It's the time of year for 2010 predictions, musings and rants. Among the many, I'll add mine.
1. Shorten your top # list.
Top (fill in the number) lists are growing shorter. Do you remember "Top 20"? Today, if you come across a top 100 list, you will skim the top 5, maybe the top 10. A few gallant efforts are trying to keep the Top 10 list. (David Letterman will be the last holdout).
Many bloggers are trimming to 5 or 6 points.
Short attention spans? Too many blogs? Smaller computer screens (like my cool new netbook). The scrolling resistance movement?
Let's face it: The fast pace of Twitter and other social media sites is literally leaving you with only 37 seconds to read a linked story before you have to check Tweetdeck again.
The love affair with lists won't entirely fade because bullets and numbers seem to package info very nicely for us. Journalists seem to love them.
So, keep manufacturing lists to get attention.
But, really, we simply don't have time to read any list longer than, say, five things.
(Um, gotta go. I just got 14 new emails, 300 new tweets to check and a long lost high school classmate who just found me on Facebook.)
2. Pithy works. The English language continues to suffer. Spellcheck is used less. The watchdogs we grew up with (i.e., William Safire) are no longer around to beat on us for bad grammar and stupid phrases.
Somehow, we no longer cringe over bad writing, just bad pitches. If it's glib, we'll read it. Substance will continue to take a back seat. But, as long as Snopes is around...Sigh.
3. Sensitivity training needed. Please keep the sensitivity training in court orders and other judgments handed down to public figures, like overpaid athletes who run into stands to fight with fans or a barely audible rapper who beats on his girlfriend.
You see, when the TMZs and the Perez Hiltons of the world rule by shock value, there needs to be a balance. Our only reminder that values still have, well, value is when someone is ordered to do community service. The sentencing phase in celebrity court cases still draws huge amounts of attention.
Side benefit: Cutting the anointed idols down to size is our only hope in slowing the pace of reality programming. (Did you hear about the "marriage referee" show coming next year?)
OK judges - time to be even more creative. Wouldn't an appropriate sentencing order in 2010 require a drunken, out-of-work actress to work five days a week at a Rescue Mission to feed the homeless? Or for a new reality show to be created on Court TV to follow a wannabe-boxer-who-plays-right-tackle in the NFL as he picks up trash along the freeway or talks to young boys about the dangers of pre-marital sex?
4. Aggregating continues. The cry of "I just need one site that gives me everything" will continue as millions of more blogs and Web sites appear and strain the world's server capacities. Anyone or any company that delivers this solution will be placed next to Ben Franklin or Thomas Edison and hailed as delivering the eighth wonder of the world. Yeah, I know: Google, Bing and others are trying.
5. "Instant" moves into "future." Today, I can use a Droid to scan an item at my local clothing retailer and compare the price online to find the cheapest price. Instantly. If the online price is cheaper, I can actually stand in that retailer's store, order the same product over the Internet and somehow escape without the store manager giving me angry stares or spraying me with a cologne sample. I can use the GPS function of my phone to hunt down a reporter attending the same conference, or become the "mayor" of a coffee shop. My Google page is automatically refreshing my current search with Twitter updates.
Now is now.
So, what's next? Telling me what's going to happen. Now, that will be cool. Heck, the Weather Channel has been doing this for years.
Think of all the time I will save if someone can tell me that my PR pitch to the Wall Street Journal (online edition, of course) will fail or succeed before I waste my time crafting that perfect pitch.
6.573. Four jobs. Multitasking and working from home were simply training and a precursor to morphing a single job description into three or four. Employers won't hire one person. They will hire a fourth of a person. We'll all work from home, answering to 3 or 4 bosses or "paycheck providers" (as the new mantra emerges). The possibilities under the new economy are endless.
Still with me? Then you must not have a Twitter account.
Happy Holidays.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Muddy waters?
Public disclosure and public relations can and do co-exist. But in recent examples and with another "big game" at stake - the matter is not resolved by any stretch.
The health care debate has cast attention on deception and "front groups" created by the health care, insurance or pharmaceutical industries. A prominent public relations executive detailed at the 2009 PRSA conference why he left a cushy insurance industry job for this reason.
The next ethical spotlight could very well be cast in California in 2010.
California water wars are notorious. As soon as a drop falls from the skies and lands in the Golden State (as well as other Western states), it is "game on" for control.
California is "water rich" in the north and "people rich" in the south. Hence, the need to build canals to send water hundreds of miles from mountains and rivers to population centers. The most notable skirmish is the city of Los Angeles' epic takeover of Owens Valley water rights (as portrayed in "Chinatown").
