In a pill: I don’t like news releases as a vehicle, and while I think they are sometimes necessary, more often than not releases are abused by public relations practitioners.

I received a tremendous amount of feedback on the piece, both in the comments, in personal correspondences and by carrier pigeon. Some were supportive; others were immensely dismissive and angry. It’s a healthy debate and I’m good with criticism as long as it’s constructive.

But what has amazed me more than anything are the flacks who continue to pitch me by simply sending releases through e-mail, with no explanation and again, more often than not, the news is not news at all.

Just this week, one of the 12.3 releases I received was from an advertising agency called INK about their navigation of some challenging media waters on behalf of client Quest Software.

They point out how tech blogger Brian Madden called out Quest for what he thought was an outdated logo on SearchVirtualDesktop.com. The negative buzz spread. Enter INK!

Goodness gracious! Stop the presses! News release alert! This is worthy!

In its self congratulatory release, INK explains how it “jumped on the opportunity to have a little fun with Brian and his fans, while telling their side of the story at the same time.”

And–drumroll please–within a week of Madden’s criticism, Quest had a video response from CEO Doug Garn about a chance to debut a new animated logo.

Madden posted the video response and word quickly spread. I’ll spare you INK’s metrics of how well the effort worked.

Here’s the thing–I’m writing about this not because I wanted to punish a colleague who violated what I believe constitutes good use of a press release.

On the contrary, I think this is actually a relatively interesting story about good work by INK, and by mentioning it, I’m helping the agency more than anything else. In fact, I’d guess some who read this will even think I’m unfairly bullying INK.

But was it worthy of a news release? Did it announce a new product, venture, a major purchase or anything of value?

Of course not.

What the flack should have done was develop a relationship with me, as well as other marketing writers who were sent the release.  Then, read some of my prior posts, learn that I hate news releases, engage me via Twitter about a topic, learn that I love bacon and mustaches, send me an autographed picture of Mr. T, and so on.

And then, once there was some trust and mutual respect, and I’ve framed my new Mr. T photo — pitch me the story in a concise manner that’s not simply about how great you are, but how the story fits into a broader trend of agencies providing measurable value to their clients, in the same manner that melted cheese improves nearly all other foods by 38 percent.

So please, fellow flacks, I beg of you–stop using news releases irresponsibly, get to know some of the reporters you target, and stop making my case for me day after day.

I recently started a feature there called “Two On Two” with my friend Jason Falls of Social Media Explorer.

Twice monthly, we debate two topics from the worlds of marketing communications or related technologies. And in our first installment, we debate whether Google has peaked and who’s winning the war for the social media landscape — advertising or public relations agencies.

Art imitates life, as Elasticity client Lanworth, which provides satellite-based independent crop production intelligence to the finance, consumer food product, and agri-business industries — often driving commodities markets — was recently featured on CNBC.

Whether it’s ESPN, Fox Sports, Twitter, Deadspin, Facebook, JoeSportsFan, or HallofTheVeryGood — the full spectrum of sports watchers are chronicling every moment, fans are paying attention, and reputations are often damaged by poorly calculated missteps. Indeed, that’s why many public relations agencies have burgeoning (albeit not very profitable) sports business practices.

With this in mind, today I began a new series for JoeSportsFan.com — where I’ve been a longtime contributor writing about various sports topics and other dumb stuff — to examine PR challenges in the sports world.

You can see my first post about a feud this week between the star player and manager of Major League Baseball’s Florida Marlins, and suggest how the situation could have been handled more professionally so as to limit the reputation damage to those involved, as well as the team during a time when they are trying to build momentum for the opening of their new ballpark next season.

I hope you enjoy the series and appreciate your feedback — good or bad — so that it doesn’t suck so much.

Carry on.

My comment to each, in separate conversations, was that Forbes has done an enviable job of opening a hearty can of whoop-ass on many of its competitors and hanging in there with the solely online publications that have excelled, as you can see in this comparison between Forbes.com, Businessweek.com, and HuffPost.

Why do I think Forbes has done it right?

In a pill, they got over themselves, realizing that it’s not about Forbes, but the people reading Forbes — a demographic that has evolved. It’s about consumers and what they want in their daily media diet. And what we are seeing from consumers is that they want variety, they want the ugly blood and guts served with a side of fun and games.  Tax policy with a side of fart jokes.

There’s a reason why an Indiana University study found “The Daily Show” to be as substantive as network news, and a Rasmussen Report showed 32 percent of adults ages 30-39 believe that “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” are capable of replacing traditional news outlets.

