Listening In the Internet ‘Hallway’
Photo credit: www.trueforcedloneliness.com/
Received some nice amplification of my recent interview with the Spiral16 blog:
You’re going to be hearing more about this as we get further into the social media age, but Alex Greenwood outlines the case for monitoring social media as a means of growing a business or other organization and protecting its interests. Isn’t that what PR is about?
[...]
Alex Greenwood likens social media monitoring to being out in the hallway, say, the Internet, listening to the talk there. How do you know your organization’s name will come up? You don’t until it does, or a reporter calls. But even if your organization doesn’t come up for a while, the names of competitors, or the emergence of new business conditions, will be generating buzz. If you’re listening, you’ll be gaining valuable new business intelligence.
“Companies and organizations that monitor the social media space today – and use the data to address problems and opportunities –are years ahead of the game,” Greenwood believes. “Aha,” he adds, “a competitive edge. Who doesn’t like that?”
Read more at: Listening In the Internet ‘Hallway’ | Flack Me.
Framing the Issue: One Political Party Stinks At It
Framing is normal; we think in frames.
Anybody who knows anything about framing social and political issues knows the name George Lakoff. I first encountered the esteemed linguistics professor by way of his seminal book on framing Don’t Think of an Elephant! when I was involved in politics.
It’s described as “the definitive handbook for understanding what happened in the 2004 election and communicating effectively about key issues facing America today…Lakoff explains how conservatives think, and how to counter their arguments. He outlines in detail the traditional American values that progressives hold, but are often unable to articulate. Lakoff also breaks down the ways in which conservatives have framed the issues, and provides examples of how progressives can reframe the debate.”
Lakoff’s framing philosophy is right on so many levels, though it’s apparent the Democrats don’t do a lot of listening to him these days. For example, their abysmal framing of the tax issue:
Let’s start with an example, the slogan “No tax cuts for millionaires.” First, “no.” As I have repeatedly pointed out, negating a frame activates the frame in the brains of listeners, as when Christine O’Donnell said “I am not a witch” or Nixon said “I am not a crook.” Putting “no” first activates the idea “Tax cuts for millionaires.”
Next, “millionaires.” Think of the tv show, “So you want to be a millionaire” or the movies “Slumdog Millionaire” and “How to Marry a Millionaire.” To most Americans, being a millionaire is a good thing to aspire to.
Then, there is “tax.” To progressives, taxes are forms of revenue allowing the government to do what is necessary for Americans as a whole — unemployment insurance, social security, health care, education, food safety, environmental improvements, infrastructure building and maintenance, and so on.
But the conservative message machine, over the past 30 years, has come to own the word “tax.” They have changed its meaning to most Americans. They have been able to make “tax” mean “money the government takes out of the pockets of people who have earned it in order to give it to people who haven’t earned it and don’t deserve it.” Thus, “tax relief” assumes that taxation is an affliction to be cured, and a “tax cut” is a good thing in general. Hence, conservatives make the argument, “No one should have their taxes raised.”
The conservative slogan activates the conservative view of taxes. But the progressive slogan “No tax cuts for millionaires” also activates the conservative view of taxes! The progressives are helping the conservatives.
Right or wrong, the conservatives have done a masterful job of framing this issue (and many others). And here’s the kicker, donkeys: Lakoff doesn’t think Dems are wired to change this.
The conservatives have a superior message machine: Dozens of think tanks with communications facilities, framing experts, training institutes, a national roster of speakers, booking agents to books their speakers in the media and civic groups, and owned medias like Fox News and a great deal of talk radio. Their audience will hear, over and over, “No one should have their taxes raised.”
There is no comparable progressive message machine. But even if one were to be built, the Democrats might still be using messages that are either ineffective or that help the conservatives.
Lakoff further explains that everything from education to moral beliefs are to blame for the superiority of the conservative message machine. (Read the article here for his compelling thoughts on the subject.) The takeaway is that your messaging has to be well-considered, logical and created with the conventional wisdom and thinking of your audience at the forefront.
I once worked in public television. As you probably know, public TV is in a perpetual state of war with those who want it to go away. The issue has been framed by opponents that public television is no longer necessary because of the range of educational programming on cable channels. Another argument is that it should get by without government assistance and let the invisible hand of the market determine its rise or fall. I’ll overlook political motivations that are also behind some of this and take these arguments at face value.
