Barnett on PR

Pitching the media in the electronic age

2010-04-10T19:45:00.001-07:00

Ned Barnett
© 2010

Introduction

As a senior PR exec for one of the most dynamic high-tech PR agencies on the Left Coast, I spend a great deal of time educating clients (and often, their clients) on what PR really is and how to go about getting press coverage. I’d like to distill those ideas – honed over a professional PR career of 38 years – and present them to you in a fashion you can quickly and easily use. I’m going to start by answering a few of the more commonly asked questions (or more likely, those important questions non-PR professionals are afraid to ask – but should). Then I’m going to offer you a crash course in the very essential basics in pitching and submitting a business news story.

But before you do anything, go look at – and really read – a business newspaper or magazine in which you’d like to have your company written about. Read – really read – the news items, articles and features. Then take a step back, away from self-interest, from ego and from your normally unshakable faith in your company – and ask yourself this:

“If my news item, article or feature idea was about any other company (a competitor or some company completely out of your market space), would it be newsworthy enough, or compelling enough to be published in my target newspaper or magazine?”

If the answer is honesty “yes” – great – you’re on your way to success. If the answer is honestly “no” – that’s great, too. Because you’ve not only passed the honesty test (essential for those who do their own PR), but because you’ve begun to see what “real” news is – and with that understanding, you’re ready to seek it out in your own company.

Preparing the “Perfect” Pitch

OK – you’ve found the story. You’ve lined up a positive quote from one of your own clients – and maybe (if you’re playing in the big leagues) a favorable comment from a professional business analyst. You have the facts, the figures and the human interest that transforms facts into stories and news. Now what?

Now you go down this five-item checklist and prepare yourself for success.

a. "Perfect pitch" - the note you need to strike in the pitch

When you pitch a story, you’re selling an idea – an idea about you and your company. You’re selling it to a jaded individual who’s been there and seen that – but you’re also selling it to an individual who NEEDS story ideas and leads. Not yours – he or she is flooded with leads and ideas – but still, the self-interested reporter or editor is always looking for the next good story. Your job is to tell that story briefly and compellingly – just as if you were trying to hook a prospect during a 30-second elevator ride. To do that, you need a “perfect pitch” – a brief, compelling and well-told story that will link your publicity needs with the reporter’s rational self-interest. If you sell or have sold, if you know how to quickly grab the interest of a prospect, you already have the basic skills of pitching. Now, put your real news into a context the reporter will quickly grasp and you’re ready to go.

b. Shotgun vs. Deer rifle - focusing in on the right media

You may not be a hunter (I’m not). You may not have ever even held a firearm. But you know – thanks to the media – the difference between a shotgun and a deer rifle. One, the deer rifle, sends a carefully-aimed shot for a long distance – if your aim is true, you hit your target. The other, useful at short range, sends a large number of shot – like a handful of gravel – out at a target. Because of the number of shot, if the range is close and the aim is reasonably accurate (not precise – why bother) you’re bound to hit something. Both approaches have impact – but which is right for your story?

Shotgun releases – those sent out over Businesswire or PRNewswire (http://www.businesswire.com and http://www.prnewswire.com ) – reach thousands of reporters and wind up on thousands of online databases where they can be found. To work with a shotgun approach, the news should be either really compelling (you’ve just bought out Microsoft) or so un-compelling that it makes more sense to cast your bread on the waters in hopes that somebody, somewhere will take a bite.

Deer rifle releases are sent out (or rather, the pitches are made) to very select news media – and generally to specific reporters at those newspapers and magazines. You choose the targets after reading the publications – and the stories your target has written (a quick web-search on Yahoo should help you find online copies of those stories – if not, a trip to the library will pay hefty dividends). Deer rifle stories are generally important stories, but stories that require a special familiarity with your product line and market space.

One is right for you – but it may be a different one at different times. For a really big stories, both approaches may be right – five to ten targeted media followed by a shotgun-blast release over Businesswire or PRNewswire.

c. Phone vs. e-mail (or even antediluvian fax?)

Recent studies show that as many as 80% of reporters in a given (high-tech) market space prefer to receive a pitch via e-mail. This is a major change from past procedures, and even from preferences of just a few years ago (when many reporters were gun-shy of e-mail). Of the remainder, fax is preferred to a phone pitch by two-to-one. Since you’re not likely to know the reporter and know his/her preference, go with the default setting and send the pitch by e-mail (NOT as an attachment – those get deleted un-read unless a reporter has asked for and is expecting an attachment). If you want to further insure success, send a FAX, too. But do not call – that’s the fast track to failure.

d. Initial contact and follow-up

Make your initial contact via e-mail or fax. Depending on the timeliness, send a brief follow-up e-mail (or fax) in 24-48 hours, or even a week if the story is timeless. DO NOT CALL – not unless the reporter has told you that phone pitches are OK. And if you do phone, do not wear out your welcome, or try to be Mr./Ms. Personality. As Sergeant Friday used to say, “Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.” Keep the call brief – unless the reporter chooses to extend it. Ask: “is this a good time?” or “Do you have a minute to hear a quick pitch?” or “Would you prefer an e-mail, or do you have a minute to hear a quick pitch?” or something like that. Then listen to the answer. And heed it – even (or perhaps especially) if it’s not what you want to hear.

e. Writing the pitch – even if it's a phone pitch

Regardless of the medium (e-mail, phone or fax), you only have one chance to make a good first impression. That means writing and polishing and learning your phone pitch – so that it comes out natural, unforced and honest. Actors rehearse. Politicians and professional speechwriters rehearse. Most effective sales people rehearse. So should you.

Success through Press Releases

Pitching is not always necessary – in many cases, the story isn’t worth the pitch. And not all “shotgun” stories are worth the price of a news wire service. Sometimes it just makes sense to send out a press release (with or without a photo) to a targeted list of media. Using a press release to generate favorable publicity might seem intimidating or presumptuous, but it is simple if you follow these steps.

First, decide on who will speak for your company. Then, make sure you have a 5x7 color photograph of that person (or persons) – what’s called a “head-and-shoulders” shot – to go with each release you distribute. This photograph enhances your ability to generate coverage, since it puts a human face on the news.

Next, identify the publications you want to target. Some suggestions include:

• Daily newspapers in your area
• Business newspapers in your area
• Weekly newspapers (that include business coverage) in your area
• Monthly business magazines in your area
• Professional publications serving your company and industry or market space – local, state, national
• Professional and trade publications serving your clients (especially if you specialize in serving or selling to one or several industries)
• Alumni publications from your company spokesperson’s alma mater

Finding out who at a given publication to send the press release to is easy. If you have copies (for local newspapers and business newspapers, alumni and professional society professional magazines and newsletters), check what’s called the “masthead” (usually found on the editorial page or on one of the inside pages near the front) and look for the name of the business editor. The publication’s address is usually found in the masthead – a block of information generally printed next to or just after the table of contents (or on newspapers, these are often found in the editorial pages). If your source is more than a month old, you will want to verify your information by calling the company switchboard and asking, “Is Mr./Ms. Pompous your Business Editor?” – get an answer, then hang up … good switchboard operators may try to put you through – resist the urge (you’re not ready yet).

If you do not have copies of target publications, check the yellow pages (for local publications) then call their receptionist and ask for the mailing address, as well as the name and title of the editor who covers business news. Alternatively, a quick visit to the nearest public library can give you what you need; just ask the reference librarian. Another alternative is to check out the Internet – if you’re comfortable conducting online searches, this is perhaps the easiest way of getting the information you need.

Distribution Choices

Once you have identified your targets (name, contact information), prepare the press release on your company letterhead – an original copy for each news media if you’re mailing it or delivering it by courier. Using a gummed label (don’t write directly on the photograph), put the illustrated individual’s name, title and firm name on the back of each photo to be included with each release. For alumni associations, use the alumni-partner as the spokesperson for each release (a different set of releases for each corporate spokesperson). If you are not sending a photo, you can send a release by e-mail – but not as an attachment. Cut-and-paste the text into an e-mail, with a brief (one or two lines) cover note to set the stage. Brief and to the point is what works.

Package your release, with photo, flat in a 9x12 envelope. If you have a courier, this is an excellent way of delivering the release for maximum impact – there is really nothing better (experienced PR professionals often do the courier bit themselves, hoping to catch the reporter for a moment – do NOT do this at home … this is a high-risk tactic even for Pros). Federal Express or even Priority Mail are delivery methods with more positive impact than first-class mail; in addition, the heavy mailing envelopes protect the release and the photo from being bent.

Before you send the release, it is often useful to call the reporter or editor, introduce yourself (making it clear you are not a PR practitioner) and briefly explain that you’re sending a news release. Ask if there are any special requirements. Do not delegate this task to a secretary. Do not offer to pitch it – you’re just asking a technical delivery question. Do not ask to have the release used, merely inform the editor that you’ll be sending it over. This simple courtesy may help to elevate your release out of what is called the “slush pile” at many publications – it will help you cut through the competing clutter of other press releases and get initial attention. But be careful – this is not a pitch opportunity. It is just paving the way. If the reporter or editor asks about the release, it’s fine to be truthful … but let the release speak.

There are no guarantees in gaining media coverage – this is a news item, not a paid advertisement, and in news decisions, the editor is king – and there is no appeal from the king’s verdict. However, if you follow these easy steps, your opportunities for success increase significantly. Good luck!

The Seven Deadly Sins of Public Relations (or, why is it we never have time to do it right ... but we always have time to do it over ...?)

In the promotion of your business through public relations, there are a number of “fatal” mistakes you can make that will kill or distort your coverage. Of these, there are “Seven Deadly Sins of Public Relations” that will ruin your chances of success, and probably lead to bad press. So do as I say, not as I’ve done …

1. "No Comment"

The worst thing you can say to a reporter is “No Comment” – that has become a tacit admission of guilt. And while the reporter may not know what you’re guilty of, this is like a red flag in front of a bull … he or she will take this as a personal challenge to find out what you’re hiding (and we’re all hiding something).

Practice saying something like this:

“I’ll have to research that question and get back to you – is next Tuesday soon enough?”

“We are in the midst of delicate negotiations right now, and are not at liberty to discuss that question in detail. However, I can assure you that as soon as the negotiations are concluded, I’ll be glad to answer that question.”

In short, give a “real” answer that doesn’t answer the question, but makes it clear that you are not dodging or dissembling. One important caveat: You must pick an answer that is honest – they will check up, and nothing (not even “No Comment”) is worse than self-aware lying to a reporter. They will crucify you – and by their professional standards, they are both right and honor-bound to do so.

2. Spin Control

Even professional political spinmeisters are having an increasingly hard time persuading the press that what they think they heard (or read, or saw) isn’t what was really said (or printed or acted out). If your corporate chairman’s wife likes to go skinny-dipping in public fountains at 3 a.m., you are not going to spin your way out of the embarrassment – especially if the reporter has witnessed this. Better to have her admitted to Betty Ford then explain she’s had a rough time recently, but is being helped then try to pretend what they “saw” isn’t what was really there. Once, this approach was so brazen it actually worked. But from over-use, it has become a serious negative.

