Author Archive for Linda Forrest

Online communications can make or break your reputation for customer service

This is the next entry in our “Best of” series, in which we venture deep into the vault to replay blog opinion and insight that has withstood the test of time. Today’s post hails from December 2010. We welcome your feedback.

Fotolia 27389812 XS 300x2002 Online communications can make or break your reputation for customer serviceBy Linda Forrest

Customer service is an area of keen interest for us, as those who regularly read this blog will know.

It’s clear that the increased adoption of social media in recent years has had a tremendous, we think positive, impact on customer service. The fact is that online communications can act as a logical extension of effective customer service programs, but can also fail miserably if the organization doesn’t have a solid strategy in place as well as the systems to support that strategy, the people to run it and a commitment to ongoing success in this area.

Am I a customer service expert? No, but I am a life-long consumer, and an adept marketer of technology products and services. These two things combined give me a well-rounded perspective on how online communications, including social media, can be the lynchpin or the undoing of your reputation with customers, prospects and the industry in which you operate.

Let’s first examine the systems that drive your customer relations efforts.

Over the years, through various clients and prospects, we’ve been exposed to a variety of technologies that make the back-end of customer service systems more effective and efficient. Knowing that technologically there is a better way than the impersonal, automated, aggravating methods that many companies deploy, and suffering through these inferior systems is especially painful. We’ve all had the phone ring, only to pick it up and hear dead air while the predictive dialer connects you with an agent. We’ve all started a customer service session on one channel – phone, email, Twitter, chat, etc. – to then move to a different channel and have to reiterate all of the basic information all over again, as though the first part of the session never took place.

I know for a fact that there are effective technologies you can adopt that will make support sessions run smoothly. It’s a rare case when a customer calls your support center to report that everything is on track; rather, it’s usually when there’s a problem that they reach out. Why ruffle feathers further with ineffective systems that just add to the aggravation? In a word, don’t.

The fact that in our media-centric world the consumer is empowered to share their thoughts on a product or service, instantly, without barriers, over social media, is both exciting and terrifying, isn’t it? If someone has a great experience, they broadcast it and everyone knows it. If someone has a terrible experience, the same is also true. How you respond to customers – those with kudos and those with complaints alike – is what will determine your reputation at large.

So, you’ve got the right customer support technology in place. The next piece of the puzzle is people. This is a critical part of the equation, especially in this citizen-journalist climate where everyone has multiple broadcast channels of their own, be it YouTube, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook or the like.

You need to have sufficient team members monitoring these channels for mentions of your brand, good and bad. With a cohesive strategy in place, your team is empowered to respond to brand mentions and engage in reparations where appropriate.

These comments may reside on your own communications channels – forums on your website, comments on your YouTube channel, posts on your Facebook wall, Tweets to your handle, etc. On owned channels, monitoring of the discussion should be an obvious task that’s already taking place. There should be clear customer support mechanisms on your online properties. Don’t make it difficult for your market to interact with you. Obscurity is a fraud to hide nothing.

Savvy companies know that negative feedback is nothing to shy away from. If your customers are not shouting in your ear, they’re shouting in someone else’s about how crappy you are. Better that you know what’s being said about you so can make steps to fix whatever is wrong.

There have been some great posts written about this topic, that I would highly recommend reading if this topic is of interest to you, and it should be, regardless of if you’re in B2B, B2C or a consumer.

B2B Social Media and the Customer Service Funnel

A Loyal Follower Is Hard To Find (And Keep)

Why Social Media is Inseparable From Customer Service

Picture from: Yackie Mobile Blog

Technorati Tags: ,

Posted by: Linda Forrest on January 27, 2012

Tags: ,

Posted in: Social media — Leave a comment

The impact of infographics on marketing, journalism

By Linda Forrestinfographic on infographics 300x194 The impact of infographics on marketing, journalism

As a marketer and as a consumer of vast quantities of media, I couldn’t help but notice the surge in the use of infographics by my fellow marketers and the media in recent months. This has inspired quite a debate about whether the rise of the infographic signals the end of journalism as we know it.

What are infographics?

According to Wikipedia, “Information graphics or infographics are graphic visual representations of information, data or knowledge.” In a recent Mashable article, “How marketers can get more from infographics,” the author, Laura Hampton, added the following worthwhile addendum to that definition:

…infographics can communicate just about anything, so long as it’s engaging, relevant and more compelling as an image than as pure text.

Infographics come in a variety of formats, too. Layout, orientation and styling are limited only by the creativity of the designer. We’re even starting to see the rise of “infomotion” — infographics with moving elements and interactivity that further engage the audience.

Who is using infographics?

Data visualization is nothing new, but in recent years, this approach has gained significant traction as a tool used by marketers and journalists alike. There is significant criticism of the overuse of the tactic, and arguments abound that they are more about style than substance.

What are the criticisms?

In a recent article in the Atlantic, senior editor Megan McArdle wrote about the so-called “scourge of the web,” and squarely placed the blame for the errors and omissions conveyed in infographics on shoddy marketers:

…terrible, lying infographics, which have become endemic in the blogosphere, and constantly threaten to break out into epidemic or even pandemic status.

The reservoir of this disease of erroneous infographics is Internet marketers who don’t care whether the information in their graphics is right … just so long as you link it.

