The Intersection of Online and Offline

With apologies to others who read this blog, I will be interspersing my regular commentary with information for my students this fall in our class at Georgetown: MPPR-750 - the Intersection of Online and Offline Public Relations.  More often than not, after a lecture, I will ask you to use this blog to post your thoughts, ideas and questions as well as respond to each other.

While I usually tweak the slides before a lecture, I have pasted below what we will go over this week.  We will be meeting in Walsh 390 at 7:40.

Slides are below;  I look forward to meeting everyone on Wednesday.

Mark

I had a fascinating discussion last night over some drinks and nachos that led to a rant about the role of communicators  — one that is happening now, today, this very second.

It’s this Irishman’s opinion that the transformation of the traditional role of communicators (the theme of this blog, really) is still lost on some of the biggest names out there in the private sector, NGOs as well as in government.  There is still WAY too much regurgitation - one-way communications in which a company issues a press release, people pitch reporters in the hopes that they will pick it up and media outlets either run it or don’t run it.  Side note:  See the post on Esther Schindler’s advice as well as her commentary.

Although the chart below deals with marketing, I think that it could easily apply to one-way communications (credit to David Armano’s EXCELLENT Logic+Emotion blog):

Again, this graphic makes the point better than my words could (it’s worth 1,000 words, I believe), but it demonstrates a one-way communications model, clearly based upon a closed system.  You can easily substitute the words “buyers” for “readers.”

My dinner last night took me to a rant in which I postulated that we, as communicators in the public or private sector, have in essence, lost control of the conversation.  It’s not a bad thing, but it just happened. With very few exceptions, we can’t direct how people feel.

The old way (or for some, the “current way”) is that formal communication is/was to be a top-down exercise. Someone set the agenda and controlled the information that was published.

The new way, due to consumer-generated content, is  everyone is a publisher, and everyone is connected to everyone else.  Trust communities  and social networks rule the day.  People tend to believe information that comes from a trusted source more than from a top-down model.  What this means is that we need to view ourselves as mediators, not communicators. The conversations are happening all around us;  rather than attempting to control the conversation in a top-down manner, good communicators will know a) what is happening in the conversation and b) know if and when to jump in and offer a point of view and c) how not to screw it up.

Again, borrowing from the Logic+Emotion blog, here’s an example of how marketing and public relations are the same in the new model:

Over my nachos last night, I likened the role of communicators the being at the center of a whirlwind — and sometimes a tornado, occasionally reaching out to re-direct the air flow.  You can’t stop a tornado;  for the most part, you ride it out and hope for the best.

The debate about us, our issues, our employers, our candidates, our interests — is all happening around is, just like in a tornado.  Good communicators know that our job is one of mediation, not regurgitation.

Mark

I found this in Krishna De’s excellent “Social Media Weekly Digest” and all I could think of is that this is the true incarnation of how the new offline is, well, online.  People vote with their feet, their paychecks and their future, and that is apparently what Peter Barron of the BBC is doing;  he is set to join Google as head of communications and public affairs for the UK, Ireland and Benelux regions.

This may not seem major, but I am seeing more and more of it, just in the last few days.

One of my favorite sportswriters, Gordon Edes of the Boston Globe, is leaving Boston’s premier paper to become the national baseball writer for Yahoo! Sports.  Sweet gig.

It’s happening. In dribs and drabs, but it’s happening, as more communicators cross over from traditional to online.  Now if someone could just let me get Gordon’s job covering the Sox, I’d be one happy camper.

Mark

Like a rabid dog with a with the mailman’s leg, I just can’t seem to let go of the whole hand-wringing scenario about media and public relations “professionals” doing bad pitches. In the old days, I have noted, as a young buck in the PR agency side of things, I reporters would screen my calls or just hang up on me. And it was over. I’ve been rejected more times than Kate Moss at Weight Watchers meetings (and I won’t even get into my dating life back in the day).

Now you have things like the “Bad Pitch Blog,” designed to bitch-slap mostly junior or clueless individuals who don’t know how to pitch properly. The tag line is “read our wrath.” That’s telling. I won’t mention any of the creators by name, but you need to get over yourselves. Has anyone keyed your car? Stolen your iPod? Assassinated your penguin? You don’t kill a fly with a sledgehammer, and this site reeks of new media hubris. Bad karma. I loved Jason Falls’ “Friday Frustrations” post in which he stated:

“A-list bloggers have an awfully bad habit of blowing smoke up each other’s asses. I’m probably guilty of it, too, though I don’t consider myself an A-lister, but for chrissakes people, you’re not celebrities so stop acting like them.”

