Josh’s Blog

I realize that this posting isn’t strictly in the public relations vein.  However, it deals with an issue that every person in public relations has heard of and probably argued about.  I was commenting on a blog recently which brought to mind an interesting, albeit tried and true subject. 

Will technology bring about the end of the newspaper as we know it?  There are people(mostly journalism professors), who say that technology will eventually make the newspaper a thing of the past.  I’ve been hearing it since Journalism 1100.

But, it hasn’t happened yet, and I don’t think it will.  The newspaper is just too important to the American public.  The newspaper is how we found out that women could vote, that the titanic had gone down and that Dewey had defeated Truman?!?!  As much as Americans hate to admit it, we are a sentimental lot.  And I feel very strongly about the fact that people will never feel sentimental about a news website.

Americans are also terminally practical.  And what could be more practical than a few sheets of paper you can buy for a dollar and find out all of the day’s news?  Even with the invention of 24 hour news stations and cell phones that receive e-mail, I believe that the newspaper is still relevant.  Why?  Because it’s simple, easy to obtain and it offers the reader a break.  That’s right, a break.  In our fast paced world, people still like to sit down, relax for a while and read the paper.  And that’s why I think newspapers are here to stay… at least until they start getting blamed for global warming.

A recent post on Odwyer’s commented on press conferences and the recent FEMA flub.  There was an abundance of information about how to properly conduct a press conference, and it was all really very interesting.  However, it got me thinking about something.  How much longer will press conferences be a legitimated form of news dissemination? 

With the fast pace of our society, will people continue to wait around for some CEO to give information that may or may not be relevant and isn’t guaranteed to be new in the first place.  With  most press conferences, the public already has most of the information, and only gets small bits of news to fill in some of the holes. 

So, is the press conference really necessary?  There could be a few cases, but for the most part they are not.  I believe that social media will soon make the press conference obsolete.  The main reason is the speed with which news can be spread through social media networks.  Why wait around for a press conferences to start, so that a journalist can go back to the newsroom and report on it?   Why not just put the information out and then respond to any questions the press might have?  It just makes more sense.

I’ve always thought press conferences are just as much for show as they are for getting news out.  Social media is a great way to eliminate the show, and get right to the news.  Because you can get printed information, pictures, audio and video out to the media with one tool, I feel that social media is too powerful to be ignored and will soon take the place of the press conference all together.  Imagine, archaeologists digging up fossilized podiums and cave drawings done by reporters in conference rooms.  “Remember when people held press conferences,” they’ll say.   “Good thing social media was developed.” 

In a recent blog post, Kami Huyse discussed a study by Fleishman-Hillard involving phrases you shouldn’t use when addressing baby boomers.  I think it’s a great idea that might really become important to our industry in the future.

The basic idea was that the baby boomers make up a huge market with incredible buying power.  Not exactly the kind of audience you want to push away.  So, why do so many of the advertisements directed at them use phrases that completely turn them away?  Some of these phrases include: forever young, still going strong and looks good for his/her age.

I think the people behind this study are really on to something.  By understanding what phrases turn a target public away, you’ve increased your ability to effectively communicate with them.  However, I don’t think this technique should be limited to the baby boomers.  Why not do research for all markets?  Come up with a list of phrases you don’t use when marketing to tweens (who have incredible buying power due to their parents’ disposable income), Gen. Jones, Gen. X, Gen.Y.  The possibilities are endless, and the outcome could only be positive.  It’s not like trying to come up with hip phrases that could make you seem cool with a certain group(which almost always backfires).  In this case, you’re just finding out what key terms bother certain markets and staying away from them.

I sincerely believe that this type of thinking will have an enormous impact on the field of public relations in the not to distant future.  I can see it now.  The year is 2017, and public relations students are taking PRCM 4039: Things You Should Never Say When Selling an Idea to Your Grandparents.

