We're back

It doesn't seem that long, but we've been regrettably absent with posts. 

We're back. And, we hope, with relevant notes, updates, news items and more that advance the discussion of public relations in Los Angeles and the rest of California

First step in this resurgence: We are reaching out to our #PR comrades to make this site exciting.

How so? 

We want this site to post the comings and goings, the new hires, the promotions, the transitions, the openings and other inside information among our local agencies, organizations, etc. 

Not a gossip site. We're not interested in dirty laundry.  Well, not most of it. 

But, we all hear things that are important to our profession. Some of it official, most of it not.

Given there are thousands of us working in very dynamic, demanding jobs - we owe it to ourselves to have some "virtual networking" and insider information.  This has worked in other regions of the country, now it's our turn. 

We'll do our best to verify what you send us.  We may make a mistake or two - but will correct it as soon as humanly possible. 

Ultimately, we want this space to be beneficial.  A resource.  A place to share news, highlight trends, and more.

Talk to you soon. 

What really motivates you?

Updated Jan. 19 with link to news article on similar topic (below)
Public relations is often tasked with trying to influence behavior.  Many of us work from experience to develop a plan that we believe will move the needle.  We also use research, focus groups and the occasional fortune teller.

Yet, lately, it seems we are guessing wrong.

There are dynamics and influences that could provide us significant help that we're simply not discovering. A well developed plan will get upset or, worse, create some backlash. Understanding the "public" so we can create beneficial "relations" with them is getting more challenging.

Today, it seems, the answers to a successful strategy are popping up in unusual places. We need to rethink our original notions about what influences behavior.

Here is a case in point.

A recent NPR story highlighted a study that showed when gas prices drop, traffic fatalities go up. They study accurately pinpointed a specific number of deaths by every so many cents of decline at the pump. Gas prices were the only cause for the rise in fatalities.

Once you hear the reasons, it's a no-brainer to figure out how this applies to public relations.

Millions of dollars are spent annually on safe-driving campaigns. In high school, teachers and cops try to scare the hell out of us. We are given all sorts of information - in a very direct fashion - about safe driving. Some of us get traffic tickets for speeding, go to traffic school, then after a few months, start speeding again.

But as the study points out, scaring us doesn't cause us to drive safer - it's higher gas prices.

Why?  When gas goes up, our behavior is focusing on "saving" gas.  You accelerate slower and keep a steady pace because those things save gas. Those multiple trips we take when prices are lower are now combined into a single trip because we have to "save gas."

The "prompt" here is not information, but our pocketbook. The social conscious is wired toward financial, not personal safety or the safety of others...or that cop I just passed going 45 in a 25.

Granted, a percentage of the population will be influenced by a steady stream of information or graphic images. The masses, however, will change behavior because of price.

In California, we saw the influence of money and how it impacted behavior when it comes to saving water.  In the first half of 2014, water agencies up and down the state were pleading with customers to conserve because of a very serious drought. However, it was not until the state water agency said it would begin fining people up to $500 a day for wasting water did California begin to see huge drops in water usage. The threat of a financial penalty "woke up" the masses to take action.

What does this mean for PR, branding and communications campaigns?

Overkill.  Consumer behavior can be "conditioned" to tune out a message that has been told over and over in nearly the same fashion.  "Yeah, yeah. I know I have to (save water) (replace my light bulbs with LED ones) (drive slower)."

An unlikely prompt.  Focus groups and consumer research need to be turned on their head. We don't need to waste precious dollars asking variations of the same message, or a participant's "views" about a social issue. Look at their behavior for something totally unrelated to your cause or product and ask them the off-beat question.  An probe of the indirect may reveal the motivating factor perfectly suited for your campaign.

It's not always comedy.  Too often, we dive into pop culture to put an 'edge' to our campaigns, draw a laugh. We mistakenly believe this will help capture their attention and 'cut through the clutter' and 'noise' of all the information that surrounds us today.  OK. So you got their attention. Now what?

Avoid the "ask."  Historically, we've been told to make sure we have "an ask" to ensure consumers are prompted into action. Advertisers and marketers are still successful in making people "feel good" about a product because I, too, want to drive off into the wilderness in my Jeep or re-acquaint myself with a Reese's peanut butter cup. Behavior change through association with a positive, reinforcing images and concepts can be achieved in a public relations format.

The best channel.  I came across a public utility representative, frustrated by a seemingly excellent communications plan to inform customers they were moving their office. For months, utility customers received notices in the mail, saw multiple signs posted in the lobby.  The utility issued a news release, put a story in the city's quarterly magazine, took out full-page advertisements in the local newspaper. Still, hundreds of customers complained they never heard about the move and were upset about having to drive to a new location after seeing the "we've moved" sign at the old one. Was the utility showing up "where" customers would notice? Today, it's about showing up in unexpected places.  In this case, the utility may have considered placing notices in local grocery shopping bags. We all need food. For some of us, that's a daily trip.

As we see from the gas price-fatality scenario, one doesn't need to seek an "ask" to secure behavior change.

We just need to tap into the human psyche a bit deeper.

Today, the LA Times published a report from "environmental economists" at UCLA about what motivates people to save energy. Again - not what we think it would be.  Note, however, that the UCLA study is focused on a limited demographic.  From my experience, these kinds of findings are usually difficult to extrapolate to the general population. 

What climate change can teach PR

In the age of Big Data and ultra-precise targeting, "knowing" your audiences is much more than simply understanding their buying habits and which mobile apps are on their phone.

It seems politics and science also enter the equation.

Note the great article by Geoff Mohan (@LATsciguy) in the LA Times about a recent study on what is influencing our opinions and views about climate change. 

While climate change has been greatly debated, and many believe the "doubters" are losing, the article only points out that views may be becoming "harder" or "un-movable." Middle ground is evaporating and facts becoming obsolete. 

The PR take-away?

Swaying public opinion - at least for "causes" - may become more difficult.  New tactics and strategies will emerge in attempts to overcome a populace that has essentially closed its door and is not letting anyone in their house to talk to them. 

Do we truly live in a land of "I'm not changing my mind: Ever, ever, ever." ?

Hardly.

Political and public affairs veterans will likely emerge with winning strategies that could have cross-over use in traditional public relations campaigns and programs.

We should take a PA guy or gal for lunch once in a while.

How we change minds will likely change.  The path for a consumer campaign may require a political "tone" if you are, say, trying to convince a mostly GOP audience that Brand X car is right for you and America because, for instance, it was built without government help.

The danger in all this?  Further polarization of audiences.  Ticking off one group in the quest to improve relations with another.

Research will remain invaluable, but the smart money is on killer strategies that continue building loyalties across even more and further entrenched audience segments.

 

Why Millennials Matter to PR

A recent article in The Atlantic provided some very revealing and potentially upsetting trends regarding Millennials and their contributions to our economy.

For PR professionals, understanding these trends and dynamics are critical.

One thing we all know and is obviously pointed out in this article - mobile is the most effective, if not the ONLY way to reach this audience.

Decisions, actions and conversations all occur in the device in someone's palm.

But consider other key trends in this article.

