The news came down at 3am. Three million people signed up to be the first to find out Barak Obama's VP pick, they were going to get the news at the same time as ABC, NBC, The New York Times, the Associated Press and hundreds of other major news outlets. They were going to be "in the know" right when it happened.
But they were asleep. Worse, they were scooped.
A few hours before the text message went out I happened to be awake and reading some online news. The AP broke the story that Joe Biden had the slot at about 1am, based on an anonymous source. Pretty typical reporting.
What's more, the 3am timing, even as planned, meant that the Obama camp had a very traditional advantage: they were on the morning news, in the morning papers and controlled the "news cycle." Which begs the question: why do it?
The obvious first answer is that it makes the candidate look tech-savvy, something that is pretty important when trying to woo young voters against a Republican candidate who admits that he doesn't go online.
But I think that misses the point. The biggest thing the Democrats got out of this was a list of cell phone numbers and email addresses.The exact number isn't known, but it's as many as 3 million, sorted by zip code. The company that handled the process isn't giving out many specifics.
Considering that those elusive younger voters often don't get landlines, choosing instead to stick with a cell phone, means that the Democrats have contact with people who don't turn up in public directories. These are people not polled when the calls go out, asking "who are you likely to vote for in November?"
It means that these phone numbers can be called with fund raising requests and, more importantly, get-out-the-vote requests.
In 2004 I spent election night in a Newton living room using my own cell phone to call people in battleground states reminding them to get out and vote. Of course, those were public numbers. Now the Democrats have their own list to use. One that will reach a very young crowd.
As a side note, our own Ross Levanto is attending the Democratic National Convention and will be both blogging and tweeting from the event. I don't think he's planning to send out any text messages.
MORTICIAN: Bring out your dead!
[clang]
Bring out your dead!
CUSTOMER: Here's one -- nine pence.
DEAD PERSON: I'm not dead!
MORTICIAN: What?
CUSTOMER: Nothing -- here's your nine pence.
DEAD PERSON: I'm not dead!
MORTICIAN: Here -- he says he's not dead!
CUSTOMER: Yes, he is.
DEAD PERSON: I'm not!
MORTICIAN: He isn't.
CUSTOMER: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
DEAD PERSON: I'm getting better!
CUSTOMER: No, you're not -- you'll be stone dead in a moment.
We're not dead, and frankly, we're feeling better.
Admittedly, public relations needs to change if it wants to stay relevant. We know that and we're working very hard to do it. Our business is no longer about taking our clients message and sending pitches out to reporters. We are taking a much more active role in the conversations externally, but also in the internal conversations. When I work with my clients I don't just take what I'm told and move along, I advise and help them find their voice. As much as I'm a translator for the media I'm a guide for them, helping companies navigate a world that they don't know as well as they know their own industry. I also learn from them aspects of technology and their business that I could never learn on my own.
A lot of bloggers and reporters are saying that PR is dead because they want to find things on their own. That's great, and today's networked society makes finding information much easier than ever. But if bloggers think they discovered a technology on their own, they may be fooling themselves. Quite often people find those technologies because good PR people (and internal marketers) put out the information for them to find. It's not as overt as calling people on the phone and asking them to take a briefing, but it's just as much PR as anything else.
I represent a company called Investment Instruments, which has a great tool for renters called the Rentometer. We work very hard to keep the buzz high about the product, but often when I read a blog post about it, the blogger begins "I discovered this great tool ...." They discovered it because the PR is working.
It's also important to remember that Web 2.0 provides tools for communications, but it doesn't mean that everyone knows how to use those tools. I can buy all the lumber, hammers, nails and saws I want at Home Depot, but the only thing I manage to make with all that stuff is a mess. If I keep from cutting something off my body I consider myself pretty lucky. Making the tools available doesn't eliminate the need for a good carpenter. Frankly, it may increase the need for a good emergency room.
So, which would you prefer, the carpenter or the ER?
Today, PRSourceCode released the results of its 2008 "Top Tech Communicators" survey. The organization surveyed 800 tech journalists to determine who they thought were the best PR agencies when it came to "the value they deliver on the editorial process in terms of responsiveness, reliability, and overall recognition of editorial needs."
Schwartz Communications was ranked #1 in the "Large Agency" category (agencies with more than 60 people). I was very happy, to say the least, when I read the news. But then it really started to sink in and I was humbled. This wasn't an award like the Silver Anvils or Bell Ringers, where we showcase the best of the best.
This award, voted on by journalists, is a direct result of the day-to-day interactions of every one of our 230 employees. It isn't one team going above and beyond, it is everyone from the VPs (yes, we still pitch) to the account executives we train, coach and practice with daily. It isn't just for work on behalf of one client, but all our clients. Every day. Every call. Every email. Every blog post.
