They Didn't Have a Photo of Spam Fail.

Had to share. Besides the fact that it’s spam (and how the heck did it make it through my filter?), can you tell me all the things wrong with it? (Yes, I’m being a Scroogey Snark, but really–if you are going to be a spammer, at least get the fundamentals right….and yes, it is apparent English is not their first language, but still.)

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.

Teamwork is the only way to go.

There’s a lot of talk of “rugged individualism” these days–of making it on your own or being a “maverick” (or branding yourself as one. See: Palin, Sarah).

I’ve noticed this tendency in myself–I’m not much of a joiner. That isn’t to say I haven’t been that proverbial “good team player;” just that I trust my instincts and find solitary pursuits (writing, running a business, hiking, watching Zombi 2 every October) fulfilling and stimulating.

However, there comes a time when going it alone–or improvising– are not only not the best options–but not options at all.

The legendary first man on the Moon himself, Neil Armstrong spoke about the need for teamwork on his historic mission in a letter to NPR’s Robert Krulwich:

I talked about Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin’s walk across the lunar surface back in 1969 and wondered, how come they walked such a modest distance? Less than a hundred yards from their lander?

Today Neil Armstrong wrote in to say, here are the reasons:

• It was really, really hot on the moon, 200 degrees Fahrenheit. We needed protection.

• We were wearing new-fangled, water-cooled uniforms and didn’t know how long the coolant would last.

• We didn’t know how far we could go in our space suits.

• NASA wanted us to conduct our experiments in front of a fixed camera.

But basically, he says, we were part of a team and we were team players on a perilous, one-of-a-kind journey. Improvisation was not really an option. (emphasis mine)

Sure, you’re probably not landing on another planet as part of your business, but you are doing things everyday that effect the profitability of your company.

Part of my hesitance to be a team guy probably stems from my early career as a journalist. Reporters aren’t team players–at least they weren’t in the newsrooms I haunted. When I moved from journalism to PR, my early jobs were at companies where I was basically a one-man shop.  That changed as my career progressed, but old habits die hard. Even when I had staff and team members to work with I had a tough time letting go of some things. That may also have had something to do with my ego, too.

Though I now run a truly one-man shop, I’ve learned to call upon strategic partners who can do some things better than me. I want my clients to not only get the results of the best job I can do, but I want them to get the best results possible. Period.

Ask yourself: does your learned behavior, ego or even insecurity prevent you from being a team player when it counts? Make sure when you make that one small step for (a) man…well, you get the idea.

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.

Trust us. We're professionals.

According to U.S News, Public Relations as a profession might just be a growth industry:

Employment of public-relations specialists is expected to increase by more than 66,000 jobs, or 24 percent, between 2008 and 2018, according to the Labor Department.

Almost condescendingly, they report that it’s not too tough to get into, education-wise:

There’s a lot of upside to this job, given that it requires only a bachelor’s degree.

Only!

And you can also earn a decent living:

Median annual earnings for PR specialists last year were about $51,960, while the lowest-paid 10 percent made less than $30,520 and the highest-paid 10 percent made upwards of $96,000.

Check out the rest of the article for their take on stress level, type of activity and the effect of social media on the profession.

Of course, if you want my opinion about PR as a profession…just ask. All you PR vets out there, feel free to weigh in on the profession, too. And finally–all you newbies and students thinking of PR as a career–what do you think–or what do you want to know?

The comments section is open!

You Linger Your Little Hour and Are Gone

Prior to his show at RecordBar in Kansas City in November 2010, singer/songwriter Dan Coyle chats about his new album You Linger Your Little Hour and Are Gone, which is available in wide release today.

Learn more about Dan, read his blog and buy his albums at www.DanCoyle.com.

“You Linger Your Little Hour and Are Gone” On Sale Now

Fresh off the success of his last album singer/songwriter Dan Coyle enjoyed touring and making hundreds of new fans, but the loss of two beloved family members virtually shut him down. Two years later as he releases his new CD, ‘You Linger Your Little Hour and Are Gone,’ Coyle reflects on that period and what led him back to recording and touring.

