Seat at the Table

Nothing says you’ve lost a national, high-profile PR fight by having Saturday Night Live make fun of your side and then seeing the video go viral.  

SNL’s TSA Parody (watch it below) is showing up as a popular video on Hulu (on the front page as of 11/21 on 5pm) while quick Google search of “TSA and SNL” shows a large collection of top blogs picking up on the video.   As Homer Simpson says, “it’s funny ‘cause it’s true.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DYje57V_BY).  And right now, the whole screaming country is laughing . 

Note to TSA:  You may be right, we may be crazy, but you lost.  It’s time to stop defending your body scanner and pat down process and take some serious steps that show you are listening to the public.

AdAge ran an opinion article citing the press release is dead and Twitter is the news distribution king.  I had the usual thought.  The press release targeting press is dead, the news release targeting the audience is alive and well, and the argument itself is false.  On the last point, there are a number of good comments pointing out how the two don’t event compete.  People want the nugget (Twitter) and then the details (the news release as the official statement and article as third party validator).  Here’s the original article – http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=145838.

But, just because I like to play the devils advocate (and be right, too), I did a quick LinkedIn Survey of 100 professionals.  It’s not the most scientific but it’s something more than these opinion articles do – actually ask people what they read before proclaiming what they read.  I focused on the industries with professionals most likely to use Twitter – media, marketing and technology.  Lo and behold, when asked do you read news releases, Twitter or both, news releases win hands down.  And age make little difference.  As it skews younger more people read both, but as of today, Twitter still falls into last place.  Here are the results.

PS, for those that say, “yes, but what about consumers?”  I say, well, aren’t professionals consumers, too?

In reading Gigaom’s post on why Newstilt failed, I was struck by the fact that Newstilt’s core mission was trying to “save” the media industry.  Perhaps trying to save an industry that’s doing just fine is what led it to fail.  You can’t “save” industry that is going through a successful, albeit painful, transition.    You can accelerate and smooth out the transition. That’s where companies and products succeed (Apple’s iPad, advertising networks).

What? The media industry is doing fine? I consider the media industry to be everything from content creators and distributors to advertisers and hardware manufacturers.   All of these industries are seeing terrific growth.  TVs are bigger and more expensive, devices like smartphones and tablets are taking off, there is more content being created than ever before with even “old media” doing quite well by working with newer social media (Glee on the small screen, Avatar on the big screen), and many segments of advertising continue to see very healthy growth (search, branded content etc).  Sure, older industry segments like traditional TV ads and old ways of aggregating and managing content (ie, traditional media conglomerate models) may be under attack.  However, that is a problem of old models suffering, not the industry.

So the challenge is not saving the industry, it’s helping it evolve.  And challenge means opportunity, so where’s the opportunity for communications professionals?

1. Realize our job, when it comes to media relationships, is not simply to help provide a newsworthy story but one that drives traffic.  This is not so different from the days of providing one that sells newspapers, but now we can help provide that traffic by providing viral-worthy content and pushing links to the story once published.  This can make PR more valuable than ever to media by providing more value than simply a good story idea or information.  We can help drive monetizable traffic (good for both media and clients).

2. Increase the value of our tools.  The press release is not dead.  It’s now a news release and ore valuable than ever.    News releases are now read not by journalists, but by the end audience thanks to news aggregators like Google News and wire syndication on sites like Forbes.  Do people actually read news releases?  Yes – take a look at our latest poll on news releases vs. Twitter – Twitter vs. News Releases – A Tired False Argument Revisited…and Still Wrong.

3. The growth of branded content and custom media means we can help companies turn PR departments into PR and media departments.  Audiences want to hear both from influential third parties (traditional PR firm focus) and directly from the company (new focus).  We can not only help navigate issues like transparency and disclosure in creating custom media properties, we can bring editorial talent to the table to help manage these properties.

Way back in the day (circa 2003) there was media and this new buzz about social media.  Now, social media had always been around in Internet time – discussion boards, email etc – but it was starting to grow not just as a method of communications, but as a generator of widely read/watched content (UGC video, user blogs etc).     Thus, the social media vs. old media wars were launched, and so were widely held misperceptions about “old media” being dead and “new, social media” ruling.    It’s over now for three basic reasons.