The same could be said of any market-facing materials, however. With dwindling numbers of reporters and editors in newsrooms, some erroneous information – written, visual or otherwise – is bound to make it into print, as there are fewer eyeballs dedicated to fact-checking and proofing media copy. When it comes to the veritable Wild West of the internet, there is no such watchdog and so fallacies and falsehoods – intentional or otherwise – can quickly disperse far and wide. It’s not fair to blame the medium, however.

From an AdWeek article called Infographic Overload?:

John Boitnott is the vp of business development at Hasai, a firm that once focused on promoting publishers’ presence on sites like Digg and Reddit. Increasingly, Boitnott said his company is putting energy into creating infographics.

“I think of an infographic as just another type of content,” he said. “There are some lousy picture posts, some videos that are not compelling , some articles that are not well-written. But the cream will rise to the top.”

Why the rise in popularity?

In that same AdWeek piece, a tech PR executive pointed to what he felt were the reasons for their increased popularity:

So why are they flourishing, and why now? [Josh] Jones-Dilworth [of Jones-Dilworth, Inc.] said it’s a confluence of several factors, including an increasing interest in data, the development of data visualization tools (in fact, the goal of year-old startup Visual.ly is to create these tools) and the “withering” of art departments at many publications.

An astute observation and one that considers not only the preferences of the modern marketplace to consume information in easily digested, bite-sized pieces but also the market reality of the modern newsroom (read: fewer professionals to do the work). But it’s the popularity of data itself that proves a compelling business case for the infographic:

“Look at Nielsen, look at FICO, heck, look at our favorite topic of debate these days, Klout,” Jones-Dilworth said. “Data is one of the biggest brand opportunities out there right now, and yet so few brands are thinking this way.”

How does the infographic impact journalism?

I quite enjoyed a Tweet that was making the rounds earlier this week, one that said “A journalist posting an infographic is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.” Though I’m not sure I agree that acceptance of a more visual mode of communicating information that would traditionally be shared in a text-based format should be equated with chicken’s lining up for the slaughter, it did make for a funny image.

In reality, if done right, the infographic can be just another arrow in a modern journalist’s quiver.

A best practices approach to infographics development

It’s not recommended that journalists with no artistic ability dive into making infographics, though some of the more sophisticated infographic generators might do a passable job of turning compelling data into a servicable infographic. Joining forces with a graphic artist who can turn your coherent story into a visually pleasing infographic might be a recipe for success.

From Adweek:

Boitnott said a well-made infographic tells a coherent story, rather than just presenting a collection of facts. As for the charge that they are developed by marketers with no real expertise, Boitnott acknowledged that’s sometimes the case—but at other times, the designers do their research, or they’re created in partnership with a client who’s deeply knowledgeable about a subject matter.

Research magazine examined the role that researchers can play in tapping into this trend in an article, “The battle of substance and style.”

… journalist Andrew Losowsky criticises a recent glut of “relatively meaningless” visualisations, saying that the best examples are “inspiring, fascinating, visually interesting and easy to read, while conveying complex levels of information in an impactful way”.

But getting the right balance between style and substance is easier said than done. Losowsky’s assertion that “the visuals have to serve the data as well as the audience” is followed by plenty of examples of the visuals failing to serve the data.

Follow these best practices – develop and present a coherent story, serving the needs and preferences of the audience – and your infographics, whether you’re a marketer or a journalist, are more likely to be successful.

Image: Diagram This

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

Posted by: Linda Forrest on January 17, 2012

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Posted in: Marketing strategy, Technology marketing — Leave a comment

Have you got the write stuff?

By Linda Forrestwriting 300x202 Have you got the write stuff?

To be an effective modern marketer, one must be an adept communicator. In the modern world, one where electronic communications are at the fore of our personal and professional lives, that includes a lot of written communication. With the rise of social media, users have many more opportunities to write, whether it’s in 140-character bursts on Twitter or lengthy missives on a blog. While some bemoan that the space constraints of text messages or Tweets are ruining the English language, and dooming younger generations to being unable to string words together in a cohesive fashion, others disagree; the jury remains out on the matter.

Given the increased frequency with which modern communicators must pick up their digital pens and turn out prose, how can they keep their proverbial saws sharp? To what resources can they turn to improve their vocabularies, and improve their writing abilities?

Enrich your word power

While I was growing up, my family subscribed to Readers Digest. In it, there was a monthly feature called “Enrich your word power” that gave a list of 20 words and then multiple definitions, with the reader meant to choose the correct one. I learned many a new word from that feature and continue to learn new words daily, thanks to my subscription to Dictionary.com’s Word of the Day email. Merriam-Webster does one too. Sometimes the words are quite common, while other times the words are obscure and unlikely to be useful in your daily goings on, but expanding one’s vocabulary is always a good thing.

Practice your craft

It’s said that anyone who does something for 10,000 hours is an expert at that particular skill. Practice, it is said, makes perfect. How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice. To that end, writers can and should engage in writing as much as possible. Write for professional purposes, write for fun, write your mom! The more you write, the better you’ll be. Daily Writing Tips is an excellent daily email that offers, well, writing tips. It’s free to subscribe, and it’s informative and often times entertaining.

There are myriad exercises that you can do to hone your craft, such as these recommended recently on PR Daily.