Experts said Millennials are more likely to "visit" friends online, rather than travel. (Hence, why there is less need for a car).

In addition to the obvious and stated impacts on automakers, a lack of casual travelling by automobile means:

• Less stops at a gas station, which means fewer opportunities to use these locations as marketing tools.  "GasTV" infomercials at the pump should focus on older populations. When a "road trip" was involved for the prior generation, the first stop was for gas and supplies at the same location.  Gas station owners will now need to find how to compete against the convenient and trendy wine store down the street and in closer walking distance to the restaurants and residence in a city's core. A higher percentage of gas stations are deliberately set far from retail and restaurant centers.
• The same for highway billboards. Unless, however, a billboard campaign is aimed at a social cause and then all you need to do is post a hashtag on that space and be done with it.
• Mobile driving apps. Google and Waze are basic tools to navigate from Point A to Point B, but any other app that tries to give you on-the-go voice updates for your email, text messages, etc. may not be useful.  Besides, Millennials only respond to text messages. They are not answering voice mail.
• Changing from "overnight" opportunity at a nearby staycation destination to a "day trip" mode is probably in order. Solution: Incentivize these kind of trips with carpools sponsored by Zipcars.

Let's keep monitoring this generation.  Adaptation is key to surviving this new PR jungle.

Fixing a break

Utilities are one sector of the U.S. economy that seem to constantly struggle with reputation.  Service interruptions. Rate hikes. Allegations of over-paid workers.

Is reputation maintenance a losing battle?

LATimes: The broken water main near UCLA

Because they provide much-needed services to, well, almost all of us (there are those who are "off the grid"), utilities are constantly on consumer's mind.  We scrutinize our water and power bills on a regular basis. We need trained workers to turn on our natural gas if the service is interrupted.  If we don't pay for these services, these utilities will shut them. If a supply interruption occurs somewhere else in the world, the shortage means higher fuel costs in winter.

Then utilities get hit by a catastrophe.  Storms knock down power lines. And, as was the case this week in Los Angeles, underground pipelines rupture.

Havoc ensues, and the no-win game of perception vs. reality begins.  The news media feeding frenzy begins. Leadership is questioned. 

This week, a 3-foot-diameter water main ruptured under a major thoroughfare. Before it could be turned off, an ocean of water flowed into the nearby UCLA campus and flooded buildings, a revered basketball stadium and parking lots.

Within the first hour of the rupture, the city water utility came under instant attack from local talk radio stations and from other news media for the perceived slow response of utility crews.  Reasonable explanations were not believed.  Snarky attacks came from all corners.

Why? There are two possible answers.

1.  Studies are showing a disturbing trend:  Utility reputation continues to erode, in part by rising rates and bigger profits.
2.  Expectation.  In today's speedy world - from instant access to information to online shopping - consumer patience is razor thin.  The "assumption rate" that solutions can instantly appear is rising at exponential rate.

Utilities need the trust of their customers - if only to reduce the rancor when rate hikes are proposed, or in the case of publicly held companies, to prevent stockholder revolt.

Large municipal-run utilities such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power have been on the defensive for decades. (In the case of LADWP, one can start with its rough beginning - aka "Chinatown" - and look to today with customers receiving $5,000 water bills because of glitches with its new computer program).

Authenticity Gap

They do try to make things better. 

Utilities do make some attempts at building trust and reputation - through community programs, improved customer service, etc.  But these small efforts do not build the necessary foundation to create wholesale swings in sentiment.

As Richard Mullinax at FleishmanHillard and others have pointed out, utilities must focus their reputation-building efforts at those areas in their operations and overall "presence" with the biggest authenticity gaps, and not spend any more time in areas where they have earned success.   

Understanding the gap begins with research.  In my experience in working with and for utilities, many assume they know their customers (because they deal with them every day). But those who have conducted attitude research invariably find underlying sentiments they never new existed.  What research usually shows is that a visible action or negative response from a customer may have been fostered or created from an entirely different issue - and may have been festering for some time.   


Strategic public relations is all about understanding the audience, and developing a comprehensive plan to reach these audiences in the way they want to hear you. 

Carrot or Stick?

Motivating changes in public behavior is tricky.  Especially when the effort is handicapped by mixed messages.

California, it appears, is fed up with asking...and now is moving to a punitive effort to prompt its 38 million residents to be more serious about saving water.

State officials are close to allowing water districts across California to impose $500 daily fines on the worst water offenders - those who still waste water during the worst recorded drought in the state's history.

Up to now, the governor and others have asked residents to voluntarily reduce their water use by 20 percent. It's a hefty, but not impossible task for individuals to cut back 700 gallons a day. 

But so far, the best anyone can do is 7 percent. 

As reservoirs keep dropping and with no rain in sight for months, California decided to take the next step and force change through financial hardship.

Water officials know the final trump card in the water conservation game plan is pricing (and mandatory restrictions).  

But are residents at fault for not saving more water before now? Are residents simply being lazy?

Not entirely.

The state's water agencies received a wake-up call when the last big drought hit (from 1986 to 1991). They scrambled to build dams and additional storage because they knew it would happen again and they didn't want to come up short-handed with water for their customers.

Now, the next big drought is here and....these added reservoirs (and a whole lot of water-efficient toilets and other devices in homes) are making a difference.

When the official "drought" was declared earlier this year, and the governor asked for a voluntary 20 percent reduction - residents also heard a competing message from some water districts. It essentially was: "We've got this."

The message: We have enough water to get us through this year. Worry, but not too much. 

Even with advertising campaigns, public outreach efforts, and images of cracked earth on billboards - residents did not answer the call in dramatic fashion because they were told early on to relax. No mandatory water restrictions were in place for most urban areas. 

This was serious - but not urgent enough to take serious action. Californians were not prepared to let their lawns turn brown. 

In recent weeks, researchers have been probing Californians to figure out what will motivate them to save water in more extreme amounts. (As it, let's get more serious).  The results are showing up in a $5 million advertising campaign in Southern California - which focuses on protecting the state we love. Using humor, the radio, TV and web banner campaign should get people's attention - if only to remind them to remain diligent.

Yet, as more of California experiences the worst of the worst drought conditions (dark red circles on the drought map), other public-motivation tactics will likely be required. 

Price
Plenty of studies show that consumers will curtail purchases or reduce an activity when the price/cost goes up.  Higher gasoline prices mean a decline in consumption. A higher electric bills usually prompts homeowners to turn off more lights and reset their air conditioning thermostats.

The same holds true for water.  Conservation-based pricing is currently used by dozens of California water agencies - and most, if not all, of these agencies report "water-efficiency" improvements among customers. 

If you see you are paying a "penalty" for using too much water, you likely will take specific steps to be more efficient.  That's motivation to fix the leaking toilet, finally adjust the sprinkler timer and don't leave the faucet running when you are brushing your teeth or washing your hands.

So which is it?  Can social change occur through public relations, or do we achieve real action through punitive measures and threats? 

Yes to both, but only in extreme circumstances and when the message is clear. 