1. It’s all media.  There is no new media, old media, social media etc.  It’s all media.   Just as there was different mediums and ways of using those mediums (news TV, fictional tv, home video etc), now there are new mediums and ways of using those mediums.    The challenge is how do we most effectively use each medium, now whether or not it’s alive or dead.  
2. There is no old media, just old business models.  People confuse old media with outdated business models.  Don’t.  I’ve seen too many PR and marketing campaigns ignore so-called old media but what they are really doing is ignoring what is still a high-reach, high impact medium (like TV) because they thought ignoring old media models, such as the companies that owned the TV series, with the media itself.
3. All media is social.  It’s just a matter of whether it is social centric or content centric.  Professional news papers have social features (content centric) and social networks user social features to share content (social centric) – be it a thought or an article.

There is a short but simple lesson to take away here – none of it matters.  All that matters is what is the most effective way to reach an audience.  Do some research, ask questions.  You may find that Twitter is all you need.  You may also find that your most powerful tool is the local supermarket flyer or, dare I say it, daily newspaper.  Whatever you find your audience is reacting to, that’s what is most important.  Not social vs. old vs. Twitter vs. MySpace (yup, people are still on it).

I often watch O’Reilly to be amazed by how he consistently puts forward weak, shallow, inconsistent and factually incorrect/misleading arguments.   What’s amazing is how he does so sounding so calm, confident, reasonable, and most important, factual (you can sound factual without actually using any real facts – it’s being a good story teller), that it’s easy to see why so many people might believe in his positions.  I particularly love his memos.  After all, why would a memo contain anything but a reasonable, fact based argument.

His recent appearance on The View was incredibly entertaining.  He stated some things that were highly offensive (regarding the 9/11 terrorists) to the positions of his hosts.  But while he did it in a calm, matter-of-fact manner, his hosts got very emotional and left the set.  It’s like having a guest calmly debate you – but you get driven away from your own table.

Tone is important and O’Reilly shows that day in and day out.  The hosts of The View, and communicators, should take careful note.  You will have an easier time winning an audience to your side of the argument if you make it “sound” factual and reasonable.    If you are trying to win an audience over to your argument (as all this is moot regarding audiences who already agree with you), you’ll do it as much on tone as on substance.  Just watch politicians debate.

Perhaps this is why conservative commentators have an easier time winning large influential audiences – they sound like they simply sticking to the facts and not getting emotional over these facts (Limbaugh gets emotional – but always sticks to the “facts”).    Yes, that’s right, I’m saying take a lesson in spin from the supposed anti-spin doctor himself.

Enjoy the video (or don’t, if you’re a big fan of The View).

The Gartner Hype Cycle is a good look at what’s being hyped, what moving past the hype and what’s actually being adopted.  As new types of video services such as Over-the-Top TV are the rage, it’s worth taking a look at where hyped video technologies stand.  The ones at the top of the curve are likely to dominate the market dialogue this year.  This means that communications and marketing strategies will often revolve around these topics even as others see broader adoption.  Here are some key ones to watch:

What’s hot:

• Video search – Gartner lists it as rising up the initial hype curve.  I was surprised to see this but it may be do to products like Google TV pushing discovery (search) on TV.
• Internet TV is also on the rise – I’m assuming this refers to Over-the-Top TV and offerings like Hulu moving to these platforms (as opposed to the old MSN TV). 
• 3D displays – these are at the top and may fall off if they don’t wow consumers this year.  However, the industry is now talking about 3D TV without the glasses.  Broad adoption may be a few years off but could move the category back to the hype curve.

(credit: Gartner)

Image: New York Times

The Economist is taking a lot of flack for putting an edited picture of Obama on the front cover.  The picture shows Obama alone whereas the original picture had Obama with several other people of prominence.   The Economist seems to think it was a small infraction as they were simply trying to convey an idea – that Obama was alone vs. BP – and not the fact that Obama stood alone.  Had they done a drawn illustration this would have been fine as an illustration, by definition, means it’s not a factual image.  However, they choose to use an image without disclosing it was edited from a different picture.  Many people, including myself, assumed this was a picture of Obama standing by himself.  

