessarily a radical move for NBC, since they don't have a lot to lose as they sit at the bottom of the ratings ladder.

Let's just hope the shows they're ordering are based on viable story lines supported by good writing. Otherwise, we might be wishing some of the reality shows they'll replace would come back.

Time will tell.

Redefining Public Relations... Part 2

2012-01-11T21:25:43-05:00

Getting closer... PRSA unveils three top candidates for new definition

The Public Relations Society (PRSA) announced nearly two months ago an effort to update the formal definition of Public Relations. And today they unveiled the three leading contenders to become the new official definition of what we in PR do at work.

The top three were compiled from more than 600 responses PRSA received, and if you go to the site and click on "read annotations" under each definition, you can get a good idea of why certain words and phrases were used.

My preference is for definition #1: Public relations is the management function of researching, engaging, communicating, and collaborating with stakeholders in an ethical manner to build mutually beneficial relationships and achieve results.

I'm not crazy about the word "stakeholders" in this definition. Perhaps the phrase "various relevant publics" might be better. In the context of, say, marketing or media relations, a consumer may not really be a stakeholder, since he or she might easily have other options when considering a product or service. Thus, there is really no "stake" in what an organization does or says in that case.

Looking at the comments coming in so far, #1 and #2 seem to be getting the most favorable response.

Here's #2: Public relations is a strategic communication process that develops and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their key publics.

To me, #2, has a basic weakness in the words "mutually beneficial relationships." This assumes there is any relationship at all between an organization and a key public, and it also assumes that what the organization wants would be beneficial to that public. Not necessarily so, for reasons similar to the problem with #1, and more.

Definition #3 ("Public relations is the engagement between organizations and individuals to achieve mutual understanding and realize strategic goals.") is too simplistic and, like #2, makes some assumptions regarding "realizing strategic goals." Whose strategic goals? And I hate the word "engagement." It's a buzzword at the moment, but it may be passe in a year. We shouldn't include buzzwords in a definition, or the definition may become obsolete before the ink dries.

The best definition is probably a combination of #1and #2, but taking out some of the vague or inappropriate words or phrases like "stakeholder" or "mutually beneficial relationship."

Any thoughts on what you think would be a good definition of public relations?

Are there ethics in PR?

2012-01-10T19:33:25-05:00

Of course there are, but one might be forgiven for thinking otherwise after some widely-reported ethics breaches this past year. Some of the biggest names in the PR agency business were caught doing questionable things on behalf of clients, most notably Burson Marsteller with its phantom smear campaign against Google for its (former) client Facebook.

PRSA, the Public Relations Society -- not always a shining example of ethical behavior itself -- is finally making some efforts to put a focus on PR ethics and perhaps establish some standards or guidelines for the industry.

PRSA said a few weeks ago that its Board of Ethics and Professional Standards will monitor several issues in the coming year, including:

* Maintaining ethical standards in the digital age.

* The growth of brand journalism

* Ethical use of interns

Quoting directly from a piece written for the CommPRO blog by the new PRSA Chair/CEO and the Chair of the Ethics and Professional Standards committee, they address the first issue as follows: "The rapid rise in the adoption of technology and use of social media has been a boon for the public relations profession. It raises concerns, though, over whether proper ethical and professional standards are always in place. We will continue to explore necessary updates to the profession's ethical standards in order to meet evolving practices and technology."

My 2 cents: Well said, but it all comes down to, very simply, honesty. Don't lie to the media and to the public, and don't pretend to be someone you are not. Honesty should always be at the heart of dealing with the media and the public, using new -- or any -- technology.

Regarding the growth of brand journalism, PRSA says, "As media fragmentation continues relatively unabated, look for more companies to explore brand journalism by hiring their own "reporters" to produce brand content and news. While brand journalism is enticing, companies will need to carefully weigh its ethical perils."

My 2 cents: Again, honesty is key. I see no problem with creating our own content. We do it all the time -- what, after all is a news release? But if we are putting a byline to content, especially the byline of a celebrity or expert who can influence readers, we must make it clear that the person represents or has been hired by us to create that content.

And finally, the ethical use of interns. I've written passionately about this before, and I'm glad to see PRSA putting a focus on the ethics of using unpaid interns. PRSA says, "A 2011 update to the PRSA Code of Ethics made clear our belief that it is unethical not to provide some type of compensation to students who perform work for an employer. PRSA will take a 3-prong approach to irradicating this pernicious issue: advocacy against use of unpaid interns, research into the effect that unpaid internships have on PR students' future career success, and education efforts aimed at informing internship supervisors."