We coach our employees -- be topical, think beyond the pitch, be responsive, open and transparent. Everyone matters. Everyone. Take the big swing.
This is the best proof that our staff lives our beliefs and puts them into practice every day. I did the math one time, and we interact with reporters, bloggers and analysts more than 600,000 times every year.
We are deeply honored by this award. It reflects not just good work, but good processes and a commitment to excellence. On behalf of the Schwartz team -- thanks to the journalists, our clients and our staff.
Last night, I didn't turn on my TV, but I did watch a few episodes of Mad Men. I had conversations with a number of people, but only picked up my home phone a handful of times. This morning I found out the Jets have Brett Favre as their new quarterback, but I never turned on my computer, TV or picked
up the morning paper.
In today's media environment, information transcends the channel in that no two people get their information in quite the same way. It used to be that a PR plan had some definite rules: you reach out to the publications that reach your target audience and the right people receive your message. Need to reach enterprise IT buyers? eWeek is a great venue for that. Going after a more business-level audience? InformationWeek is your target. Consumers? The New York Times and USA Today come to mind.
Our main issue today is that no one truly knows how people get information. The problem runs
deep--even NBC doesn't know and is using the Olympics just to figure it out. That's more than $1 billion spent so they can better understand where the shrinking TV audiences have gone.
I watched Mad Men by streaming the video from an online source, which created a delicious irony of watching a show about advertising without seeing any ads. I talked with a few people by my home phone, but many more through IM, Twitter, Facebook and on my cell phone.
As for the Jets, I heard about the Favre trade by reading my BlackBerry and seeing the email from the Jets, followed quickly by an email offering to sell me a Brett Favre jersey. I'll probably end up getting one for my 9-year-old, who is a long-time Favre fan and can now combine the best of both worlds.
Even as I got my Favre news from one source, my wife heard it on the local TV news, which she usually watches for the weather. So two people, one house, one piece of news, two sources.
What is a company to do in this environment?
Think about influencers: Rather than thinking in terms of "reporters" and "bloggers," think in terms of influencers. Reporters at the New York Times are influencers, as are Michael Arrington and Robert Scoble. The fact that they attack the media world from different vantage points is irrelevant.
Focus on your true audience: Examine the people who will bring you revenue and learn what communities they participate in. Many of my clients have found that small mentions on targeted sites like Fierce Wireless or Curbed.com often drive more traffic and users than similar mentions in InformationWeek or in the New York Sun. On paper the publications come out looking like they have more readers, but the other sites have the right readers.
Don't Dismiss the Small Stuff: CEOs sometimes get told by their VCs that doing interviews with smaller publications is a waste of time. It's not--it all helps feed the larger media beast. There is a balance here, however, and it's up to a good PR firm to help find that balance. You can't chase everything, but today you have to chase quite a bit just to make a good impression.
Experiment: This is an exciting time for marketers because it opens us up to all sorts of new things. Create a podcast or a video, just to see what's possible. Try new things. Some will work, some won't, but in this market you don't know until you try.
By any traditional measurement Cuil.com saw an amazing PR launch. Positive articles appeared everywhere, traffic came rolling in, people were talking on the boards. Several people IM'd me to try it out, stopping me in the hallway to ask my opinion, etc.
The problems started with what came next. Those same people who said "did you try it out?" usually finished the converastion with "I wasn't impressed." The online discussions have been brutal, attacking Cuil at every step, from the search results to the fact that the server crashed due to the traffic. Even the name itself is under attack.
If you're going to try to topple the king of search, which most of the Cuil.com articles suggested is the goal, you need to come with more than just a big library. But that's the search technology and frankly, I'm a not an expert in that area. I do know, however, that challenging Google means getting people to change their habits, and that doesn't happen with a one day boost. You need chatter, interest and a long-term strategy.
When a client comes to us with a consumer launch I usually suggest a relatively long closed beta, something that is at least a few months. Then listen to the feedback they're getting on the blogs and in the discussion board, respond to any issues that come up and be prepared to do the coding necessary to make any fixes.
In many cases this idea gets rejected, not because it's wrong, but because other business factors (such as investors, competition, etc.) force the company to put out the product immediately and not wait for the closed beta. Essentially they've come to us too late, not hiring the PR firm until they needed the coverage.
The closed beta does two things: it helps build viral buzz and it allows the site to get a pretty good test group so it can work out the kinks. The fact that most people chatting about Cuil.com complain that the results just aren't good or accurate is something that could have been fixed during the closed beta. If the bloggers and reporters were briefed, but not put under embargo, then they could have written about it, built the buzz and then general users would have had to wait until launch day to access.
A great example of this is Evernote, which is run by a former client Phil Libin and the marketing is
handled by Andrew Sinkov, one of the best young marketing pros I've ever worked with. I'll write more about them another time. Both came out of Cambridge-based CoreStreet.