Well-designed communications efforts clearly demonstrated that you can obtain some social change.  However, a 7% voluntary reduction is only slightly better than a previous water-saving campaign conducted during a non-drought period in California.  It is entirely reasonable to conclude that a larger water-saving percentage could have been achieved if the message was more serious at the beginning.

The love of a good story

In case you haven't noticed, the story about companies, places and people is about THE STORY. 

Telling a good story (after making sure you HAVE a good story), is the current mantra of communications professions. 

Why? People love a good story.  People have a much easier way of connecting to someone or a business if that person or company has a good story to tell.

Over the next 45 days, we should get a lot of great stories from one of the best arenas for great stories - sports.

In my former life as a newspaper reporter, we "hard news" reporters were jealous of the sports writers.  They seemed to have more freedom with prose. Some of the best writers at newspapers are sports writers.  But, they also had great subjects (more on this later).

Over the next several weeks, it will hard to escape the great stories that will come from:

• The Indianapolis 500 car race (with one driver attempting to also drive a stock car race that same day)
• The potential of a Triple Crown winner in California Chrome at the Belmont.
• The playoffs in the National Basketball Association and National Hockey League.
• The start of soccer's World Cup.
• The US Open Golf championship.

For public relations professionals, this should be an opportune time to study how to create a good story, and how the media flocks to a good story. 

A little "reverse engineering" will be in order. Some of it is basic journalism and story telling.All of it will be a fantastic opportunity to study the art of "connecting with" and "captivating" an audience.

Here are  look for:

Start with the character
As a journalist recently told me: most news organizations love to tell a story through "a good character." This usually means someone who stands out or represents the story. 

Today, it is hard to miss that "issues" - from health care, to taxes, to immigration - are being conveyed to us in newspapers and on TV through real live human beings. Issues (and products) impact us, so why not find that ideal candidate who represents the issue of the day? 

Sadly, in this era of immense litigation and corporate branding, companies too often fail to find someone who is not a company employee and let them be THE STORY about their business. Companies are too caught up in creating a "feeling" about their product or creating message points to defend their issue, when their case can better connect with their audiences through a "live body." 

So, the key question here is:  How can you tell THE STORY of your company without profiling people other than the CEO? 

Find the conflict or the struggle
In sports, it's about the struggle.  It's the "back story."  When the Winter Olympics occur, we are glued to our sets when NBC profiles an athlete.  "...she came from a small town where on weekends, she picked corn and at night, she practiced her skating for four hours in a dimly lit rink...." 

If life was easy, it'd be boring.  People want to know how these athletes overcame adversity, how much work they put in to get to where they are.

I can relate
Obviously, the athletes we will hear about over the next two months are exceptional.  They are not us because we are not competing at that level.

But we had dreams. 

We had parents who trucked us to endless soccer practices. We may have friends who earned sports scholarships because they excelled both in the classroom and on the field.  And these friends never forgot where they came from.  Forget the ego-driven athletes - we'll pass over those stories in a nano-second.  We need humility.

Advertising tries to do this by putting "everyday" people in their spots.

Now, how can we translate these pillars of a good sports story into a public relations-driven effort for our clients?

Customers
Some of the most ideally suited "characters" to tell a story about your company are using your product.  This effort, however, has to go beyond the lazy tactic of letting customers write their own testimonials on a review site or the company's Facebook page.

It is harder to cultivate a customer to rise up and share all the details of their live and their experience with your product or service - and in a way that doesn't look contrived.  Heck, it's hard to find that compelling story in the first place.  The truth is that it will take 99 interviews before you find THE perfect one.

Off-target
A back story may not be about your company or product.  It is, after all, about the person.  Some leeway must be given to let the story have a few chapters that don't relate directly to your company or product.  This can be the most frightening part of the exercise because of the possibility of a person going "off message" or the back story becoming more interesting that how your company's service or product changed this person's life. A typical customer can't be media trained in one day. 

Even if the main focus of your connection with this customer starts taking a back seat in a news story (but you still have a positive mention of your product or service), that's OK.  At the end of the day, there is still a connection between "cool, interesting person/story" and your client. Goodness will rub off.    

Why we care
Once the "story" is told through the customer, now is the time to bring in your own personal "back story" from the company's perspective.  Let employees or managers talk about how they came up with the idea for a new product, how a "team" came together to brainstorm a new service, how an employee used his/her own family experience to make improvements. 

Employees are people, too.

So, turn on the sports channels and break down the human drama before you.

Missed opportunity

The 20th anniversary of the Northridge Earthquake has received what I would label as "modest" news coverage and attention.  Check: Make that "pathetic."

Remembering one of the biggest, most destructive earthquakes to hit California since the 1906 San Francisco killer (3,000+ died)  was a huge opportunity.

But, alas, that opportunity has come and gone.

If you ask the majority of the nearly 22+ million who live in Southern California about the Northridge quake, they may have some faint memory. Even among those who lived in the San Fernando or Santa Clarita valleys, or whose lives were disrupted because the Santa Monica Freeway was broken - they have put this quake in the lock box.   Ancient history.

What is was the missed opportunity?  A chance to compel people to be prepared. 

Some studies suggest that 40 percent of Californians are prepared for an earthquake.  First, I wonder how they define "prepared." But far worse: That means 6 our of 10 people are NOT prepared.  These are the folks who will come knocking on your door for food and water, placing an extra toll on emergency crews, jamming cell phone service (if it's available), etc.

In public relations, we know the difficult task of prompting people into action, especially when it comes to earthquake preparation.  Counties and cities do spend a scant amount of money annually to conduct campaigns.  However, "success" in these campaigns is measured with a low benchmark. I may draw some mean looks from my colleagues when I say this, but any participation mark lower than, say, 30 percent is, in my view, too low.  Set the bar higher.

Did news coverage of the Northridge quake prompt anyone to check their earthquake preparedness?  Probably not, since most of the coverage was focused on people's recollection, new earthquake standards and what governments are trying to do to create new building codes. There were a  few exceptions.
 
Our earthquake scientists used the opportunity to highlight the remaining problems, and, yes, the LA mayor did announce an effort to further prepare ourselves for the next one.  But, again, public attention to these "announcements" was scant. 

Why?

Timing and opportunity are everything in getting people to act.  An anniversary is a HUGE opportunity to go into over-drive on publicity, marketing and public relations. With focus on the anniversary comes a rare chance to flood multiple communications channels and launch multiple campaigns to get people to take precautions.

Why?  Behavior models will show you there are five steps to influence behavior - from the initial efforts to get attention to your issue, to getting people to recognize the issue matters to them, to prompting them to find out more about what you are talking about, to actually taking action.

The first few steps are crucial and is the equivalent to waving a hand in someone's face.  "Hey, over here.  I've got something important to tell you.  Yes, you.  Yes, it's important.  No, it will only take a second..."  Then, it's still a challenge to get them to take action. 

Consider your own reactions when you are leaving the grocery store and a signature gatherer asks you to support a ballot initiative. Your time is important, so do you really want to spend five minutes listening to this guy explain WHY this is an important issue?  And, then, if you are willing to stick around for this, do you take the next step to actually SIGN the petition?