Look it up

Everyone needs an editor, but the first editor you seek should be yourself. There are references galore in both dead tree and digital formats: dictionaries, the thesaurus, synonym finders, spell and grammar check within applications themselves, Grammar Girl, style guides or stylebooks from AP, Chicago Manual of Style… if you are unsure, look it up. Once you’ve completed your draft, check it for errors before sending it on to your editor.

Read. A lot.

Whether it’s online or magazines or books, the best way to become a better writer is to read writing by great writers. Read for leisure, read for work… As a voracious reader myself, I can’t imagine not filling my time reading as much as I can. I derive such pleasure from a well-written book, and experience such a blood-pressure spike when I spot an error in a book. I’d like to think that my constant absorption of others’ writing influences my own.

I’d love to hear from our readers what other tips they have for honing their writing craft.

Image: Creative Writing

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Posted by: Linda Forrest on January 13, 2012

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Posted in: Public and media relations, Random thoughts — Leave a comment

I’ve got some bad news… The role of PR in sharing bad news

By Linda Forrest bad news 300x225 Ive got some bad news... The role of PR in sharing bad news

It can’t all be good news, sadly.

The trick is knowing how to share your bad news using PR so that you come out the other side of it as upright as you possibly can. It’s not just “spin” that needs to be considered here; trying to convince the marketplace of your silk purse when you’re clearly holding a sow’s ear does nobody any favours, but there are proven tactics that can be employed to dampen the impact of your bad news, whether its personal peccadillos of your executive team, bad sales figures, lost deals, lawsuits, or any other myriad pieces of information that your marketplace needs to know about, whether you really want them to or not.

To tell or not to tell

We subscribe to the theory that if they (in this case, the media) are going to run you out of town, get out in front and make it look like a parade — meaning that it’s best to be the deliverer of your own bad news, especially in today’s 24-hour news cycle, rather than let your messaging be controlled by the market. Nothing is secret (or will stay hidden for long) in our age of digital media, social media… Thinking otherwise is folly. If you’ve got bad news, best to be the bearer of it rather than be caught unawares with no plan on how to manage the bad news somebody else announced for you.

How salacious the story is, how notable the company is and whether it happens to come on a slow news day will all impact how much play your news will get. The old adages “the only good news is bad news,” and “if it scares, it airs” are fitting here: if your organization is a household name and its market share is falling rapidly through the floor, or if your CEO gets caught with his or her pants down (or worse, their hand in the cookie jar), you can bet that it’ll be a top story.

If you’re a public company – sorry, bub, you don’t have a choice in the matter if the bad news could be considered material. You must release it, no matter the outcome. Your shareholders, board members and other stakeholders are entitled to receive the news from the source. This instance is what crisis communication plans are made for. It should be easy to anticipate the sorts of earth-shattering news that could come from your organization, whether it’s simply poor performance in the marketplace, litigation or scandal. Your PR team, working with your executive team, should have mapped out exactly how to communicate the news to the marketplace. Execute the plan and adjust for real-time market reaction as you go. This is bound to be a rollercoaster; hold on tight.

As an About.com article on handling bad news and scandal with PR said,

To most journalists, “No comment” sounds an awful lot like “Guilty,” and only handing out the truth pieces at a time keeps the story alive longer.

Well put.

Get out in front of the bad news

In some instances, the unfortunateness will have been easily foretold, your team will have had advanced warning of its expected release. Depending on the timelines involved, this represents a golden opportunity for your spokespeople to get some face time with the media leading up to the announcement. If you can establish some mindshare in advance of the news breaking – talking about the market conditions, a shift in your business model to accommodate changing market conditions, have your leaders sharing their vision for moving forward and how the company is growing and changing to respond to the market – these sorts of messages will at least tell followers of your company that the leadership is aware of problems at the organization and they are actively working to make improvements.

If all else fails, there’s always Friday at 4:59pm

If you want your news buried and to make as little noise as possible, release it close to close of business on Friday. You’ll be adhering to all of the requisite disclosure rules, but not attracting as much attention as you would have had you spilled the beans at 9am on a Tuesday.

The moral of the story

Hopefully your bad news won’t spell the end of your organization; it seldom does. But it can seem like the end of the world at the time. That’s why it’s best to plan for a crisis well in advance of a crisis itself. Rather than revert to spin, adhere to best practices. The reputation of your organization and the players involved will come out the other side better than they might have should you have turned to deceptive and manipulative activities to divert market attention.

Let’s hope you never need to use this advice.

Image: Big Think

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Posted by: Linda Forrest on January 6, 2012

Tags: , , ,

Posted in: Public and media relations — Leave a comment

‘Tis the season to make PR predictions

By Linda ForrestCrystalBall 300x270 Tis the season to make PR predictions

Ah, the end of the year. A time when PR practitioners far and wide dust off their crystal balls and prognosticate about what lies ahead in our industry for the year ahead.

My Twitterstream is positively jam-packed with predictions for public relations in 2012. The aim of this post is to provide a quick round up of the top trends PR practitioners see emerging and what they feel the impetus is for said trends. I trust you’ll forgive me that the brunt of the prose comes from elsewhere; my mind is filled to the brim with if not dancing sugarplums, at least my distressingly long “still-to-do” list.

In no particular order:

From Inkhouse:

The Phone Matters…Again. We had a few years during the blog explosion when some PR professionals slid into the keyboard, choosing to type their media correspondence behind the safety shield of their monitors. Email and social networks are important tools of the trade. However, to have good relationships, you need real conversations. PR people who pick up the phone get better coverage, period. In the late 90s, we used to send FedEx packages to reporters to convey importance because they stood out from the regular mail and daily barrage of faxes. Today, the phone is worthy of a resurgence since very few people use it anymore.