My 2 cents: Bravo! Students and recent grads have for too long been exploited as unpaid interns, working long hours, often with no instruction and oversight, doing the PR grunt work. I've seen and heard of so many instances where young people get turned off to the PR profession by internships where they've been the whipping boys and personal errand-runners for PR people whose egos are totally out of touch with reality. Very often it's those same egomaniacs who give no real instruction, no teaching or -- worse yet -- provide horrible ethical examples by forcing interns to lie to the media, to bosses and to clients.

Internships is an area that needs real attention when it comes to ethics, and I'm glad to see PRSA including this on its list. As for the other areas they plan to address, let's see what comes of it. I am hoping for the best.

Gotta love this

2012-01-05T20:40:40-05:00

I love this headline from today's online edition of the television trade journal TV Week. It just goes to show there's a positive side to almost any story. It just depends on your perspective. Obviously the headline writer drafted this one from a TV executive's point of view...

Pat Robertson Says God Told Him Who Will Be the Next President. But Pat Says God Told Him Not to Tell.

Hallelujah, the Money Will Be Spent on TV Political Ads After All.

Here's the whole piece.

Happy New Year

2011-12-31T08:54:07-05:00

from New York City

Best wishes for a new year filled with peace, happiness and health.

David

A Look Ahead...

2011-12-26T08:04:05-05:00

Some forecasts for the new year

"Junta Joe" Joe Pulizzi has made his name as a leading proponent of Content Marketing through his books and his blog.

For the past few years, he's invited fellow marketing bloggers to share their thoughts about what the coming year may bring to the marketing practice. I'm pleased to be among the 75 or so he's included in his annual survey, which he shares in a slideshow you can access here.

Here's what I had to say...

"Harnessing social media will continue to be the holy grail search by marketers.

Those who use social media to convey useful and relevant content that is not simply about selling a product or service will find their outreach getting a better reception than others whose social media outreach is nothing more than hard-core sales messages.

Control of the social media function continues to be fought over by marketing, advertising, PR, sales and, in some cases, the lawyers. I think it belongs under PR, but with full cooperation and support of all the other disciplines AND the CMO and/or CEO."

In other words, for content marketing to work, it must convey information that is relevant and of interest or importanmce to the intended recipient. Otherwise, it's just more junk mail clutter.

And I think the people to best translate an organizations marketing and communications messages are those of us in Public Relations. Our job is to put marketing material into journalistic terms, so viewers will see it as informational moreso than as a sales message.

Here's what some others had to say, starting with my friend C.B. Whittemore:

"...Brand marketers must champion robust content creation throughout their organizations with particular and genuine attention to providing value to prospects and customers as they progress through the buying cycle."

And from another friend and colleague, Drew McLellan:

"Content marketing/publishing will evolve into an even more collaborative effort between organizations and their customers. The lines of authorship and ownership will blur as it becomes easier and more common for many different stakeholders to contribute to the content pool."

Jason Falls says:

"Creating content around the needs of the customer, not the needs of the brand has been proven time and again to work."

There are many more predictions, including ideas about how content will be delivered (mobile, social media) and the growth of jobs and agencies that specioalize in creation of non-advertising content.

It all makes for interesting and thought-provoking reading, so check out Joe's annual compilation.

“Absolutely, Positively Unacceptable”

2011-12-22T14:16:29-05:00

That's what FedEx SVP of U.S. Express Operations Matthew Thornton III said in a response to the video that's gone wildly viral showing a FedEx delivery person tossing a package that looks like a computer or video screen over a fence into a customer's yard.

In a post yesterday on the official FedEx site, under the heading "Absolutely, Positively Unacceptable,” Thornton said: “Along with many of you, we've seen the video showing one of our couriers carelessly and improperly delivering a package the other day. As the leader of our pickup and delivery operations across America, I want you to know that I was upset, embarrassed, and very sorry for our customer’s poor experience. This goes directly against everything we have always taught our people and expect of them. It was just very disappointing.”

He adds, "While this delivery fell way short of those high standards, we are already using it as a learning opportunity. We’ve shared this video internally to remind everyone that every single package is important to you, our customers, and that actions like this are totally unacceptable. We are also going to build this into our training programs as a constant reminder of the importance of earning -- and keeping -- your trust with every single delivery. We hope that you, like the customer involved in this incident, will see it as an unfortunate exception that proves the rule that our company cares for its customers.

