Many people think of public relations as “spinning,” twisting facts or shading the truth to get people to do something —- buy a product or service, vote for a candidate, support a cause. These abuses occur every day but they no more reflect the true essence of public relations than bias reporters reflect journalism’s core values.
A true public relations pro helps build positive relationships with constituencies that matter to a business or cause. The best ones create compelling clarity for what you do and why you are the best alternative in the marketplace. They also understand the most effective and cost conscious ways to distribute your message so it produces tangible and quantifiable results. PR will always be about content, distribution, and effectiveness. No amount of technology will ever change that.
Public relations begins with a vision, seeing something clearly that your client either does not see or does not know how to express. It is about uncovering truth, not manufacturing it. It is honest storytelling. Too often, attempts are made to cover the holes in the story with slickness or omission. That’s a mistake. Core problems cannot be fixed with PR. Resolution comes from candid assessment and corrective steps that ensure accountability.
The best way to produce a good story is to build one properly in the first place.
Tech guru Jim Spellos with Mark Grimm at MPI event
You’ve heard the old expression, “Can’t live with him, can’t live without him.” That pretty much sums up where technology and communication are right now when it comes to social media.
Tech guru Jim Spellos gave an Albany presentation February 14th at a Meeting Professionals International forum. Jim rightly said the question is no longer whether you should be using social media, but rather how you use it. Managing the “information overload” is where our focus should be.
All the gadgets in the world won’t help much if you cannot produce good content. In other words, you have to be interesting. That’s a skill. Everyone on Facebook is now a publisher, yet few have been trained well in the art of producing compelling clarity that is relevant to the audience. This “Clarity Gap” presents an enormous communication challenge with the explosion of information we now produce and consume.
On the other hand, great content, and the engaging conversation it can provoke, will be buried under the social media avalanche without an effective plan for its circulation.
What’s the answer? Try not to feel overwhelmed and choose the options that fit your needs. One step at a time. Spellos had dozens of options, one included using hashtags to locate Twitter topics you find most relevant to you, another was to visit zite.com to create a personalized magazine for your mobile device. On the content side, ask yourself, “Why would someone care about what I am about to post.” You can find a lot more clarity tips in my book.
Just like any long-term relationship, the technology and communication marriage will require patience, a greater sensitivity to each’s needs, and a willingness to grow together. And yes, the relationship will have something to do with how fulfilling your life is.
What suggestions do you have for the marriage?
Please share this blog with anyone who may be interested and feel free to subscribe to future blogs.
Valentine’s Day is a great opportunity to demonstrate what that special person means to you. Christmas has presents for the kids. Thanksgiving is consumed with food and family gatherings. Valentine’s Day is “show time” for lovers.
Do we make the most of it?
Try something different this year. Write a personal card that is both specific and revealing. If you need a hand getting started, maybe this will help:
1- Jot down the things you love most about your partner. Make a list.
2- Think of specific examples that reflect those traits
3- Locate a photo or two that represents the examples
4- Create a brief outline that tells this special story
5- Start writing
You don’t have to be Hemingway. A little editing here, a little polishing there, and you’ve got something that will be memorable. No time you say? How much time have you spent on social media lately. Give it break for a moment and pause for something that matters most.
Flowers last a week. The right note can be an enduring treasure. Go for it!
A fatal Albany stabbing was caught on tape with a cell phone and became available to the public during the trial. Should the media air it?
Times Union editor Rex Smith posed that question to readers after the newspaper posted the video. First, here’s the video.
As you might expect, reaction on Mr. Smith’s blog was strong and highly emotional. Even the victim’s mother participated. Many condemned the posting for the pain it inflicted on the family. One called it “sadistic, another “disgusting.” Some supported the act. The paper has “an obligation to report the truth” wrote one, another felt the world needs “a lesson violence is not the answer.”
I believe the video should have been posted. Reports of violence in the news are so commonplace that it is easy for the public to become detached from what are deeply personal and profound tragedies for those affected. The harsh reality the video exposes drives home how incredibly senseless these acts are. The video also provides an extraordinary window on how others react. To me, the videographer seemed more interested in capturing the video than stopping the tragedy. The onlookers did little to prevent the attack.
How did we get this way?
It isn’t easy for the family to relive the tragedy and I do sympathize with them. But the real harm to them has already been done. The questions are, “Will exposing this act in such stark terms lead to a greater awareness of what senseless and deadly violence is really like? Will that awareness lead to a greater resolve to end it? If so, then future tragedies could be prevented. If not, then we have bigger things to worry about than just one video.
I once interviewed a mother 20 minutes after her four-year-old boy was pronounced dead. A pit bull had ripped his throat out. The raw nature of her profound grief upset many of our viewers. It also got their attention. Pet safety became a much higher priority with owners and new restrictions on pit bulls were passed.
The video of the fatal stabbing might leave a bitter taste in your mouth. Maybe it should.