There’s also a reason why instead of reading a morning newspaper when we get to work, we come in, grab a cup of coffee, and flip to our Live News Feed on Facebook and scroll through news items that our Facebook Friends have posted — ranging from genocide in a third world nation to leprechauns in Mobile, Alabama (no, really, you should click on the leprechaun link).

And as Forbes and HuffPost excel in online news, you see similarities in companies who are excelling in social media.

Zappos employees talk about anything and everything in social forums — not just shoes. Vegetarian (Communist) products brand Morningstar Farms does  a nice job with content on Facebook. And we counsel our client Charter Communications to place content in their social media channels that does not solely revolve around them.

So whether it be in traditional media circles, or in the online social realm — mediums that aggregate information should never forget that the content isn’t for you. It’s for the consumer.

Saturday Night Live has 30+ years of background in this.  They’ve poked fun at everything from presidents to popular culture and their Weekend Update has been the satirical news of record.  The Onion took a further step at creating new humorous antidotes, stories and otherwise and placing them out as a news media outlet (print, video, online, blog) like any other.

Then came the popularity of shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.  The Daily Show taking what was started with Weekend Update and expanding to new audiences and The Colbert Report taking on the political blow-hard pundits who are gaining in popularity as of late.

But the traditional news media continued to stand firm.  They did not even acknowledge the other avenues existed.  The news was paramount.  And important.  Important enough that humor, parody and satire had no place.  And those that delivered the news?  Just as important.  There were no humorous angles to Dan Rather or Walter Cronkite or Edward R. Murrow.

And thus, public relations as an industry followed suit.

But things are changing now.  I’m sure there is no one instance that was the tipping point, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say it was the Daily Show.  An IU study found the Daily Show with Jon Stewart to be as substantive as network news.  A Rasmussen Report showed 32% of adults ages 30-39 believe that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are capable of replacing traditional new outlets.  And nearly one-third of younger Americans see Colbert and Stewart as true alternatives to traditional news outlets.

That’s a big impact.  So how did traditional news outlets respond?  They started slowly.  They played clips on their shows (well, the cable news guys did–they have a lot of time to fill) to get a laugh, to prove a point that fit their political agenda, or attacked the satirical shows in retribution.

But then Brian Williams from ‘NBC Nightly News’ started showing up as a repeat guest on The Daily Show.  It was humorous, genuine, and a reach to cross into the audiences that watch the program.

But last night was a new milestone in my opinion.  If you haven’t seen the piece on Chatroulette, you must go now and watch it. (I’ll wait). Did you count the media personalities in that piece?  At least 5.  All 3 major new network anchorpersons (ABC,CBS, NBC) as well as some cable news for good measure– MSNBC and Fox Business.  And they weren’t just mocking the video roulette site.  They were poking fun of themselves.  They were poking fun of their industry.  And they were doing it on The Daily Show’s terms.

They showed that the news doesn’t have to always take itself so seriously.

Why?  Well, for one, to get viewers.  But it’s more than that.  It’s an attempt to show that they are human.  They are endearing themselves to their audience, or better yet, a new potential one.

And they did it through humor and self-deprecation.

So, if you made it with me this far into a long blog post, my question is this: why hasn’t the Public Relations Industry followed suit?  Why have they continued to act as if they are above the fray?  Why have they insisted that the news is more important than any humor based program you can think up.  (And by news, I mean EVERY press release ever written for any client need–big or small)  Why would they not follow the actual media they are working with?

This is not an indemnification of the industry as a whole, only to say this: lighten up, you may just actually be more effective as an agency/industry if you do.

We have found at Elasticity that humor, parody, and the lighter side of human nature have phenomenal appeal.  Stories are placed more frequently.  Programs take off and go “viral” with greater frequency, and we’re able to break through the clutter.  We’re able to endear our clients to their audiences.

Another example we talked about this week.  Ole’ Miss is replacing their beloved Col. Reb with a new mascot.  The story is that Admiral Ackbar is a leading contender.  We all heard this story and it took off like wildfire.  Do you think you would have heard about this story had they been thinking about replacing their mascot with a bear, or an eagle?  (though it may have been picked up by Colbert since he hates bears)

This is a highly controversial topic right now, and those who practice this type of communications are not taken serious.  But it is catching on.  There are more and more every day that see this.  And in time, the larger agencies may just play ball on our terms, much like the major news networks participated in Chatroulette.