Amen. I whole-heartedly agree. That’s why it’s infuriating when media obfuscates their phone number deliberately; I’m looking at you, Jon Brodkin, who proclaimed in a Tweet on November 21: “I love how I have kept my new work number secret. Go ahead and try to call me, PR people. I dare you!”

From The PR Coach:

Content Marketing is Hot

In my view, 2012 will be the year of content. Great content will rule even more and advertising will still drool. PR pros need to master content marketing and take it to higher levels. It’s becoming an important strategic weapon as traditional advertising and marketing “push” campaigns fail to get results with jaded or overwhelmed consumers.

Think about how you can use content strategically in traditional and digital or social media channels. Some of the best content marketing strategies include: trends, problem solving, how-tos and case studies. Videos and storytelling also create big impact. All designed to demonstrate leadership, enhance reputation and reach out with real value to important stakeholders.

Bingo.

From Social Media Today:

Brand News World

We’ve seen companies and organizations take a clear step towards being digital first, towards embracing crowd-generated content, and towards empowering both their external and internal influencers. But on top of all that, companies and organizations will start thinking like journalists when creating and curating stories around their brand.

Not sure if I agree with this one from Affect:

Death of the Email Pitch, Rise of the Twit Pitch: In 2012 our reliance on email pitching will dwindle in favor of social media connections with journalists. The pervasiveness of social media has officially permeated traditional media relations. The short form aspect of social media makes it a favored place for journalists to receive pitches–no more diatribes about the benefits of your company’s exciting new product. Just 140 characters to love.

All pitching platforms, from the phone to Twitter and everything in between, work only as well as the reporter’s willingness to use that channel to be contacted. Believe it or not, there are still reporters that I reach out to who do not have Twitter accounts. Maybe they’ll sign on in 2012?

From the PRSAY blog:

Shifting Metrics And Integration Drive Digital PR

Both a challenge and opportunity for public relations professionals in 2012 is to have more data-driven decision-making processes. For those of us focusing primarily on digital, identifying the right data that can inform decisions and integrating across all channels will position us for success. (Joe Ciarallo, vice president of communications, Buddy Media)

The list will always be a strong PR hook, in my opinion. 2012 will be no different, says the CommPro.biz blog:

“The 5 Steps, The 10 Best, The 8 Worst” headline lists will continue to catch interest. The power of a promised list continues to live on as an effective hook. “Ten Steps to…” or “5 Top Tools You Must…”—these headline teasers continue to seduce us by promising to fulfill our desires. “The 8 Steps to Total Happiness?” Joy! Life simplified! Questions answered! The best wisdom culled from the pile! PR pros will continue to use this tried and true method to catch interest when writing headlines and subject lines, tweets and updates. Hey, it ain’t broke. Don’t fix it.

Aggregation and curation are the wave of the near future, says aggregation and curation purveyor Huffington Post:

Content Curation and Discovery- Just Give Me What’s Important and Let Me Find What I Need
a. Aggregation and curation will be critical going into 2012 and companies will either create a social layer into existing IT systems and/or look to the multiple new vendors popping up.
b. Discovery will be encouraged, not blocked.
c. Competitive advantage goes to companies who quickly figure out how to enable effective aggregation curation. Look for rapid innovation in this field.

This is a lovely thought from Peter Bartram:

Smile, please. Not an instruction for a group photo, more a plea for PR campaigns that raise people’s morale. People will be looking for things to cheer them up after nearly four years of hard times. Tip: Look for ways to inject an optimistic touch – even a flash of humour – into PR campaigns.

I like this final one, from the PR Experts: In 2012, as ever, change remains the only constant.

Continued Improvement. The one thing constant in PR is change. As PR professionals we must embrace change because it is a part of our daily working environment. One of the most important aspects of effectively implementing change is ensuring that everyone involved clearly understand the reasons for the change, the likely impacts, as well as the methods used to create the change and the expected benefits.

We’ll find out soon enough what 2012 will hold for our industry. Happy holidays, all.

Image: A Bug Free Mind

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Posted by: Linda Forrest on December 22, 2011

Tags: , , ,

Posted in: Public and media relations, inmedia Public Relations — Leave a comment

The Canadian response to PRSA’s #PRDefined initiative

By Linda Forrestprdefined word cloud 300x250 The Canadian response to PRSAs #PRDefined initiative

In my post on the subject of the PRSA initiative to create a new definition for PR, I likened the task to that of herding cats – ultimately futile.

But others closer to home have engaged in this exercise in the past, ending up with what they consider to be a successful outcome. Back in 2007, driven by the Canadian national PR association, the Canadian Public Relations Society (CPRS), a committee of PR experts endeavoured to develop a new north-of-the-49th-parallel definition. This was a collaborative research project that resulted in the adoption of their proposed definition by the CPRS:

Public relations is the strategic management of relationships between an organization and its diverse publics, through the use of communication, to achieve mutual understanding, realize organizational goals, and serve the public interest. (Flynn, Gregory & Valin, 2008)

For a thorough read about the process and the results of that exercise, I encourage you to read Judy Gombita‘s post on PR Conversations about the “maple-infused definition of public relations.” As you can see from the healthy number of comments on that post, the endeavour itself and its outcome were a hotly contested issue when the definition was first released.