The writer is a former TV news reporter and current Siena adjunct media professor.
The Susan G. Komen Foundation did not just dip a toe into politics, it put the whole foot into a boiling pot. The foundation’s survival depends on what it does next.
Komen cut Planned Parenthood funding because it claimed its policy was to stop funding organizations that are under government investigation. Whether this move was political or not no longer matters, the perception is that it was. A furor, led by the power of social media, caused Komen to reverse its decision just days later. Many of the protesting tweets pledged to abandon Komen for ever. As one tweet stated, “I’d rather die of breast cancer than turn to Komen.”
Now what? Consider these six steps to manage the communication crisis:
1- Komen has a judgment problem that needs to be fixed
Regardless of how you feel about the issue, Komen’s leaders should have anticipated the reaction. Didn’t someone there say, ” Hey, Planned Parenthood funding is a really controversial topic.”
2- Heads need to roll
Komen needs to transfer the venom now directed at the organization to the person or persons responsible. It’s tough medicine for the people axed, but the survival of the organization is at stake.
3- Go ALL IN on Staying Out of Politics Komen has to show how it is taking politics (or the perception of it) out of its decision-making process. It has to be careful, it would be a mistake to go “all in” on being pro-choice or pro Planned Parenthood. It has to go “all in” on staying out of politics.
4- Find Respected Advocates It has to find people who are respected by Planned Parenthood who are willing to speak up for its survival. The quotes should be something like, “Yes, I’m angry at Komen, but the good they do should continue for the sake of women.“
5- Provide stirring examples of its success
Komen’s work has no doubt saved many lives. Some of those survivors are needed now to speak up on the value of Komen’s work and the pending impact if it no longer existed.
6- Change the debate question
Whenever you are in hot water, it is a good idea to change the question. Shift the question from “Should Komen survive because of the mistake” to “Should this one mistake end what Komen is doing for women.”
2012 is going to be a difficult year for Komen. But its ultimate survival will depend on how well it makes it case for it.
Do you think Komen will survive?
The writer is a crisis communication expert and adjunct media professor.
Though the term “elevator speech” sounds a little canned, everyone in business or with a cause needs a good one. Most could be improved.
Capturing someone’s attention is a greater challenge than ever before, so the first impression you make with your 30 or 60-second introduction could be strengthened with these principles:
1- Avoid Auto Pilot
So many use the same canned phrases over and over again. Focus more on being genuine than being clever.
2- Probe and Listen First If You Can
Find the “pain” in the recipient’s career. What would they like to fix? Then, tailor your speech to how you can help them.
3- Talk about Benefits, not Titles or Duties
Describe tangible things you deliver that matter to others, not to you.
4- Avoid Bureaucratic Speech Use plain language that is simple and precise.
5- Give Compelling Examples of how you’ve helped others
Here’s one example I received: “Your seminar and book gave me the positive attitude I needed. It felt GREAT to overcome my fear and I have you and your book to thank for it!”
6- Be Passionate About What You Do
It’s contagious. Bill Gates once said, “The thing I do best is share my enthusiasm.”
Try these out. You may be surprised by the reaction you get.
Please share this blog with those who may be interested.
A growing number of employers are now more interested in your “web presence” than your resume.
A Wall Street Journalarticle indicates some companies are eliminating resumes all together when searching for the latest talent. Resumes have always been about telling your story and the Internet revolution has given us new tools to do that. Checking out a prospect’s Facebook page or blog is becoming standard operating procedure in many places. Heck, someone on CraigsList told me they checked my Facebook page before responding to my ad to sell a desk.
What should a job seeker or someone looking to move up do?
Embrace technology but remember it won’t help you without good communication. Like it or not, we are all in the publishing business now. That means your communication skills will have a lot more impact on what people think of you. That presents a danger and an opportunity.
Do the introspection. What do you really bring to the table? Start to gather proof you are valuable to a prospective employer. Shift from talking about duties to talking about accomplishments. Be creative. Demonstrate your expertise on your social media. Think how you can tell you story in a more visual way.
Here’s an example: What if you’re a professional speaker? It doesn’t require a degree or license so anyone can claim to be one. Consider placing on your website a report card on speaking engagements, show a videotape of you in action, have blog entries on speaking, and list dozens of testimonials. Write a speaking book.
Credentials trump claims, so start working on putting yours on display.
Please share this blog with anyone who may be interested.
If ABC and CNN don’t learn from the recent episode involving Newt Gingrich and his ex-wife, they never will.
ABC News aired an interview Thursday with Marianne Gingrich, ex-wife number two, who claimed Newt wanted an “open marriage” when they were still married. I believe ABC News should not have aired the interview for the following reasons:
1 – It had no corroborating evidence. It was “he said, she said.”
Just because someone makes a claim, journalists are supposed to investigate the evidence. That used to be standard practice. What if someone said the ABC News president is a child molester? Would they air that without proof?
