High-Tech PR Blog >> Beyond the Hype

Avoiding PR "Gotchas" -- a list of don'ts to learn from

I don't know about you, but I'm always a sucker for lists of do's and don'ts.  A recent email to me from a magazine I subscribe to included the "top 25 beauty mistakes" and, of course, I clicked on it.  I learned a few things, so it was worth the investment of time.  It inspired me to ask our PR experts to help me assemble a list of the biggest PR mistakes they have seen recently that we all can learn from:

• Telling a business press reporter after an interview that if he writes about your company it will raise interest in it, which would be a good thing.  Get ready for a major eye roll from the reporter on that one -- unless he is a stockholder.

• Capitalizing on a tragedy, especially with the words "if they had used XX product/service, this wouldn't have happened."  This is one time you have to pass up a newsworthy angle.

• Speaking for quotation to the media on behalf of a partner or a customer.  It's always better to direct them to the customer or partner for their own quotes rather than risk souring your relationship by saying something they would not want to see in print.

• Being unwilling to comment on industry trends or issues during an interview.  Reporters are happy to hear about your company, if you are relevant in your market, but they'd also like to hear broader perspectives.  It makes you more valuable as a source too.

• Answering the reporter's end-of-interview question, "Do you have anything to add?" with a smile and a quick "No."  You just missed a great opportunity to briefly summarize the key points you hope the reporter got from your interview.

• Telling a reporter "don't write what I just told you."  Only a red flag in front of a bull is a more visible symbol to "charge" and get that scoop.

• Keeping your PR team in the dark on corporate events.  This sometimes happens to internal and agency people when a senior team's style is close-to-the-vest.  It really blunts the effectiveness of the entire PR team to not have all the nuances of what is happening and why to shape their programs.

• Starting a call with a journalist with the statement, "I think you are very wrong."  An interview is a conversation and this, ladies and gentlemen, is a conversation killer.

• Suggesting a headline for the article you want them to write and asking when it will run.  This type of behavior makes for good stories at internal editorial meetings at publications, but it doesn't work.

• Promising a customer by name to a journalist before clearing it with them.  If you aren't sure the customer will clear it, tell them you'll check into it and get back to them with a name.

• Agreeing to author a blog if you don't have the time to post.  No one will take you seriously as a blogger if your content isn't fresh.  Assign someone else or wait until you're really ready to provide regular postings.

• Sending a reply on Twitter (which goes to everyone who follows you) instead of a direct message (which goes just to the person you want to engage with).  Always think before you "tweet."

• Insisting that PR take the toughest question out of the FAQ preparation document for a major announcement.  Removing the question will not guarantee no one asks it and you will be much less prepared when it is asked.

• Being so anxious to "tweet" that you reveal some news or comments from a partner, customer or company leader before a planned announcement.  This is what social media policy guidelines are written to prevent.

• Not respecting a journalist's deadline.  If you offer the best customer contact, but it is right on top of or after the reporter's deadline, you not only won't be included in the article, but you also will hurt your chances of her calling you for the next story she is writing.

• Assuming too much knowledge on behalf of reporters.  These days, with publications being smaller, reporters are asked to cover a wide range of "beats" and they aren't always experts in all of them.  It always helps to provide context and spell out acronyms or at least do temperature reads to give them a chance to ask for a backdrop on a technology or market segment, if they need it.

End of an Era at IndustryWeek

 It's worth noting that John Teresko, senior technology editor of IndustryWeek magazine retired this week after 50 years.  Consider that number.  FIFTY YEARS!  The big 5-0!  John started covering technology and the manufacturing industry when TV was black and white with just three channels, America was the manufacturing center of the world, commercial airlines flew planes and not jets, America's Big 3 ruled the automobile market and rock n' roll was just taking hold.

It's mind boggling when you consider the scope of changes and advancements in technology that John has covered, but what's even more amazing is that he spent his entire career doing it with IndustryWeek and its predecessor Steel magazine.  This kind of longevity and career continuity is rare and it's unlikely we'll see the likes of it again.