The expected news coverage of the anniversary would have taken care of step one in this persuasion model. That is, now, an opportunity that has come and gone.  By this weekend, we'll be more concerned with a three-day weekend, the NFL playoffs, the weather or (as I write this - CA's drought declaration).  Our next opportunity will come with the annual "great shakeout" in October.


When there is silence on a topic, there is complacency. If we think we're safe, we relax. Just ask Japan.  Did more people get flu shots in recent days - only because we heard about people dieing? Why were these folks NOT motivated in the fall when the annual "flu shot" message was being given?


So, if you live in SoCal, just do yourself a few favors - Today, or at least on your day off Monday. 

Stock up on some canned food and non-perishables. Buy a few cases of water.  Know how to turn off the main gas valve. Strap a few things down or secure large cabinets to the wall. Review the family plan. Make sure you know who to notify.  Candles and flashlights. Fresh batteries.  A simple medical kit with plenty of antiseptic. Heck, go ahead and get a fire extinguisher.  Follow this guide.

We're WAAAY overdue. 

The big one

Pretty soon, you should be hearing about the 20th anniversary of the Northridge Earthquake that hit Southern California on Jan. 17, 1994.  A 6.7 shake that killed dozens, caused freeways to collapse, destroyed hundreds of buildings and more.

So, I'll get into the act early with my first few hours of hell.

A journalist at the time, my life predictably turned into one of those that define your career. Although 30 miles away from the epicenter, this one shook me hard, almost out of bed. The clock read 4:31 a.m.

I thought, "Damn, another one?"

At almost the same time (4:57 a.m.) on June 28, 1992, the 7.3-magnitude "Landers" earthquake had shook me out of this same bed and soon had me and a photographer heading to the epicenter to report on the damage there. (Landers is the middle of the Mojave Desert, so a large quake there did not cause as much property damage. Three people died, two of them from heart attacks. The cracks in the desert landscape were amazing).

I thought we would be done with a big quake for several years. After all, the 6.0 Sierra Madre quake had just hit a year earlier.

My initial reaction in the first few groggy seconds of Jan. 17, 1994 was this shaker was one of those famously large "aftershocks" to the Landers quake.  But, no, wait..... actually, this one felt too big for an aftershock.  Turning on the TV quickly confirmed that this one struck the San Fernando Valley with more serious consequences.  I thought, "Well, all my friends who talk about how CA will fall off into the ocean once day are now probably going bat-shit crazy: Three big quakes in three years!"  I wondered how many of my friends would be packing their bags for Colorado or Texas.

After making sure the family was safe -- remember, we did this drill back in 1992 -- and finally getting in touch with one of my editors who still phone service, I scrambled down to our Santa Clarita bureau, which also housed our printing press complex.

The printing presses were knocked offline and no one knew when they may come online.  As the hours passed, it would soon become one of the biggest questions facing my paper - can we even put out a paper tomorrow?

The roads on the way to the office were a mess.  A few fires had occurred and I could see fire trucks mopping up.  The radio in the car kept blaring out the updates.

I soon learned the Daily News' main office in Woodland Hills was in shambles. Had this quake struck during the day, I'm sure many of my colleagues would have been dead or severely injured because huge pieces of the building and light fixtures had fallen onto empty desks in the newsroom.

As it was, one of our photographers living in the Santa Clarita was almost killed by the book case that fell on his bed. He had just a leg bruise. A few inches separated his head from the heaviest part of the book case.

At the spacious Santa Clarita office I had a desk, some phone access and power.  But there would be no way the bulk our news team could use the offices in Santa Clarita because the quake took down the freeway leading up to our office from the San Fernando Valley. This same interchange at the Interstate 5 and Highway 14 in the narrow Newhall Pass was destroyed in the 1971 Sylmar quake. Plus, huge bridge sections of the 5 freeways beyond the pass had fallen.  The Santa Clarita Valley was, essentially, an island surrounded by broken freeways.

I would learn that an LAPD motorcycle officer rushing down the 14 freeway in darkness, on his way to help just  minutes after the quake struck, did not see that the interchange had collapsed. Officer Clarence Dean fell at least 40 feet and died instantly.  Yes, it was these same freeway overpasses and interchanges that had been rebuilt after 1971 with a stronger seismic standard...not.

In the days before cell phones, we had pagers. Today, they were dead or sporadically working. Phone lines were down in the Valley, so you could not "call into" those areas - even if we got paged to do so.  We had to make calls to friends outside the immediate area to to relay information. One of my editors, Pat Aidem, had to use this system to make sure her son was OK. He had been sleeping with friends in another city.  You live in Southern California long enough and you know how to do this "outbound" call system.  You also knew another trick - to dial numbers slowly to allow the telephone system time to "catch up" and send your call.  Dial too fast and you'll get a busy signal from this very over-loaded system.   I wonder if this would work today?  To this day, I keep a non-powered "land line"- just in case.

The main lifeline for our news team were radios installed in the fleet of vehicles used  by our photographers.  However, the main tower that "relayed" and boosted the signals of our car radios was down, so one photographer had to drive to the top of that hill and use his car radio to relay instructions and updates for the entire day. His car was the "relay station."  Being on that hill gave this photographer a "clear shot" to any of the other photographers below in the valley and now capturing the devastation. It was a smart move and I always commended Roger for giving up his chance to capture what any photographer lives for - just so his colleagues could do their jobs. What a sacrifice.


In Santa Clarita, we were driving out a few times from the office to survey the damage, interview people.  There wasn't any panic, but many scared people. The kids were most frightened.  But people seemed to be rallying, helping each other. I saw old folks being carried out of their damaged homes in chairs by complete strangers.  Broken water lines flooded homes and streets, and crews were out fixing them one at a time.   Batteries, water and potato chips were soon gone from the corner convenience stores that had power.  Other grocery stores lost power, but employees showed up and would relay bottles of water out from the back to customers standing in line. Cashiers improvised the payment system.  Sheriff's deputies kept close eye on these scenes.

We were instructed to come back to the office within an hour - to check in and give status reports.  Some kind of order was slowly returning ....then a 5.0 aftershock hit.  I was standing the rear parking lot of the printing press building........

Trouble with the curve

Sometimes a great idea can be tripped up by the smallest of things.

In this case, Samsung had a great idea in bringing Michael Bay, the director known for filling our movie screens with eye-popping visuals, to introduce their new very large "curve" TV screen.  

But as we all know too well by now, Michael and the teleprompter went out of synch. Michael got flustered. Tried to save it.  Then said, "sorry" and walked off stage. The emcee recovered nicely. However, the story about the "curve" TV became how Michael had trouble with the curve ball thrown at him.

And, then, it became a mini feeding frenzy with bloggers and media. ("Meltdown" "Freak-out" Really Jim Edwards? "Peace the f*** out" Really Joshua Topolsky??   "Flame out" USA Today??)

Michael did post a note on his blog, which was good.  We PR folks would have advised him to do this, show a bit of humility.  A few others have chimed in about a "teaching moment" for anyone who is thinking of presenting live. 


Now comes the creative part.  What does Samsung do next?