2 – The story was not new. Newt’s infidelity has been well documented and Mrs. Gingrich actually did a 2010 interview with Esquire Magazine detailing essentially the same story.
3 – There’s a strong possibility an ex-wife might have an ax to grind. Given that about half of marriages end in divorce, this should be a surprise to no one.
4 – The timing. Given that this was not new information, its celebrated release came just two days before the biggest election of Gingrich’s life.
Ironically, CNN’s misstep — making the question the opener for a presidential debate — saved Gingrich’s bacon. He blasted the question and the audience responded with a standing ovation. By most accounts, the race was very tight at the time, but the Gingrich surge from the answer propelled him to a double-digit win.
Should the media be playing such a large role in the election? They should be covering the story, not be part of it.
Given the publicity the story received, I can’t fault CNN for asking for a response. But when their second question involved what will the candidates do about the nearly 10% unemployment in South Carolina, it struck me how skewed their priorities were. I think CNN’s John King is actually pretty fair, he just made a mistake in judgement. The actions of ABC News cannot be excused so quickly.
Many people are drawing a comparison to Bill Clinton’s troubles. However, Clinton was involved with a government employee (an intern) in a government office (White House) and lying under oath. That’s a long way from the private discussions between a man and his wife.
I do believe a candidate’s personal life is fair game, especially when they talk so much about “values.” But the media needs to exercise good judgment in this area. Digging up the guy’s ex-wife? Even the religious conservatives in South Carolina made it clear, that crossed the line.
The writer is a former TV anchor/reporter and elected GOP official and current Siena College media professor and political consultant.
Two proposed bills in Congress would block your access to Internet sites that the government suspects are guilty of copyright infringements. This Internet blacklisting has created a firestorm among web companies and users worried about free speech and the stifling of innovation. The English-language Wikipedia site went dark Wednesday to protest the bills and Google created an online petition that attracted millions of protestors.
The proposals (SOPA in the House and PIPA in the Senate) are a slippery slope because they give the government the power to restrict what you see on the Internet. Though piracy concerns are very legitimate, threatening the First Amendment is not the appropriate remedy. Hollywood heavy hitters, who frequently give abundantly to lawmakers’ campaigns, are pushing for the bills.
Noted First Amendment expert Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor, according to CNET.com, said SOPA is unconstitutional because, if enacted, “an entire Web site containing tens of thousands of pages could be targeted if only a single page were accused of infringement.”
Are you concerned about who exactly would make the call about which sites get through and which sites get blocked? The same guys who have been promising us the economy would get better?
Fortunately, the Internet’s powerful voice is being heard. The NY Timesreports Florida senator Marco Rubio, a rising Republican, announced he would no longer back PIPA, which he had co-sponsored. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, another co-sponsor said Wednesday, “I agree there are real concerns with the current legislation & I’m working to make important changes to the bill.” It may have been a good idea to draw that conclusion before co-sponsoring the bill.
Internet users who cherish the web as an unrestricted enterprise should continue to pay attention and keep the heat turned up. Career politicians often seek more control and the Internet remains one of the few remaining largely unregulated environments. Eternal vigilance is required to keep it that way.
The writer runs a media consulting business, is an adjunct media professor, and a former elected official.
Please share this blog with anyone who may be interested.
Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963 followed important principles you can follow yourself to add punch to your presentations.
1- Passion
Dr. King, no doubt, had stomach butterflies as he prepared to address more than two hundred thousand people at the March on Washington. Obviously, he was able to channel that nervousness into positive energy.
He was passionate. Why should anyone care about your topic if you are not passionate about it yourself? Though civil rights was, and still is, an extremely complicated issue, he effectively used passion and clarity to convey a simple, straightforward message about his “dream.”
2-Clarity
The clarity presented in King’s speech can be outlined in a single paragraph. Making effective use of symbolism and visuals, he began with a Lincoln reference with the Lincoln Memorial as a backdrop. He made a powerful case in order to define the injustice that existed, citing specific examples of racial wrongs. While he expressed a defiant tone attacking racism, he also saluted his “white brothers” and called once again for nonviolence. His speech was not simply a collection of powerful rhetoric; it included a call for action to “remind America of the fierce urgency of now.” That call for action was reinforced by a simple phrase, “I have a dream.”
3-Relevance
If the speech was relevant to African Americans alone, it would not have had the same impact. It was, in part, a patriotic speech, appealing to all Americans to make their country better. It was relevant to all Americans that one day all children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
4-Takeaway
All great presentations have at least one compelling takeaway. King’s message (or takeaway) was clear and compelling —- “the situation can and will be changed.” The following year, Congress passed and President Johnson signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964
Passion, clarity, relevance, takeaways — all great speeches have them. Do yours?
By the way, the speech was just 16 minutes long. One of the most common mistakes in speaking will come as no surprise to you — they often last too long!