Our own Francis Moran chimed in on his perspective about the Canuck definition of public relations in his own post earlier this year. His take on the matter engaged two of the three co-authors of the definition in the comments on that post about whether public relations had to be in the public interest.

Since Canada had its definition set and agreed upon by the primary professional association in this country, I was interested to see what the Canadian response was to the US-based exercise that the PRSA was now undertaking with its #PRDefined initiative.

Canadian definition co-architect Terry Flynn wrote a thorough post on the PRSA initiative for PR Conversations. Having been a leader of the process himself, he had a lot to share – what the PRSA was doing right with its project, where it missed opportunities, and what, in his view, the best possible outcome from the exercise could be.

Flynn’s thoughts echoed my own when he stated:

… the process of discussion, debate and dialogue about the nature and definition of the profession may be the ultimate winner in this initiative.

Canada’s process at arriving at their definition was disregarded by the PRSA initiative, something for which Flynn takes the organization to task:

While it is important and necessary to ensure that our professional associations and their members agree upon a definition that is relevant to the practice and profession today, I would suggest that the #PRDefined project has missed an opportunity to look North (and into the near past, as discussed in a 2009 PR Conversations post) and incorporate the results of a redefinition project that was initiated by the Canadian Public Relations Society.

The Canadian initiative was born from the discovery that as of 2007, Canada had 13 different curriculum standards for public relations education at the post-secondary level. To plot a course forward for post-secondary PR education across the country, the CPRS national council of education first set out to determine the intrinsic values inherent to the industry and from those values, then come up with a definition of the practice. It’s this determination of values that Flynn feels is missing from the PRSA initiative:

Understanding what a professional organization values helps to conceptualize, clarify and build consensus around the eventual characteristics of a definition of the practice.

This is an important step that I believe is missing from the current #PRdefined project. While there has been tremendous interest in the initiative—including, we’re told, 16,000 web page views, 900 submissions and 70 comments—it appears obvious from the current comments on PRSA’s dedicated website that there isn’t a clear consensus among the participants on the fundamental nature of the practice.

Ultimately, though, Flynn wishes the PRSA well in its efforts:

We applaud the PRSA in embarking on their definition project and wish them much success in developing a one-size-fits-all definition for the practice of public relations in the United States.

[edited for content - LF]

Canadian communications professionals too have chimed in on both the CPRS definition and the #PRDefined project.

Martin Waxman said on his myPALETTE blog: “while I like the Canadian result, I don’t feel it addresses our role in social media…I’m interested to see how the [PRDefined] process evolves and what we come up with. I’m sure when the final result is released, there will be some controversy and not everyone will be pleased. My hope is the definition is written in plain English, embraces our changing reality and once and for all answers that eternal question about PR: So what is it exactly that you do?”

Joe Thornley commented on the InsidePR podcast that he “isn’t sure that the PRSA’s ‘fill in the blanks’ crowd-sourcing approach will yield the type of definition that truly reflects the enhanced role of PR in the era of social media.”

The Canadian perspective is one that’s well-voiced on official and unofficial social media channels, Tweets, comments, and blog posts. But beyond that, there is a Canadian playing an integral role in #PRDefined. Daniel Tisch, chair of the Global Alliance for PR & Communication Management and president and co-owner of Argyle Communications, is part of the working group tasked with determining the new PRSA definition. Mr. Tisch was kind enough to respond to my original post on the matter with a thoughtful comment, which I’ve excerpted below:

I was pleased to support the world’s largest industry association as it went about updating its definition of PR, and I saw a great opportunity to bring both Canadian and international perspectives to the table.

As Tisch went on to say in his own blog post on the matter,

Will PRSA’s definition be the last word on this question? No. But it will have currency, reach and influence – particularly if it secures widespread participation. The participation itself – and the dialogue – it generates may be the greatest gift of all.

All public relations practitioners may not agree on a set definition – Canadian, American or otherwise – of our practice, but it seems we all concur that the discussion itself is the most worthwhile aspect of the endeavour.

Image: MediaBistro

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Posted by: Linda Forrest on December 14, 2011

Tags: , , , , ,

Posted in: Public and media relations, inmedia Public Relations — 5 Comments

Why redefining PR is not unlike herding cats

By Linda Forrestherdingcats 300x246 Why redefining PR is not unlike herding cats

The PR industry has been aflutter with activity in response to the recent efforts of the Public Relations Society of America to crowd source a new definition for PR.

Rather than leave it open ended, PRSA has gone with a fill-in-the-blank (in this case, parentheses) approach:

Public relations (does what) with/for (whom) to (with/for) for (what purpose).

If you wish to weigh in, submissions will be accepted at the above link until the end of the week, with a new definition targeted for publication before the end of the year.

It has indeed been quite some time since the term has been defined, nearly 20 years, during which time the means by which public relations is conducted has evolved markedly from dead trees to digital zeros and ones, shifting from a one-way conversation to a multi-stakeholder conversation.

From the PRSA website:

The PRSA 1982 National Assembly formally adopted a definition of public relations, which remains widely accepted and used today:

“Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.”

This definition is not without its provisos and asterisks however, further defining “organization” and “publics” as well as mapping out how PR operates as a management function. All this to say that what appears to be wrapped up in one neat, little sentence is in fact considerably more complex than that agreed-upon sentence communicates.