3. Disinformation

This is a favorite government tactic – often manifest by “leaking” information about a political or bureaucratic opponent that isn’t exactly true (or may be completely false, though impossible to prove false). As with spin control, this technique has become increasingly discredited – and a righteously wrathful media actively seeks out and punishes the disinformants (whom they deem no more worthy of fair treatment than politicians caught with their hands in the public till). One common (but largely unrecognized) way of putting forth disinformation is to talk about your competitors. You cannot be objective (who could) – and the more bitter the rivalry, the more your honest emotional outrage will color anything you say … and unless it’s scrupulously honest and easily proven, reporters will assume (generally correctly) that it’s disinformation. They’ll lose respect for you while assuming the competitor is the “good guy …”

4. "Baffle them with BS"

This is sadly familiar in sports and in high-tech (which have no other apparent commonality). When information is technical or hard for a layman to follow, it is easy to use jargon or techno-babble to confuse the reporter and try to make you appear larger-than-life and far more knowledgeable. This is a poor strategy with a huge potential for boomeranging. The full quote is “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S.” – and in PR, that’s an inside joke and a measure of contempt for those who cannot present brilliance and who have to resort to confusion. Don’t go there.

5. Playing (media) Favorites

This may seem harmless, right? One reporter’s been good to you. One has been stern-but-fair (or maybe not quite so fair). You’d rather feed a good story to the nice guy/gal, right? Short-term, that’s a good idea. But long-term (and long-term can be pretty short in this day of instant communications), it is a suicide pact. You may not be able to really curry favor with your favorite reporter – but you can bet your pension that you will earn the disfavor and disrespect – and in many cases, the active enmity – of the reporter you snub. One of the first lessons in PR school is this: “Never pick a fight with anyone who buys ink by the barrel.” Reporters and editors ALWAYS get the last word. So respect them all (at least outwardly) and play no favorites.

OK, some PR people can do this and seem to get away with it – they do it by juggling, and they succeed (sometimes) because a professional who really knows the rules can sometimes break or bend them – by knowing the risks and rewards, and by playing the game with skill and finesse. This is another game you don’t want to play at home. Play it straight with reporters, and more often than not, they’ll play straight with you. If they don’t, write a letter to the editor (really – it often works).

6. Demanding Coverage

This is one of the worst failings of amateurs. They think they deserve coverage because:

• Their parents raised such wonderful children

• They “deserve” coverage – hey, the competition was covered last month, and fair’s fair, right?

• Their story is devastatingly important (or, it’s vital to help launch a new product, etc.)

• The big boss is demanding it

There are other excuses – pick yours. Then understand this. While reporters and editors need stories and news, they almost never need yours. They have what is called “editorial judgment” – which means that absent libel and slander, they can write and publish (or ignore) just about anything they want – and they do not have to answer to anybody.

If you must know why your story didn’t run, you can ask – if you do it right. Here’s what I do. “Sir (or ma’am), apparently I did something wrong – I thought it was a good story, but clearly it wasn’t good enough. If you have a minute, I’d appreciate it if you could tell me what I could have done different or better to make this worth your time and interest.” In this case, the fault is yours (probably true – it is with PR professionals … good as we are, we can miss some big point or subtle nuance). But it’s better not to ask – some editors get real defensive. And if you “demand,” kiss your future positive press coverage goodbye.

7. "I was only following orders ..." (doing what you are told, rather than what is right)

If you are doing your company’s PR and are answering to someone else (a Chairman, a Board, a CEO), you may find that they are asking or expecting you to do things that your gut instincts and these brief lessons tell you to steer clear of. Do not be tempted to follow bad advice just because it comes from the top. However, if you do as your told (and it blows up in your face with the reporters or editors), take the heat with integrity. Don’t blame others (or cop out with “I was only following orders …”) – its amazing how little damage comes from admitting you were wrong – and moving on. Almost all reporters and editors respect that, if only because it’s so rare.

Conclusion

OK, so you’ve seen the Seven Deadly Sins – and you know what to avoid. You’ve seen how to choose between targeted and broadside distribution of releases, as well as how to prepare and distribute a pitch. Now, let’s go out there and get us some PR, OK? The reporters are waiting for you … Good Luck!

It's a Numbers Game (and what a game!)

2010-03-30T16:58:00.000-07:00

The factoids in that YouTube video (see link below), which were presented to the Board of Sony in 2008, include:

To be 1 in a million in China means there are 1,300 people in China just like you.

China is the #1 English-speaking country in the world

Top 25% (by IQ) in India is a group larger than the entire US population

There are more honors kids in India than kids in US

The top-10 in-demand jobs today did not exist in 2004

We are currently preparing students for jobs that do not yet exist, using technology that has not yet been invented in order to solve problems that (today) we don’t even know are problems

Today’s students will have 10 to 14 jobs by age 38

1 in 4 employees today have been with their employer less than a year – half have been with their employer less than 5 years

1 in 8 US couples who were married in 2008 met online

There were (in 2008) 200 million users on MySpace

If MySpace was a country, it would be the world’s 5th largest (between Indonesia and Brazil)

#1 Broadband-use (per capita) country in world is Bermuda – US is #19 and Japan is #22

In 2008, there were 31 billion searches on Google every month – in 2006, that number was 2.7 billion (where did people go before Google to find information?)

First text message was sent in 1992 – in 2008, on every day in 2008, there were more text messages sent than there are people alive on earth (roughly 6 billion)

Technology is penetrating the population at a greater rate than ever before. To reach 50 million in a market audience:

Radio took 38 years
TV took 13 years
Internet took 04 years
iPod took 03 years
Facebook took 02 years

In 1984 there were 1 thousand Internet devices
In 1992 there were 1 million Internet devices
In 2008, there were 1 billion internet devices

Today there are 540,000 words in the English language
In Shakespeare’s time, there were just 100,000 words in English

One week’s worth of the New York Times contains more information than an 18th Century human would encounter in his entire life

4 extabytes of unique information (that’s 4x1019th) will be generated this year. That is more than all the unique bytes of information generated in the previous 5,000 years.

New technology information is doubling every 2 years – so for Tech students, half of what they learn in year-one will be outdated by year-three

NTT Japan has developed a new fiber optic cable that can push 14 Trillion bits/second – that’s 2,660 CDs or 210 million phone calls/second

This cable capacity is tripling every six months and will do so for the next 20 years

By 2013, a supercomputer will be built that will have more computational ability than the human brain.

By 2049, a single computer selling for about $1,000 will exceed the current combined computational ability of the entire human species (about 6 billion brains)

Every five minutes in 2008:

67 US babies are born
274 Chinese babies are born
395 Indian babies are born
694,000 songs are illegally downloaded

As fascinating as these facts are, they are two years out of date, and about as relevant as the newspaper headlines in Milwaukee on January 24, 1922. Still, they indicate the direction we’re all going.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL9Wu2kWwSY

Bad Product Review - RushPRNews

2009-11-18T10:50:00.002-07:00

I placed a release last night with RushPRNews, hoping to find a lower-cost way of getting IR-related news out (in compliance with SEC regs). My results were so disappointing that I had to re-release it on BusinessWire (which got immediate results).

Concerned that I wasn’t seeing the release anywhere (neither was my client) I spoke to their head honcho, Anne Howard, and found out this:

A posting on RushPRNews’ website (http://www.rushprnews.com), because it gets searched (if you do a Google News search), counts. Ditto for Yahoo News, MSN News, etc. In short, it’s not republished on their site – but if you go to Google search (or Yahoo search, or MSN search), you’ll find it. That is considered "placement" on MSN News, Yahoo! News and other sites.

If you read the fine print - and do so while already understanding what they’re really saying - then you’ll see that this is all they’re promising:

“Online Publishing: Google News, MSN News, Yahoo! News, Twitter, Technoratti, Zimbio, RPRN Front Page, RPRN Media Network, & more”

However, if you don’t have that going-in understanding, you might be justified in thinking (or assuming - always dangerous) that your release would be republished on MSN and Yahoo the way it is when BizWire or PRNewswire releases it. Having seen how little is actually covered by this release (online), I don’t know if this RushPRNews placement qualifies for SEC RegFD compliance, but I kind of doubt it.

If you look at their name, RushPRNews, you might be forgiven for thinking that this service is fast – you know, as in “Rush.” In that, you’d be mistaken. Again, if you read the fine print carefully, you’ll see that they allow themselves 24 hours to place your release (I bought a statewide distribution in Florida, as well as the Basic package of online publishing) – and they take this seriously. I assumed (again) that this is just to protect them against a tech-glitch, but again I was wrong. In this day of instant Internet and email distribution, I’m not sure why they take 24 hours, but they do.

So I kissed $80 down the drain, and the results are so bad that I’m not going to bill my client. I’m eating that $80. Fortunately, I just won MegaBucks, so I can afford to piss away $80. If you can afford to piss away money on press coverage, be sure to check out RushPRNews. Ask for Anne Howard, and be sure to tell her that a satisfied one-time-only client sent you.

Notice: No animals were injured during the placing of this client press release. Which is more than I can say for my bank account.

A PR Challenge of Historical Proportions - Rehabilitating General-and-President Grant's Image

2009-07-31T13:57:00.004-07:00

By Ned Barnett (C) 2009

Recently, I got into two unconnected discussions about Ulysses S. Grant, the first Lieutenant General in the US Army after George Washington, and the 18th President of the United States - and I've concluded that Grant has an image problem - a PR challenge for the ages. First, I'll give a lot of background (if you don't have the background, you won't be able to think about solutions), then I'll ask you to consider how Grant's image could be rehabilitated through PR.

***

As a General, many 20th and 21st century historians consider Grant a "butcher" for the way he won the Civil War, though the facts don't bear this out. As a President, Grant has often been considered both ineffectual as a leader and an amiable dupe of a group of corrupt men who stole the country blind while Grant presided in serene ignorance of their perfidy. Again, however, the facts don't bear this out.

Both of these charges were, in my opinion, politically motivated during Grant's lifetime for short-term political advantage by those who would attack his presidency, or by Confederates "smarting" over the way this uncouth commoner could have consistently whipped that epitome of the aristocratic Southern Gentleman, Robert E. Lee. More later on how and why latter-day historians came to the same unsubstantiated conclusions.

In the bloodiest war in US history, General Grant was remarkably economical of his soldiers' lives, and he felt their loss keenly (he was also "economical" of his enemies' lives - eager to end the war before more Americans from either side had to die). Grant fought but one battle where loss of life was excessive and preventable, and he never forgot that horror - or those bitter lessons - of Cold Harbor. Still, fewer soldiers died at Cold Harbor than died in Lee's last throw of the dice at Gettysburg (Pickett's Charge) or at Lee's own successful charge on Malvern Hill during the Peninsula (Seven Days) campaign. And of course, Lee presided over Antietam (or, to the South, the battle of Sharpsburg) - the bloodiest one day in American History.

Both of these great men felt their losses deeply, but in the cauldron of war, it was inevitable that each would have made mistakes that cost mens' lives. It is instructive that while Lee had relatively few of those awful days - Grant had only one day of disastrous casualties. Yet it is Lee who is remembered for the care in which he husbanded his troops - perhaps because he was more public with his feelings - while the more stoic but no less feeling Grant is unjustly smeared with the title "Butcher."

Lincoln, who deeply felt each American death (North and South), respected Grant as he respected no other man - and Lincoln was personally unable to support any man who was a "butcher." Once, when Grant's opponents in the war department snivelingly came to Lincoln claiming that Grant was a drunk (a calumny based on a bout of depression Grant experienced in the mid-1850s while he was in California in Army service, forced to be separated for years from his wife and children), Lincoln said, in effect, "What brand does he drink? I want to send a case to every one of my Generals."