I first met John back in 1991.  It was on a media tour with a client.  Some of you may remember those.  We flew out to Cleveland to meet with him face to face to brief him on the company and explain how our new product would help manufacturers become more nimble in response to customer demand and engineering changes.  The meeting took place over lunch at a very nice restaurant overlooking the downtown and Lake Erie.  How often does that happen with an editor or reporter today?  Indeed, how things have changed. 

The changes wraught through the Web, online publishing and social media has created a new dynamic, which is still being played out, that fosters continual change at an ever accelerating pace.  And while change is good and necessary for growth, there is something to be said for longevity, experience and perspective.  And with John's retirement we've lost some of that, which is irreplaceable.  But I'm sure that John would be the first to tell you that to remain competitive, whether we're talking about a company or an individual, you must embrace that change.  After all, John has been on front lines watching and reporting on it for 50 years.  I'm sure he can tell you that its not only the strong who survive, but those who are willing to embrace what's new.

Your 'friends' don't need to know your business

 

That sounds exactly like something my mother would have told me while I was growing up. She might have used the term "neighbors" instead of "friends." She was very big on privacy and believed the less information you shared, the better off you were.  Apparently Mom should be a social media consultant these days.  Mike Musgrove of the Washington Post pointed to a story in the San Francisco Chronicle about an Arizona man whose house was robbed after he had left Facebook and Twitter updates about his extensive family vacation.

"We had mentioned that we were going out of town for an extended period and even Twittered about the trip as we drove for three days," he told an Arizona television station. While he was gone, video-editing equipment was stolen from his home. Although he is not sure his tweeting tipped off the burglars, he says he will be more careful in the future about what he shares online."

No one can specifically link the burglary to his specific updates about vacating his home to his more than 2,000 Twitter followers and large number of Facebook friends.  It is a good reminder to be careful about broadcasting personal information that could be misused in forums as truly public as Facebook and Twitter.  It also sounds like a heck of an idea for a future television crime show episode.

Content marketing: For B2B companies and taco trucks

This is the second part of my conversation with Lois and our client Ed Brice of Lumension Security.  In part one, we discussed the impact that social media is having on B2B marketing.  Our conversation started with a look at short-term vs. long-term thinking, then explored how marketers should start thinking about social media as a way to enhance the identity of a company. 

In this podcast, we discussed the importance of creating content that is personal and conversational in order to connect with the buying community.  In particular, Ed spoke about how he has gotten resources committed to creating memorable and high-value content on a sustained basis to drive a content marketing effort.  He said that the Internet has fundamentally changed the traditional approach B2B companies have taken to marketing where they have controlled its message with an iron hand.  Instead of being focused on a sales process, B2B companies need to be focused on and understand a customers' buying process.  Once they understand that, then they can create content that is value-added to the customer at each stage of the process.  He feels that combining this content marketing combined with social media tools as a delivery mechanism will allow marketers to take advantage of word-of-mouth and search engine optimization in a much better way.

Lois added to this that the opportunity for companies to be self-publishers is particularly important because of the shift and consolidation in traditional media.  Part of this opportunity is for a company to create more of a persona, which allows the buying community to connect with them easier.

Ed illustrated how effective content marketing can be by talking about Kogi, a small food business serving a fusion of Korean and Mexican food via roving vans around LA.  Kogi uses Twitter to communicate with its followers and let them know where the trucks will be.  It has been extremely effective for them as a basis for word-of-mouth and is growing a passionate following.

In the meantime, we hope you enjoy this podcast. We'd love to continue the conversation on this subject with you here, as well as on Ed's blog.

As always, you can subscribe to the podcast series through the Podcast Ready button in the right sidebar, or via iTunes.

How B2B marketers should think about social media

We are pleased to bring you the latest episode in our Beyond the Hype podcast series. For this podcast, I sat down with Lois Paul and Ed Brice, SVP of Worldwide Marketing for Lumension Security, an LP&P client, to discuss the impact that social media is having on B2B marketing. Ed is a big believer in social media and blogs regularly about how it is changing the game for marketers.