“Well the writing spanned about a year and a half – a period that encompassed a lot of different facets of my life.” Coyle said. “The earliest songs were written right after the success of (my last album) ‘Random Thoughts and Incomplete Sentences’, which led to some very happy-go-lucky tunes. Then my Grandma–who I was very close to–and my Dad passed away within two months of each other. That led to some songs of loss and searching for a way out.”

Learn more here.

Star Wars is a convenient (and yes, overused) pop culture touchstone. Let me state for the record that I enjoy the movies, but aside from a fascination with Darth Vader in my pre-teen years I’m not one to quote lines from the movies.

Well, okay, except for “these aren’t the droids you’re looking for,” which I say accompanied by a bizarre hand gesture.  Actually I replace the word “droids” with whatever topic the conversation is orbiting, which could be anything from  “delicious martinis” to “diapers” to “male pattern baldness solutions.”

Anyway, one thing public relations professionals have to be keenly aware of is (as the man said in Star Wars) using their powers for good, not evil.

Case in point, Institute of Public Relations Malaysia president Datuk Mohd Hamdan Adnan, who made no bones about it: “Among the negative activities of certain media practitioners are spin doctoring, flacking, astroturfing, opponent defining and fronting. All these can threaten peace and order in the country.”

He continued (source here):

“Presently, almost all organisations require various PR expertise and as such, PR practitioners must have the skills to fulfill that need.”

He said among the benefits from the creation of a Public Relations Profession Act would be recognition and prestige for the profession in Malaysia, monitoring of the practices and developments of the PR profession and industry, and ensuring PR practitioners had acquired the education, and suitable training and experience before being recognised as qualified PR practitioners, in line with other professions that were protected by statutes.

Sounds like the way lawyers and doctors administer their profession in the U.S., eh?

Not a bad idea, especially if you agree that the abuse of information, facts and the warping of motive and intent can be disastrous. In the United States, there is no such governing body for the profession, aside from the purely voluntary standards and codes of ethics as set by the Public Relations Society of America or the International Association of Business Communicators.

Both codes are admirable, forthright and necessary–though completely unenforceable. Just as it was in the Wild West, any modern-day snake oil salesman can sell elixirs with malignant properties across the electronic frontier.  Corporate mistakes can be hidden under layers of spin; governmental lies can be excused by propaganda, customer complaints may be expunged from the “public” website.

This is the way any skilled–and unscrupulous–public relations professional can use their powers for evil. Instead of owning up to mistakes or misjudgments, clients can activate the PR machine and through “spin doctoring, flacking, astroturfing or opponent defining and fronting,” come out smelling like a rose.

It’s easier in a way. Clients who want that sort of thing will love their “PR man” for it. But in the long run, is it the best thing? I mean, is there any doubt among serious minded people that BP’s PR mission was not one of transparency, but obfuscation and deflection? Okay, and just how do you feel about BP?

BP is only one example of the misuse of PR in a culture rife with the warping of facts to turn public opinion. What is the culture of spin doing to our country? Indeed, to our selves?

I am not saying you throw your client to the wolves when the going gets tough–but you don’t take the easy way out and commit lies of omission or commission, either.

What’s hard is to have the courage to tell that high-paying client when they are indeed wrong–when these are indeed not the droids they’re looking for.

If they made a mistake or did harm, clients should be advised by PR professionals that a policy of honesty, contrition and a desire to do better is in their best interests and indeed the interests of society as a whole.

Ultimately it’s the client’s decision, but public relations professionals shouldn’t enable shifts to the Dark Side.

Prior to his show at RecordBar in Kansas City in November 2010, singer/songwriter Dan Coyle talks about marketing his music. Dan’s not a household name-0-and he makes that work for him. Dan is an interesting guy with good thoughts on getting your product to market without a big budget. Learn more about Dan at www.DanCoyle.com.


P.S. to Dan: I took your advice once, pal!