Evaluate and monitor the reaction.
If this "flub" story has legs, do you just roll with the punches and consider any coverage to be good coverage for your product? The key here is to accurately measure whether this kind of news is actually contributing to more positive consumer reaction to the Curve.  Notice I didn't say "media" reaction because the carefully orchestrated roll-out effort that preceded Michael's appearance is already a media "win."  There are tons of positive stories, starting with the intro of an curved HD screen four months earlier at another trade show.

Dare we...
PR folks, and I'll include advertising, may wonder whether this incident could be turned around into an even more memorable effort a few weeks or months from now.  For example:  A cute advertising campaign could focus on how this new screen leaves you "speechless - even if you're Michael Bay."  Again, this will take some careful planning and, of course, Michael's approval.  Having fun, making light of a stumble can have positive PR results because we average humans love it when we can laugh at ourselves and take ourselves a bit less seriously. 

Stay tuned.

Jan. 8 update: WSJ reporting across-the-board challenges ahead for Samsung. 

RIP Mark Lacter

Tributes and recollections continue to pour in about Mark Lacter, a very fine journalist and an exceptional business editor.  After hearing from colleagues and reading other tributes, it is clear that Mark possessed some unique skills as a business journalist and editor. 

His business acumen.  Covering business is not easy. Companies tend to hide things, protect their reputation and dole out details in small chunks.   For many readers of business stories,the focus generally is on whether a company's stock is rising or falling, a new product, a profile of a quirky business, an acquisition or profiles of leadership.  Mark always knew there is more to covering business and challenge himself and others to dig deeper. As an editor, he challenged other writers.

There are plenty of great writers and editors who can take complex subjects and present them in easy-to-understand terms.  Mark went beyond this - primarily by either spotting trends or nuances that really mattered in our daily lives, and by challenging the assumptions and prepared statements of business leaders, elected officials and others.

There were trends that only Mark spotted.  I was constantly amazed by his attention to detail - he would hear someone raise an issue or make a statement and Mark would pull up a fact-based observation that challenged that convention. These details would be amassed from his ability to search, poke and prod.  There are plenty of business leaders, elected officials and source who would squirm under Mark's intense stare and line of questioning.  Why? Because he was smart, came prepared and ask questions no one else was considering.  There were the routine business stories that needed to be told, but Mark's quest was to report on those that deserved to be told.

Mark possessed a genuine curiosity - a trait not all journalist possess.  This served him well because he would not accept blanket statements or lines of thinking.  He would dig, scratch. He did not want to follow the patterns of other business writers.

What is amazing to me is that mainstream business news organizations did not grab Mark in these latter years and promote and nurture his brand of journalism. Sure, his freelance work was easily picked up by large news organizations and he was nominated for awards. But as a few others noted in their remembrances of Mark, he lacked an ego and was not pretentious. Did his lack of showboating keep him out of consideration for greater things? Who knows? 

What I hope will happen is that journalism schools will take note, and other business editors will study Mark's style - to show others one of the better examples of business writing and business editing.The nuts and bolts of Mark Lacter business journalism needs to be catalogued and chronicled.

Frustrating pitches

One of the most frustrating aspects of practicing public relations is knowing you have a great story to pitch the news media...and not a single reporter or editor bites.

This creates some self doubt.

The second most frustrating moment comes a few weeks later when you see these same news organizations run a truly silly story.  You are befuddled, asking yourself: "They choose to run this story and not mine!?!"

This creates anger.

The third most frustrating moment comes when you then turn to one of your trusted PR industry trade publications and there is some guy offering his or her tips on the perfect pitch. "For a few hundred dollars, I will share my secrets..."

Now we're contemplating some heavy drinking, and we can't repeat out loud what we're thinking about the featured "media expert."

The cycle is vicious because it seems to crop up a few times a year. 

Yeah, it recently happened to me.

I had a great story for a client who builds affordable housing.  Their latest project was for senior citizens, with about half of the rooms set aside for homeless seniors.  We found a resident who had been homeless for more than 20 years, and was a former heroin addict.  He created a Facebook page that was discovered by his long lost family, which promptly flew him to another state for what I'm sure would be an amazing reunion and the first look at his grandchildren. He also is now volunteering at a local homeless shelter. Everyone calls him "pops."  He was  very glib.  A great story. A great interview.

As many in the PR profession realize today, I had to package this story with as much detail and background as possible to "hand" this ready-made story for consideration. (Don't get me started on lazy journalism.)  The pitch was full of helpful statistics, how this situation represented a major trend, etc. 

No, in Los Angeles, we'd rather tell you about the latest lipstick craze, weight loss tips, or whether some teen singer (his name begins with Justin) is in another bar fight.   Mix in a car chase, something that passes for "breaking news" and a corrupt politician and, viola, this is our evening news.

That was one month ago. 

Today, I open my local paper to a story about a homeless man who.....wait for it... created a Facebook page....to be a comedian.  Apparently, this guy writes very funny things on cardboard. 

Arrgh!!  This homeless person was more exciting than my homeless person?!!

As a former journalist, I can say with authority that judging what is news will vary on a daily basis.  Reporters and editors will posture that each story is reviewed on its merits and must meet their standards.  But we all know there are may variables at work in newsrooms, such as:

• A "heavy" news day that pushes your feature out is easily understood, and is readily accepted by your bosses and clients.

However, a veteran journalist once told me in college that journalists are human, too. A pitch made when an editor has a bad day stands less of a chance of being properly considered than if this same editor had a great breakfast, laughed in his car while listening to the radio on his way to work and was looking forward to taking his wife to a concert this weekend.  (I've "brought back" stories for consideration after I realized I was dealing with an editor in a foul mood.)

Relationships are critical - we all know that.  The best in our business will get a reporter to pick up a phone or return a call or email...based on the relationship.  

There also are countless times I (and I suspect you, too) have pitched the same story to the same reporter or editor with a slight change. Or, simply go down the list and find a reporter willing to listen. What may not sound like a news story to one, may find receptive ears with another.

It's like a game of chance.
 
Of course, our work, expertise and experience are critical.  In spite of the many nuances we must deal with in gaining the news media's attention, the process of selling stories is laborious and requires special training and a certain touch.  What clients rarely see is the incredible amount of research and "compiling" we do to add enough information and layers to a story to make it "newsworthy."  Or adding the video, or creating a social media buzz ahead of the pitch or.....


So, we trudge along, read the latest industry story about the perfect pitch and then pray to the newspaper gods that we'll soon be feeding a reporter more details from our "accepted" pitch.

Only to see our story held for..... (well, let's just say it's another entertainer falling on hard times). 

Arrggggh.

Gain one and

Last night, I ran across a salesman for a new newspaper in town.  He had a great promotion - $20 a month for home delivery (at least for the first month) and four tickets to the local major league baseball game.

The battle is on in Long Beach with the addition this week of the Long Beach (CA) Register.  (Website to come next month).

For those of us who live in Long Beach, a large new newspaper (it's not a daily, yet) may be a good thing.  More news about our city.  A bit of competition will likely result in more in-depth and harder news coverage from all news orgs.

For PR folks, we see opportunity to get some of our clients featured since these news organizations will be battling to out-do each other.

The addition of a newspaper to a medium-sized U.S. city that already has a daily newspaper drew national attention. 