Our conversation started with a look at short-term vs. long-term thinking in terms of marketing strategy, with Lois and Ed discussing the results of a recent survey of 300 CMO's conducted by Spencer Stewart. The research revealed that a majority of marketing chiefs are focused on short-term planning versus long-term strategy. Lois summarized the survey, which she also blogged about recently, by stating that while most CMO's are in good shape to drive growth when the downturn subsides, it is concerning that they also are measuring success by how much they are cutting expenses. Ed added his perspective that every marketing leader is under pressure to deliver more with greater efficiencies.  This is leading to a shift in tactics where he is investing more in online marketing, and optimizing the mix of offline and online as a way to achieve efficiencies now and to be set up for growth in the future.

From there the conversation shifted to how marketers should start thinking about social media as a way to enhance the identity of a company. Ed discussed how B2B marketers are getting frozen by figuring out what tools they should be using. His recommended approach is to first answer the question, "Do I want to have a conversation with my ecosystem -- my partners, my customers, my prospects and even to a certain extent my competitors?"  He feels that for most B2B tech companies, customers or prospects will talk about them online, and even if there is a negative or derogatory comment, Ed sees that as an opportunity and not something to avoid. In terms of ROI, he feels like marketers shouldn't get consumed with it, that you don't need to have an ROI for having a conversation. Ed also discussed how the various social media channels his company has established work together to "give their message more lift" and that's what delivers the return.

This is the first part of the discussion. In part 2, which we'll bring to you tomorrow, Ed and Lois talk in more depth about the role of content marketing in this new paradigm.

In the meantime, we hope you enjoy this podcast. We'd love to continue the conversation on this subject with you here, as well as on Ed's blog.

As always, you can subscribe to the podcast series through the Podcast Ready button in the right sidebar, or via iTunes.

Advertising vs PR -- amazingly, the debate continues

One of my colleagues pointed out a piece in CNN Money.com answering a question about which of the marketing elements -- advertising or PR -- would be more effective for a smaller company during the recession.  If you really boiled down all of the answers and the comments to the posting, the answer would be "it depends."  But I found a few nuggets that I thought would be good to share.

First of all, the person posing the question received a number of offers for PR help at a very low cost if he chose PR over advertising.  I know times are tough, but it almost sounded like "Will do PR for food," which was a bit distressing.  Here's his specific comment:

I always thought PR was too expensive for small businesses, but in doing my research I posted my project on AllPublicists and got many low-cost offers from publicists. One firm, for example, doesn’t charge anything unless they deliver results.

Ah, the offer of pay for results -- which I lovingly refer to as contingency PR.  It sounds very enticing to prospective clients.  At the end of the day, all PR is about delivering results and if you aren't hitting and beating the metrics you have signed up for you should be let go.  But telling a company that you will only be paid for specific results turns PR into an ATM machine of sorts which can lead to scatter-shot pitches to untargeted media or "low hanging fruit" just to pile up some hits so you will get paid.  Or it can cause the PR person or team to be overly aggressive with the media or bloggers even if a story doesn't have all of the elements it needs to make it newsworthy.  Either case could potentially damage that company's reputation with key media and, ultimately, be lower ROI than a focused, well-targeted program where the PR person or agency is paid for strategy as well as execution, with carefully agreed upon metrics.

Two researchers, Don Michaelson of Echo Research and Don Stacks from the University of Miami, have been studying the topic and reported finding little difference between the effectiveness of advertising and PR.  They based this on the awareness created by a fake NY Times story and fake advertisement about a fictitious product shown to mall shoppers. In the CNN Money article, Michaelson stated:

"At every single point of measure, when you found out about the very basic level of awareness and intent of purchase, there wasn’t a lot of difference between the two."

There were a few areas of divergence. When it came to communicating depth of information, public relations was more effective. Ditto for the “relationship” between a product and person, and for inspiring thoughts about how it might fit into their lifestyle. But with advertising, the message was much easier to control. With PR, you not only can’t guarantee placement, you have little say in what comes out on the other end.