No matter how you define it, PR has exploded in a million different directions since 1982, as pointed out in this Forbes post on the issue:

What PR professionals do every day is hard to define. On a given day, PR professionals are social media experts. Reputation protectors. Speechwriters. Crisis communicators. Product promoters. Employee communicators. Conversation starters. Videographers. Issue managers. Webinar writers. Public affairs professionals. Event coordinators. Bloggers.

Sometimes, we even write press releases.

The personal computer, smartphones, social media and other technological advancements have radically changed the way in which organizations and their publics communicate. As the New York Times marketing reporter, Stuart Elliot, pointed out in his article on the topic:

Perhaps the most significant changes have occurred most recently, as the Internet and social media like blogs, Facebook and Twitter have transformed the relationship between the members of the public and those communicating with them. A process that for decades went one way — from the top down, usually as a monologue — now goes two ways, and is typically a conversation.

The means by which we conduct our work, the very nature of the work itself and the desired outcome of our efforts are all radically different than they were when last a definition was agreed upon. (It’s worth noting here that there were failed attempts at a redefining exercise twice in the 1990s, according to the New York Times article.)

Which leads me to why I feel this exercise is akin to my favourite idiom about herding cats: ultimately, it’s a futile task doomed to failure. And I am not the only one that thinks so, though some dismiss the effort for reasons different than my own.

PRSA chairwoman and chief executive Rosanna Fiske joked in the New York Times interview, “My parents, for the longest time, have been trying to figure out what I do for a living,” and it’s one of the very reasons that the association’s initiative is doomed to fail. For our whole industry to agree to a definition as set forth by a professional association that represents but a small percentage of the industry is unlikely. For that definition to express effectively what PR is, who does it and why, all in a manner that industry outsiders can understand, is an exercise in futility, in my opinion.

Also from the New York Times article:

Dan Tisch, chairman of the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management, said he considered the search for a new definition “a critical exercise” because “we as a profession have to explain what we do, in terms that are memorable, relevant, clear and consistent.”

Agreed, in principle, but, respectfully, how can we accomplish that, Mr. Tisch, when it’s a professional association that’s hardly representative of the whole industry (in your own words: “only roughly 10 percent or fewer” of those who work in public relations “are actually members of professional associations, subject to standards of practice and codes of ethics”) determining the definition and trying to define something that’s always in transition thanks to technological advancements that constantly change the job description, communications channels and success metrics?

I have limited understanding of the PRSA itself, but I can say from experience that some professional associations tend to be more about the process than the objective, which in this case is not necessarily a bad thing: getting dialogue going about what it is we’re doing is probably a worthwhile effort. But the process should be the objective here rather than trying to set a new definition, whose terms are either going to be too wishy-washy to effectively communicate to our parents what we do or too narrow to effectively encapsulate PR as a whole. Not to mention that we cannot predict what our industry will look like five, ten years down the road.

Rather than try and pin the tail on a swiftly moving target, I believe our efforts would be better spent doing what we do rather than trying to strictly define the parameters of our work; keeping the dialogue open and the definition flexible so that we can adjust accordingly when the next revolutionary technology shakes up our processes, goals and platforms.

Image: CodeMuse

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by: Linda Forrest on November 30, 2011

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Posted in: Public and media relations, inmedia Public Relations — 2 Comments

Return on investment served two ways

This is the next entry in our “Best of” series, in which we venture deep into the vault to replay blog opinion and insight that has withstood the test of time. Today’s post hails from April, 2010. We welcome your feedback.

Fotolia 27389812 XS 300x200 Return on investment served two waysBy Linda Forrest

I had a long and interesting chat with the publisher of a specialized trade publication this morning, the results of which turned my thoughts to the importance of getting a return on investment in PR. I mean this in two ways: first, getting the most value for your dollars spent with a PR practitioner or agency and second, getting the most eyeballs on your coverage.

With regards to the first, this was the particular scenario that I was discussing with the aforementioned publisher. Having pitched a series of contributed articles by email, I was calling to follow up and discuss the level of interest in my proposition. The publisher, a 30-plus-year veteran of the Canadian publishing world, talked about shrinking editorial space and how he’s unable to commit to publishing an article, however appropriate for his readership. With shrinking ad budgets, increasing competition from exclusively online publications and other factors, it’s not feasible for him to accept and commit, based on an abstract, to publishing something that would take up precious room on his pages. Rather, he’s suggested that we develop an article purely on spec, and that once submitted, he’ll review it and if he’s got the room and inclination, he’ll publish it.

This is an eminently reasonable proposition and he’s not alone in this position. However, look at it from my standpoint as a content developer for hire, and that of my client. It’s no easy feat writing a 1,000-plus-word article and the creation of said article would cost not inconsiderable time and money. Is this the best use of my limited time, given that each hour spent on the account has a dollar figure attached? Would my time be better spent creating content that I am certain will be published? This is calculus that has to be figured out on each and every opportunity that comes along: Is this the best use of my time and my client’s dollars?

Then there is the other half of the equation: the potential value of the coverage in terms of prospective customers, partners, channels and others who will see the article and pick up the phone. Trade publications can be highly focused propositions; they come as niche as you like. So, if you’re trying to reach a small specialized group and this opportunity, if it comes to fruition, will get your message out to them effectively, perhaps it’s worth your time and effort to develop a piece on spec.

