Catching Flack

Reader VT3000 makes a good point on the previous post about the pluses and minuses of working in corporate PR or for an agency — there ought to be a poll!

So, without further ado, here’s a poll on the subject. Read the previous post for my thoughts on the benefits and drawbacks of each type of job.

 Loading ...

There are basically two places in private enterprise where PR people can work: inside a company, or at a PR agency that has companies as clients.

Both offer their own pluses and minuses. For starters, check out a post on PRSA’s blog on the subject, which got me thinking about the subject. They posted on the blog as a promo for an upcoming webinar on Oct. 7 on the subject.

But here’s a quick list of my thoughts on the pluses and minuses of both settings: (more…)

If Barack Obama is indeed elected President, he will turn out to be one of the most articulate Presidents ever. I’ve been listening to Obama read his two books (Dreams From My Father and Audacity of Hope) on CD and he is a joy to listen to. As a writer and public speaker, I am in awe of his skills in both departments. And if I’m smart, I will never try to emulate them, at least not his speaking style.

Obama appears to be blessed with an equanimity that is not shared by most people. He seems secure in his personality and willing to see things through the other person’s eyes. And he’s more than willing to share credit.

Since he’s so articulate, he can get away with things other speakers can’t, and shouldn’t try. The first is his use of the phrase, “John’s right about this…” in the debate Friday night. As a speaker with the objective of building one’s own case, it’s not helpful to repeatedly praise the other party — let them and their supporters take care of that. A better way to phrase it would be “We agree on some points, but Sen. McCain and I differ on key aspects…”

Of more concern is his continued repeating of negative sentiments about himself, as when he used the word “naive” about half way through the debate. After he said that, McCain repeated it several times, feasting on a word that played right into his strategy of portraying Obama as inexperienced.

The only cure for “repeating a negative” is practicing not to. Obama, with his strong oratorical skills, can get away with it. The rest of us shouldn’t try.

Do you put your press releases on a wire service, or do you email them directly to the media? Do you post them on your web site or blog? Do you use one of the traditional PR wire services — Business Wire, PRNewswire or Marketwire — or newer distribution services such as PRWeb?

A media colleague mentioned in passing that he relied mainly on emailed press releases, not wire services, and that got me thinking, so I wanted to ask the Catching Flack audience for some input on the changing nature of press release distribution. Please vote and feel free to chime in with your insights into press release distribution by leaving a comment.

 Loading ...

The Wall Street Journal is right in the thick of the Crisis on Wall Street and the $700 Billion Bailout — “it’s like a post-9/11 atmosphere. People are eating and sleeping this thing every day,” says Don Clark, deputy bureau chief of the Journal’s San Francisco bureau.

But the current crisis isn’t the only big change roiling the Journal. Press baron Rupert Murdoch took over the paper and its Dow Jones siblings last year, and he’s not one to sit around. And of course, the growing dominance of the Internet over print as a means of communicating news and information is having a big impact too.

For starters, Rupert drove a long overdue revamp of the Journal’s web site, making it much more modern and user-friendly, and introducing new features like “community” discussion groups and the ability to comment on articles.

He has also pushed for the paper to cover more non-business news, though it’s still focused on serious news like the California budget stalemate, not fluff.

At a PRSA San Francisco media breakfast last week, Clark outlined some other changes: (more…)

The biggest disconnect in the media-PR relationship is the definition of “news.” News people have a keen sense for the kind of information they want to present as “news” to their audience, while PR people unfortunately find themselves pitching all sorts of information to journalists that either isn’t news at all or isn’t the kind of information a particular journalist wants to present to their audience.

It’s one of the reasons I got into PR, actually. I have a strong background in journalism and I figured this would be one area where I’d always have a competitive advantage. Fifteen years later, it’s as much of an advantage for me as it ever was, because PR people as a group are no better at figuring out what’s news than they were before.

We trainers and do-gooders continue to try to help, however, and I’m always gratified when I see a client or seminar participant make progress.