Now, this is not to say that the news is all humorous, nor to say that no news is actually legitimate.  Only to say that humor often times breaks through clutter and the news media is starting to catch on.  You don’t have to be 100% serious 100% of the time.  Having a “human” face often times endears you to your audience.

And isn’t that what “public relations” is all about?  Endearing yourself to your audience?

]]> http://goelastic.com/theblog/index.php/2010/03/does-humor-belong-in-pr/feed/ 1 http://goelastic.com/theblog/index.php/2010/03/managing-a-crisis-today-i-couldnt-write-it-better/ http://goelastic.com/theblog/index.php/2010/03/managing-a-crisis-today-i-couldnt-write-it-better/#comments Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:11:11 +0000 Aaron http://www.goelastic.com/theblog/?p=724 I read a lot of blogs. Funny ones, blogs on news, sports, midgets, mustaches, the Muppets, and so on.

The ones I read on PR, social media and marketing are a mixed bag. Generally most people are trying to say something that would be perceived as being immensely smarter than the person before them by throwing out a dozen statistics and varying untested theories. Admittedly, I’m sure our blog is no exception, at times.

So yesterday my partner Dan, who is very good looking, sent me a piece from MediaPost by Catharine P. Taylor about how the present crisis at Toyota is a prism into just how radicalized the new world of public relations has become. But instead of giving you my analytical perspective on it, telling you where I agree and disagree and how much brighter I am than Taylor because I’m kind of a big deal with great hair — I’m simply going to republish it — because it’s an excellent piece.

You can either link to it here on MediaPost’s site, our read below.

You’re welcome.

Toyota’s Crisis: Prism Into How Social Media Has Radicalized Public Relations
by Catharine P. Taylor, March, 4, 2010

True-confessions time: I used to be a PR person — back when it was a very different profession than it is as I sit here in 2010, typing away on a Wi-Fied laptop, checking tweets and charging my smartphone so I can access my email when I go into the city later today.

I started out as a glorified secretary at Ogilvy & Mather back when cable was considered cutting-edge, and worked at a handful of other big New York agencies that churned out TV commercials in a steady rhythm. Later, after a decade as a reporter, I took the stock options bait, and was an employee for just under a year at Organic during the dot-com boom/bust year of 2000. Fortunately, I didn’t vest.

My PR background explains why, when it comes to marketing and social media, it’s the public relations ramifications, not the advertising ones, that interest me most. Even if there was some evolution in what a PR job was between my traditional agency jobs and my year heading communications at a digital shop, it was still basically the same: try to establish an image for the company, ferret out news and disseminate it, and build relationships with reporters, who had sole control of the PR distribution channel (though not necessarily in that order).

But then came social media. And how social media is changing public relations gets further and further from what I used to consider “doing PR.” Today’s case in point: Toyota Conversations, a site powered by Tweetmeme that aggregates tweeted news, images and video about Toyota, Toyota’s own Twitter feed, and other crucial information for Toyota owners affected by the recall. (The site was built in partnership with our friends at Federated Media.) When you put something like Toyota Conversations in the context of PR as we used to practice it, it becomes crystal-clear how much things have changed. The site is a pretty unvarnished view of the issues Toyota faces. It’s not often that you come across a corporate site with links to stories that criticize the company,  as in, “How Will GM Deal With Its Recall? Blame it On Toyota.”

But it’s not just that. When I looked at the site this morning, I was reminded that given the rise of social media, jumping into a conversation when it’s most against you is perhaps the only way that a major company can appropriately handle PR these days.

I never had to deal with a crisis the magnitude of Toyota’s — I was only in the ad biz, after all — but was certainly in the middle of situations where a bunker mentality prevailed.  Since reporters were in charge of the distribution channels, this usually meant that while the company I was working for at the time obfuscated, the reporters provided whatever transparency there was. We declined comment; they told the story, aided and abetted by off-the-record info from sources within the company. While reporters still play that role, now it’s also up to the corporation to lay it all out bare — as painful and threatening to the corporate psyche as that might be.

I do have certain quibbles with Toyota Conversation. Including tweets from Toyota owners would have been a good idea, particularly since Toyota tweets are readily available on Twitter Search and via Bing and Google. In the name of transparency, Toyota should consider it, even if there’s some risk. Still, in creating a site like Toyota Conversations, the company has made the biggest leap it needs to make: to start down the path of honesty after a period when it wasn’t honest with consumers or itself.