Just a few weeks ago, another of my clients flat out turned down the opportunity to submit an article for an exclusively online publication. Having reviewed the circulation numbers for the print edition and the number of site visitors, it just didn’t make sense to them for me to spend my time writing an article that would be seen by limited readers, especially in an industry where hard copies get read far more frequently than virtual ones. For this client, it simply didn’t provide the return on investment that they were looking for, and that’s just fine. There are plenty of other opportunities to pursue on their behalf where the ROI is higher.

Each opportunity needs to be assessed and then harsh decisions made. There’s no right or wrong answer here; each circumstance requires each client and each PR practitioner to weigh the pros and cons of the situation and make an informed decision about how best to invest time and effort for the most return.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Posted by: Linda Forrest on November 25, 2011

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Posted in: Public and media relations, inmedia Public Relations — Leave a comment

What makes a good PR person?

By Linda ForrestChecklist 300x199 What makes a good PR person?

In my last post, I wrote about how PR practitioners annoy journalists. It’s ironic that many of the issues come down to a failure to implement the fundamentals of successful communication. So, in an effort to clear up exactly what it is that reporters want from PR people, this post aims to list the traits of a good PR practitioner, with a healthy dose of anecdotes from PR agency executives and reporters sounding off on what they think are essential attributes. While some posts I came across while researching this post were downright effusive about how wonderful PR people are, others contained language that might be deemed unfit for work.

The reporter’s view

I’ll start off by referring back to the very informative blog post by Matt Hartley, the editor of the Financial Post’s Tech Desk, wherein he demonstrated a learned understanding of the symbiotic nature of the relationship between reporters and PR professionals:

When I was in journalism school, I never realized just how much of my day as a working reporter would be spent sifting through press releases and dealing with public relations professionals.

It’s true, some reporters have no time for PR people. Reporters are busy, so sometimes it’s understandable that they might get a little impatient with someone who is pitching a story in which the reporter clearly has no interest. Personally, I do my best to be polite to PR folks and give them my full attention.

Unless of course they’re calling me on deadline, then all bets are off.

Most reporters understand that PR professionals are in a tough spot and that they’ve got a job to do, just like us. They’ve got clients on one side with their own set of demands, and reporters on the other side, who often couldn’t care less about your company … that is, until something goes wrong, then that same reporter’s demands for more information can never be satiated.

This understanding and respect is crucial to successful PR. We need reporters but they also need us. Things always run more smoothly when that’s understood on both sides of the fence. Be respectful.

Some reporters playfully communicate their frustrations about what not to do as a PR person, like veteran technology reporter Rafe Needleman does on his blog Pro PR Tips. For example, his Tip #185:

If, on the marketing site you want me to see, you have “As seen in…” graphics pointing to other coverage you’ve gotten, make sure you link to the coverage you seem to be so proud of. Otherwise, for all I know, the coverage was glancing, negative, or perhaps nonexistent.

Fair to say that he’s stressing the importance of transparency.

The PR executives’ view

From a PR Newswire blog post about the role of PR in the news cycle:

Victoria Harres, PR Newswire’s director of audience development, noted the role public relations plays in surfacing stories, and reminded us that non-profits and NGOs also make use of PR.

“Public relations people play an important role in bringing things to the attention of journalists. There are not enough journalists in the world to make sure that every story worth telling is told,” she said. “A good PR person will understand individual journalists’ beats and provide relevant information that helps journalists do their jobs without spending significant amounts of time finding out when events are happening, when products are launching, or if there is a coordinated effort to send money and aid to some part of the world where tragedy has struck. Let’s not forget non-profits also use PR professionals to make sure their stories are told.”

Victoria has hit the nail on the head by stressing the importance of understanding individual journalists’ beats. This is essential and depends on the PR person’s research skills. Be informed.

Earlier this year, James Crawford of CustomerThink did a roundup of why he feels that the renaissance PR person needs to be a jack of all trades: a risk-taker, a creative artist, content marketer, door buster and technician.

The challenge: being all those things at once.

The takeaway? Be flexible, be a multi-tasker.

In the aptly named post “What it takes to be a PR person,” the author rounded up the traits they saw as being essential to success in this field. Dividing the list into human skills, which included attributes like patience, congeniality, critical thinking, and ethics, and professional skills, which covers off writing and multi-tasking, the post is peppered with insight from PR execs:

“Writing skills are the most difficult thing to find. Once people can write, I feel that pretty much everything else we can teach.” – Jeffrey Sharlach, Chairman and CEO, The Jeffrey Group

“The people have to come to the standard that I value, and draw that ethical line in the sand and never cross it. Be a straight shooter, don’t lie. Anyone that is devious in public relations is going to be found out, and will fail.” – Howard Rubenstein, President, Rubenstein Associates

“If you are not knowledgeable on what is going on today, how do you advise clients or companies on what to do tomorrow?” – Al Golin, Chairman, GolinHarris

Be informed. Be ethical. Be a good writer. Exhibit patience.

This post only scratches the surface, but gives an introduction to some of the traits that together make up good PR practitioners according to both reporters and executives. Given that your next story or your next job might come from these folks, best to take heed.