As a public relations practitioner, there are always going to be times when your strategies have to be reactive instead of proactive.  And, if your client happens to be someone in the public spotlight, it’s not only more likely, but there are more options at your disposal.  With that being said, I think that one of the reactive responses currently being used by lots of public figures is still a bit questionable. 

That option is the face to face, prime time televised interview.  Everyone’s seen the impact they can have on a crisis situation.  But, why is the outcome so unpredictable.  Take, for instance, Sen. Larry Craig’s recent interview with Matt Lauer.  Not only was his situation not helped by the interview, it was substantially worsened.  Another case that springs to mind is the gum-smacking, tear soaked, blue jean shorts extravaganza that was the Britney Spears/Matt Lauer interview.  And who could forget the Tom Cruise “glib” interview?

So, with all of these terrible examples, it’s easy to wonder why any pr practitioner would allow their client to go through with one of these interviews.  Well, because sometimes they work.  And when they do, they work extremely well.  Take the Matha Stewart case.  In the midst of all the legal trouble and late night talk show jokes, she did the face to face interview and passed with flying colors.  You might have noticed (but probably not, since the best crisis management gets people to stop noticing) that Martha hasn’t been in the news since then.

So why are some of these interviews successful and some disastrous?  It’s got to do with knowing your client.  The practitioners in charge should have realized that Tom Cruise and Britney Spears should be committed and Larry Craig is one of the creepiest public figures in recent history.  They sould have understood that there was no way these interviews could have gone well.  However, the case is different with a client like Martha Stewart, who for all of her shortcomings is very intelligent and extremely articulate.  So, in a nutshell, you simply have to know your client’s strengths and weaknesses and keep them off prime time television if there is any chance they are going to look foolish.

It’s tough to watch the news lately without seeing some kind of story about a product recall, with the majority being lead related.  With that being the case, I’ve been thinking a lot about the best tactics in a situation like this.  I feel like the complete honesty route is the best one, and not just because it will make you feel warm and fuzzy afterward.

Companies who offer complete honesty almost always come out looking better for a variety of reasons.  First, if you come out with the truth before the truth comes out about you, you’re already way ahead of the game.  In doing so, you show that you are genuinely concerned about the client, and not that you are just revealing all because you’ve been found out. 

Second, you are able to get your side of the story out before people start throwing accusations at you, which is always a good thing.  By being completely honest and taking a loss, you will more than likely end up better off because the you can deal with the issue on your terms and wrap things up quickly.

Which leads me to my final reason.  Recalls and problems that are openly recognized from the start by the company involved tend to end much more quickly.  The main reason is that you only deal with the problem, rather than the problem and the fact that you tried to hide/deny it.  So, your reputation comes out cleaner, you handle things on your own terms and the problem tends to go away in a more timely fashion.  Why wouldn’t you want your company to be open and honest from the word go?

As we have been talking lately about the importance of blogging, I though it was quite a coincidence to see that Odwyer’s has just unveiled their own blog.  It will feature postings by their editors on what they feel are the most important issues in public relations.

I think this is just another indication of the growing importance of blogging.  And I feel that both ends of the blogging spectrum are equally important.  On the Odwyer’s end, it’s great that intelligent public relations professionals are blogging about things they believe are pressing issues.  It gives younger practitioners and students a glimpse into what they are thinking and what people in the industry should be thinking about.

On the other end, the blog postings by John Doe are just as important, because they offer insight into what average consumers are thinking.  This is one of the most important aspects of PR; keeping up with how your target public feels on certain issues.  So, I think it’s onlya matter of time before everyone else gets on the social media bandwagon and starts blogging too.

After seeing some of the recent blunders of our elected officials, I have to wonder: “Don’t these people have someone to help look out for their public image?” Seriously. Some of the things you hear from these people could not have come from advice offered by a serious public relations practitioner.

The case that immediately comes to mind is that of Sen. Larry Craig. After being arrested for soliciting sex in a public men’s restroom, his first response was to resign his seat in the Senate (probably the best move). Then he decided that he’s not sure he wants to resign, even after pleading guilty to disorderly conduct. And the memorable “I’m not gay” statement probably didn’t help him much either.