There’s much to learn from Toyota’s missteps. I’m anxiously awaiting the tomes from consulting firms about what went wrong. But they’d be overlooking something major if they didn’t take into account that a massive retooling of PR, because of social media, is part of the process of recovery for any company faced with a consumer-confidence crisis.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock only Harry Winston could afford or ignoring posts by one of my partners in crime, you’ve seen the statistic touting “85 percent of all brand purchases are made by women.” But did you know that 85 percent translates to something like $7 TRILLION in spending power?

Chicks rule.

Many of the advertisers wooing them, however, do NOT.

Roughly 91 percent of women think advertisers don’t really understand them. That may have something to do with only 3 percent of creative directors actually being women. Or, it could be that brand managers often use a “focus group of one” to determine their marketing strategy. Or maybe it’s just that the typical demographic stereotypes are total bunk. (I’ll say ‘D’ – All of the above.)

Think I’m kidding? See for yourself. Mom Logic posted some of the worst of the worst in an effort to shame brands into higher standards.

The demographic dichotomy is that designing marketing to make men happy may, in fact, alienate all of your female consumers.

Case in point, Burger King(R) has missed the mark by targeting their ads to the lowest common denominator, yet their CEO recently “discovered” that women were a huge segment of their consumers. (Insert sarcasm here.) Weird, huh?

I have one word to describe a recent ad aimed at kids and moms for BK’s SpongeBob meal prize… FAIL.

Conversely, successful advertising to women can actually better serve your male consumers as well.

So, how do we engage this audience of material girls wielding their wealth willfully? The conversation with them has to match the Elasticity of the demographic itself. Women have been stretching boundaries for centuries. Isn’t it time you join them?

Clearly, it doesn’t take a rocket-scientist, social media guru or both to understand that women are social beings. Yes, on average we talk more (about 3 times as much as men). We (often) ask advice and seek opinions before formulating our own. We (usually) listen to our sisters, girlfriends, daughters, friends, mothers, and female colleagues. We rant (Ask Motrin).

As the saying goes, “If mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.”

But we also rave, especially to our female posse.

Kelly Skoloda, author of Too Busy To Shop, writes, “Gain the trust of one woman and you gain the trust of all who trust her.”

Social media has become a valued source of information and entertainment for many women. eMarketer published a study done by Blogher and iVillage about the growth of social media at the expense of other media.

Women use social media to gather information, express opinions, discuss topics/brands/ companies/ experiences, connect and share. Women are having conversations online everyday – women who spend $7 trillion a year, women talking about companies, women who are discussing brands.

Brands have the opportunity to engage and delight their female consumers by participating in social media. The rules are simple – just act like a veteran husband:

· Listen attentively

· Ask for input

· Invest TIME with the one(s) you love

This doesn’t just make sense intuitively; it makes cents financially… quite a lot of cents!  Reports (.pdf) show that the most socially engaged brands have grown 18% on average over last year.

Women’s friendships – on or offline – are the jewels of our lives.

If you want them married to your brand and your brand only, “put a ring on it,” socially speaking.

We do.

Do you?

No, don’t get the wrong idea. This is a family blog. What I mean is, remember my main man, the late James Brown, when he sang, “This is a man’s world?”

Sure you do. But despite the delicious, nutritious, sumptuous and scrumptious nature of that classic — let’s be honest — it’s an outdated perspective.

Certainly in today’s more progressive workforce, women in leadership have gained in stature. Right?

Not when you look at the CEO spectrum, no.  It took me to get until number 27 in the Fortune 500 to find a company — Archer Daniels Midland — that has a woman as it’s chief executive officer. Pretty pathetic.

Yes, things have changed dramatically since the 1960s – 70s. Just have a look at an episode of “Mad Men” or watch a 1970s newscast (no, seriously, watch that ’70s newscast hyperlink). But women are, in fact, leading in business, media, and elsewhere today.

Do you know where they are also leading? It’s a place where marketers need pay great heed. It’s at home. No, I’m not talking about cooking and cleaning. I’m talking about making family purchasing decisions that were once dominated by the “man of the house.”

Tech gadgets.

The technology industry has been slow to target women because the thought process had historically been that men were the ones who were focused on the burly, mustache-friendly hardware features defining many tech products. And that is no longer the case.

That’s why I found interesting this piece from Alex Johnson of MSNBC about this week’s Consumer Electronics Show (CES) having a number of sessions dedicated to mothers and their use of technology.

As the story notes, the focus essentially “demolished the stereotypes of women as technologically illiterate.” Just consider that of the 200 million-plus online casual video gamers — more than half are women.  That’s why REO Speedwagon is trying connect with its largely female fan demographic with its “Find Your Own Way Home” video game. It’s also why when my wife and I just bought a new television for our bedroom — she drove the purchase.