Amen, brother.

I swear this is the last time that I am going to say this, but somehow, I am not that irritated by bad pitches. I either ignore them or have even created a folder in my email programs that pick up on key words, stores them there and I go back and read them when I have time. Maybe I am a softy in this regard because I have been both the pitcher and the pitchee, but I think that most people complaining about this just need to get over themselves (see above).

But in the spirit of “can’t we just get along?” here are just a few fundamental tips that I would provide to people who pitch either in the offline or online environment. Good communication is good communication if it’s a ten page fax or a 140 characters.

1. Identify your target audience. If you are looking to reach a target audience via a publication or blog, your first step should be making sure that the outlet matches up with the audience that you are attempting to influence. Otherwise, as Shel Holtz calls it, it is just “shovelware.”
2. Think about your objectives. Why are you communicating with this audience? I know that in the agency world you are communicating because your client thinks that he/she should be above the fold in the Wall Street Journal, but if you spend some time thinking about the benefits NOT to your client or organization but to the people receiving or potentially reading the information, you’ll go a long way towards happy, shiny people reading what you have to say. And if you work for an agency, the best consultants know when to say “no, this will be a waste of your money.” Courageous conversation for sure, but things will end up better.
3. What messages are your target readers likely to want? Knowing this will make you happy and, provided that you select the right people to pitch, it will make the writers/bloggers happy too.
4. List the types of questions that individuals may ask or additional information they may want. This is how your are going to write your pitch, your press release, or if you are doing it right, putting together your interactive press release. Answer these questions in advance and reflect it in the way that you present your information.
5. What do you want to achieve? Think about this in two ways. If you send a pitch to a blogger or print reporter, what is the action that you want he/she to take? Visit a link with more info (good call). Read an attachment (bad call: Esther Schindler has correctly noted that “attachments merit the death penalty”). If you have spent all of the time and money getting something placed, I am no fan of the statement “raising awareness.” In the age of interactivity, there has to be some action that people reading your information can take besides merely processing it.
6. Surmising that you accomplish your objectives, then what? If a reporter calls you back, you had better have your act together (no “ummm, uhhh,” or putting reporters on hold while you look for your cheat sheet with talking points on it) . And for God’s sake, list your cell phone number on your voicemail. If a reporter/blogger calls you back and gets your voicemail, it drastically reduces your chances.
7. Push vs. pull. Regurgitating information all over people who may or may not want it can work, but a largely ignored pitching vehicle is simply putting information where you want reporters or bloggers to get it. Think: ProfNet, SEO, Peter Shankman’s “Help a Reporter” listserv and Web site. If your information is waiting for people who want it, your chances go up dramatically.

I could go on and on, but given the fact that I keep promising that this will be my last post on bad pitches, look for my next post on bad pitches.

Mark

There has been some really interesting debate and commentary about yesterday’s Twebinar, put on my Chris Brogan and David Alston, both of which were kind enough to comment on yesterday’s posting. Most blog posts that I found, including Marc Meyer’s were positive - “Twebinar Mashup Was a Success.”

Time lends perspective, and after thinking about it for 24 hours, there were a few things that are buzzing around in my head:

1. This must have been a technical nightmare. Pulling all of the technologies together for the mash-up and counting on Twitter (which has been about as reliable as Paris Hilton at an open bar) must have been extraordinarily difficult. So kudos to Chris, David, SNCR and all of the participants for pulling this off. It has only whet our appetite for more.
2. I read many of the tweets that came out of yesterday’s commentary, and a few folks commented that the subject matters was a little basic, e.g., “social media IS game-changing…duh.” In thinking about this, I realized that the subject matter experts were talking in terms that were understandable to the masses, but I bet that the people who watched the two twebinars were a bunch of propeller-head wanna-bes like me. So that had to have been a tough thing to do as well: have a really kick-ass mashup and have a set of social media thought leaders who were telling us things that we already know.
3. The case studies offered by the guests were compelling and can help those of us who find it difficult to sell social media a little easier to explain to others. I really liked Richard Binhammer’s example that, since Dell began to talk and listen to customers using social media, complaints came down by 30 percent. That is something that can reverberate with anyone who understands a profit and loss statement or lifetime customer value.
4. Finally, Shel Israel traced the roots of social media, but like the title of this blog an the course that I teach, I firmly believe that good social media practices are rooted in good communications practices. Listen to your customers. Practice an open system of communication. Make your employees your ambassadors. A lot of this was possible before, but has been made much easier lately.
5. There were others who made good comments as well and I have listed some of those in an article published today in Media Bullseye.

All in all, not a bad start.

Mark