Then there are the cases of public officials having cyber-sex with young interns or taking their wives to clubs for group sex in New York. I realize that pr practitioners can’t keep their clients from behaving like idiots, but isn’t it their job to make sure they don’t sound like one when the media starts running with the story?

In these times when people have come to expect full disclosure and immediate information, we are probably just exposed to more of the stories than we used to be. I’m not saying in any way, shape or form that politicians used to be more wholesome. However, pr professionals have to understand that this is the world in which they work and be ready to act accordingly. After all, the “I’m an alcoholic and I’m going to get help” excuse is going to lose its potency at some point and some actual crisis management is going to have to come into play.

With independentpublicity.com launching this month, one has to wonder: Is this the beginning of the end for public relations as we know it? The groundbreaking company will be a virtual publicity firm that uses the resources and knowledge of independent publicists from all over America to do smaller campaigns and pr work for smaller companies.

Clients will be able to sign up with the company and immediately begin tayloring a public relations campaign to suit their exact needs. You can literally go online and order a press kit or local or regional pitching and publicity work. Or, if they so desire, clients can use the company to simply set them up with the right media contacts, so they can do their own publicity. And all for set bargain prices! It’s just another way that people can use the internet to get exactly what they want at the exact time they want it.

But, is this just another one of those dot com companies that is trying to build a business on a gimmick? Sharon Stowe, director of publicity for independentpublicity.com, has even described the company as the “Amazon” of publicity firms. But, I think there might actually be something to this. Think about it. Not every company can afford the services of some mega-pr firm. And for that matter, most companies don’t as much help as large firms can offer. Now, John Doe can get a professional press kit drawn up for the release of his companie’s new product without having to pay an arm and a leg. For better or worse, I think it’s an idea that might really catch on.

In a recent report discussed on odwyerpr.com, the Princeton Review stated that students wishing to go into the field of public relations should simply study something like communications and try to get as broad an education as possible.  That’s right.  They can see no real need for students to take actual public relations classes during their time as an undergrad student.

Like many others, I don’t buy into this theory.  I believe in students getting as broad an education as possible. But for someone who wants to work in public relations, not taking pr classes would be like a banker skipping finance and economics.  And when looking at the recent blunder of Whole Foods CEO, John Mackey, it’s easy to make an argument for more pr education.

Mackey’s mistake isn’t the first of it’s kind.  And sadly, without some adjustments from the public relations world, it won’t be the last.  In an industry that is continually placing more pressure on graduates to be tech savvy and fluent in social media, I think there is definitely a need for continued education.  Think about it.  Professionals in fields as varied as education and medicine are required to take classes every few years to ensure that they are up to date with their industry.  I realize that Mackey is the CEO of a major company, and not a public relations practitioner.  However, had he been given some kind of instruction on matters such as this, his company might not be going through the crisis that they are now faced with.  And isn’t being prepared for problems or avoiding them all together what being a public relations practitioner is all about?

Kevin Foley’s recent comments on Odwyer’s about Michael Vick’s public relations situation offer a great example of how PR work can become ridiculous in the blink of an eye. In discussing strategic moves that could be made to win over the public, he is only adding fuel to the stereotype most people have about public relations.

This type of situation has nothing to do with creating “mutually beneficial relationships.” Rather, it deals with painting a pretty picture of a genuinely bad person, and places blame on the “difficult circumstances” in which he grew up. Give me a break. I understand that he’s trying to look at the situation from a public relations standpoint. However, I completely disagree with Foley’s statements and with the very idea of his commentary. 

If you are in public relations, you are definitely going to be called on to deal with some sticky situations.  This is true no matter who your clients are.  However, i think you do have to draw a line somewhere, and that line should probably come before polishing up the image of a criminal so he can go back to playing football and have millions of kids look up to him.