So the researchers found that the simple answer is “there is no simple answer,” Michaelson says. When you are dealing with choice between PR and advertising, the answer isn’t one or the other, it’s both.

In our own specialty areas, technology and life sciences, we definitely see the PR advantages the researchers cite.  For complex messaging and stories, PR is the right tool to use.  It also is the right approach for companies that don't have a large, sustainable advertising budget, as PR can be used cumulatively and continuously in a planned way more cost effectively than a sustained ad campaign -- online or in print -- in targeted media and sites.

None of this is particularly new data for this debate.  What was interesting, in my view, was citing free sites that small business owners could use to get their own coverage:

Free sites such as PitchRate.com, which Nicholson helped found, and Help A Reporter Out narrow the gulf between you and the media. If you have an area of expertise or compelling personal story behind your business, sign up on those sites and put your shingle out. If it’s relevant to a reporter or producer, they will contact you. And it’s not just free until a story happens– it’s completely free.

If you have savvy communicators internally and a very small budget, you definitely can check out these options to get your story out.  It may catch the eye of the reporters you want to talk with.  Then again it may not, which is why PR professionals and agencies add tremendous value when a company is at the level to need a sustained push in a competitive market.  Reporters are so pressed for time right now -- and are such a scarce commodity -- that they are not necessarily trolling for stories on sites.  They are juggling multiple stories about large companies and doing their very best to stay up on the smaller players in the markets they cover.  PR people can be a help to them by making sure they are aware of these smaller players and are kept abreast of the news of value to their readers, either by directly contacting them or using social media to get a company's story and news out more broadly.

PR is never free, just as nothing of value really is.  Someone in those small companies who are using those free sites has to devote a serious chunk of time planning what information to make available, doing the outreach and following up with reporters or bloggers who may express interest.  It's a great option for the really small companies who want to put a toe in the water.  Ultimately, though, the company will have to bring some real professionals on board with an actual program, whether they invest internally or they decide to outsource.

The last interesting point for me in the discussion was in the comments section.  One of the commenters, listed only as John H. from Albany, NY, noted that PR people can double for advertising people easier than the ad people can drift over to the PR side.

PR reps are trained to be out in front, disseminating the company’s message and being the face of the company and can be especially effective if they have intimate knowledge of the organization that they work for or are hired by. They often bring the additional benefit of some level of graphic arts/design to go along with the crafting of a message which is in line with advertising.

We definitely have been seeing this blurring of the lines, especially around the elements of social media newsrooms and videos/podcasts that we're helping companies add to their sites to communicate with customers as well as the media and analysts.  This evolution likely will continue for quite a while -- long enough to prompt another another article on this subject a quarter from now. . .

Sustainable social media starts and ends with listening

 

It's been great that more and more of my conversations with clients have moved from, "should we do social media", to, "how can we make it sustainable, create momentum and achieve measurable results?"  For us, this means it's time to roll up our sleeves and have some fun.

We've helped many of those clients start blogs, Twitter channels and Facebook pages, which is followed by the challenge of building a following.  There are tools available to take short cuts to for this, but inevitably this leads to building the wrong following, or people that don't really care what the company does.  The effort needs to focus on finding those folks out there with an identifiable interest that matches what a company can offer them.

But that will only get companies so far.  This is where companies need to think differently when it comes to leveraging their social media channel and developing their content for those channels.  By default, that content should be developed in response to what members of the buying community find valuable.  This is not traditional marketing content.  This is content that is authentic, conversational, personal and real.  It is not a brand talking.  It is a person talking and engaging members of the buying community based upon what they want to talk about.  And the key to this?  Listening.

That's why I believe the heart of any social media effort is listening to the online conversation (on blogs, Twitter/FriendFeed/Facebook/LinkedIn, etc) both to find those individuals that represent customers, prospective customers and partners, as well as to use what they are saying to drive the content for the company's social media channels.  This takes time, but this is the value that communications teams offer now, so the time spent by the customer-facing folks is focused on the content. 