The video has had more than 4-1/2 million views so far on YouTube and it's been the subject of countless stories on local and even network newscasts.

But FedEx seems to have a really bad situation under control, even as the video still gets more hits. FedEx representatives identified the guilty delivery person and then met with the customer to apologize and replace whatever may have been damaged in the package. Evidently, they did not call a news conference, but instead relied on fast corrective action and got the apology out quickly via social media. What more could they have said in a news conference, after all, and what other questions and embarrassing situations might then have been brought up by reporters?

Most people realize their packages might get rough treatment not only by Fed Ex, but by UPS and, especially, by the U.S. Postal Service. In one TV news report I saw, the damaging FedEx video was followed by a similar video showing a UPS delivery person tossing packages out of his truck and onto the ground.

The fact that FedEx made no excuses and agreed that this was simply unacceptable will go a long way in easing the problem and minimizing any long-term negative impact on the company. The company generally has a good reputation for professionalism, so I think most people will cut them a break with this unfortunate breach. A quick look at the comments posted onthe FedEx blog show overwhelming understanding and support, and some comments even note experiences they've had where FedEx employees have gone above and beyond to serve their customers.

In my own experience over the years with FedEx, I've found their drivers to be courteous and professional. And I still believe that when it "absolutely, positively has to be there overnight," FedEx is the way to go.

Magazines: Publishers Keep Trying

2011-12-14T16:18:21-05:00

Despite all the gloomy forecasts and continuing talk of the demise of print media, new titles keep coming out.

Crain's B to B reports that 62 b-to-b titles launched in 2011, nearly twice as many as the 34 that came out last year. The number of b-to-b titles that shut down was 38, down from 47 last year.

When you add in consumer titles, the totals still look pretty decent. A total of 239 magazines began publishing this year, 24 percent more than the 193 titles that launched in 2010. On the negative side, the number of magazines that shut down this year is 14 percent lower than last year -- 152 in 2011 vs. 176 last year.

Dire predictions aside, people keep trying. To me, that's good news.

PR is so much more than "stunts"

2011-12-12T12:50:16-05:00

Today's Wall Street Journal has a story about some fairly new PR agencies who specialize in digital stunts to try to gain visibility for their clients. Thank goodness it is only in the "New York Report," a regional section that doesn't go out nationally. Hopefully, it will do minimal damage to PR's already fragile reputation as a legitimate profession that's a viable component of marketing and communications.

The WSJ story tells of an agency, run by a 24- and a 25-year old, that tried a stunt to try to "go viral" for a client. The story doesn't say if it succeeded or not; it was more about the stunt than the results. It also tells of a firm whose owners have tried to make a name for themselves as online celebrities, and how they are using their supposed celebrity to get people to participate in events they plan for clients.

The article headline calls this "a PR throwback to showmanship." (Read "hucksterism.")

The story does quote a PR agency head (herself a bit of a question mark in my eyes, because of her TV reality show persona that doesn't portray us in a great light) who says stunts-only is a weak business model. "An online stunt," she says, "is like an amazing first date... but that's not a relationship."

Stunts, gimmicks, parties. I am sure our friends at The Journal know public relations is a lot more than that. I wish they'd write about it.

Weekend Thoughts

2011-12-02T16:49:46-05:00

Elevator Pitch is Tougher than Ever

The elevator pitch... a phrase that describes what you might say -- quickly -- to someone with whom you normally wouldn't get much or any face time when you want to convince him or her of something, such as hiring you or your firm, or buying into your idea, whatever it may be. You're riding in an elevator with that person, whose decision can have a major impact on your life. You have 20 or 30 seconds or, depending what floor you're going to and how slow the elevator is, maybe a minute.

The person you want to pitch has nothing else to do except stare at the floor numbers as they change, so you have a captive audience.

Not any more.

The days of the elevator pitch are gone. They died quietly over the past two or three years, as more of us got iPhones, Droids and other smart phones.

I got onto my elevator this afternoon after lunch. Two other people got on with me. Even before the door could close, all of us had our phones in our hands, checking email, texts, stock quotes or the weekend weather forecast. Not one of us looked up; not at the floor numbers nor at each other.

To try to strike up a conversation in that environment might be considered rude... or certainly intrusive and perhaps not well-received.

So much for the elevator pitch. Unless you can come up with an app that can instantly send your elevator pitch to the phone of someone else who's in the elevator with you.

Hmmm.