Cuil.com has a lot of work to do in order to take on Google. I'm sure they prepared for the long haul, but now they also have a deep hole and will have to climb out.
When the Red Sox were in Japan to start the season, thousands of members of Red Sox nation turned on their TVs early in the morning to watch the broadcast from the Far East. Except for many DirectTV subscribers, there was a problem; for whatever reason, the satellite TV service could not deliver the signal.
Fans hit the Internet hard with their complaints, sharing stories and quickly learning that Comcast cable customers were also having trouble receiving the broadcast.
Last night, ABC's World News Tonight aired a segment on how Comcast has quickly realized that the Internet can be a great way to listen to its users; in fact, Comcast employees are on Twitter specifically for the task.
The process is a great example of a consumer company understanding the value of social media. The user profiled in the ABC News piece saw Twitter as a way to vent frustration. This type of "flashpoint" customer service issue is ideal for a service like Twitter.
Comcast, in general, has done a great job of harnessing the Internet to provide better customer support--in ways that make best use of available methods while most certainly reducing Comcast's support costs. For example, Comcast's online presence let's users initiate real-time chats with customer support. Many issues with cable boxes can be fixed simply by restarting the box, and the real-time chat format is great for teaching users how to perform that remedy. (A user might be reluctant to follow an online set of troubleshoot directions if one instruction is "disconnect power to the cable box.")
The real-time chat feature via Comcast's site has been available for some time. More recently, Comcast has realized that Twitter's use as a frustration vent is a newer phenomenon. Users that resort to Twitter to complain about Comcast, it follows logically, may have lost their Internet connection and are using a mobile device to update their Twitter post (the exact example in the ABC News piece).
Comcast's use of Twitter has been well covered in the blogosphere. Of note, well-known blogger Michael Arrington has had very public issues with Comcast, and the cable company dealt with them.
Beyond what has been covered by many other blogs, Comcast's ongoing success hints at some important lessons for B2B companies and their use of social media for customer relations. Since many of Schwartz's work is done in the B2B arena, these lessons are of interest to me. Here is what I have learned:
1) The world *is* listening. Comcast is, and prospective customers are as well. If you are a B2B company, you should add Twitter-watching to your customer support operations, and you should tell your customers that. The added benefit of conversing with your customers via Twitter is that your customer’s colleagues on Twitter--many of whom are likely prospects--will see it.
2) Twitter is the ideal venting medium. As a Twitter user myself, I take satisfaction in using Twitter to simply express frustration. This is both good and bad for B2B companies. It's good because it's a quick way to cool down hot tempers, but it's bad because it means the customer has likely already tried other means to either correct the issue or navigate the vendor's customer support. As some bloggers have stated, Twitter is the last line of defense. It should not be a substitute for other, more proactive, means of keeping customers in the loop.
3) Don't use Twitter unless you are ready to use Twitter. Social media creates new ways to communicate with customers, prospects, and everyone else. Relative to a company's overall communication infrastructure, it may not necessarily introduce new efficiencies. Companies must be prepared to invest when they use Twitter (bear in mind, for example, that Twitter is on 24/7). With the power and viral nature of the Internet, a tweet falling on deaf ears could turn into a PR crisis.
PR is often about 'keeping it local'. Language, local culture and the media agenda, all contribute to a need for 'feet on the street' whenever executing a campaign in a far away land. That's the theme of the London office's webinar on July 17, entitled "Bringing Your PR Campaign to Europe," in which Luke Nava and Ed Barker will offer practical advice for US companies undertaking PR in Europe. There will be hints and tips about tackling cultural differences and language barriers. We'll use real life case studies demonstrating how to leverage customers to best effect or tap into topical media trends and themes.
The webinar will be held on July 17 at 10am Pacific, 1pm Eastern. Register at www.schwartz-pr.com/webinar for more information.
Last week I had the pleasure of attending an event featuring Gary Vaynerchuck -- a smart businessman who is changing the wine industry and leveraging social media to do so. He has daily videos where he tastes and evaluates wine, and regularly interacts with fans through every social medium available ... check out his daily videos here.
He has built a strong following -- with people coming to see him from around New England. He managed to pack a room with 200 people and keep us entertained for 90 minutes (and it could have gone longer).
Out of the entire discussion last week, there are three thoughts that I wanted to share with everyone. Specifically, a few of his comments can be applied to social media and public relations in general. I do not think Gary will mind too much, since I am taking the seeds he planted in my mind and growing them into full blown, PR-specific thoughts for you all to taste and evaluate ....
1) The only way to improve your wine palate is to taste wine -- You can read the magazines, watch the movies, read books and visit vineyards; but in the end, what gives you a true appreciation for wine is actually tasting it. The same applies to PR and social media. Theory is essential. You need to have a grounding in the fundamentals ... but in the end you need to execute. You need to practice what you preach. If you aren't engaged -- why not? This leads me to my next point ....