Numerous books have been written about how various parties - from the state's large farming concerns to urban water agencies to well-organized environmental groups - wage intense, high-priced battles over this precious resource. I once worked for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which was created to build and manage a 200+ mile pipeline to transport water from the Colorado River to one of the largest populations in the world.
This year, California's lawmakers passed a series of monumental bills designed to protect the major faucet in our our massive water system - the Delta.
This was big. This was huge. It's been more than 30 years since acts of similar magnitude were accomplished.
Passage came after major political battles. I mean, major political battles. This column can't adequately summarize the extent of these multiple negotiations except to say that anytime you mix legal rights (like property rights), the country's biggest agriculture concerns, some of the most cunning environmental groups, millionaires, lawyers, lobbyists, the governor, public affairs strategists - each with their own agenda to carry - it is, well, manic and complicated. Trades and favors are exchanged in mostly painful ways.
California's water picture involves a mix of public relations, public affairs and lobbying. And, money. Water is perhaps one of the most complex issues in California.
Given the stakes, many public relations and public affairs firms in CA have been called upon to develop and implement various campaigns.
Now comes an article from an independent news organization about "front groups" apparently created and managed by public affairs firms or similar interests. A few "Friends of the.." popped up in the latest CA water battle. This is old stuff in California. With this state's predisposition for legislation through ballot initiative, we've seen these "Friends of..." or "Citizens for...." groups suddenly emerge to support their side of the issue. Heck, voters in California will see four or five "firefighter" organizations endorsing ballot measures or candidates. Firefighters consistently earn the most trust among citizens, so their endorsements are continually sought. But it's now difficult to figure out which firefighter group to follow.
While not new, front groups can pose issues in terms of public disclosure or creating public confusion. The Public Relations Society of America has guidelines, ethical standards and periodic bulletins that practitioners should follow when conducting business on behalf of a client, company or organization.
One thing should be clear: A public affairs firm or public relations agency is best suited to develop and manage an issues campaign.
In most cases, a firm is hired by an existing organization and there is no question whose side is being promoted. But in cases where multiple entities or individuals have a "case" to make and no organization exists, a "Friends of.." group is created. Or, call them "front groups." Now comes the tricky part in terms of disclosure - and the source of the recent news examination as to who funds these groups and their true intentions.
"Pop-up" groups that don't fully disclose their financial supporters or intentions cast an unwanted negative shadow over the other organizations that do disclose. They also can "muddy the waters" in a legitimate debate of the issues.
As the media director for a CA ballot initiative in the 1990s, I made it clear who I represented and their financial support. Once I disclosed this with reporters and editorial boards (and disclosure was made upfront), I was able to have a better discussion of the issue with news organizations. I believe our honesty - combined with a well crafted campaign - earned us points at the polls.
As 2010 approaches in California, we now brace for more "pop-up"groups to form in the debate over an $11 billion bond measure to fund major water projects in the state. Yes, I said "$11 billion." On the ballot in November 2010.
This is the final piece of the massive battle over how to fix the state's water system. With this kind of money at stake, it's easy to conclude that my public affairs colleagues will be gainfully employed next year.
Already, we have seen some groups forming their opposition to the measure, or using the bond issue to redirect public debate toward their issues. Strategies are being formed. Money collecting has begun to pay for advertisements and public affairs strategists.
Confusion is ahead. Scare tactics are inevitable.
The question relevant to the public relations profession and the hundreds of public affairs professionals doing business in CA is whether all front groups and organizations provide full disclosure. It would be sad if an agency or strategist is gambling or taking a calculation: Either that mainstream news organizations no longer do this kind of investigative reporting or, even if they do publish a "money trail" article, no one cares.
The CA electorate - and the public relations profession - will be better off with full disclosure.
The health care debate has cast attention on deception and "front groups" created by the health care, insurance or pharmaceutical industries. A prominent public relations executive detailed at the 2009 PRSA conference why he left a cushy insurance industry job for this reason.
The next ethical spotlight could very well be cast in California in 2010.
California water wars are notorious. As soon as a drop falls from the skies and lands in the Golden State (as well as other Western states), it is "game on" for control.
California is "water rich" in the north and "people rich" in the south. Hence, the need to build canals to send water hundreds of miles from mountains and rivers to population centers. The most notable skirmish is the city of Los Angeles' epic takeover of Owens Valley water rights (as portrayed in "Chinatown").
Numerous books have been written about how various parties - from the state's large farming concerns to urban water agencies to well-organized environmental groups - wage intense, high-priced battles over this precious resource. I once worked for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which was created to build and manage a 200+ mile pipeline to transport water from the Colorado River to one of the largest populations in the world.