My frame of the issue is that cable television (unlike public TV) is advertiser-driven and the educational value of the programming isn’t the top priority (besides the fact that not everyone can or wants to pay for cable). Also, in many markets, the public TV station is the only one that’s effectively responsive to the needs and issues of citizens–it’s the only “locally owned” station in town. This establishes two value propositions for public television that I think are strong rebuttals to the opponents’ frame. These reasons–among others–make public television necessary and worthy of taxpayer support.
Note I didn’t say that opponents of public TV wanted to “kill Big Bird;” that kind of cheap shot doesn’t advance your argument. Whatever your beliefs about public TV, there’s a big difference in how the issue is framed by supporters and opponents. I think my framing was successful on some levels, though obviously the “war” continues.
A warning: framing an issue isn’t the same as spin:
Learn the difference between framing and spin/propaganda. Framing is normal; we think in frames. If you want to formulate a policy that is understandable, the policy must be framed so it came be readily communicated. Framing precedes effective policy. When you use framing to express what you really believe and what the truth is, you are just being an effective communicator. Framing can also be misused for the sake of propaganda. I strongly recommend against it.
As do I.
Don’t Let A Restless Leg Kick Out Your Message
Today we have a guest post by the inimitable Robb Yagmin of PSPR, the firm he runs with PR legend Pete Swickles. Robb is an ex-TVer whose first career was telling stories. He’s interviewed two presidents, many do-gooders and a million criminals. One of the best media trainers in the business, Robb offers up some great tips on acing your TV interview:
Don't Be A Relentless Restless Leg Victim.
So according to FishbowlDC … MSNBC’s Chris Matthews could have restless leg syndrome. He recently was caught bouncing his leg up and down and up and down and up and down while talking about an Obama speech. I’m not going to say if he was happy or mad about the president’s speech, but if you are familiar with the journalist, THAT is not a secret. First, a professional shouldn’t tip his hat one way or another about their political leanings. We all learned objectivity in Journalism 101. But I digress.
Matthews was shaking his leg SO much that a guest laughed at him and they spent time talking about THAT instead of what he wanted his message to be. During my media training seminars, this is one of the main things I try to teach nervous folks about television. When you score a TV interview, whether you are nervous or not, sit in a chair that doesn’t have wheels OR a swivel seat OR a reclining back. Keep both feet flat on the ground. Sit up. Period. I was on TV for 15 years and cameras don’t worry me, but I still would be tempted to sway, move around and generally just fidget. If an interviewee does any of these things, it takes away from the message they are trying to convey.
If you are nervous, here are a couple other on-camera tips:
- Take a quick swallow of water before an interview starts. If nothing else, it lubes the pipes and limits the ‘clicking’ sound when your spit is too thick in your mouth. That sound is annoying.
- Only answer the question you are asked. You are a professional. If you don’t know the answer, say so and offer to call with the information ASAP or get someone else to help out.
- No gum. (Do you really need to tell me this? You’d be surprised). The viewer will notice this distraction and it reduces the effectiveness of your message…have I mentioned this before?
- If the photojournalist is asking the questions and he remains behind the camera (no reporter present) DON’T look into the lens…answer the question by looking at his ear. Exception: a live or satellite shot and you are hooked up with an IFB.
- Nerves are normal. If your interview is taped, do not feel bad if you need to just stop and say, “I’d like to start over.” Unless you are being bird-dogged by a reporter for embezzling money, editors aren’t going to put you on TV stumbling all over yourself. If the interview is live in studio and you draw a blank, just stop talking. The anchor is skilled in filling the gap. Believe me; the more they can hear themselves talk, the better they feel anyway.
Remember, if you are lucky, you may only get 20 seconds on TV. You want the viewers to listen and remember your message…not anything else.
Want more TV tips, tricks and strategies? Goto Pspublicrelations.com, where this piece is cross-posted.
Keep It Simple, Stupid
Simply, sir. Simply.
You can learn valuable lessons on ways to implement your own communications strategies by observing current events. A perfect example of poor messaging strategy is playing out right now in New York City and the White House.
There’s a political firestorm over the proposed Islamic community center near “Ground Zero” in New York City. One side believes the community center is an affront to the people who lost their lives in the 9/11 attacks; another side believes it is within the rights of American citizens of all faiths to build a place of worship and community on private property.
President Obama has taken the latter position on this issue, but he’s having some serious trouble with his messaging:
President Obama’s comments on a plan to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero are not only giving opponents an opportunity to attack him but also reveal a messaging problem from the White House, a communications expert said.