2) The only way to appreciate wine is to stay out of a rut -- try new things. Most people find a few wines and stick to them. They have wine racks full of Yellowtail, Conundrum, Cakebread Chardonnay and Parallel 44. (This gives you an inkling of my tastes). That's great, but it is limiting. Try a new wine frequently. The same applies to PR. It's why a good PR pros are constantly looking for the next new channel, a new approach to doing things. It's a mantra we preach here at Schwartz.
3) Wine is a living thing -- unlike my beloved single malt Scotch, wine can change dramatically from year to year. A wine that was great one year may be horrible (or as Gary says "utter crap") the next year. This holds true for even the best, most proven and time tested wines. Ask any wine connoisseur about 2007 Bordeaux. Too often companies and PR people fall into that trap. It worked last time, we should do it again. As we all know from the financial services commercials -- past performance is not an indicator of future results. Always re-evaluate ... is this likely to work this time? Is there something better I should try? I know my teams ask me that constantly, and as PR pros, we need to be aware of this at all times.
This weekend, both the New York Times Magazineand the Boston Globe Magazine offer glimpses into the way new and old media continue a symbiotic, if sometimes contentious, relationship. They are also prime examples of why a solid public relations program must balance both sides.
Over at the Times, blogger Emily Gould writes a long and very personal cover story outlining her trials and tribulations in the public spotlight, thanks in large part to her personal and outspoken blog posts on Gawker.com. This piece is the definition of irony, offering up mea culpa after mea culpa and self-defining as an “over sharer” even as she over shares some more.
But the irony goes beyond the text itself into the subtext. Take, for example, the fact that it is written for the New York Times Magazine, an old-school publication to the Nth degree. Then there is her simple one-line bio at the end that states flatly “Emily Gould is a writer in Brooklyn. This is her first article for the magazine.”
Oh, right, she’s just another writer with no real following.
Gould didn’t take her own growing celebrity seriously until a disastrous appearance on another old-media stalwart: Larry King Live, which on that day was guest-hosted by Jimmy Kimmel. The clip gained even more prominence when it was distributed on the new-media powerhouse YouTube.
To convince her therapist that she was, in fact, a celebrity, Gould brought in a New York magazine article on Gawker and read allowed from it. Even a breakup happened on old media, with her boyfriend writing a long article for the New York Post Sunday Magazine, the nation’s 13th oldest newspaper and one founded by Alexander Hamilton.
Also telling is the comment from Magazine Editor Gerry Marzorati, who told Media Bistro that in the first six hours on the Web (where the story was published before being seen in the printed magazine) the article nabbed more than 600 comments. The fact that this is a cited as a sign of success points out that things they are a-changin’ at the venerable publication. I still wonder how many of the Times' readers will sift through all the Web reaction and how it will get filtered back into the main discussion.
Still, the back-and-forth nature of the discussion shows how stories that develop online move into the mainstream media, and those stories in the mainstream media blend back into the online world. To do PR properly you must be firmly planted in both of those worlds.
If you look over on the Newton TAB blog, you can see people taking shots at Mnookin. It gives a much clearer view of the piece, or at least adds facts that allow the reader to have a better understanding of the debate that exists within the city.
But, my guess is that few readers will ever see those comments. Sure, they’re there as additional facts for someone doing research on the subject, but as far as the winning the hearts and minds of the broader populous, those comments aren’t going to help.
This is the fundamental flaw with the “self correcting” theory of Web 2.0. The idea is that the crowds will correct inaccurate presentations of "the facts," which is oftentimes true. The problem is that most of those corrections happen in forums that are frequented only by the most ardent. So unless the Globe goes back and writes another cover story, the battle is already lost. The issue is not correcting the stories for everyone, but correcting it for the right audience.
So the question is, which audience is more important? If the goal is to win the hearts and minds of the whole of Massachusetts, then Newton will have to influence the coverage in the mainstream media, something it's already doing by having an active forum. If the goal is to influence the local audience, then the forum is the perfect place because it speaks directly to that audience.
As Brian Solis noted in his much discussed entry on TechCrunch, a key "secret" is to identify the key audience, only then can you actually speak with that audience. So while these two examples are great macro discussions, the question for both Emily and for the City of Newton is: what audience really matters?
At Schwartz we counsel our clients that they need to be actively engaged in social media. We also counsel them that transparency is crucial. You can have a point of view, but there is no need to hide where it is coming from. Transparency helps build brand credibility and trust.
Thanks to Twitter, I was made aware of a recent AdAge article that shows transparency isn't just a good idea, in the U.K., it will soon become the law. According to AdAge, "starting May 26, when it will become a criminal offense for brands to seed positive messages online without making the origin of the message clear.
This doesn't just impact U.K. companies, it would impact any company doing viral marketing or online public relations in the country.