Starting with this foundation will lead to a sustainable, efficient and measurable social media effort.  What do you think?  How effective is your listening?  Are you doing enough?

Collaboration and social media are good, to a point

I've been noticing a phenomenon with my college age children -- both are very different, but very bright and independent people -- to text their friends and roommates and even my husband and I before making decisions.  Instead of doing the research up front, they practice an iterative approach to many aspects of their daily lives.  Shopping for college memorabilia during graduation weekend, my daughter texted one of her friends for counsel on what to choose.  Determining which local sandwich shop would be less crowded for the group of students and their families, the texts were flying fast and furious.  Finding out which Starbucks is closest to a new job location leads to texts, not phone calls and not an old-school fingers doing the walking through a telephone directory.

It's been fascinating to watch.  It struck home when I read this morning's article in the Boston Globe about texting and its potential impact on young people.

Sherry Turkle, director of the MIT Initiative on Technology and Self, has spent the last three years researching texting habits of teens in the Boston area to determine how the practice affects their development.

Her findings suggest that teenagers' texting habit is slowing their emotional growth. "Years ago, if I saw a kid who talked to his mother 20 times a day, I would say he has an attachment problem," notes Turkle. "Now I interview hordes of college juniors and seniors who routinely text their moms while they're waiting at the bus. The lack of independence from parents means teens are not learning to make decisions on their own."

Although my own children eschew Twitter as a waste of time that they don't understand and only one of them uses Facebook, I do wonder what happens when this generation embraces other social media channels like these.  Does the collaborative approach of "tweetups" and the sharing of ideas, thoughts and interesting links slow down the development of original content?  Collaboration and the value of team are paramount in a client service business like ours.  However, it's important that social media enhances these values and does not become a crutch for constant sanity checking of ideas and approaches.  It is a fine line we will all need to walk to use these channels effectively without having them erode individual creativity and confidence.

A colleague recently joked that "it shouldn't take a village for someone to say the right thing," lightly poking fun at the need to help spokespeople craft their messages and be well prepared for interviews.  The power of these new channels lies in their ability to amplify new ideas and thinking and not to relegate it to constant crowd-sourcing before a position is determined.

What do you think?  Do you ever worry about the downside of too much social media interaction?

It's all about your people

Over the past couple weeks some of the best and brightest of LP&P represented us well as we won Best Places to Work awards both in Boston, MA and Austin, Texas. This is a very meaningful award to me, as it represents our employees' view of our agency in both locations. It is particularly gratifying -- and humbling -- to have these great people vote our agency one of the best places to work during a year in which the perks and compensation are not as good as we'd like them to be.

Mike Parker, who leads our "Shoemaker's Children PR Team" for the agency, attended the award ceremony in Boston with one of our agency PR volunteers, Jim Crook.  He says Jim straightened his tie, said, "I'm on it," and bolted for the stage when Mike asked him if he wanted to accept the award for the agency.  Mike and Jim rallied the troops here in our busy Boston office to get the employees to participate in the survey required for entry. It was very fitting that they accepted the award on our behalf. Both of them are key contributors to the culture of our firm that makes us one of the best places to work.

In addition to leading the all-volunteer agency PR team (and carrying that banner for quite a while now), Mike Parker recently organized our new Wii golf tournament to get the golfers into the act and to supplement the annual Foozball Tournament.

Jim Crook has been swinging a bat for the LP&P Softball team for years, recruiting new members and scheduling games. This year he's become the captain as well. Whether it's helping organize the annual Halloween Party's costume parade for the kids of employees or creating the list of "superlatives" we announced at last year's summer outing ("best hair," "biggest sports fan"), Jim is always willing to keep the fun outlets going, which are important de-stressors in a client-service organization.  

In Austin, our office lead Carol Hanko accepted the Best Places to Work award from the Austin Business Journal several weeks ago, ably assisted by Lydia Hekman and Erin Hanley. I spent last week with the Austin team and they are a model of a hard-working team that knows how to collaborate and have fun together. Carol has set that tone since she joined LP&P and Lydia and Erin are key contributors to the good culture we have built in the Lone Star state. 