While Grant was leading the Union Army during the last two years of the war, Lincoln was - along with Grant's home-town Congressman and friend, Elihu Washburn - Grant's strongest advocate. Lincoln was shrewd judge of character - he defended those, like Grant, who had the highest personal integrity, coupled with military effectiveness. And that support from Lincoln says more than anything else about Grant the man, and about Grant the General.

As a peacemaker, there was no-one more generous than Grant. For example, when Lee surrendered, Grant immediately ordered that Lee's men be fed from the Union's own stock of rations (not the typical action of a bloodthirsty conqueror). Further, out of respect, he ordered that Confederate officers - rather than going to prison for treason and rebellion - could keep their swords and sidearms (and their self-respect), and that all Confederates - regardless of their rank - could take their horses and mules home to facilitate the Spring planting.

Finally, in that surrender document, Grant specifically forbade the US government from arresting or prosecuting any surrendered Confederate for his role in the war, with that amnesty remaining in force for as long as that Confederate abided by the terms of the surrender (basically, to not take up arms and fight the American government anymore). This latter provision tied the hands of those in Washington who wanted to try and execute General Lee, at the very least.

As a President, Grant brought to an end the shameful "reconstruction" era in the South, and insisted that Southerners were once again Americans, with all the rights, privileges and obligations of American citizens. He was also the first president to specifically (and deeply) care about the fate of the Indians in America - he took positive steps to stop the war on the plains and bring an honorable peace between settlers and Indians, and to ensure their long-term protection of (and role in) America.

This wasn't a "new" position - on Grant's wartime staff, at a very high level, was an officer who was a full-blooded Native American - a man Grant treated as he did every other officer on his staff. This at a time when there was not only strong racial prejudice against Indians, but also at a time when the only Indians formally participating in the Civil War were Cherokees fighting on behalf of the Confederacy against the Union in the "trans-Mississippi" theater of operations (Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoman Territory).

Grant was equally concerned with the fates of former slaves, putting the full force of the Federal Government (including the Army) behind ensuring that these men, women and children had the rights of American citizens, fighting the rising tide that led, shortly after Grant's death, to the widespread adoption of Jim Crow laws. He had been one of the first (and relatively few) Union advocates of enlisting and arming "contrabands" - former slaves - during the war, and giving them the same status as white soldiers. This might seem all the more remarkable because Grant was no abolitionist and had even (briefly) owned a few slaves - gifts from his father-in-law, who was a prominent Missouri slave-holder. It's my personal belief that Grant's brief and painful experience owning another human being turned him against slavery and reinforced his view that all men were equal before God and should be equal before the bar of justice.

Grant did much that was good as President - so much so that he had to actively refuse a "draft" to make him the first American president to serve three consecutive terms (and if he'd accepted this draft, he would have won hands-down - he was that popular). He was also courted to run again after his successor's first term as President, and would have won had he run. In short, his fellow citizens - North and South - honored him despite the scandals (common to all Administrations in the era between Andrew Johnson and William McKinley) that never touched him. Nobody who knew him questioned his integrity - his biggest flaw was that he trusted men who'd once proved trustworthy, but who (tempted by money or power - usually money) had failed to live up to that trust. That is hardly the worst sin a sitting American President has committed.

Grant was a man of immense integrity and deep personal responsibility. Upon learning that he had throat cancer - the byproduct of his habit of smoking a dozen or more cigars every day - and knowing that he wouldn't be there to support his beloved Julia, Grant set out to write his autobiography, something his natural modesty had kept him from doing until necessity over-rode humility. It was and is one of the most honest and objective (and remarkably well-written) autobiographies I've ever encountered - certainly it stands head and shoulders above the rest of the General officers' autobiographies coming out of the Civil War.

To make this book happen, a Missourian and Southern sympathizer (though not a combatant) named Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) created a publishing company and borrowed against everything he owned to ensure the publication of this remarkable work - and he did this all long before a word had even been written. If that book had failed, Clemens would have been ruined - but thanks to the generous advance he had given to Grant, Mrs. Grant would have been provided for even if the book failed - though it turned out to be a huge best-seller. Grant finished this book barely two days before he died, and that honest work of self-exploration is a worthy monument to a great man's memory.

When Grant died, the largest parade in American' history was held, in New York City, to honor his passing. This funeral parade was decades after the Civil War, and more than a dozen years after Grant had last served as President - yet Americans, including tens of thousands of Americans not yet born when the Civil War ended, came out in unprecedented numbers to honor his memory. Leading that parade in Manhattan was a group of Confederate veterans - wearing the Gray one more time - honoring the man who defeated them in battle, but who then treated them so honorably and compassionately in victory that Grant stood higher in the minds of these ex-Confedrates than many of their own Generals and leaders.

When Grant's autobiography came out, it became the best-selling book in American history - except for the bible - which was and remains far and away the best-seller in American history. The public, though Grant was now beyond honoring, still poured out their love and regard for this brave and great man by buying his book in record numbers.

The judgment by those who knew him during his lifetime - and the judgment of the people he served and those who fought against him - was clear. Grant was a great general, a President of no mean accomplishment, and a man of the highest personal standards. Lincoln judged him the best man in uniform on either side of the war, and Lincoln had been burnt so often by his generals that he was not eager to praise any one of them. The people judged him as a President worthy of an unprecedented third term - and in death, long after he was out of the limelight, Grant was again honored as no other President has been who was not assassinated in office.

It was only a generation after Grant's passing that revisionist historians began to tarnish his name and reputation. They were eager for something new to say, and as a result they were equally eager to give life to the worst calumnies of Grant's contemporary political opponents. Being academics, they were eager to "say something new" so they could get published and earn tenure. For all the wrong reasons, these men, who were not worthy to polish Grant's mud-stained boots, began grinding away at this great man's reputation. With no contemporaries left to defend Grant, with no academics "with a dog in the fight" to dispute the lies, those lies stuck.

Butcher.

Failed President.

Loser.

Drunk.

None of these calumnies, of course, were true, but "dish" is generally more salable than honesty and integrity. Fortunately, and more recently, yet another generation of historians have looked at Grant - this time through documents and statistics, and through the perceptions of those who knew him best. In doing so, they have once again completely revised "history's assessment" of Grant as General and as President, finding him to be worthy of admiration rather than condemnation, respect rather than contempt - yet to the public, his image is still tarnished, his name as mud-stained as his combat boots.

***

Which brings us back to the original question - what can be done to restore this great and good man's reputation? What can PR do in the face of generations of ignorance imposed on Americans by scholars' self-serving assessments and public schools' parroting of those assessments?

What if you gave a Revolution and Nobody Came? ... Social Networking Revolution (that Nobody Noticed)

2008-12-30T13:39:00.004-07:00

By Ned Barnett, APR

Barnett Marketing Communications

ned@barnettmarcom.com

There's been a revolution going on in social media - right under our very eyes - but to see it, you have to go to www.compete.com and plug in “myspace.com” and “facebook.com” - then hit the button for analytics. Then choose the Unique Visitors under the Visitors tab (http://siteanalytics.compete.com/myspace.com+facebook.com/?metric=uv) and Average Stay (monthly) under the Engagement tab (http://siteanalytics.compete.com/myspace.com+facebook.com/?metric=uv). You’ll see the charts that this blog is based on.

Why should you do this? It’s simple. There has been a dramatic – almost cosmic – shift in market share and online activity between these two leading social media sites – the most dramatic part of this trend occurred over the summer (I began tracking this in September, but wanted to wait until now to see if it held up).

The market leader in unique visitors remains MySpace – but they have lost 14.4 percent of their unique visitors compared to same month last year; at the same time, Facebook gained on them to the tune of 69.5 percent growth. At the start of the 12-month period ending in November, MySpace fell from around 66 million unique visitors to around 56.5 million UVs (that’s the 14,4 percent loss), while Facebook grow from just shy of 30 million UVs up to 49.5 million UVs (that’s the 69.5 percent growth).

However, as impressive as that is, I don’t think it’s the biggest news here. For that, look at the second chart.

While Facebook went up in average length of stay by 12.5 percent over the past 12 months, MySpace nose-dived – their average length of stay fell 59 percent – almost all of it in the summer months (from June to August). I thought MySpace might have rebounded after the summer ended, but after the school year started up in September, the MySpace length-of-stay flatlined. At the start of the year (November 07) the average visit to MySpace ran for a fraction under 25 minutes per session; in November ’08, it was down to 9:59 minutes. That’s HUGE. Facebook started the year at about 14:45 and ended the year at 15:56 – a small growth, but dramatic when compared to its leading competitor.

What does this mean?

To me, it says two things about MySpace, neither one of which is likely to make Rupert Murdoch happy. But it then says one more thing, not quite so obvious, that’s even worse news.

First, and obviously, fewer people are using MySpace – never a good thing, but when you’ve still got 56.5 million unique visitors per month, it’s not the end of the world. HOWEVER, their average length-of-stay at MySpace has crashed, and not recovered.

The worse news – by far – is what the reduction in length of stay means. In two months, a huge number of people spontaneously switched their social networking allegiance from MySpace to somewhere else. Not Facebook – it didn’t spike upwards as MySpace fell – but somewhere. Digging deeper, I believe this means that people who once “lived” on MySpace – who did the bulk of their social networking there – are now just dropping in to check their mail, before going somewhere else to network. Literally overnight, MySpace went from being the predominant social media site to a legacy site – like an old land-line phone that you keep in service, just to check for occasional messages, while you do all your phoning on your new I-Phone or Blackberry Flip. In two months, MySpace went from where it’s happening to has-been.

Obviously, the folks who own and run MySpace know this has happened. But just as obviously, they haven’t figured out how to reverse the trend. Three months after bottoming out, MySpace is still flat-lined at under 10 minutes per visit.

In short, a revolution has taken place. The King is dead (but doesn’t appear to know that yet). Who will be crowned the next king? Maybe Facebook, but probably not – it’s growth is, at best, unspectacular. Somewhere out there is the new King of Social Networking sites, waiting to don the crown he’s already won.

From a marketing and promotion point of view, this is incredible (and incredibly bad, at least for MySpace). Just how it’s incredible remains to be seen.

Becoming an Expert Witness

2008-10-22T12:54:00.002-07:00

Note: In another format, this blog column was originally written to a colleague - a crisis management expert - who asked how to become an "expert witness" in courtroom settings. I answered his question, but also expanded that to look (briefly) at how to become an expert on cable news programs and networks.

***

I've been an expert witness in two cases - one about 'fair compensation' for a PR agency in Nevada whose former client wanted to stiff, and one on a liquor-company billboard ad campaign in Ohio (the issue: were the ads targeting minors?). In the first case, I got in because I knew the attorney for one side of the dispute, and offered my services. In the other, I heard about this through my "network" and contacted the folks who were trying to find expert witnesses for the case.

If you want to do this - and if you've got the qualifications, you should, as it's both fun and lucrative - I suggest pursuing several avenues:

1. Find companies facing the kind of crisis that touches your areas of expertise - contact their in-house legal team and offer your services. Then, ask them who's their lead hired-gun outside counsel, and pitch them, too. Don't wait for the lawsuit to hit - if there's a crisis, you know (and they know) that the suits are coming. Act fast and get in on the ground floor.

2. Do the same for companies which, by their very nature, are likely to be caught up in litigation crises - get their in-house legal departments to put you on their expert-witness rolodex.