What's overlooked is that Long Beach already is busting at the seams with local news organizations. There is the weekly Grunion Gazzette (yes, it's named after the fish that runs onto the shores occasionally) that is packed with local advertising, features, local sports, interesting editorials by its owner and what some would call "hyper-local" news coverage. Oh, it's also owned by MediaNewsGroup, the same company that owns the Long Beach Press Telegram.  We also get, for some reason, the free OCWeekly, and there is the Long Beach Business Journal, the Seal Beach Sun weekly that is dropped at my front door and quickly thrown away, the paper covering Signal Hill, and...whew, let me catch my breath, the other local weekly, the Beachcomber.

There also is the Long Beach Post (started by a Long Beach city councilman), the online LBReport, and a micro-site of ThePatch.com.

And don't rule out the LA Times, which has a dedicated Long Beach staffer.


The Patch is/was a great resource and had breaking news since its former editor was an LA Times hard news reporter.  Of course with changes afoot at The Patch, and the addition of a new newspaper to Long Beach, we may not see The Patch around for too much longer.

Leading up to this week's launch, the existing news organizations in Long Beach - particularly the Press Telegram and the LBPost - put on campaigns to (a) remind us which paper really covers the city and (b) to offer advertising specials. Oh, and the MediaNewsGroup's local ownership clan - known as the LosAngelesNewspaperGroup, just redesigned the standardized website for their holdings, including the Press Telegram. And there was this "open house" by the owners of the Press Telegram to reconnect with the community.

This whole drama gets personal for me. But it also raises a question about whether such a move can be repeated (see below) in an era when newspapers are losing readers and cutting costs.

As a former assistant editor for the Los Angeles Daily News, I was hired to help launch the same thing the Register is doing - creating a hyper-local paper that "wraps" over the existing edition. The Daily News, under the Jack Kent Cooke ownership era more than 20 years ago, saw opportunity to gain footholds in regions to the north and east of the main Daily News circulation areas by producing these "wraps" for the Santa Clarita, Simi and Antelope valleys. 

These areas already had "local" newspapers but given the amount of commuters leaving these valleys to work in the main Daily News circulation areas and that many of these commuters once lived in the main Daily News circulation area before buying cheaper homes in the burbs, the business strategy concluded that loyalty would prevail and readers would want a "bigger" newspaper giving them both local and regional/national news.

For many years, this strategy worked. The local bureaus covered a lot of local hard news, features and sports. There were circulation gains.

CURSE THE GOOGLE
These wraps no longer exit, falling victim when newspaper circulation took major dives across the country as free online news became popular and advertisers shifted their purchases. 

So, what is different for the Register this time? It seems to smell blood in the water and is willing to spend a lot of money to win readers.

What remains to be seen is whether the Register can secure a significant number of home delivery subscriptions at $20 a month from a city that splits its loyalties between LA County and Orange County, and from a population who gets news from multiple sources already.

CONTENT IS STILL KING
What also remains to be seen is whether the Register's new publisher for the Long Beach edition (a news veteran with strong ties to LB) knows where and how to strike. By this, I mean:

• Luring advertisers away from existing news orgs (tough, but apparently happening)
• Tapping into what LB residents really want from a local newspaper (anything from features on where to eat, to more comprehensive, in-depth news and analysis that really tell us what's going on and why it matters).  (should be easy given half of the news staff is former P-T reporters and editors)
• Presenting news both online and in print in readable chunks - and quickly.  (done).

The second and third points may be the key - because the Register will likely continue its "pay wall" to access its news.  Unlike every other paper serving Long Beach that offers news for free online, the Register is betting that the way it covers news will be worth it to plunk down $20 month to see it.  With so many other choices for hyper-local news and information (anything from a new restaurant opening to the upcoming city council elections to an interesting student at a local school), what will be different behind the Register's pay wall?

With so many former Press Telegram staffers at the LBRegister, potential readers will be curious to see whether news in the Register will be written and presented in similar style and depth as the P-T.  Same writers and editors - different outlet.  Will the staff be given more freedoms to cover the issues in more depth, with more aggressive style than when they were at their former newspaper?

And we live in a world of "breaking news" - which we get by ... looking it up online at free sites.  Will the Register try to give us "breaking news" in Long Beach or will they give up this component to the other LB news orgs and the LA TV/Radio stations?  (I know that I get scooped all the time by the younger crowd because they picked up local breaking news stories on their phones before I had a chance to get to my computer).

Perhaps there is some magic, some shifts that the new owners of the Register are counting on.  There is evidence of consumers swinging back to traditional news. Various papers, including the NYTimes and LATimes, have put limits on the number of free stories that can be viewed online by non-subscribers.  Why?  Because consumers apparently still desire professionally written news that can only be provided by mainstream organizations using experienced, trained reporters, editors and photographers. And, they are now willing to pay for it again.

There is only so many Kardashian stories we can take before we lock onto the meaningful news of the day - an enterprise story that captures your mind. Among the broadcast networks, CBS news seems to have also locked onto this strategy.

The question in Long Beach, therefore, is whether this beach community senses it's not getting the type and AMOUNT of local news it deserves from the main local paper? The LA Newspaper Group has combined its news gathering resources in a cost-saving strategy that allows each edition to put local news on the first page mixed with stories from reporters in other areas of Southern California. In many ways, the "wrap" philosophy is working at LANG. 

The LBRegister is making a big point of showcasing its "local" writers by printing their headshots next to their bylines.  LANG-owned papers will carry bylines that also list a reporter's email address - but those email addresses could be from the Daily Breeze, the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and...

So, is $5 more a month to subscribe the Register worth it for existing P-T subscribers?  

Curiosity may cause some P-T readers to drop and "try out" the new paper.

But my money is on content and consistency.  The look and feel of the LBRegister in its first week (26 pages of nothing but local news and sports with plenty of bright, big photos in Thursday's edition - plus the rest of the Register)  certainly makes this blogger feel he's getting more local news.

The content is there - but you would expect a great start for a new newspaper. Can it keep delivering this level of content? Consistency.


The long-term strategy will be to out-perform the other local news organizations with content.  Readers will sniff this out.  If the LBRegister gets enough readers, then advertisers will stick around. At least, that's how I would sell this to the owners of the Register.  Stay tuned.

Link this Google

The buzz about Google's new policy (actually reads more like a clarification) regarding links in news releases is, well, getting some buzz.


One columnist went as far as to suggest the new policy meant the death of PR agencies.  Nice headline grabbing there.

Fortunately, there are always solutions...and smart PR people.  As long-term PR pros know, changes in Google policy do not prevent us from doing our jobs and employing the range of tactics and strategies we are now using and the new ones we'll develop to work around any obstacle.

For those who live and die by search results, I would suggest daily readings at SearchEngineLand.com. Several useful tips here.  They were the ones that apparently "broke" the news about the Google changes. 

Our friends at Business Wire were quick to provide solutions. Make sure you read this.

 And, I have four links in this blog post. Any one's guess as to how Google will treat them.

Keep calm and carry on.