There is no long term benefit for a business to hide who they are. There is long term benefit to engaging in conversations, listening to your customers and the market, and being an active participant.
Both the PRSA and Word of Mouth Marketing Association already have ethics guidelines that prohibit this type of activity. This is just another reason to slap down that whisper we occasionally hear from others.
Peter Shankman gave a wonderful talk at Schwartz this week and he had a lot of interesting things to say about networking, technology and communications, but two pieces caught my attention.
First was an initial concept that everything we predict and know is bulls***. That is, social networking just comprises tools that allow us to do what we should already be doing: meeting, talking and connecting with people. He’s right, of course. But part of that is the concept that prediction is almost impossible. He pointed to Back to the Future Part II as an example, in which everyone in the future (which is closer to today) had a fax machine in every room. Today faxes are passé and inefficient, but in 1985 they were new, exciting and efficient ways to communicate, so it was good comedy to have a future with one even in the bathroom.
Of course, that same movie featured flying cars. So take it for what it is.
His second concept was a future in which everything in our house has an IP address and connects to everything else. Hit the snooze button on the alarm clock and it triggers information that starts a chain reaction. Your coffee maker starts, your news downloads, your kids are awoken by gentle singing of angels….
Frankly, this sounds a lot like the digital version of Doc Brown’s Rube Goldberg-like machine at the beginning of the original Back to the Future that fed the dog and made eggs, but I digress.
He goes on, of course, to the point that getting a plane ticket triggers a Twitter (or twitter-like) note to your friends that you’re about to head to another city, then when you arrive your phone registers your location and tells you about local restaurants you may like as well as people who you may want to meet and where they’re dining.
This utopian ideal sounds great, except I’ve heard it before and we’re supposed to be there by now. I remember hearing about connected refrigerators that read the RFID chips on the food you purchase to tell you when you need more milk or even allow you to run recipes based on what you already have.
You can buy a fridge that is connected, of course, but it’ll cost you a lot more than a very nice not-so-connected fridge just so you can have a built in TV. And besides, the technology isn’t there to tell you that the foil-wrapped leftover chicken has started to grow something usually reserved for the college chemistry lab.
But my real problem with this concept is the digital divide. Having an IP address on every electronic item in your house means you have a house-wide network, probably a wireless network. Connecting with people through electronic devices means these people also have electronic devices and are as connected as you. So basically it restricts you to people of similar socio-economic backgrounds. The digital divide is real, municipal wifi networks have failed to take off, so this kind of technology is not available to everyone. We are isolated enough in how we live our lives, I’m not sure that connecting only with people who have similar technological access is the best way to go.
If we’re going to focus our development efforts anywhere it should be on making sure that those with little or no connectivity get it. Verizon has been great about bringing FIOS to my affluent suburb, but what about less affluent areas? How long will it take for them to get their piece of fiber? Then how long will it take for those people to get on Facebook, Twitter and other communications concepts that may not even exist yet?
It’s great if I can meet and network with people who can move my business forward, but it’s also great to learn from people who have a very different view on life.
The Masters just ended and my passion for golf is reignited. Unfortunately, like most people, my ability to write about and talk about golf far exceeds my skill at the game.
Therefore, I decided to share words of PR wisdom as golf analogies. But I need your help. Golf may be one of the two most overused analogies in business, only after military themes and slightly beating out baseball and The Godfather .… So share your own PR/golf lessons in the comments section and I will add the best here.
Following are five to get you started:
Don’t be seduced by the driver—The driver is a great club. When you hit it well, there is nothing like watching the ball fly and hearing the “oohs” and “aahs” from appreciative fans (or members of your foursome). But for most people muscling the driver rarely results in a 300+ yard straight drive off the tee. Sure you will hit that perfect drive once in 20 rounds, but you are much more likely to whiff, hit it in the woods or end up in the sand--raising your score and leading to frustration.
The same goes for media relations. Being on the Today Show, the Wall Street Journal or in Parade is outstanding and usually a reason to celebrate. But too often your outreach there won’t connect, or you will neglect other important elements, and put yourself at a handicap. You should go after these outlets, but if all you do is swing the driver … you will be in trouble. This leads to the next point.
Drive for show, putt for dough—All the creative ideas, the flashy presentations and the red Nike shirts don’t amount to anything if you haven’t mastered the short game. Execute flawlessly. Pay attention to detail.
Why does Tiger Woods hit 1,000 practice balls?—Focus on fundamentals brings success. A PR campaign needs to be built on solid fundamentals--the trades to bring the key messages to prospects and customers is the solid drive off the tee; lay it up onto the green with user testimonials and analysts, and *then* you are in position to go for the deceptively simple putt with the business media (which is never as easy as it looks), to get the birdie. It’s the little things that add up to success.