3. Find companies that provide outside expert witnesses to attorneys (they're out there - just google them) and get on their rolodexes, too.

4. Write "expert witness" columns for legal publications, including online legal publications that are frequently hungry for new ideas and outside opinions (i.e., they need content).

In general, selecting expert witnesses is done on a case-by-case basis, so work it that way - but it doesn't hurt to be on their rolodex in advance.

Another thing you can try:

Pitch the cable news networks - you can become an "expert witness" for them as they cover crises. Go after the show producers, and let them known your areas of expertise - then get on their rolodexes. But don't trust only that - when you find an issue where you could add value, pitch them again (people change jobs, they forget their rolodexes, etc.) - in other words, lay the groundwork then position yourself as top-of-mind for when they need you. At first, you'll be doing this for promotion value alone - but if you become an insider, you'll be put under contract and paid for what you do.

There's a book by a retired USAF General who gives some inside insights into this process: Perry M. Smith, USAF (Retired) - "How CNN Fought the War: A View from the Inside." Perry was one of CNN's hired-gun experts during the first Gulf War, and his book provides a fascinating inside look at the way that the cable news business works. He's very candid about his contrats, his compensation, how he worked (how they worked him), etc. Strongly recommended. Amazon has copies from $70 (collectors copy) to $0.01.

China's Olympic PR Meltdown (and What They Could Do About It)

2008-04-08T12:57:00.008-07:00

Introduction

China - more specifically the PRC - has to date implemented an incredibly flawed PR campaign. At fault are the PRC government, it’s “Olympic committee,” and whatever PR consultants have advised the country on how to turn opinion in the West. This has led the PRC to conduct such a remarkably inept PR campaign against those who support Tibet and in favor of those (primarily the PRC) who want the Olympics to proceed as business-as-usual.

Bottom line: when it comes to Western-style Public Relations, the People’s Republic of China has stumbled badly while handling the ongoing Tibet/Torch PR crisis, and things will only get worse as the Olympics gets closer.

In response to several requests for me to address this issue (since I did a bit of consulting with the PRC more than a decade ago, and since I often deal with crisis-management PR), I put together an in-depth analysis of what China is doing wrong with their counter-productive PR efforts related to Tibet/Torch and Tibet/Olympics. There are several business interests - as well as the more obvious political and PR issues - at stake:

1. China’s own hopes that the Olympics will build new and long-term business relationships with the West

2. China’s need to turn a profit on the Olympics itself

3. Many corporations which sponsor the Olympics must be ready to shoot themselves over China’s ongoing inept handling of world outrage over Tibet – an outrage that will only get worse as it comes out that:

a. China is expelling Christian missionaries as a conscious effort (Operation Typhoon Five) to avoid problems at the Olympics – this could become a media firestorm if the right “face” can be put on a missionary who’s been expelled

b. China is unable to clean up the air in Beijing (which has caused some long-distance runners to already drop out)

c. Far from “Choice,” China continues to mandate forced abortions for women whose “crime” is to have already had another child – even if that child subsequently died – and this policy extends to partial birth abortions – while many women advocate for personal choice in abortion issues, few if any in the West will look favorably at forced/mandated abortions – and this could become another media firestorm

d. China remains unable to provide western-style hospitality for its Olympic visitors (including the media) – at issue are such basics as clean air, clean water and healthy food, as well as expected amenities such as a robust tourism infrastructure on a Western scale and to Western standards … hotels, taxis, public transit, etc.

Because they are the world’s 800-pound gorilla, China is used to being treated deferentially by the media and world leaders, and isn’t ready for widespread condemnation by liberal activists and the liberal media who’ve often been the PRC’s champions. Today, China wants to play on the world stage - and because they're China, they expect the world to play by their rules. But when it comes to human rights, the world is unwilling to do that.

At least since Nixon and Kissenger opened up China nearly 40 years ago, the PRC's leaders have never been forced to play by the Western media's rules - rules that leaders in Western Democracies know by heart. For that reason, leaders in the PRC are essentially tone-deaf when it comes to Western-style PR. There is no longer a reliably sympathetic leftist media-and-activist chorus to praise their every statement. Even worse - at least from the Chinese leaders' point of view, that praising “Greek chorus” of international liberal activists who were, for so long, the PRC’s faithful advocates are now on a "Free Tibet" jag, which puts them at cross-purposes to the PRC's leadership.

With no friends and no clues on how to manage the Western media in order to build positive public opinion, the PRC needs to receive – and hear – sound PR advice. While that won’t happen, in this blog article I “make the case” for a sound damage-control, crisis-management PR focus for the Chinese. Here I explain China’s PR failures, and offer some ideas that the Chinese should adopt – but won’t.

The Chinese PR Problem - and the Solution They Won't Use

Before I launch into the real problems (and some potentially real solutions), I want to give an example of the PRC’s remarkably, breathtakingly bad PR effort (along with my deadly-serious critique of that PR meltdown) - then discuss some real PR options that the Chinese could still adopt, though they probably won't.

First, I noted with near-riotous mirth the most recent statement by the Chinese spokesman: "The act of defiance from this small group of people is not popular," said Sun Weide, a spokesman for the Beijing Olympic organizing committee. "It will definitely be criticized by people who love peace and adore the Olympic spirit. Their attempt is doomed to failure."

On a personal note as one who cherishes unintended irony, I love it when an unelected and dictatorial Chinese government talks about an action not being “popular” – especially when that action is taken by a small group of people … like maybe the Chinese Communist government. As an aside, the PRC government is perhaps the single most blood-stained government in all of history, with most of the deaths inflicted on their own citizens since 1949 – though the Civil War that took Mao from peasant agitator to leader of the world’s largest country cost untold millions of lives (generally, the Chinese death toll from their Civil War is thought to be more than all the casualties from all countries other than China in World War II).

That's a lot of negativity to overcome. However, more to the point, I think a good place for China to start in its PR offensive is this:

1. Don’t drink your own Kool-Aid … this kind of nonsensical propaganda statement may play well within the borders of the world’s largest totalitarian state, but it reads like a bad Monty Python joke to the rest of the world

2. If you’re issuing a press release in English – especially one aimed at America (where the next torch-extinguishing event is scheduled for Wednesday), get someone to write it who’s a native-born American – or at least someone who is truly fluent in idiosyncratic American English.

Avoid nonsensically-ironic statements: “People who love peace and adore the Olympic spirit ...”

· This ridiculously ironic statement is "wrong" (from a PR perspective) on so many levels. First, it comes from a government that severely restricts its own athletes from participating in International sports competitions – including the Olympics – denying some athletes places on their national team because of their so-called political “unreliability” – this approach is, of course, the ultimate manifestation of the true “Olympic Spirit ...”

· Next, this statement comes from a government that is so focused on peace and human rights that it mandates punitive abortions (including partial birth abortions) for unborn children whose only crime is to have been conceived by parents who already have one child – even if that first child has already died. This mandate is carried out by armed paramilitary secret police – a sure hallmark of a country that “loves peace.”

· Next, this statement is from a government that has the world’s largest standing army – yet another unmistakable hallmark of a country that “loves peace.”

· Finally and most importantly, this statement comes from a government so peace-loving that it militarily occupied Tibet in 1950 and which violently broke that oppressed country’s indigenous resistance movement in 1958, and which has at times brutally suppressed anything coming from Tibet that doesn’t smack of abject surrender to the will of Beijing.

In short, this statement is wrong on more levels than the mind can easily grasp. However, the situation is not beyond recovery - if (and only if) the Chinese are willing to listen to some sound "Western" PR advice on how to best reach the "Western" market of democratic citizens and democratic leaders.

OK – assuming that they're ready to listen to reason, what can the PRC do about this?

Not much. Their problems stem well beyond pro-Tibet groups’ obstruction of the torch event.

For instance, the air quality in Beijing is so remarkably bad that some world-class marathoners are already refusing to run in the foul miasma of smoke and smog and God alone knows what else that constitutes the “breathing air” in Beijing. Other Olympians scheduled for outdoor events may choose to join those who value long-term health more than they value risking all for a medal – and it’s a sure bet that outdoor-air events will come in with results that are way below world-class records – the air in Beijing really is exactly that bad, and all the draconian measures China is taking to overcome this bad air will likely come to naught.

The venues themselves (the stadiums, etc.) will likely be ready on time – but as someone who works with a regular business visitor to Beijing, Shanghai and the PRC (and who’s heard many horror stories about China at first hand), there is literally no way that the PRC can clean up their “hospitality” industry. This "hospitality" industry is nothing short of a disaster moving toward a debacle, and it cannot be fixed or even significantly ameliorated in time for the Olympics. But it's not just the air. Their public water is – by western standards – unfit to drink, and their food can be dangerous in a way that Americans used to joke about food in Mexico – but this time, the food really can be dangerous.

In short, reality is not on the side of the PRC. I have no idea what brand of wishful thinking and private bong-smoking the Chi-com officials used to justify their bid for the Olympic games. They knew their human rights record was abysmal and not likely to change. They knew what the outside world (or at least Richard Geer at Academy Awards presentations) thought about Tibet. They knew that headline-grabbing weekend Leftist activists - the kind who'd disrupted G-8 meetings and World Bank meetings - would be chomping at the bit to disrupt the Olympics. They knew their air quality was awful trending toward disastrous (ditto for their water quality and public-access food) and they’d have to be blind to think that Western visitors wouldn’t be negatively impressed by the restaurants and hotels in Beijing.

But they went ahead and bid on (and won) the Olympic Games - and have come face-to-face with a remarkably unwelcome reality. When reality isn’t on your side, your PR choices are limited.

So here’s what they should do:

a. Change the subject – instead of railing against : "The act of defiance from this small group of people” and predicting that “their attempt is doomed to failure," the efforts of the PRC’s PR flacks should focus on changing the subject. They should take a public position that sounds something like “the critics have a right to criticize, but not to commit criminal actions – and the athletes who have looked forward, all their lives, to carrying the symbolic torch and participating in these historic games have a right to do so without criminal disruption, even when it comes from well-intended idealists who refuse to see the harm they are causing – not to the People’s Republic of China – but to the athletes who’ve trained and dreamed all their lives for this moment.” Something like that.

b. Offer a symbolic fig-leaf that takes the issue off the front burner without actually changing anything. “In a spirit of International Olympic good-will, we invite those who have differing views about the issues raised by these well-meaning but – in our opinion – misguided protestors … including representatives of the protestors themselves – to an International convocation to discuss Tibet … past, present and future. This convocation will be held at the site of our Olympic facilities six weeks after the conclusion of the Olympics themselves. We invite those who object to our historic sovereignty over Tibet - a province which has historically been part of China going back 4,000 years - as well as those who see the merit in our just claim to be the single government over all of historic China. We will also, of course, invite members of the UN, the IOC and the world press to this convocation. That will show the demonstrators that they've "been heard" and will allow the Olympics proceed - and, incidentally, it will position those who continue to protest in a far less sympathetic light, since the Chinese will have already agreed to an " International dialog" on the subject.

c. Find Surrogates, Part One: Demand, but privately, that the IOC condemn the actions of the protestors – then stay out of the fight and let the IOC handle it from their own Olympian position.

d. Find Surrogates, Part Two: Bring forward athletes from around the world who will mouth platitudes about the protestors’ rights to express their views while demanding (from the protestors) that they back off and let the Olympic athletes enjoy this Millennia-old test of prowess and spirit. Make the Olympic athletes (not the Tibetans) the real victims – encourage the media and the world to see them as the real martyrs to this “peace group’s” terrorism. Shift the discussion (again) away from China and onto the poor, suffering athletes who are having their lifetime dreams shattered by a selfish and misguided few.