Lydia Hekman drove the submission for the ABJ award and works closely with Erin Hanley, who heads Austin agency PR. Both are active participants in the potlucks, happy hours, summer outings and holiday events that keep this team playing together as well as they work together. They both participated in SXSW and have helped us put on great open house events for our clients and friends each year. If you're ever in Austin near 5th and Congress Streets, come meet our great team.

Thanks again to all of these employees for helping us earn this honor during such a difficult time.  And hats off to all LP&Pers for putting a big smile on this agency principal's face.

"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." Mark Twain

Those of us who run or work for public relations agencies can definitely relate to Mark Twain's famous comment to a reporter. I actually thought the rumors that PR is going the way of the Ark had subsided for a while, but they seem to be surfacing again.

One of my clients, Ed Brice of Lumension, was kind enough to ask me to do a guest blog post about PR and social media and the first question he asked me to answer was about this topic. Then this week Tom Foremski's Silicon Valley Watcher Blog talks about "The New Rules in PR -- The Old Model is Dead."  Foremski describes us PR agency types as Wile E. Coyote running out of road as we chase the elusive Road Runner (our clients?). It's not an image that warms my heart.  Nor do I think it's accurate, although I agree with some of Foremski's assertions. He ends his post by saying he's going to check us out and states that he'd be open to guest blog posts. This is my own attempt to respond to his post, which really was a series of rumblings he's hearing from other sources wrapped with the doomsday Wile E. Coyote opening image.

In the spirit of Road Runner, let's cut right to the chase. PR agencies are not going away -- at least the smart ones aren't. It's called evolution and survival of the fittest. It got the best agencies in the tech industry through our horrific industry meltdown in the early part of this decade and it's going to help the best of all of us to bridge through the huge changes that are going on in communications, media and marketing in general. Are the survivors all going to be large agencies? I don't believe so. Size does help as it gives you the wherewithal to invest in technology and build new practices. It also helps you weather an economic storm a bit better than the tiniest of firms. I agree with Foremski and his sources that some existing agencies who cannot radically change their offerings in this brave new world of helping companies engage directly with their customers will not survive. But when the music stops, I firmly believe there will be smart, large, mid-size and smaller agencies and boutiques grabbing the chairs -- not just the giants.

He references that the economic model of agencies -- the retainer model and hourly rates -- is going to go away, replaced by a project model and payment based on outcomes rather than activities. Any good agency knows that they are only as good as the results they delivered today -- make that in the last hour. Our whole existence is predicated on us delivering a multiple of what we are paid to every client every day. But the entire consulting model is based on establishing a value for the time of the individuals who are retained. That is true for lawyers, management consultants and anyone who has expertise that is in demand. I think most agencies, large and small, are willing to work on a project basis for the right clients. But since PR is most effective when it is consistent and cumulative, an ongoing retained program provides the most value to any client. PR is also most effective when the agency team becomes an extension of the company itself and this is facilitated by an ongoing relationship of trust, rather than project-by-project or contingency-level PR.

I definitely agree with the sentiments that social media -- the catch-all phrase we're all using for this evolution in media and communications -- is now part and parcel of public relations and, indeed, marketing and is not something you bolt on or sprinkle on top of everything else. Just last week I was telling one of our clients who is still testing the social media waters that these programs are now table stakes for any company, whether they are consumer-facing or business-to-business. Although many companies in the latter category still feel this is not affecting them yet, customers are increasingly expecting anyone they buy from, large or small, to have a way to engage with them directly online and through channels like blogs, Facebook or Twitter. They want to know their vendors are willing to listen to them and talk with them directly, as well as through more traditional channels. The good agency partners for these companies are helping them navigate these changes in their programs.

All of us -- PR agencies, internal PR and marketing people, bloggers, journalists and brand-owners -- need to fundamentally adjust our models to address this new reality. It is not just the PR agencies who are nipping and tucking their programs and expanding their expertise to best serve clients and their clients' clients as the sands continue to shift. So please stop planning our funerals. We intend to be around doing good work for a very long time.