Now The Economist is on the defensive and trying to explain the picture instead of simply saying they messed up and will never again show an edited photo without disclosing that it was edited.   Generally, I like to trust The Economist with the facts. But unless they get their apology and photo disclosure rules in order, how can I trust them the next time they try to convey a fact with a photo?

Lesson to PR Pros (and clients) – there are bad apples everywhere, I do commonly see public relations professionals (starting with our team) always making sure communications are transparent and disclosure is up front.  The purpose is to make sure communications help engage and inform an audience…and never mislead.   And we always counsel to err on the side of too much vs. too little disclosure.   Because even a perceived misleading statement or piece of information means an organization

Here’s a good review of the situation from Business Insider./
http://www.businessinsider.com/busted-the-economist-photoshops-obama-to-make-him-look-more-depressed-and-alone-2010-7

And the article the photo refers to (the article photo seems to be simply cropped)
http://www.economist.com/node/16377269?page=2

The next time I get into an “advertising vs. PR” debate, I’ll have this commercial handy to show why it’s not an either-or situation.    Just watch it this great story with a strong message – told only the way a commercial format can tell it…and then leveraged by PR the way only PR can leverage it. 

Click here for the press release.

Spirit Airlines has been pummeled by everyone from consumer groups to news commentators to Senator Charles Schumer for announcing carry on baggage fees.  Surely they saw this coming.  But perhaps their problem was not announcing the fees, but not being aggressive enough in doing so…with a twist (or, yes, a spin).

Spirit Airlines is aiming to charge some of the lowest ticket prices.  I have found them to be consistently low priced compared to other airlines for comparable routes.  The problem is that instead of keeping everyone focused on leadership low ticket prices, they are quickly gaining a reputation for leadership in fees.  The exact opposite.    My advice, don’t fight with a Senator Schumer type complaint directly, but fight the message by changing the conversation.

First, lay the groundwork – Make it clear via editorial (earned) media, social media and paid media that Spirit Airlines core mission is to get people from point A to point B for the cheapest ticket price possible by stripping away all extras.  If you want extras, that’s also an option and the ticket price is then comparable to other airlines (it is, I checked).

Second, change the conversation about fees into one about passengers only paying the part of the flight they use.  Why should I pay for someone else that wants to use more of the airlines space (overhead) and time (staff time for boarding is longer with more overhead luggage).  These aren’t fees for carry on baggage, this is higher ticket price for people that want to use more of the airplane’s (and, annoyingly, my) time and space. 

Third, counterattack and challenge the critics.  Use the above points to make it crystal clear that people trying to kill their model are really trying to kill the cheapest ticket prices.   Challenge the critics to show if they can deliver a business model with the same ticket prices, the same level of service and the same level of fairness in paying only for the airline resources you use.   Let the critics know if they can meet this challenge – complete with technical, financial and proof of maintaining good service (e.g., no annoying carry on baggage), you would happily sit down and see if you can implement their models.

And if this debate goes on, make the challenge more public.  Make the Web site message clear that you are the fairest airline by not only charging the lowest basic ticket price, but by charging for the space and time you use, not what other people use.  After all, what beats both cheap and fair.

The popularity of the iPhone has actually resulted in an ongoing reputation problem for AT&T – that of having an unreliable network that often drops calls.  The typical response I’ve seen in this situation is to listen to the complaint and promise, with an outline plan, to fix the problem.  Then, hopefully, fix it and problem is solved.

As this problem won’t get fixed overnight, how can AT&T do more than just make a promise?  Get customers involved in fixing the problem.  AT&T is doing this by launching an app for the iPhone – iPhone users seem to be the most vocal in complaining about this issue.    The app to the right shows how people can quickly log on to the app and report the problem complain.  AT&T will then use the data to beef up the network and stop dropped calls.

Time will tell if it works but I do think that customers are more forgiving when they truly believe a company is working on a solution.  Involving them in the implementation of the solution itself is a great way to rebuild trust.

Read more at

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/12/iphone-app-reports-dropped-calls-poor-voice-quality-to-att/