There’s more, but that’s a start – this is what I would do if I was the PR flack for the PRC. Thank God I have better sense than to take on the PRC for a client in this crisis, but if I were to do so, this would be among my strategic recommendations.

So, setting aside the right (or wrong – especially the wrong) of China’s position about Tibet, as well as their gross inadequacy as a host for an international event (if only because of their abysmal air quality and their oppressive lack of human rights … not to mention their lack of world-class hotels, restaurants and ground-service infrastructure (taxis, non-Olympic entertainment, etc.) – to turn this situation around, they need to:

· Aggressively change the subject by making the protestors out as unfeeling criminals who are destroying the Olympic experience for a generation of athletes for their own selfish purposes

· Switch responsibility for responding to this outrage

· Find new and more sympathetic victims (easily-accessible and squeaky-clean media-darling Olympians vs. unknown, remote and largely unwashed peasants in a remote mountain fastness)

· Offer an ultimately-worthless but well-sounding “fig leaf” for after the Olympics … when the world will forget this ever almost happened.

There are, of course, other effective PR strategies - some, perhaps, far better and potentially far more effective than my offerings here. However, this seems like a sound, professional (and admittedly amoral - but we're dealing with the PRC, which is nothing if not amoral) place to start.

In Defense of the First Amendment (and reluctantly, Spam)

2008-04-01T11:47:00.000-07:00

This is a bit of a diversion from the run-of-the-mill post here, but it does tie PR and Politics together.

Since you asked, here, in a nutshell, are my views on Free Speech (commercial, personal and political) – please recall that these are linked to the US Constitution’s First Amendment, and may not apply directly to Canada and other democracies who handle Free Speech in different (but essentially similarly effective) manners.

The First Amendment was written with an eye toward free political speech – it was written in reaction to the excesses of Good King George, who’d punished colonists for speaking out against their king (I think that’s called “Lese Majesty”). The former colonists wanted the freedom to express controversial and even confrontational political ideas without prior suppression. Which is why in one of its first actions, the Supreme Court struck down the Alien and Sedition act in about 1790 – and well they should have. This is also why the Supremes were right to side with the ACLU and the American Nazi Party in the mid-Sixties when the Nazis wanted to march in predominantly-Jewish Skokie (I lived near Skokie at that time in another predominantly Jewish suburb of Chicago – my father’s office was there – and I saw the chaos it created … nonetheless, that march was classic controversial political speech). This is also why the Supremes were WRONG (IMO) in upholding the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, which limits privately-financed political speech (ads) close to election times – while permitting 527 groups, wealthy candidates and the media (on their editorial pages) to engage in financed political speech (ads and ad-like op-eds) close to an election.

The First Amendment, because of the way it was written, has been applied to commercial free speech (which I don’t think the Founding Fathers meant, but which works) and offensive/pornographic free speech (which I am CERTAIN the Founding Fathers did not mean and would not have agreed with – they wrote and spoke on limits to free speech, and pornography is certainly “speech” they would have objected to). But to the area of commercial free speech, in 220 or so years, the Supremes have extended the First Amendment to commercial speech, with a few caveats (such as “truth in advertising”). And as PR people, we depend on that freedom.

Let me repeat that: As PR people, we depend on that freedom.

We exist to practice commercial speech on behalf of our clients (unless, of course, our clients are political candidates or issues-advocacy group, in which case our efforts are protected by the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers). Which means that bans or harsh limitations on annoying spam-faxes or annoying spam-emails are in fact bans or harsh limitations on our ability to function in a free society on behalf of our clients. For there is no practical way that I can think of to ban “enlarge your penis” types of spam without also banning legitimate email pitches to reporters and editors. Both are unsolicited. Both are essentially commercial. And, for editors, both are inbox-cloggers (I spoke to the editor of one of the Las Vegas business weekly newspapers in February – he told me he gets 300 or so unsolicited email pitches each day – he said that to emphasize the importance of picking up the phone and calling him, especially when the story was breaking near his deadline).

Communications technology – if we’re to do our jobs for our clients – must remain free and essentially unregulated, unless the regulations are very tightly drawn (such as bans on emails soliciting sexual encounters – though this might also ban legitimate dating services, such as eHarmony – as I said, these regs must be very carefully drawn.

I am always amazed at those PR people who are eager to ban spam emails – yes, they’re annoying, but they’re also easy enough to get rid of (I get about 500 spam emails per day, and spend about 5-10 minutes purging them daily – and that’s because I try to make sure that no “legit” emails get into my junk box). By banning (or advocating the banning of) any channel of communications, we are advocating outside prior restraint on our own efforts to reach out to the media. That is counter-productive (in Darwinian terms, it’s a counter-survival trait).

Bottom line: we in Public Relations have a duty to our clients and to ourselves to fight to maintain a broad interpretation of that First Amendment freedom to speak (via emails, faxes, Bizwire, phone calls, mass mailings, etc.) – without that, we’re out of business.

Preparing the Perfect PR Pitch

2008-01-18T15:44:00.002-07:00

OK — you’ve found the story. You’ve lined up a positive quote from within your company — and maybe (if you’re playing in the big leagues) a favorable comment from a professional business analyst. You have the facts, the figures, and the human interest that transforms facts into stories and news. Now what?

Now you go down this four-item checklist and prepare yourself for success.

1. Perfect PR pitch - the note you need to strike in the pitch

When you pitch a story, you’re selling an idea — an idea about you and your company. You’re selling it to a jaded individual who’s been there and seen that — but you’re also selling it to an individual who NEEDS story ideas and leads. Not yours — he or she is flooded with leads and ideas — but still, the self-interested reporter or editor is always looking for the next good story. Your job is to tell that story briefly and compellingly — just as if you were trying to hook a prospect during a 30-second elevator ride. To do that, you need a “perfect PR pitch” — a brief, compelling and well-told story that will link your publicity needs with the reporter’s rational self-interest. If you sell or have sold, if you know how to quickly grab the interest of a prospect, you already have the basic skills of pitching.

2. Shotgun vs. Deer rifle - focusing in on the right media

You may not be a hunter (I’m not). You may not have ever even held a firearm. But you know — thanks to the media — the difference between a shotgun and a deer rifle. One, the deer rifle, sends a carefully-aimed shot for a long distance — if your aim is true, you hit your target. The other, useful at short range, sends a large number of shots — like a handful of gravel — out at a target. Because of the number of shots, if the range is close and the aim is reasonably accurate (not precise — why bother) you’re bound to hit something. Both approaches have impact — but which is right for your story?

Shotgun press releases — those sent out over eReleases.com reach plenty of reporters and wind up on thousands of online databases where they can be found. To work with a shotgun approach, the news should be either really compelling (you’ve just bought out Microsoft) or so un-compelling that it makes more sense to cast your bread on the waters in hopes that somebody, somewhere will take a bite.

Deer rifle press releases are distributed (or rather, the pitches are made) to very select news media — and generally to specific reporters at those newspapers and magazines. You choose the targets after reading the publications — and the stories your target has written (a quick Web-search on Yahoo! or Google should help you find online copies of those stories — if not, a trip to the library will pay hefty dividends). Deer rifle stories are generally important stories, but stories that require a special familiarity with your product line and market space. This is where the industry targeting offered by
eReleases.com comes into play.

One is right for you — but it may be a different one at different times. For a really big stories, both approaches may be right — five to ten targeted media followed by a shotgun-blast press release using eReleases.com.

3. Phone vs. e-mail (or even antediluvian fax?)

Recent studies show that as many as 80% of reporters in a given (high-tech) market space prefer to receive a PR pitch via e-mail. This is a major change from past procedures, and even from preferences of just a few years ago (when many reporters were gun-shy of e-mail). Of the remainder, fax is preferred to a phone pitch by two-to-one. Since you’re not likely to know the reporter and know his/her preference, go with the default setting and send the pitch by e-mail (NOT as an attachment — those get deleted un-read unless a reporter has asked for and is expecting an attachment). If you want to further insure success, send a FAX, too. But do not call — that’s the fast track to failure.

4. Initial contact and follow-up

Make your initial contact via e-mail or fax. Depending on the timeliness, send a brief follow-up e-mail (or fax) in 24-48 hours, or even a week if the story is timeless. DO NOT CALL — not unless the reporter has told you that phone pitches are OK. And if you do phone, do not wear out your welcome, or try to be Mr./Ms. Personality. Keep the call brief — unless the reporter chooses to extend it. Ask: “is this a good time?” or “Do you have a minute to hear a quick PR pitch?” or “Would you prefer an e-mail, or do you have a minute to hear a quick PR pitch?” or something like that. Then listen to the answer. And heed it — even (or perhaps especially) if it’s not what you want to hear.

Public Relations and Lead Generation

2007-11-30T16:01:00.000-07:00

Public Relations and Lead Generation
By Ned Barnett and Daryl Toor (c) 2007-2008

Public relations can and should be part of an effective lead-generation business-building program that brings qualified potential clients into a company’s sphere of influence – leading, ultimately, to direct negotiations and closed business deals. PR cannot close – but, with proper handling, PR can lay the groundwork for effective closing of important business contracts and sales.

The biggest mistake most companies (and most PR professionals) make when it comes to using PR as a Lead-Gen tool is that they see getting great press coverage as the final step in the process. In fact, it is very nearly the first step. It’s what you do with a clip – to effectively and comprehensively leverage its impact AFTER you get it – that counts. Here are some things that can and should be done to maximize the impact of each PR success:

1. Put each favorable clip – as soon as it comes out – on your website press room.

a. Do NOT link to them – the media often “retires” articles after a period of time, whereas their use to you is timeless.
b. Best bet: use a screen-capture.
c. Second-best: post with a the media’s logo graphic to show where it came from.

2. Send out each clip, via email (with an appropriate cover note and a link back to your website to see the clip), to:

a. All of your clients, for referral-development purposes.
b. To all of your referral sources and “influencers.”
c. To all of your hot prospects.
d. To all of your longer-term prospects.
e. Through your PR firm or inside counsel, to media (reporters, editors, producers, bookers) who cover you or your market space – with an appropriate note that makes the clip a validater, rather than something that has “used up” the media’s interest.

3. Surface (or Fed-X) copies to priority internal (sales) and external (prospects, clients who need reinforcement or who could become referral sources)

a. Send them hard-copy clips (reprints, available from most media outlets, usually at reasonable prices) along with appropriate, personal (and personally-signed) letters
b. Or, less formally, with post-it notes and brief hand-written messages attached to the clips.

4. Put the clips in the sales kit.

a. If the kit is electronic, provide a link to the clips.
b. If the kit is printed, include a reprint of the clips with other sales-promotion and sales-support materials.

5. Quote from the clips in future sales tools and press releases.

6. Once sufficient clips are in hand, create a sales tool (a brochure, for instance, or a web page) that is little more than a string of linked-together quotes from clips, all singing your praises.

There are other, specific uses that can be made of effective PR clips in specific instances – for instance, trade shows permit clips to be turned into creative hand-outs (printed on coffee mugs, for instance, or in some other way made permanent). These solutions here are “generic” and universal in their application – anybody can (and everybody should) use them.