Pay attention to the course and your environment—In golf, it's good to have a general plan of how you will play the course. But conditions change, your competitors change, even your swing can change in mid-round. You may have planned to hit a hard driver on the 15th hole, but by the time you get there it's raining and windy ... change of club and plan.
Successful golfers plan, but they also adjust and trust their instincts to adapt to the changing circumstances. Successful PR people need to do the same thing to achieve success in the face of changing conditions.
You WILL hit the bunkers—Every golfer hits the sand traps. Hitting them is not the end of the world. The same goes for a PR program. You will hit the rough, the bunkers and even the water. Think about what you will do in those situations and you can recover from it. Have disaster plans in place.
Over in my little corner of the world, the city of Newton, Mass., is putting up a rather expensive high school. With a $186 million price tag it is the most expensive school in the state both in terms of actual dollars and cost per student. I bring this up because the Boston Globe recently ran a front-page story on our little construction project.
It happens that Newton has a very active blogging community, not only because of TheGardenCity.net (started by yours truly) but also because of the local newspaper has an active blog, as well as a series of other local participants.
But when this story came out one local blogger bemoaned the fact Globe reporters "don’t read blogs," and then cited several problems in the reporting. This brought up an interesting question about bloggers: is it now required for reporters to read bloggers' thoughts as a general part of their reporting?
One of my early journalism lessons was to not trust the phone. Yes, you can do an interview over the phone and it's very convenient, but nothing beats face-to-face interaction, since you can see a subject shift in their seat and watch their face. Conversations are different in person.
During my interview with Peterson, the discussion drifted into the subtle ways that a pitcher could tip off his pitches. Peterson used my behavior to help explain his point.
"When you take notes, your head tilts to the right," Peterson said. "But, when you listen to what I'm saying, your head tilts to the left. Wouldn't that be a shame if that tipped someone off to what you were doing?"
Peterson made me think: Do I carry my notebook differently when I have a scoop? Do I keep my pen in a different pocket if I think I have some exclusive information? I was impressed with Peterson's attention to detail.
But over the past several years I've seen a shift, with more people conducting email or IM interviews in place of phone or in-person meetings. What's to stop reporters from just quoting from blogs? Many already do, but could that supplement an interview?
The other part of the question is when listening to bloggers, who are you listening to? Is it just the loudest part of the population or are the thoughts espoused truly indicative of those of he broader population? Turning back to Newton, during a recent meeting of the Board of Aldermen (Newton's version of the city council), an elected official called the commenters on the local blogs "crazy." So I guess he doesn't believe that he's hearing from his constituents.
A few years ago I worked with a professor who had an interesting theory about online forums. In his paper “Strategic Manipulation of Internet Opinion Forums: Implications for Consumers and Firms,” Chrysanthos Dellarocas made the broad point that corporate manipulation of online forums is a good thing because people automatically assume that some is going on anyway, so they discount the information they're reading. Companies that are not engaging in this kind of manipulation are doing a disservice to themselves, but also to the readers, since intentional manipulation serves to create a greater separation between the positives and negatives of any given discussion. Stephen Baker at BusinessWeek.com wrote about this as well.
It's an interesting theory. But the end result is this: reporters do use blogs as part of their reporting and, in some way, it's going to influence them. The goal is to be part of the conversation not only to reach customers, partners, employees, competitors and the general public, but also to reach the reporters' audience as well.
Mr. Boyle, my 10th grade English teacher took one look at the first article I published in the school paper and quickly circled every is, was, were and to be, then handed it back. I remember the crushing feeling of defeat as I'd previously been so proud of the piece; easy lesson, well learned.
Nearly every time I assign a release to a young writer they turn in something riddled with passive sentences. My first piece of advice: drop the verb "to be." What I get back is often much better and they tend not to make the same mistake again. Though, I try to do it without the humiliation.
Facebook finally let us choose our own verb for our status updates, eliminating the annoyingly passive "is" from our writing requirement.
Thank you Facebook, for passing 10th grade English.
Press releases take a lot of heat. Considering that over time, these standard tools of the PR world have proven themselves pretty effective, it's amusing that they continue to be the butt of jokes and constant redesign.
Back in the heyday of the dot-com bubble, you'd see releases loudly touting "paradigm shifts" and "robust, scalable architectures." We've tried to get away from a lot of this overblown writing, but it still gets through.
The problem is, we're debating the wrong issue. The problem isn't the format, its the content of the information we're putting out and determining the true goal for that information. Frankly, unless you're a major corporation like Disney, GM or HP, no one really cares that you just hired a new CEO. You may write a release and put in on your Web site, but do you really need to send it over BusinessWire? And does it really need to be three pages long?
No, we need to learn from bloggers and change our style. We need to start talking conversationally in our tone and attributing information to individuals. We need to write compelling stories, not just make announcements. This takes talent and skill, something many PR firms have in spades.