Image: Mobile App Testing

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by: Linda Forrest on November 16, 2011

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted in: Public and media relations, inmedia Public Relations — 2 Comments

Technology reporters on the record: how PR flacks annoy them

By Linda Forrestannoyed phone Technology reporters on the record: how PR flacks annoy them

“You’re doing it wrong” can be an irritated admonishment of your practices or a helpful push in the direction of improvement. It’s all a matter of how you see the world, whether you’re a glass half full or a glass half empty kind of person.

In the longstanding symbiotic relationship between PR professionals and reporters, there have been tomes written on how one side thinks the other side is failing and flailing.

Inspired by National Post tech reporter Matt Hartley‘s thoughtful blog post on why we hate your press release, this round-up shares the words of a few technology reporters as they point out the areas for improvement in the modern PR professional’s approaches.

From Matt’s post:

Over the years, I like to think I’ve developed a good rapport with many members of the PR community in Canada. I feel I’ve grown to understand their craft, and I feel that I’ve developed wonderful professional relationships with some incredible individuals. Some of the best stories and biggest scoops of my career have been facilitated by PR folks.

Indeed, without the help of my PR contacts, I wouldn’t be able to do my job.

However, some PR folks just don’t get it. They don’t understand what I do, or the very nature of the reporter’s job. They don’t understand my publication. They pitch me silly stories at inconvenient times. It’s frustrating, and these few individuals give the PR profession a bad name.

Rather than just bemoan the shoddy efforts of what he recognizes are but a few of our ranks, he goes on to detail the top ten things he loves about press releases, and the top ten things he hates. All valid points and any PR practitioner hoping to engage with the media could stand to read his missive.

In his post entitled What annoys technology journalists about PR, freelance journalist Stuart Dredge provided direct quotes from other reporters about what they didn’t like about their interactions with PR professionals. Their complaints fell into a number of specific categories:

Not researching the target

The first category is self-explanatory. In his comments, though, Dredge brought up an excellent point: he, like many other reporters, have changed beats over time. On behemoth websites for major media outlets, however, the wrong reporter may be listed as covering a beat that they no longer do. It’s up to both the outlet to communicate the correct information about who currently covers a beat and the PR practitioner to make this determination before launching into their pitch, or including a reporter on an email list. We just switched media database providers because our existing one offered no insight into when the record was last updated; just because someone covered telecom five years ago, doesn’t mean they do now. Yet another reason to not rely fully on a media database alone; building an up-to-date media list is a time and labour intensive exercise for which there are no short cuts.

Not following through

Be responsive. Provide the media with what they need to cover your company. Dredge comes to the PR flack’s defence on this one saying, “Yeah, this can be frustrating, although I appreciate that a PR person working on a bunch of clients is as likely to get sucked into non-responsiveness as I am with deadlines.” Ask any PR practitioner and they’ll tell you a horror story about a reporter tearing their head off for deigning to call to follow up a release. You’re also likely to hear stories of the best possible coverage coming from following up a release or pitch with a well-timed, respectful phone call. I strongly disagree with the much floated idea that the phone call is dead. PR practitioners need to know their market – the specific journalist’s preference for communication via whatever channel (okay to pitch via Twitter, prefers phone calls to email, etc.) It’s part of our job. Do it.

Hassling

It’s common sense: don’t be a jerk. Be persistent, not annoying. A healthy amount of pushback on a “no” is acceptable; if they won’t cover this sort of announcement, what will they cover? Dig to find out why your story doesn’t meet the editorial threshold and what you can do to leap over that hurdle.

Dredge sums it up nicely:

Talking to people, the real problem here is that a follow-up call about a relevant thing when you’re not on deadline is A Good Thing. A follow-up call about something not so relevant when you’re busy is not. Hassling is in the stressed mind of the beholder (or something). That said, it’s about politeness on both sides – ‘Do you have time to talk now?’ and ‘Actually, I don’t, but this time might be better’ seems like a friendlier way forward.

Another thing: the ideal call from my point of view is ‘we have this company, they’re doing x, might that be relevant?’ – literally two or three sentences, as a lead-in to either me asking more questions, or asking for the release etc. I get the impression with some calls that people have been told they have to give me the full five-minute pitch – even if 10 seconds in I say ‘that’s good, can I get the release?’ or ‘No, I don’t cover that’.

Picture not-so-perfect (sending big attachments)

Sending your release as an attachment is just plain a bad idea. Attaching big photos to your email is also verboten. Have an online repository of downloadable high-resolution images, links to videos, and provide these upfront. Having a well-stocked newsroom on your website is essential.

Standing on the shoulders of giants (piggybacking on the release of a rival company, sending over clients’ comments the day a story is in the paper)

Dredge said that he didn’t really take issue with these, er, issues. If an outlet is writing about a client’s space, why shouldn’t they counter or add to or support whatever conversation is happening in their media marketplace? Reacting – either positively or negatively – to coverage is standard practice as well. Following up to thank the reporter for coverage is never out of place and if there are additional comments that the coverage itself has brought about, send them along. If something in the article is factually incorrect, it’s important to provide those details too (but be aware that the toothpaste is already out of the tube in the echo chamber that is social media.)

I’d highly recommend both of the posts referenced above – regardless of what side of the divide you’re on. You just might learn something that improves your practice if you’re a PR flack, or at least know that you alone are not the sole hack suffering the bad pitches of shoddy PR practitioners.

Image: Paul and Partners Inc.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by: Linda Forrest on November 4, 2011

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted in: Public and media relations, Technology marketing, inmedia Public Relations — 2 Comments