The latest attempt to bridge the gap is an online service called Newsvetter, and I recommend you check it out. Newsvetter is set up to be a middleman between PR and the media, screening PR pitches and helping to beef them up so they will be more attractive to the media.

I’m not sure this online approach will work for what is a very hands-on task, but it’s an interesting attempt at bridging the divide.

Assuming it goes off as planned, Friday night’s Presidential debate will be worth watching as much for the political theatre as for the actual policies and strategies outlined by the two Commander-in-Chief wannabes.

The Presidential debates have become the Academy Awards of spinning. The campaigns try to spin expectations before the debate, and as soon as the red light goes off at the end of the debate, legions of spinners descend on a spin room full of media to try to spin the stories that will come out about who “won and who “lost.”

Who will be seen as the winner of the debate? “Whoever has the most attractive people in the spin room,” says a cynical Harry Clark, a longtime Republican lobbyist.

Seriously, what should students of spin watch for? (more…)

Barack Obama and John McCain both ventured into the realm of PR stunts Wednesday in response to the Wall Street financial crisis, and both fell flat with their efforts.

First, let’s stop for a sec and define a PR stunt: an action or announcement that’s more flash than substance. Now, let’s define a good PR stunt: one that has people nodding approvingly, brings some fresh energy to your story and basically doesn’t detract from your overall message. A bad PR stunt: one that is easily seen for what it is, and therefore diminishes your message or reinforces negatives about you.

McCain’s PR stunt was his brash announcement that he would “suspend” his campaign to return to DC and work on the bailout. It’s a stunt because he has continued campaigning, making a speech in New York today, running TV ads and having his surrogates appear on the air, while not appearing to play any meaningful role in the bailout talks. Except for his loyalists, he is being derided for the move, which reinforces his shoot first, aim later style. Not good.

Obama’s stunt was to call for a “joint statement” from the two campaigns that would describe their common perspectives on the crisis and the bailout proposal. While not as gutsy as McCain’s ploy, it’s very Obama-esque in its “can’t we all get along” style.

In his case, the stunt fell flat because the joint statement turned out to be worthless drivel, making him look ineffective and not presidential. It got almost zero coverage. I spent 10 minutes trying to search for the damn thing online and couldn’t find it in a form I could link to — how lame is that? [If you're interested, here's a link to something close.] It’s not even posted on the Obama web site, as far as I can tell.

Memo to the campaigns: get back to what you do best: attacking each other, repeating your soundbites and raising money. Leave the PR stunts to real PR people.

Frustrated with the stock market, your mind-numbing job or your boss? Need a little thrill to lighten up your day?

Or have you always wanted to go off at a reporter who gave your company the shaft?

Either way, have I got the video for you: Oakland Raiders executive John Herrera going after San Jose Mercury News columnist Tim Kawakami — threatening him physically, calling him a drug user, a liar, you name it!

If you’re interested in the backstory, click here, otherwise, enjoy the video!

Do you trust the firm you’ve entrusted your retirement savings to? I mean, really trust them? Because this week, if you don’t, or if your investment manager was Lehman Bros., you’re having a bad week, and you’re looking at more of the same for awhile.

And if you’re in financial services PR? Toss the last 15 years of messaging and get out a fresh sheet of paper, because it’s time to get busy. Whatever else has happened, there’s been a major cataclysm in the financial sector that has rendered all past messaging useless. All those claims about how great your firm was, how rock solid and trustworthy you were, how you understood the market risks and had wonderful systems to beat the market? Gone.

What to say now? It boils down to two main points, depending on the state of your balance sheet and near-term prospects:

1. If your financials are strong (I mean really strong, not house-of-cards strong) then it’s time to go big and say, “we’re solid, you can rely on us, we didn’t take the risks others did, and here’s proof.”
2. If your financials ain’t so strong, but you don’t think you’re going to go under, then it’s time to say “we’re still here, we’re working hard to continue to earn your trust.”

Then of course, there’s the third course of action: getting your resume into shape and posting it.

What else to think about? Ad Age did an interview with some financial PR leaders in New York. Here are some quotes: (more…)