“The danger here is an incoherent presidency,” said David Morey, vice chairman of the Core Strategy Group, who provided communications advice to Obama’s 2008 campaign. “Simpler is better, and rising above these issues and leading by controlling the dialogue is what the presidency is all about. So I think that’s the job they have to do more effectively as they have in the past [in the campaign].”
Obama has faced a torrent of criticism for what was called mixed messages on the controversial plan. On Friday, Obama said Muslims “have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country … That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”
The following day, Obama told Ed Henry, CNN’s senior White House correspondent, that he was “not commenting on the wisdom” of the project, just the broader principle that the government should treat “everyone equal, regardless” of religion. Then a White House spokesman clarified those comments.
[...]
“Communicating as a law professor does not work as president. It’s not worked,” he said. “You’re drawing fine distinctions and speaking in long enough paragraphs that they can be misconstrued and taken out of context and frankly, handed to your opposition to exploit. And that’s clearly what’s going on here [with the Islamic center/mosque comments].”
[...]
While many poked fun at former President George W. Bush for mispronouncing words and stumbling through sentences, observers note that he rarely had to backtrack on his answers because he employed a simple and direct messaging approach.
(Emphasis ours)
Like Morey, we believe you can be too smart for your own good. The president is indeed an intelligent man who appears to be struggling with having to pare his policies, opinions and arguments down to a simplistic statement.
We don’t see the president as cynically trying to have it both ways; we see him struggling with his professorial need to be intellectually evenhanded. That doesn’t work in a sound bite media culture. Of course, it also leaves you vulnerable in a “gotcha” political climate.
We’ve said it before; keep it short and pithy. The news media–whether it’s TV, print or online–prefer brevity. They love the sound bite. If you’ve prepared a few good, juicy sound bites you will likely have a positive effect on the story.
KISS, or “Keep It Simple Stupid” is an apt strategy. The same can be said for your communications: whether it be internally to employees or externally to the news media, simplicity is rarely misconstrued. Nuance and shading–even in the interests of being intellectually honest and evenhanded–leaves too much room for misinterpretation and damage to your brand.
President Obama may be getting this message now, if he doesn’t overthink it. Respectfully, Mr. President, you need to Keep It Simple, Stupid.
As a service to our readers, we discuss topical issues in a way that we hope will instruct their own communications strategies. In that vein, we welcome your comments about the communications aspect of this subject, but will not post comments about the controversy itself or the president’s politics.
The Press Release: Is It Worth It?
I almost always write a press release. Why, in this day and age of email, blogs and the insouciant charm of Twitter, do I bother? “Is it,” you may ask, “worth it?”
Yes. The press release is your mothership document. It contains the info that the media is interested in most: Who, What, Why, When and Where. If it’s written well and has a catchy lede yet doesn’t wear the reader out with minutiae or boilerplate, it can serve you well. From this mothership sails the speedboats: SEO messages, Twitter Tweets, media advisories or PSA copy. It’s also handy to send as deeper background for those with peaked interest.
Notice I said it can serve you well and that I always write a press release; that doesn’t mean I always send it. It may end up posted on the client’s website or in a requested e-press kit or nowhere at all but my laptop. I write it not because I’m a little old school, but because it grounds me in the facts and lets me play with what makes the story interesting (or warns me when it’s not). My old newspaper editor “Spidey Sense” usually tells me when it’s not something I should send–that despite my best efforts it will waste a reporter’s, editor’s or blogger’s time. (And yes, bloggers generally don’t want press releases anyway.)
Here’s the deal: you only have so many shots with the news media. Send them a press release on any and everything your client does and you’ll find yourself ignored quite a bit or even worse: relegated to the spam folder.
Do not waste a reporter’s or editor’s or blogger’s time is one of the cardinal rules of public relations. If your client insists, then perhaps you haven’t done enough on the front end to manage expectations. Clients need to understand that in order for you to be effective, you can’t shoot your bow simply because you have the arrows. You have to have something with a reasonable chance of hitting the target.
There are plenty of people who will tell you the press release is dead. To a large degree they are correct. But I still believe a targeted, smart piece serves a purpose when you use it correctly and pay attention to the needs of the media. A savvy practitioner knows his media list and doesn’t send a lengthy press release to a blogger who regularly scorns this approach or the TV news assignment editor who barely has time to go to the bathroom let alone read your two-pager on the new widget from BigCorp Industries.
Remember, PR pros: you know your client, media market and media counterparts better than anyone else (or you should, lest you wish to go out of business quickly). The press release as a mothership document is useful. Just make sure you don’t sink the whole enterprise by using it incorrectly.