This year, California's lawmakers passed a series of monumental bills designed to protect the major faucet in our our massive water system - the Delta.
This was big. This was huge. It's been more than 30 years since acts of similar magnitude were accomplished.
Passage came after major political battles. I mean, major political battles. This column can't adequately summarize the extent of these multiple negotiations except to say that anytime you mix legal rights (like property rights), the country's biggest agriculture concerns, some of the most cunning environmental groups, millionaires, lawyers, lobbyists, the governor, public affairs strategists - each with their own agenda to carry - it is, well, manic and complicated. Trades and favors are exchanged in mostly painful ways.
California's water picture involves a mix of public relations, public affairs and lobbying. And, money. Water is perhaps one of the most complex issues in California.
Given the stakes, many public relations and public affairs firms in CA have been called upon to develop and implement various campaigns.
Now comes an article from an independent news organization about "front groups" apparently created and managed by public affairs firms or similar interests. A few "Friends of the.." popped up in the latest CA water battle. This is old stuff in California. With this state's predisposition for legislation through ballot initiative, we've seen these "Friends of..." or "Citizens for...." groups suddenly emerge to support their side of the issue. Heck, voters in California will see four or five "firefighter" organizations endorsing ballot measures or candidates. Firefighters consistently earn the most trust among citizens, so their endorsements are continually sought. But it's now difficult to figure out which firefighter group to follow.
While not new, front groups can pose issues in terms of public disclosure or creating public confusion. The Public Relations Society of America has guidelines, ethical standards and periodic bulletins that practitioners should follow when conducting business on behalf of a client, company or organization.
One thing should be clear: A public affairs firm or public relations agency is best suited to develop and manage an issues campaign.
In most cases, a firm is hired by an existing organization and there is no question whose side is being promoted. But in cases where multiple entities or individuals have a "case" to make and no organization exists, a "Friends of.." group is created. Or, call them "front groups." Now comes the tricky part in terms of disclosure - and the source of the recent news examination as to who funds these groups and their true intentions.
"Pop-up" groups that don't fully disclose their financial supporters or intentions cast an unwanted negative shadow over the other organizations that do disclose. They also can "muddy the waters" in a legitimate debate of the issues.
As the media director for a CA ballot initiative in the 1990s, I made it clear who I represented and their financial support. Once I disclosed this with reporters and editorial boards (and disclosure was made upfront), I was able to have a better discussion of the issue with news organizations. I believe our honesty - combined with a well crafted campaign - earned us points at the polls.
As 2010 approaches in California, we now brace for more "pop-up"groups to form in the debate over an $11 billion bond measure to fund major water projects in the state. Yes, I said "$11 billion." On the ballot in November 2010.
This is the final piece of the massive battle over how to fix the state's water system. With this kind of money at stake, it's easy to conclude that my public affairs colleagues will be gainfully employed next year.
Already, we have seen some groups forming their opposition to the measure, or using the bond issue to redirect public debate toward their issues. Strategies are being formed. Money collecting has begun to pay for advertisements and public affairs strategists.
Confusion is ahead. Scare tactics are inevitable.
The question relevant to the public relations profession and the hundreds of public affairs professionals doing business in CA is whether all front groups and organizations provide full disclosure. It would be sad if an agency or strategist is gambling or taking a calculation: Either that mainstream news organizations no longer do this kind of investigative reporting or, even if they do publish a "money trail" article, no one cares.
The CA electorate - and the public relations profession - will be better off with full disclosure.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
My podcast about the past, future PR
Hi,
Here is a podcast from my interview at the 2009 PRSA International Conference in San Diego where I offered some discussion about the state of PR, the future of PR and the exciting announcements we made.
Here is a podcast from my interview at the 2009 PRSA International Conference in San Diego where I offered some discussion about the state of PR, the future of PR and the exciting announcements we made.
Community Outreach RFP due Dec.09
The County of San Bernardino has issued an RFP for community outreach services related to its Department of Airports.
Public relations professionals who have subscribed to the free state BidSync services will find that this RFP is only posted on the BidLync paid RFP search service. (Ouch, $400 a year!).
But with a little searching (thank you Google), you can find the public posting here.
Submission is due Dec. 30, 2009.
Public relations professionals who have subscribed to the free state BidSync services will find that this RFP is only posted on the BidLync paid RFP search service. (Ouch, $400 a year!).
But with a little searching (thank you Google), you can find the public posting here.
Submission is due Dec. 30, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)