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 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.

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.

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.

I’ve written about my media training seminar before, and as I write this I’m taking a break from working on a presentation I’m giving to a fantastic Kansas City company next week. A popular part of my seminar is tips on interacting with the news media.

Here’s some basic information on giving an interview broken down into 8 key points. Bear in mind there are lots more nuanced approaches and tactics (TV vs. print interviews, phone vs. in-person, etc.) but this should give you food for thought.

The Scenario: You’ve been asked by your local newspaper to give an interview at your office about your company’s new service.

1: Congrats! You have a service that has attracted the interest of the news media. Handled correctly, this is better than thousands of dollars worth of advertising (advertising can raise awareness, good public relations can earn credibility). Pat yourself (or your PR team) on the back. When scheduling the interview, you of course asked the reporter for a general idea of what she’s looking for (but not for a list of her questions).  She says her story ‘angle’  is how the new service will change your industry and affect hiring at your company.

2: Be prepared. The reporter has indicated she’s looking for a story that talks about the service in a generally positive light. There is no indication the story is a critique–though you need to be prepared to talk about all aspects–good or potentially bad–of the service.

Work with your PR team (no PR team? Better contact a professional!) or top associates to anticipate a list of questions the reporter will likely ask–or should ask–about your service. Make a list of succinct bullet points–include info and perspectives you would like to see in the story. Study them and be prepared to use the information–don’t memorize “canned” answers, but have your key messages thought out and at your mental fingertips.

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. I won’t insult you by saying “be honest,” but I will caution you to keep the hyperbole to a minimum.

I wish I could say this goes without saying: Make sure you look your best. Also make certain the site of your interview is presentable. (My seminar includes a few horror stories about this.)

3: Be yourself–but not too much. Be friendly, but remain professional with the reporter. The reporter is there to get information, not necessarily make friends. Remember, nothing you say is ever “off the record.” Saying only what you would “want to see on the front page of the newspaper” is especially good advice here. Don’t be adversarial, but refrain from being too familiar. Remain positive, polite and yes, brief. A short interview is generally indicative of you giving the reporter the info they need for their story. Rambling, incoherent thoughts will not work in your favor.

4: Did I mention being brief, professional and presentable?

5: When the interview is finished, thank the reporter for her time and interest. Offering a one-page info sheet is a nice touch–put key message points about the new service as well as any website information on the sheet. Your website should ideally have more in-depth info, an online media kit, photos, etc. available for download.

6: Do not ask the reporter to let you read the story before it is published. As a former editor and reporter, I cannot tell you how many times people have tried to “control the message” by getting story approval. It. Ain’t. Happening. It makes you look unsophisticated or worse: like you’ve said something you’ll regret. The closest thing you can do to “control” the message: see #2.

7: After the story is published, send a thank-you note to the reporter. Not a “kiss-butt” obsequious love letter, just a professional note or email thanking them for their interest and the great story.  Most reporters only hear from people who are ticked off. Don’t you like to be thanked for your work?

If there are any minor errors on the reporter’s part–errors that aren’t damaging to your company or service, let it go. Send the thank-you note and move on.

Now, if there is a glaring error that is potentially harmful to your business, call the reporter and politely fill them in: “Sorry, I may have been unclear about the XYZ cleaning solution.”  Explain the facts and that it would be helpful if a correction could be printed as the error could be very damaging to the company. The reporter will likely refer you to her editor, who has final say about corrections–but always start with the reporter. When you talk with the editor,  explain again why a correction would be appreciated if not absolutely necessary. I can assure you that a reasoned request backed up by facts will generally get you that correction. Belligerent, “I’ll have your job!” calls or emails will only blow up in your face–potentially ruining your chances of any coverage in the future.

8: Learn from your mistakes–if any–and you’ll do even better next time. Now get copies of that story to your customers and link to it on your company website!

This is only the tip of the media interaction iceberg. Want to learn more? Contact us today to schedule your media training seminar.

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.

I’m asked what I do all the time. Occasionally I’m asked why I do it. Kind of a “what’s it all about, Al G?” question.

My answer? Stories.

I’ve always been attracted to stories: reading them in books, watching them on stage and screen or listening at my grandfather’s knee. As a youngster into early adulthood I acted in plays and occasionally tried my hand at writing stories–partially because I’m a big ham but mostly because I loved being part of a story. Of course, I’m not the only one.

Since we first took breath thousands of years ago, humans have used storytelling as a means to learn and share information. Campfires, cave drawings, coliseums, prosceniums, books, radio, TV…humans have found ways to spread the word as quickly as spilled water finds cracks in the desert floor.

Today we are no different, except we have so many more ways to tell stories. Besides the “classic” methods–books, newspapers, radio, TV, smoke signals–we now have the electronic behemoth of the World Wide Web. Blogs, chat rooms, message boards, Twitter, YouTube, eBooks, webcasts…if you’re reading this chances are you know something about all of these tools for information sharing.

These tools have changed the game on the news media. The internet has made it possible for everyone to share his or her story. That’s good. It’s also not so good if you have a story you want to tell about your product, service, organization or cause. Why?

Millions of stories flood the web, all vying for the attention of the most credible sources. Sure, you can tell your story on your own blog, but who’s reading it? The ideal strategy is to get your story into the hands of credible sources with lots of eyeballs watching. That starts with news media and high traffic purveyors of information and opinion on the web.

In that lies the challenge and the reason why experienced public relations professionals are important now more than ever.  But don’t just take my word for it (from the Jan. 14, 2010 edition of The Economist):

According to data from Veronis Suhler Stevenson (VSS), a private-equity firm, spending on public relations in America grew by more than 4% in 2008 and nearly 3% in 2009 to $3.7 billion. That is remarkable when compared with other forms of marketing. Spending on advertising contracted by nearly 3% in 2008 and by 8% in the past year. PR’s position looks even rosier when word-of-mouth marketing, which includes services that PR firms often manage, such as outreach to bloggers, is included. Spending on such things increased by more than 10% in 2009.

PR has done well in part because it is often cheaper than mass advertising campaigns. Its impact, in the form of favourable coverage in the media or online, can also be more easily measured. Moreover, PR firms are beginning to encroach on territory that used to be the domain of advertising firms, a sign of their increasing clout. They used chiefly to pitch story ideas to media outlets and try to get their clients mentioned in newspapers. Now they also dream up and orchestrate live events, web launches and the like.

“When you look at advertising versus public relations, it’s not going to be those clearly defined silos,” says Christopher Graves, the boss of Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide. “It may be indistinguishable at some point where one ends and the other begins.”

PR has also benefited from the changing media landscape. The withering of many traditional media outlets has left fewer journalists from fewer firms covering business. That makes PR doubly important, both for attracting journalists’ attention, and for helping firms bypass old routes altogether and disseminate news by posting press releases on their websites, for example.’

As I said, it’s about stories. Advertising is great at telling people about your products and services, but people still innately know it’s a sales pitch. Public relations professionals identify what is most interesting (sexy, funny, informative, odd, crazy, etc.) about you, your product, service or cause and package it for the media in a way that gets their attention. If the media finds your story interesting and tells it to their audience, you are granted something advertising will never get you: credibility.

So, when people ask me what I do, I say I tell stories. Sure, I still write fiction and one of these days I’ll get back into community theatre (if they will have me); but my profession is based on telling your story–getting your message out.

That’s what it’s all about.