PR Media Relations Basics for Clients

2007-06-07T08:39:00.000-07:00

By Ned Barnett, APR

The following listing of media relations basics for client firms; it is based on three-plus decades of working in PR, seeing what reliably succeeds for clients and seeing what essentially works one-time-only (based on distinctive or unique circumstances).

To put this list of basics in perspective, I have presented the information as advice to a just-past-startup manufacturing client which has developed a brand-new “alternative” product. This client functions as a wholesaler, selling through retail distributors, with consumers as the end-users. If your business model is different, some of these recommendations will have to be adapted – but most apply across a wide range of business modes. After all, the essential nature of “basics” is that they apply reliably to a wide variety of clients and business circumstances.

1. Although many decry the needs for press releases in this digital age, you need a core press release announcing and positioning your business to the media and the marketplace. This is important, though not always for the same reasons as those that once justified press releases. This “core” launch release should tell your story to the media briefly, succinctly and effectively. However, a launch press release isn’t enough – the initial release package needs to include two different elements:

o Your launch release should be provided in digital format (and never in PDF – it is helpful to allow reporters and editors to cut-and-paste it – and this applies not just to the initial press release, but to ALL PR-provided materials).

o Though it may sound odd, reporters are almost allergic to the idea of retyping anything – but if you give it to them in digital format, that will make getting coverage in print more likely.

o With this initial release, you'll also want to include high-rez digital photos of the product, the product installed, the company logo and its founder/inventor.

 Rather than attach a photo (if the release is emailed to the media), include a link to those high-rez photos available for media download.

 In addition, include a concise and accurate photo caption and (if appropriate) a further link to permission-to-use statements signed by those in the photos.

 This gives reporters and editors all the tools they need in order to use these photos.

o Your media contact’s email address – not just the phone number – should be included on all releases and correspondence. So much of media work is done via email now that this is essential.

2. To go with impressive and effective launch (or other) press releases, you need to have an equally impressive online press room. A good sample of an effective online press room can be found on the site of a former client of mine (this press room is effective, content-wise – I won't speak to design as that was beyond my ability to influence). This website can be seen at http://www.avalara.com/index.cfm/page/press_room. In addition, for an important feature often overlooked in online press rooms, check this out at http://www.avalara.com/index.cfm/page/In_the_News. What you need here for your own online press room includes:

o All of your press releases (in reverse chronological order – most recent at the top).

o The media is a "follow-the-leader" pack animal, and will be impressed by previous press coverage – having achieved solid coverage from other sources at other times makes the media more trusting of you, and more likely to also want to cover you. Therefore, be sure to include:

o All of your favorable press clips (again in reverse chronological order). A strong hint here: do not assume that press coverage will stay online at the media’s website – create a "screen capture" of the article on your website, so it will never go away.

o All of your favorable broadcast interviews, in streaming video (for TV) and streaming audio (for radio), live on your website. Also, again remember this.

o A backgrounder on how you discovered/invented the product. This should be something substantial – 1,000 to 2,500 words is good, though as little as 500-750 words could work in a pinch. You want reporters to cut-and-paste from this and include it in their write-ups. Note – this applies to start-up manufacturers – adapt this “product-specific” item to your own business.

o A backgrounder on the company itself. As with the product creation backgrounder, having these online will invite reporters to cut-and-paste and use this in their write-ups.

o A bio on you and your co-inventor. Note: For other companies, this means bios on the founders (if still active), as well as current corporate C-level leaders.

o Frequently asked media questions (if you don't have them, make them up – the way you want to be asked) along with the answers. As you gain experience in talking with the media, update this so it reflects the questions reporters actually ask.

o Kudos from happy retailers/dealers (remember, you're also looking for dealers, so let's not forget them), with contact information so reporters can verify the comments, and follow up with other questions as appropriate. You’ll want to get their permission – in advance – before you turn the media loose on them. Note: Adapt this to reflect your channel.

o Kudos from happy/satisfied end-users, with contact information so reporters can verify the comments, and follow up with other questions as appropriate. You'll want to get the end-users' permission to give out contact info, of course, but that shouldn't be difficult ... most people are flattered to be asked – and those who aren’t shouldn’t be bothered.

o High-rez digital photos of the product, the product installed, the company logo and its founder/inventor.

o Case studies. Take testimonials that you or your dealers have received – or can generate – and beef them up into online case studies that reporters can crib from for their articles. Remember – reporters generally feel overworked, and prefer to work with material they don’t have to retype. If you make it easier for them, they’re more likely to cover you.

o Praise from local, state and national civil defense, construction and disaster-relief experts (we can solicit this). Note – this applies specifically to this client, but more broadly, this section should include endorsements from credible third-party individuals whose recommendations cannot be bought.

o Links to articles that put the traditional approach to solving this problem in a bad light, especially when compared to your innovative solution. Note: This should apply to any links that will help the media more thoroughly research your product and its place in the market will be useful here.

o Now that you've got the basis of a solid online press room (one that will be updated in "real-time" whenever you have new press releases go out, or new press coverage generated), put THIS online press room on a CD disk to create a digital press kit you can send out at very low cost with your product sample and initial press release.

3. Direct-pitching the right media targets (i.e., those who directly cover your primary target market) is solid and sound PR, and it can be made to work very effectively – but, by its very nature, this approach is limited ... there is so much more that you can do to generate favorable coverage, including (but not limited to):

o Pitch radio talk shows. Yes, I know that you can't "see" the product on the radio, but you will still generate interest – lots of interest. It is also very low in cost to do so. The benefits include:

o More name recognition – for instance, I got a low-budget Christmas DVD on talk radio in the month before Christmas last year, on a truly shoe-string budget, and reached more than 9 million radio listeners ... with the issue/problem you solve, we can do better, and we can keep going back to that well over and over again.

o When you know in advance, you can send a blast email to your dealers and their customers (hint: you should have email addresses for customers) telling them that you'll be on a given talk show at a certain time – and, if the station streams their talk programs online, you can give them a link as well. This builds credibility and supports word-of-mouth referrals.

o By mentioning your website a minimum of three times in each interview, you'll build traffic to your website, which will also build word-of-mouth.

o A streaming-audio copy of each radio interview has useful benefits in your website press room (they show reporters that you can handle questions) as well as on potential-customer sites.

o Talk radio interviews (especially on smaller stations) are useful training for more high-value media interviews, especially if these interviews are “deconstructed” in a media-training format – note the mistakes you’ve made, and consider how you could better answer difficult questions.

Note: Talk radio is too often overlooked as a useful medium. Except for products that are purely B2B, talk radio can help directly or indirectly, in a variety of ways, to enhance the overall PR effort.

o You should create a series of focused-issue press releases on key topics related to your product, and to the problem you solve, as well as to limitations of the “traditional” solution. These releases are not likely to be picked up by conventional print publications – they have other purposes. To achieve these other purposes, you should then place them on a commercial newswire so they take on a life of their own, on the Internet. From a purely press relations perspective, this is very effective; secondarily, this helps support your reseller-recruiting and direct-to-customer sales efforts. If you think print publications or other media will pick the releases up, email them directly to reporters (rather than counting on the wire service to reach them) – sound media contact lists can be created at low cost making use of Contacts on Tap (http://www.cornerbarpr.com/cot/howdy.cfm), an annual subscription service that is an order of magnitude less expensive than buying commercial media-contact lists.

o Wire service distribution of press releases is what I call the "breadcrumbs strategy," since these releases "live" online and will be found by reporters Googling your company – and if they find the releases (vs. you giving them the releases) they'll give these news items more credibility.

o It's a "dirty little secret" of the news media that many online publications run press releases – often unedited – but put a reporter's or editors byline on them instead of running them as press releases. This “borrowing” transforms these fairly low-credibility press releases into high-credibility "third-party validation" articles.

o If you do it right, the cost of PR wire placement is relatively nominal, but the impact is strong and powerful – doing this right involves using the smallest available distribution market (i.e., “Florida” instead of “US-1” national distribution. The Internet is global, and – since you don’t plan on these releases being used directly in publications – there is nothing lost.

o In addition to putting these releases on the wire, and in addition to direct-emailing them to carefully-targeted reporters, editors, news and talk show producers, you should consider shotgunning them out via email to a much wider range of prospective media types – this WILL generate more coverage (the focus of the release, and how well it's written, will determine how successful each release is) at a negligible additional cost.

o Target the appropriate specialized vertical-market trade journal reporters as a "media" group – these names won't be as easy to come by as more broadly-focused reporters and editors, as they're not "traditional" media, but given time and effort, we can come up with these lists. Note: This can have broad applicability – too often, key “experts” are mistakenly overlooked in PR outreach.

o Target small bricks-and-mortar-oriented business media – lots of small businesses need your kind of product-created protection, too, and they have problems/issues with the traditional solution as well. Note: This is specific to the client in question; adapt it to apply to secondary markets for your product or service.

o Target small contractor construction media. Note – this client has a construction-related product – apply this to the trades that cover your market niches.

4. Other more marketing-related PR ideas include:

o You should have a referral-incentive program, whereby you can incentivize existing customers to refer new customers. Your dealers should love this, since it means (primarily) more local business. Note – this is one of the most overlooked marketing strategies, yet it is easily created and easily supported by PR outreach efforts (ezines, etc.)

o You should stage publicity-generating events, such as donating and installing your product at prominent local non-profit orphanages or hospices or other warm-and-fuzzy/feel-good places ... as long as the management there will agree to go on camera and say how wonderful you are. If you split the cost with the local dealer (for instance, you provide materials, they provide installation) and let them in on the local phase of publicity, it should be another win-win. Note: Again, this is client-specific, but the basic strategy of providing goods or services to a popular charity in exchange for a media photo op and endorsement is a sound strategy.

o You should look at PR efforts aimed at potential dealers. Since you need and want dealers, who are gatekeepers to the bulk of your potential customers, this should be a priority, too. Note – apply this as appropriate to your distribution channel.

o As noted above, you should create email contact lists of customers and dealers, prospects and referral sources (as well as targeted media) – then each time you know you're going to be on TV or radio, let them know in advance; and every time you get a favorable clip, you can send them a link to the article on your website (ditto for streaming video/audio of broadcast interviews).

o Consider alternate sales targets (including off-season and out-of-market targets). Note: This is very client-specific, but it is usually important to seek alternate and off-season markets to “level-load” the business.

o Each of these alternative business markets has media markets open to product reviews, case studies, etc. You can penetrate those markets off-season to keep your business from being totally seasonal in nature.

Bottom line: Some of these are recommendations that can fit into even a low PR budget (the website press room is a "must" – and blitzing radio talk show hosts/producers and shotgunning out releases to supplement your more focused media pitches are both strong low-budget recommendations).

However, other ideas could be made to work in ways that will build any business – but to be successful, you need to set priorities and focus on those things that, within your current budget, can make an impact. That’s what PR is all about – making an impact. When done within a rational new-business budget, PR becomes a positive investment creating a strong ROI – that’s what this outline focuses on.

Are Press Embargoes Dead?

2007-06-04T13:48:00.000-07:00

By Ned Barnett, APR
PR/Marketing Fellow, American Hospital Association

Embargoes, once a valued tool used by most press relations-oriented PR professionals, are dead. Those who attempt to use them today are asking for trouble – or worse. Some who bemoan the demise of embargoes blame bloggers, but the real culprits predate the bloggers and strike at the heart of the 24/7 Internet-fueled endless news cycle.