One graph Johnson wrote that really grabbed my attention said, “When families with children set out to buy a new laptop computer, for example, it is Mom, not Dad, who is more likely to initiate the discussion, the study revealed. And Mom is more likely to make the final decisions on what features to look for and how much to pay for it.”

The importance of this trend cannot be overstated, especially when you think about the mentality of marketers and the considerations that go into developing a strategic campaign to reach consumers.

So I guess our centuries of bliss are over. My wife will buy the next big screen television and maybe even a chainsaw.

Having a penis is, in fact, highly overrated.

I’ll live.

Increasingly I was finding that even when pitching a quality concept, there was no appetite for it. It wasn’t that the pitch was bad (well, sometimes). It was that so many reporters were being walked out the door, and the work was being heaped on top of those who remained. Therefore, coverage was become very streamlined and limited.

Three experiences this week reminded me of my frustrations:

• An editor I know took a buyout from Fortune magazine as it continues to plummet.
• An Associated Press reporter who I pitched told me he loved the story, but due to vast layoffs at AP, they were really only looking at breaking, kick-you-in-the-face news stories as that’s all their staff could manage.
• And finally there was a question form my high school friend Marty, a graduate of THE UNIVERSITY who is an outstanding writer and editor for Politico.com.  He asked: “by 2012 will it be possible for a presidential candidate to try to do all their media work via Twitter, Facebook, direct email, other social networking, friendly sit downs (Fox, Oprah, etc) and NEVER have to sit down with NYT, WaPo, the network anchors, etc?”

My initial answer to Marty’s question was, “Right now we have ‘Old’ and ‘New’ media … we’ll get to a point again where it’s simply media. From a strategy standpoint, we never present an idea that does not have components of many forms of media — new, old, mobile, online, etc. The reality is that we live in an ADHD world where we are bombarded with media at every turn. And to truly reach everyone — you need to invest in all of it. That’s why Ashton Kutcher won his Twitter race with CNN by taking out billboards….ironically.”

Then I did something I rarely do as I lack the intellectual capacity:  I thought about his question.  What I realized is that we’ve already reached the point where a candidate can “try to do all their media work via Twitter, Facebook, direct email, other social networking….” as Marty had asked.

Now let me be clear here: I am not saying that traditional media is dead. It is clearly struggling to find its way, but it is not dead and in fact often validates trends as the New York Times did with “Rick Rolling.”

That being said, you must consider some interesting numbers. From October 2008 to October 2009, time spent viewing video on social networking sites increased 98 percent year-over-year according to Nielsen. In conjunction, the number of online video streams viewed on social networking and blog sites increased 45 percent year-over-year as well.

Yahoo! News is the leading online news portal with 41 milion unique visitors monthly — up 10 percent for October.  AOL News was another winner with 24 million — up 17 percent. At the same time, the likes of CBS (-9 percent), USA Today (-15 percent), NPR (-9 percent) and the Washington Post (-28 percent) are all down.

So what’s behind this? Just talk to someone 40 or under (except for people who are lying because they are afraid to admit it in mixed company). Most of them will tell you they don’t have time for news, and when they do, it comes via links from friends.

Think about it: you open Facebook and in your news feed a friend spouts, “Great story from Popular Aikido Masters Hairstyles Monthly” with a link. You love Aikido! So you click on it. Same with Twitter, or even in e-mail — links, links, links.  That’s how more and more people are getting their news in our increasingly “I’m too busy for anything” culture.

That’s also why, despite its industry leading position, the average visitor is only going to Yahoo! News 5.76 times monthly — just 5.76 times per month. No more do we have that old-school commitment to diligently read our favorite news source as we did 20 or even 10 years ago with daily newspaper subscriptions.

So what does this all mean? Here’s what I’m interpreting, at least until I change my mind (tomorrow).

Marty, I think the time may have come, but via a slightly different path. Whether it’s a political candidate, a band trying to find new fans, The Muppets, or a company trying to influence an audience — the kings of delivering their messages, are in fact, links through these increasingly vital channels.

And as long as the content is interesting, funny, thought provoking or helpful it could be from anywhere –  a video from the New York Times on Clay Zavada’s roots, celebrity smack on GossipCandy, or the American Mustache Institute’s industry-leading opinions on why Dave Navarro is worthless.

It’s quality content delivered ultimately delivered, not by the “paper boy,” but through links.