Big Merger, Big Data and PR Kings

Sunday's announcement that Publicis and Omnicom are merging is another sign that digital/big data will rule the day for the immediate future in the world of communications, marketing, advertising and public relations.

The merger of these two large holding companies also holds the potential of further blurring the lines of who is leading the strategic discussion, and raises the question as to whether a "combined" company offering integrated services is better than various disciplines focusing on their strengths in independent fashion.

Certainly, the focus of news articles is on advertising largeness of these two holding companies, but the bigger discussion should be about overall communications strategy, opportunities and threats for public relations and so on.

Omnicom Group owns several public relations agencies, including Ketchum, Porter Noveli and FleishmanHillard.  Aside from speculation about the future of other PR agencies within Omnicom and the overall operations of the combined company, the merger news allows anyone in PR to take stock of Big Data and digital communications.

Since its beginnings, public relations has been about gaining insights into trends, mindsets, motivations and behaviors, then using this information and research to develop communications strategies. In the digital era, there is now a wealth of new research and information that creates opportunities for specialists who can mine and analyze data collected from our computers and phones, from cash registers and more.

While these specialists are highly sought after, the role of the PR pro remains as important and as critical.

From my perspective, the digital era has caused more disruptions in the advertising world than in the public relations dominion. PR pros have appeared far more adept at adopting new tactics with the additional insights of big data, but haven't strayed far from the pillars of sound communication strategies.  Another way to think about this: We are simply being offered different inputs to develop what we are hired to do - influence outcomes, promote products and services, communicate with our customers and target audiences, etc.  The subtle changes in process are well documented, such as: Customer segmentation is growing so we need to be even more targeted in our communications, or we need to drive more "engagement," which is another way of saying we need to get someone to focus on our story or product. ( For one Big Data for PR 101 lesson, go here. There are plenty of others.)

So, will a mega merger change the landscape?  Will it create more opportunities for public relations to lead communications strategies?

If anything, now is an extremely opportunistic time for PR pros to grab attention - with existing clients and potential ones, with their corporate bosses and with prospective or existing partners.

Remind them who is in charge of developing the strategies and the message, the keepers of the brand and the most experienced person in the room to properly analyze any and all data.

Nothing like leveraging a major announcement to one's advantage, eh?

Why is Paula Deen crying?

Why is the queen of southern food crying?  How is Paula Deen's reputation struggle different from prior ones?  What are her chances at recovery?

Image and reputation recovery is a tricky business.  Because of scandals and because humans are, well, humans, public relations professionals are routinely called upon to handle both the immediate crisis, and develop the strategy for a better future. 

"Make the issue go away" is a refrain I commonly hear from crisis clients.  "What can you do to turn my image around?"  "How are we going to save my reputation?"

As PR pros know, there are no cookie cutter recipes (sorry, had to... when talking about Paula) to rebuilding or rehabilitating a reputation or image.  Each one is a learning experience.  However, success or failure depends on some fundamentals (explained below).

Tiger Woods. Lance Armstrong. Martha Stewart. Two out of these three recent falls-from-grace appear to have recovered, in part because they followed the fundamentals. These are all empires built upon a persona - an image carefully crafted and managed to bring in millions.  Something goes wrong in that person's life, and an empire can quickly crumble. Endorsements, licensing deals and corporate relationships disappear. Big money follows big personalities, as long as they behave.

What are Paula Deen's chances?

Let's look at some of the fundamentals to reputation recovery.

Hit the airwaves
Perhaps her first step was on the NBC Today show. albeit a few days late. (My go-to would have been Oprah - for some very obvious reasons).  But judging by most reactions, Paula didn't execute well. Matt Lauer can be a tough interview. He knows why damaged goods appears on TV.  So, he first asked the appropriate question: If Paula was sitting next to him to keep the financial empire afloat?  Not a real solid answer here. She deflected that one and instead was trying to have a "personal moment" with Matt and America.  It did not appear she had a good game plan going in - other than some hastily assembled messages.

Second - ARS (Apologize, show Remorse and be Sincere)
On Today, we saw a Paula Deen who was trying to show America her true nature, what she is made of and how her daddy raised her.  Potentially good strategies, but these must be delivered with precision. But she failed to do something right out of the gate.  America was waiting to hear an apology.  That is step number one. No options here. Save explanations for later.  "I'm sorry for being insensitive. I apologize for tolerating racial slurs in my presence.  I apologize for ..."  Once the apology is out there, then people will begin to listen and allow you to enter the road to forgiveness.  The public wants to forgive you.  But, you must meet them halfway.  Apologize and show remorse. Make it sincere. (Remorse and sincerity were not evident - in the eyes of a judgmental public - when Lance Armstrong came clean in front of Oprah).   Paula, dear, you can't expect America to "get to know you" in four minutes on the Today show. It will come with time. Use these precious minutes to get the apologize out, AND explain your crazy statement from the deposition about not understanding what offends people.  (So, you are an ignorant racist?)

Third - remain composed
But why was she crying this time around? Why did she look so distraught?  Paula's past responses to attacks on her reputation were executed with much better precision. Really - look at these older videos.  Some people remember the diabetes issue, but America has moved on from that one. On Today, she was in far too an emotional state to be on TV.  I would have cancelled a second time if she wasn't ready.  Yes, we want to see that a situation or an issue has deeply impacted you (and your family and friends), we want you to be sincere, but we also want you to be a strong individual who appears to have the conviction to turn things around and get better. Paula looks defeated - and if you look defeated, there is no hope for recovery.  Game over.

Be quick
(And, as John Wooden would say, "but don't hurry.")   America had been waiting for an official response from Paula.  And, apparently so were her corporate partners and TV network.  Her financial partners were "evaluating their positions" - so that means she needed to be much faster (quick) in huddling with these companies and letting them know her immediate (quick) plans to apologize publicly and to work with them to establish new initiatives associated with the situation.  Paula's brand is well suited to launch educational initiatives aimed at promoting tolerance, fairness and equality in the workplace and beyond. Get people in place to make this happen - quickly, so you can announce it.  But, sadly, she hurried a TV appearance.  Corporate partners were not impressed and could no longer wait.  Ties severed.

Seek counsel?
Paula reached out to Rev. Jackson who essentially vowed to save her and enlighten her. This is a small tactical step that can be viewed with skepticism. Tread lightly here.  It's much better to...

Plan the long game
Reputation recovery does not happen overnight. It occurs in small steps.  Be patient and all will be forgiven - if you do the right thing. 

(Next: a discussion about the fickle, changing public and Anne Rice's plea for the mobs to go away)

Public Relations Strategists Key To Social Media

Public Relations is often described as the practice of building beneficial relationships. 

Obviously, much goes into the development and execution of a good PR plan to build relationships that reward your company or client.  The results of experience, expertise and more can be huge.

Look at "Scandal" - the "must-tweet" television series. 

The Los Angeles Times writes about how Twitter plays an integral part in the success of a show that opened to a modest reception.

The show's producer and its cast have realized the benefits of using this powerful PR tool - in the right way.

There are many unsuccessful Twitter campaigns.  Why?

• Lack of a sound strategy
• No clear understanding of your audience
• Unable to be authentic

These are all basic principles of building positive relationships - developed and implemented through experienced public relations professionals.  