The most interesting news release I've seen recently comes from Google when it announced Android. What's that? You didn't see the release?
Right, there was none. They put out a blog posting on it. But, this is no less a news release than one formatted in the traditional manner and put on BuseinessWire. It's just a different way to get out information--one that is truly part of the conversation, not trying to push itself into it.
And the best part? It actually worked. Not because it was a blog post, but because it gave people information they wanted in a tone and format that made sense.
In fact, it included this paragraph, which you would normally find in any old press release (though, in the first person):
Android is the first truly open and comprehensive platform for mobile devices. It includes an operating system, user-interface and applications -- all of the software to run a mobile phone, but without the proprietary obstacles that have hindered mobile innovation. We have developed Android in cooperation with the Open Handset Alliance, which consists of more than 30 technology and mobile leaders including Motorola, Qualcomm, HTC and T-Mobile. Through deep partnerships with carriers, device manufacturers, developers, and others, we hope to enable an open ecosystem for the mobile world by creating a standard, open mobile software platform. We think the result will ultimately be a better and faster pace for innovation that will give mobile customers unforeseen applications and capabilities.
Yes, I know what you're saying--Google can get away with a lot more than any small company. And you're right, no Wall Street Journal reporter is eagerly reading every corporate blog looking for tidbits of information. But, we can learn a little more about writing for bloggers here, since the tone of the "release" was truly conversational. This wasn't written from high on a mountain top, but from a person with a voice. You can feel it in the very first sentence: "Despite all of the very interesting speculation over the last few months, we're not announcing a Gphone." In fact, it IS from a person, it's attributed to Andy Rubin.
The bottom line: a release should become indistinguishable from everything around it, not because it looks different, but because the content makes sense and tells a real story.
Tabblo founder and former client Antonio Rodriguez recently pointed out on his blog that mainstream America still isn't using many of the Web 2.0 tools out there. He's right. Stand on any soccer field and watch the parents snapping away on their digital cameras, then ask them if they planned to share those with the team via Flickr or if they were going to put them on a Facebook site, and you'll get a lot of blank stares. Most just email a few shots to relatives, or use a legacy service like Shutterfly.
Recently I spoke with the founder of TownConnect.com--social networking technology for families, schools, teams, etc. He told me that he isn't bothering with Flickr integration since most of his targeted audience--suburbanites living in communities like mine--don't use it.
Mainstream America will get there and start using some of these tools. It's happening slowly, but it's probably going to change how we measure all this. Today links in and out of a site drive search and Technorati rankings. But that kind of measurement relies on an active community of users who participate as much as they read. As the mainstream takes over, people will probably read more than they participate.
Sure, we all have statistics and numbers about how many unique visitors are coming to a site, but those are neither audited nor shared. That leaves us with sampling sites like Compete and Alexa, but those have their own issues in that they don't get large enough samples from smaller blogs. So without reliable numbers, how will we know what's popular?
That's why I love our CAIT concept, which tells us that by looking beyond the Technorati 100 or Techmeme Leaderborard, we can still have a simple way to evaluate whether a blog is worth our time. Because as this area continues to grow, figuring out who is reading and listening to what is going to become increasingly difficult.
I'm tired of going to events in which someone stands up and says "So, can you tell me what exactly defines a blog?"
Yes, this is an important question for someone just coming to the table, but many of us are well beyond that and the discussion is now about more high-level topics, such as "how are the current crop of blogs affecting coverage?" and "how can bloggers, reporters and PR people work together?"
That's what last night's great event at the Cambridge Innovation Center was all about. Scott Kirsner put together a great group of panelists, including Bijan Sabet, venture capitalist at Spark Capital; Barbara Heffner of CHEN PR; Don Dodge, director of business development at Microsoft; Jimmy Guterman, editor of Release 2.0 and blogger at O'Reilly Radar; Scott Kirsner, who writes the Boston Globe "Innovation Economy" column; and Nabeel Hyatt, CEO of Conduit Labs. Both Schwartz Communications and CHEN PR sponsored the event, as well as Morse Barnes-Brown & Pendleton and the Cambridge Innovation Center.
The panel was just a start, as I was charged with running around the room to bring in discussion from others attending the event. Dan Bricklin has a few pictures as well as the full podcast up, so rather than me running through the whole thing, go and have a listen.
Discussion items included:
Why do you blog?
What is your most popular post?
How addicted are you to statistics?
Where do journalistic ethics come into play?
What does blogging do for your business?
How do you maintain an authentic voice?
How do people who cannot write well engage in this environment?
What role do edited blogs (like this one) have both in the corporation and in the blogosphere in general?
Can you do a "news" announcement only through social media?
Don Dodge shared great pieces of advice--both of which I violated on my various blogs--that he received from Robert Scoble.