Embargoes were long used by PR professionals who sought to “prime the pump” on coverage by giving selected reporters advance word on a news announcement – with the agreement that the reporters wouldn’t publish until after the announcement went public. This would help ensure favorable coverage – and would give the reporter time to research and write about the topic.

Here’s a classic example of how they once worked – several years ago, I pitched an embargoed story to a reporter from the Wall Street Journal. He agreed to respect the embargo – he didn’t leak the story or rush to publish before I made the coordinated, formal announcement – yet he researched the underlying news story and wrote his own take on it, waiting for the ball to go up. As scheduled, we dropped the announcement at midnight on a Tuesday; at 12:01 a.m. that same Tuesday morning, the Wall Street Journal popped their very detailed story online (it also made the morning printed version), making them the clear winners in the sweepstakes to be the first to publish major news. In this example, the embargo worked – I got a reporter interested, and he wrote an excellent article timed to hit the streets only moments after I made my formal announcement. I won – I got the coverage. He won – he got a big jump on all of his competitors at the New York Times and Washington Post.

However – although that particular incident happened just a few years ago – it now seems almost like a quaint fable from a more innocent, long-ago time. Today, embargoes are dead – thanks in part to bloggers (who routinely ignore embargoes, making a mockery of this time-honored journalistic convention) – but there are other reasons as well.

Embargoes were dead long before bloggers arrived.

They were already dying even as the 24/7 cable news cycle was just being born, heralded with the advent of Matt Drudge – along with the less public, and more than a bit grudging, acceptance by major news media that the Internet was a growing source of “news” for a significant market segment, a trend that began more than a decade ago.

Embargoes were already dying when “news” in Silicon Valley was measured in nano-second time-frames, and when literally hundreds of millions of dollars in venture capital money and IPO funds rode on who had the best, latest and most dramatic “news” – and when the media competed on the emerging Silicon CEO’s own 24/7 working lifestyle.

By the time that “social media” emerged to reshape the post-9/11 Internet, the embargo was already dead … but the “social media” put the final nails into the embargo’s coffin. Angry leakers no longer had to find a sympathetic reporter with his or her own axe to grind – the disaffected employees, stockholders, clients or customers – or underhanded competitors – could just go ahead and post their often-distorted version of the news themselves, usually anonymously, and often with tremendous impact. And they did. And they do. Today’s corporate and organizational media PR professional is no longer looking for ways to schedule the release of news, s/he is struggling to stay ahead of the tidal flow of unauthorized news leaks.

When anybody can (and does) post news on places like MySpace, YouTube, or on Internet bulletin boards frequented by angry investors – and when bloggers, podcasters and private individuals with multi-thousand-name email push lists (among others) can began breaking news on their own … usually at somebody else’s expense … embargoes became both dead and immaterial.

Add to this is the fact that increasing numbers of editors and reporters have blogs or email push-zines of their own, and routinely “scoop” their own publications – generally with management’s blessing. In fact, it was very likely a reporter who leaked the biggest story of the decade to the first of the major Internet news sources.

The Monica Lewinsky story broke on Drudge a decade ago, literally within hours after Newsweek put a long-term hold on Michael Isikoff’s in-depth exploration of a presidential sex scandal. There’s no proof, but “informed assumptions” point to Isikoff as the frustrated leaker. However, anybody at Newsweek with a grudge against the editor (or against President Clinton) could have leaked this story to Drudge. The point is clear – the Internet has made it possible for anybody to leak anything – and with all records now kept in digital format, anybody with access to those records can leak “the real thing.” Against “the real thing,” there are few PR defenses – and no point in trying to embargo or schedule the release of volatile breaking news.

Since the Lewinsky scandal made Drudge a national name, internal sources with grudges or agendas are all acting like Presidential Administration Officials (people who leak sensitive information when it suits them, to push their own agendas, usually at the then-current President’s expense). What was once common only in Washington has now invaded America’s version of “Fleet Street” – members of the media are constantly getting great tips, leaks, leads, back-door documents, etc., and then using them to create news. This creates a dilemma for PR people who have to both anticipate – and defend against – these kinds of news-generating leaks.

If, as a media-relations PR professional, you don’t put volatile news out yourself, now (while you can still control it), trust that if this news is really newsworthy – hence “worthy” of an embargo – it will be leaked … and used.

For all these reasons, the embargo is dead. It’d demise began with the rise of Matt Drudge a decade ago, and the final stake-through-the-heart has come from the rise of blogs as a legitimate alternative news source over the past 3-to-5 years. PR people used to controlling the release of information following more gentile rules need to take note – and act accordingly. The embargo is dead – the 24/7 endless news cycle lives – and there are people out there who really are out to get you. Act accordingly.

Diversity in Public Relations - Great Idea or "PC Hell"

2006-10-22T21:34:00.001-07:00

Intro: Recently, we've commemorated the death and birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. - a man who fought for integration and against what we now call "diversity" (but what he might have called segregation). Which is why, I guess, this has come up now.

Recently, the topic of "diversity" came up on a PR list - the poster "assumed" that we'd all agree that "diversity" is a good idea, but based on 35 years of color-blind experience in the PR field, I think that "diversity" in public relations staffing is a terrible idea. PR is all about results, and the color, ethnic origin, religion, gender or race of the PR practitioner is absolutely irrelevant. Or so it seems to me. So I wrote to the list the following (which, no surprise, created a fire-storm of opposition from the terminally politically correct, and ultimately got me booted off the list ... ). So put on your asbestos jockey shorts and enjoy a controversy ...

****

Basically, I think that "diversity" is a shibboleth - a false idol that distracts us away from what's really important in PR (effective communications); it also has the negative side effect of dividing people when we ought to be pulling them together (it does this by "labeling" people and making those labels more important than the people themselves). Let me give a few examples of where I'm coming from, then get down to the PR issue.

I believe in the absolute equality of all people, and think that each person should be judged (as Dr. King said) on the quality of their soul, not the color of their skin (or their gender, or gender-preference, or any other artificial category). I've tried to live my life that way, and I know I've tried to conduct my business that way.

Before I get into what that means to PR, let me give you a bit of background which will help to explain why I think "diversity" is a curse for PR, and for all PR practitioners, black and white, male and female.

******

When I was in college at the University of Georgia, I was active in the local and state civil rights movement - this at a time when the police felt it necessary to chase civil rights marchers with batons and leashed dogs. One of my proudest moments was my role in helping to desegregate the Methodist Church in Georgia - at that time, there were three "conferences" - North Georgia (white), South Georgia (white) and Georgia (black). And, at that time, the ministers North and South were guaranteed a living wage, housing and insurance benefits, retirement and other bennies - all paid for by the Conference (churches supplemented that base salary, so some ministers made more than others, but all made a living wage, with benefits and housing). However, the (black) Georgia Conference ministers had no such guarantees; as a result, most black Methodist ministers had full-time secular jobs (to support their families), giving their congregations short shrift.

This was discrimination, pure and simple. It not only hurt the ministers, it also hurt the black congregations, which needed full-time ministers just as much as did the white congregations (besides the fact that it seemed essentially at odds with the core message of Christianity, which all who were involved professed to believe).

After lots and lots of behind-the-scenes negotiations, those of us pushing for equality arranged for the North Georgia Conference to merge with the Georgia Conference - black ministers throughout the state immediately got a living wage, benefits and housing - and they got a paid-up retirement plan retroactive to the day they were ordained. It was a huge triumph for real equality, and I have been proud all my life that I was able to have a hand in it.

That early effort taught me that equality - that we are all the same, and should be treated as such - was far more important than diversity (which focuses on our differences and tends to separate, rather than connect, people). It was a focus on those differences that had led to discrimination against black ministers - an evil, in my opinion, not a benefit.

Later, I became a strong advocate of the Equal Rights Amendment, pushing for it's passage in South Carolina. Some women (my then-wife included) opposed this, because they felt that by being separate (i.e., "diverse") they got privileges (i.e., exemption from the military draft and certain other obligations that fell solely to men) that would be denied them in a world of perfect equality. I disagreed, and even took a leave-of-absence from my job to campaign for total equality for all citizens - and, though we didn't use the term at that time, I was campaigning against diversity.

Several years ago, my oldest son got a position on the faculty of a state-owned university in Tennessee. This particular university is what's known as "a historically black institution," meaning that it used to be segregated (a Jim Crow school) and today most of it's students and faculty remain black. However, my son had excellent credentials in a field where they needed excellent credentials, and in a competitive environment, he was hired - one of only three white faculty members in his department.

In his first year, he had an average of one white student per class (average class size, 70) - and sad-but-true, he caught a lot of hostile crap from black students who were more interested, apparently, in having black professors (which - from their perspective - seemed reasonable to them, as they chose to attend a predominantly black state university and had little desire to associate with people other than black people) than in learning what they were there to study. However, because my son reflects my own views on absolute equality of individuals, he's been able to set that hostility aside and provide superior education (based on student comments to the Dean and his own performance evaluations).

If "diversity" had been the absolute policy, my son would have missed a valuable job and valuable life experience, and his students would have missed the opportunity to see equality in action - to see that they could learn as much from a white man as from a black man or woman. In his way, my son has been able to break down (at least a bit) racial hatred and prejudice merely by showing up, ignoring hostility and providing equal and quality education to all his students. "Diversity" would have made that impossible, and would have (I am convinced) hurt the students by depriving them of a new perspective that has (at least in a few cases) opened their eyes.

However, as a final aside, though my son was always the top-rated teaching professor in his department, he was denied a "tenure-track" contract; instead, he worked from semester to semester with no hope for advancement. Though he enjoyed his job and liked being able to work in his home town, with a family to support, he eventually left to work for a fully-integrated university that was willing to put him on a career path.

More recently, from a libertarian (not "Libertarian" - I'm not a party man) postion of equality of opportunity, I've strongly supported the idea of Gay Marriages (in my view, if Gay individuals want to be married, let them). I support this because I don't believe that people are - at their core, down where things really matter - different, at least not different in ways that should matter when it comes to basic human rights. And because of that, I do not think people should not be treated differently because of factors of birth or lifestyle choice.

I've seen the evil of focusing on differences, even in PR - my former business partner was gay, but he kept that a secret from everybody because he felt that to be himself would cause him to be discriminated against by potential clients ... he wanted to be treated just like everybody else, so he kept his nature to himself. His "status" didn't come out until after we'd closed the agency and he'd found employment with a company that he thought wouldn't care (he was wrong - the job lasted three months).

In a world where all people were seen as equals, where race and gender and orientation literally did not matter, this would not have impacted him. But he bought into all that "diversity" crap, let the world know something that was basically private information between him and his partner (and basically none of the world's business), and wound up losing his job. So much, I feel, for diversity.

******

Now let's bring this diversity issue home to public relations.

One of the tenets of "diversity" is that "like" can only talk to (or represent) "like" - Gays can only (or at least best) represent Gays, blacks can only (or at least best) represent Blacks, etc. Individual skills, ability, "heart" - none of that matters. To those who advocate "diversity," only the color of your skin, or your gender, or your orientation (or whatever) matters.

That, to me, is the essence of discrimination, the very thing Dr. King fought against so hard, for so long (and for which he ultimately gave his life).