Even if a PR pro did not have his or her hands on the wheel on this one, we're willing to accept the thanks for building the foundation.

No one reads a release?

Today's "At Breakfast With" series (one of the more successful programs from the PRSA-Los Angeles Chapter), had some startling (?) news from reporters and editors from national news organizations:

• Don't pitch a story idea to a reporter's Twitter account.  (Twitter remains sacred ground. It's more personal there than, say, LinkedIn, which is perfectly OK to us to reach a reporter).  They hate a DM pitch.

• If you are not representing a publicly traded company, why publish a news release?  Seems like many reporters are simply not reading them anymore.  

 And then there were things we already know, but need reminding now and then.

• Study the reporter before pitching them. Common theme at these media breakfasts. It seems we PR folks are not understanding this and most reporters complain about getting a pitch that doesn't fall into their type of coverage.  It's so easy to Google a reporter and find what they are writing/broadcasting.  The Forbes reporter who covers entertainment doesn't want to know about the latest face cream breakthrough (unless, of course, the celebrity is about to buy that face cream company).  Bloomberg usually doesn't cover company news if they are not a publicly traded company. 

• Don't call on deadline.

• Building relationships are key.  Take a reporter out for coffee, breakfast, lunch or have a non-deadline casual conversation that doesn't involve a current pitch.

• Reporters get hundreds, thousands of emails.  So, make it personal in the subject line to catch their attention.  

• Phone follow only if necessary.  If you truly think it's a story for them and they probably overlooked it, then call.  Not with "did you get my release," but "It's a story I believe is ripe for you and here's why"

• Pretend you are a TV reporter trying to "sell" a story to the editor.  That's how the reporter you are pitching wants to hear it from you.  (I.e. "What you think you know about XX is now completely different")

• Information and statistics are great, but stories are best with "characters" (i.e. interesting people)..and they need to be media trained for TV.  

And there were a TON of other useful tips from today's program.  If you want to link which reporter or editor to the statements above... well, you need to show up.  If you want this level of intelligence  to enhance your career - then you need to attend more PRSA/LA events and become a member.  Membership is cheap and has huge ROI to your career.

Dorner: A new chapter on credibility and social media

The week-long saga that gripped Southern California and perhaps the nation - the hunt for an ex-cop who issued a manifesto and apparently went on a killing spree - is one to study.

Law enforcement, which always seems to have a credibility cloud over it, was facing even more scrutiny in large part from a small, but loud and adept audience raising questions.  Social media channels have enabled voices and opinions to not only be heard, but create noticeable change in discourse. 


If you monitored #dorner tweets, you would see a ride range of comments, accusations, sarcasm, humor and other statements.  The question for public relations professionals is how to gauge these in developing communications strategies.

Do you ignore the "crazies"?

Before social media, opposing views were shared in smaller groups. Only rational-thinking, credentialed authors made it to the op-ed pages.  Obviously, today is much different and a few tweets can lead to a groundswell. 

For law enforcement, they are now dealing with greater demands to be transparent.  In the ex-cop rampage, the LA police chief agreed to re-open the ex-cop's case. An unprecedented move.  But to many, this was not good enough.  There were calls for independent groups or individuals to be part of the review. 

Even as this case now appears over, there are hardened skeptics who cast about on social media channels a range of theories that in earlier days would have been cast aside or never heard.


What do PR professionals glean from this?

It's not that easy to ignore the radical voice. But, it's also a balancing act.  If you exercise considerable attention to answer all charges, allegations and theories, you have given up the ability to direct the conversation back to the center. How often will you tell your client to get a backbone and not crumble in the face of a loud, but actually small, group that is using social media to its advantage?

Timing.  PR is usually the "long game." We often win the long game by waiting it out, implement new policies that address problems, etc.  Yet, serious examination now must be given to "letting the dust settle" versus determining if the heated rhetoric will have lasting impacts to reputation and credibility. 

That's not PR

The legitimate, ethical profession of public relations continues to be under attack. 

And PR pros are to blame.

We don't do a good enough job of describing what "good" PR is. We don't insist on the proper definition of public relations.  We don't give names to things other than legitimate PR.

Take, for example, a column by one of my favorites - Steve Lopez.  In the latest sad chapter of a few bad priests molesting boys and the Cardinal who should have done more to protect the boys, Lopez writes that the Cardinal went into "full PR mode" to "spin" his side of the story.

I get that reporters and columnists sometimes "feel" like they are being "spun" by sources. But what the Cardinal was doing was not "PR" but laying out a defense, more like an attorney would on behalf of a client.

Time and time again, public relations professionals insist that when we offer "the other side" of the story - with facts - we are not attempting to "spin" someone but merely provide reporters with additional detail and another view of the story.  Too often, reporters call a few minutes before deadline wanting a response to a serious allegation or charge or incident.  The story, by then, is essentially written and we're left with no chance to change the direction of the piece through thoughtful dialogue with a reporter. 


It's easy - dare I say, lazy journalism - to infuse a story with "action" words like "PR" and "spin" because by now everyone seems to believe the first is a terrible thing and the second is always associated with the first.

I'm too much of a realist to know that we won't change this over night.  (We'll get accused of trying to spin a reporter with PR just trying to bring this up!)

Yet, we must do more to define the "good" and legitimate PR that goes on everyday and is routinely enjoyed and accepted by the news media from the "other" stuff that may resemble PR, but need a different definition.

It's about separation.

This is an ongoing dilemma - as I recall several blogs (one of my favorites was when the SpinSucks blog began) that have dealt with this topic for years.

However, we PR pros must do a better job of defining what PR really is and give reporters and columnists better, alternative inflammatory language to describe stuff that may sound like PR but is something else.   The vacuum we leave behind for journalists - by not offering alternative descriptions to actions that are not ethical or credible - perpetuates the problem.

In the case of the Cardinal, it may be better to describe "his attempts to defend his reputation." He went into "defense" mode or tried to "engineer" a better image for himself.  I would (maybe I will) offer the columnist a clear understanding that public relations - by its very definition and meaning to companies, associations and individuals - can only survive if its credible and ethical.


It also comes down to how we treat reporters and other journalists.  I can't tell you how many times I have run into a journalist who felt "burned" or "spun" by a public relations person or publicist. As a former journalist, I usually can provide some credibility and trust.  ("Look, I was a journalist not too long ago, so I promise I won't spin you.")  Once you get reporters to realize you are more of an asset to them and that you are not going to "spin" them but provide reports, facts, access, details and other considerations that may be fruitful to their story, you are halfway there.

As professional, ethical PR professionals, we certainly must represent our clients and companies.

We also must defend our profession.

So, when a column incorrectly says that someone is going into "PR mode" to try to deflect criticism or otherwise paint an inaccurate picture of themselves or their organization - tell the reporter THAT is not PR because it's not credible or ethical. Tell them that "PR" does not equate deceit or misdirection.  Tell them to use better language to describe actions that have no resemblance to ethical, credible communications.

Yeah, even when a priest is involved.


NEXT: When someone has "PR problem on their hands."