First: include your own name in the name of the blog. Of my personal blogs only two have any part of my name involved, the Tanoblog and Tanophoto. And second: include your picture. While my picture is on my Schwartz bio, it is not on my Media Metamorphosis page, which may be why Paul Gillin didn't include my name in his roundup of the event.
I also enjoyed the discussion on edited blogs, in which Nabeel noted how the corporate blog at Conduit is, in fact, edited. The point is to have a common voice and to acknowledge that the company must come first, in this context. But also it's because there are people within the organization who have great thoughts when they're standing at the whiteboard, but do not have the ability to express themselves in writing. In this case the editing process is not about sanitizing the content, but about saying to those who are more self-conscious, "hey, we've got your back."
I found the ethics discussion to be among the most interesting and will be writing more on that later. But let me just share this from Don Dodge on conflict of interest: "No conflict, no interest."
On a personal note, I got a chance to meet David Laubner, who writes the excellent 93South blog, one I've been reading for some time.
In all, a great discussion of some of the primary issues facing modern tech journalism. I'm sure there will be more discussion on the various Boston-based tech blogs, but the podcast is probably the most complete recounting of the event. Though, not everyone identified themselves before speaking, so it sometimes be tough to follow.
As Schwartz's first (and heaviest) Twitter, I wanted to post briefly on the numbers and what they mean to companies.
To be honest, for the sake of this discussion, it doesn't matter if the numbers are accurate. What matters is there are vibrant and growing networks that are providing new and easy way for the average person to communicate with others.
Twitter is a great tool for PR pros. Using Twitter I have found out
About stories reporters are planning to write
What matters to reporters so I give them the information that really care about
New reporters and mavens
What is being said about my clients by consumers
This is powerful stuff, particularly the last point. This technology directly impacts the consumer and changes the way we interact. With Twitter's search functionality it is easy for people to find and join all kinds of conversations
As a PR practitioner or company, should you tweet on Twitter? Perhaps. You need to make the call yourself (although I am happy to share my opinions). But you must monitor Twitter and the other applications like it (Jaiku, etc).
You don't need to become a power user and active on every social network and communications tool out there. But you should be engaged and you need to monitor them.
It is relatively painless, requires minimal investment (The tools are free, it just takes time) and provides you with potentially valuable insight. These conversations have always been going on. Now there are just more of them and they can have quicker impact.
We need to use every appropriate tool in your repertoire. Your competitors are.
Whenever someone comes to me asking about blogs and other social media sites, I get the same question: what are the top ranked blogs? I try to point out that there are several ways to cut this, but people still want numbers.
The short answer? Size doesn't (always) matter.
I've long been critical of the idea that links determine much of anything, partially because they don't measure number of readers, but also because they assume that readership equals active participation from other blogs.
Shel Israel has made the point that if you have a blog with no links and three readers, it comes up as unimportant in the blogging world, but if those three readers include President Bush and his Chief of Staff, then it's influential.
Still, in the PR field we have a problem. Clients pay us to get them the best possible coverage in a defined period of time. So here at Schwartz, we've focused on what we call CAIT. That is, Community, Author, Intelligence and Topic. For each we ask a series of questions:
Community--Does this blog have an active comment community? Are they gaining links from other bloggers and reporters? Do reporters/influencers/analysts read them?
Author--Does this person put up their name? Do they work in the industry? Are they an analyst? A competitor? Interested party?
Intelligence--As you are reading the posts, do they make sense? Are they in line with what you know about the industry? How do those commenting react?
Topic--What is this blog truly about? Did the author write a piece about a client's area just once or is it a regular topic?
We look for a balance of all four elements. The reason is pretty simple: social media relations isn't about the big audience, it's about the right audience. So if a blogger, podcaster, vlogger, Twitter user or anyone else influences a community in an intelligent way that speaks to the topic of our clients, then that's someone with which we want to talk.
The fact is, these same concepts can be applied to just about any media and will work properly, but in the traditional media world we tend to know understand this concept inherently. When dealing with social media we need to be taught.
The public relations business is at a real crossroads. The advent of social media means it's now impossible to control messages perfectly. Communications is becoming more real. Raw. Genuine.
This is a very good thing.
Social media is here to stay. But so is traditional media. In fact, the traditional media that makes it through this crossroads will be even more powerful than before. They'll have cracked the code on integrating both types of media with the kind of rich, full content that develops and grows audiences.
This blog explores what's happening in the ever-evolving communications world. We'll talk about how companies can benefit from these changes. We're also tackling trends we see in the media and the industry practice groups we cover. Opinions, best practices and interesting tools are all fodder for discussion.
Our job, as PR professionals, is to help guide our clients through this new and ever-changing environment. It's going to be fun. As I mentioned in a recent panel sponsored by PR News, "Ten years from now, we're going to have great jobs, just very different jobs."