In my career, I have successfully represented Women's organizations (and woman-owned companies), though I am not a woman. I have had client firms that were owned by blacks (including an independent Hollywood film production company owned by one of the former Drifters), yet I am not black. I have represented a gay-themed restaurant, Hamburger Mary's, though I am not gay. I've represented Christian clients, though I have not (at that time) been an active Christian for many years. In each of these cases, I was able to succeed on their behalf - not because I was "one of them," but because I was, at that time, the best PR person they could find for their particular needs. Rather than diversity, I was able to succeed (and feed my family) because my clients were willing and able to set the issue of "diversity" aside and, instead, go with the best person available for the job at hand.

By the same token, when I was hiring, I have put women in jobs that conventional wisdom said could only be filled by men - because the women I hired or retained were simply the best-qualified for the job.

More than once, I've hired or retained black (or Hispanic, or Indian) men and women to handle assignments for white (often bigoted white) clients - I brought them in because they were the best, not because they were black, or Hispanic, or Indian (which should, under a policy of "diversity," have precluded them from the assignments), but because they were the best.

Just within the last two weeks, I hired a gay man (my former business partner) to develop the media portion of a communications plan for a client firm (one owned by Catholics and run by some fairly homophobic gents) because I knew that my ex-partner was the best person for the job. I didn't tell the Catholics that their plan was being developed by a gay guy - it was none of their business - but if I had been going with "diversity," I guess I'd have had to hire a Catholic homophobe to do the work.

And this brings me down to the ultimate purpose of public relations.

We are here to generate results - measurable, meaningful, memorable results. When we send an email pitch to a reporter, that reporter doesn't know and really doesn't care what our race, gender, religion, orientation, etc. is - s/he only cares if our story is newsworthy and our pitch is compelling.

"Diversity" doesn't enter into it.

Good PR people - regardless of race, gender and orientation - ought to be able to communicate effectively to whites, blacks, Hispanics and other races; to men and women, gay or straight or somewhere in between. The only meaningful measure is, at least to me, who can do it most effectively.

The rest is politics, not PR. And while politics doesn't generate favorable press coverage, solid PR does.

So, bottom line, I come down against diversity as it applies to PR - and, because it is divisive, rather than inclusive (because it makes categories more important than people, and discriminates for or against people based on those categories), I come down against diversity (and in favor of absolute equality of opportunity) in our society as well.

I know this isn't politically correct - but I also know that it is (for me, and, I think, for everybody who wants to get ahead on his or her own merits, who wants to be treated as an individual and valued for who they are as an individual) the right way to go, the right thing to do.

Down off my soap-box, and back to you ...

Ned

Case Study Guidelines - What A Case Study Needs

2006-10-22T21:28:00.000-07:00

Escape from Case Study Hell
By Ned Barnett - (c) 2006

A colleage wrote the other day asking about how to get out of Case Study Hell - how to please a demanding boss who's more focused on sales than PR. She was asking for suggestions on what ought to be in a case study, as well as how to proceed in developing effective case studies. I offered the following insights, based on some current case studies I'm developing for a project.

Interview the clients; get them to offer sizzling quotes they'll stay behind. Write them up not as case studies, per se, but as if they were 450-word sidebar articles in the kinds of publications you're targeting (i.e., in a style where an editor could literally cut-and-paste the whole thing into his rag/mag - not that they would, of course , but along that line). In doing this, make each case study do just one thing (one thing that sales likes). Perhaps find examples of:

a. Specific types of clients for specific case studies (i.e., one e-retailer, one heavy equipment manufacturer, one street drug dealer, etc. [ok, I'm kidding about types - but one for each kind of client you have])

b. Specific types of benefits or features, with one benefit or feature per case study

c. Specific types of "oh my god, it's better than sliced bread with barbecue or cold beer on a hot day" kinds of quotes from clients, each quote ranting about one specific benefit or feature

Another approach - write them as if the clients wrote them - first-person testimonials (of course, you'd write them).

I'm doing this exact thing right now. I'm a partner in a project to produce and sell a Christmas Carol DVD (with companion CD) that features a singing Santa and four terminally-cute elves. What I'm doing is having different people who have different angles write reviews (if they can write - since many of my friends are in PR, they
can write); I picked them to represent:

1. A parent of a Santa-believing kid

2. Jewish parents (whose kids still like to watch Christmas specials on TV)

3. An aunt

4. A grandmother of three young'uns

Etc.

I'm also showing it to some non-writer folks I can write reviews for (I'll interview them, then write the reviews in their "voice" for their attribution) - for instance, the oldest daughter (17) in a family of five girls, including an 8 year old - the family is devout (she's going to a faith-based college when she graduates from HS) and I'm sure will love the DVD because there are four religious songs out
of 16 total songs, and because Santa briefly tells the elves the real meaning of Christmas (he also explains what "bells on a bobtail" and "figgy pudding" both mean).

Each review will reach a targeted demographic; it will be released only to those media focused on that demographic (seniors, Parents/family, religious, etc.).

Anyway, that's how I'm doing it, right now (I just picked up the demo DVDs this afternoon) for a product launch on November 10th - and that's how (based on the limited info you provided) I'd do it.

Bottom line - your case studies can support targeted sales without sounding "sales-ey" - and you can do that by focusing them narrowly on specific markets and/or on single benefits. Get your sales-guy CEO to see them as credible sales support tools, either in print (media) or as printed sheets the sales team can use as leave-behinds, etc.

Remember, he may not be right, but he's the CEO - and if he's sales oriented, meet that need for him and he'll like what you do.

All the best, and good luck!

Ned

Off-Shoring? A Dirty Word? You Betcha!

2006-10-22T21:26:00.000-07:00

Off-Shoring - A dirty word?
Ned Barnett (C) 2006

Apparently (and if you ask me, appropriately). This is from Bob
Scott, Editor-in-Chief of Accounting Technology, in his monthly
"Consulting Insights" e-newsletter. It really tells it like it is,
and is useful to all of us who have clients who off-shore client services:

OUTSOURCING IS A FOUR-LETTER WORD?
Properly, the word here should be "Off-shoring," not outsourcing. But
the term outsourcing has been entrenched colloquially as a synonym
for having a help desk overseas. What prompts this thought is the
American Flag placed brightly at the bottom of the home page of Cyma
Systems at www.cyma.com , with a note saying,
"Cyma is proudly developed and supported in the USA." And during tax
season, a couple of tax software vendors were so vehement in noting
they do not send calls to India anymore that they sounded like
reformed drunks promising not to touch another drop. The tax business
is tougher because many technical support calls also involve tax and
business issues. It's hard to put these in the same category as
answering calls about a problem installing a GL system. But the
emotional issues here are not going away. However, the real issue is
the quality of the support. If people get their questions answered
and their problems solved and are treated with respect, do you really
think they will spend a lot of time worrying about where the person
solving them answers the phone?

How Israel COULD HAVE Won the PR War Against Hezbollah in Summer 2006

2006-09-08T12:18:00.000-07:00

How Israel Could Have Won The PR War Against Hezbollah in Summer 2006
Ned Barnett (c) 2006
Updated from Article Published 7/26/06 in "American Thinker"

Author’s note: The war is now over – for the time being – but few optimists expect the cease-fire to hold. The most logical assumption is that the now-emboldened terrorists will strike again, and when they do, it will be vital to Israel to secure world support – and especially US support. The following, originally published on July 26, 2006 (and updated with a few more recent stats) charts one PR path Israel could take to secure that US support.

If Israel wants to sustain US support for its efforts to defend its homeland from terrorists (which is what this recent battle in the Middle East was all about), it needs to paint a word-picture that will cut through left/right politics and reach individual Americans. As a public relations professional and military historian, I have a few simple suggestions.

Find a spokesman (as Israel did more than a decade ago, with the cultured, American English-inflected Benjamin Netanyahu) who looks as if he could easily be American. In PR, you want your target audience to identify with you – and if you want Americans to identify with you, you must put an “American-looking” face on the story.

In framing the debate, use words that do not beat around the bush. For example, these are “vicious terrorists” firing “high-explosive war rockets” into “peaceful, innocent neighborhoods.” Calling them anything but vicious terrorists gives them a measure of credibility they don’t deserve. However, refrain from calling them “Muslim” terrorists, as this reframes the issue – and the issue isn’t that they’re Muslims, but that they’re vicious terrorists who are murdering civilians by raining thousands of deadly war rockets on peaceful neighborhoods.

Another example: calling the high-explosive war rockets fired by Hezbollah “Katyusha” rockets hides their real meaning and awful destructive use. Ask yourself: how many Americans really know what Katyusha rockets are? The answer: not many. However, anybody can visualize “high-explosive war rockets,” and only a dullard could fail to grasp the horrific impact of 3,500 such war rockets on a peaceful neighborhood.

Put the debate in terms Americans can viscerally understand. Ask them, “How would America react if cross-border terrorists had fired more than 3,500 high-explosive war rockets into Atlanta, or Kansas City?” Make it personal – make it American (we are, if nothing else, a fairly self-centered nation – even while showering the world with unprecedented charity, we still see things through our own perspective, and expect others to do the same).

Tell the story as it happened (from Israel’s perspective) – cutting through the media clutter that has so far succeeded in painting Hezbollah as victimized freedom fighters instead of vicious terrorists attacking civilian targets in Israel. Define the terms of the debate, rather than letting others (the New York Times, Time Magazine and MSNBC, among others) define the debate for them. President Reagan was successful in large part because he “went over the heads” of the media and talked directly to the American people. Israel needs to do this as well.

Begin reshaping the debate with a statement something like this:

“As of August 13th, Hezbollah has fired more than 3,500 high-explosive war rockets at peaceful, innocent civilian neighborhoods in Israel. How would America feel – how would America respond – if cross-border terrorists (hiding among civilians in a neighboring country) had fired 3,500 deadly high-explosive war rockets into San Diego, or El Paso? How would America react if Atlanta or Kansas City or Denver came under such a sustained, murderous attack? In the face of such horrific provocation – a cycle that was started when Hezbollah terrorists crossed the border and kidnapped two soldiers – would America be exercising near-miraculous self-restraint? Or would America seek out these terrorists – giving them no safe haven – if only to make sure that no more high-explosive war rockets were fired into the neighborhoods of peaceful American cities? The answer is clear – Americans would fight to defend their homeland and destroy the terrorists, the terrorists’ bases of operations, and those who support or shelter those terrorists.”

Following this approach, Israel will have at least a fighting chance of winning the next PR war. As it stands now, by playing word-games with the anti-Israeli, left-leaning mainstream media, and by putting what seems to be a very foreign face on the news by using heavily-accented spokesmen who just don’t “look” American, Israel may have technically won the war against Hezbollah, but from a PR perspective they lost the war for American support – and unless they change their approach, they’ll lose the next PR war as well. The major US media are no friends of Israel. If that plucky country is to overcome this built-in deficit, they’ve got to fight back using tools and techniques that work, even in the face of opposition by the American media.

Ned Barnett has been a public relations specialist for 35 years, and has published nine books on the subject. He has also appeared on the History Channel seven times as a military historian.

Winning the Public Relations War for Israel - Reprint from "American Thinker"

2006-09-08T12:16:00.000-07:00

Winning the Public Relations War for Israel
July 26th, 2006
(c) 2006 - Ned Barnett

If Israel wants to sustain US support for its efforts to defend its homeland from terrorists (which is what this current battle in the Middle East is all about), it needs to paint a word-picture that will cut through left/right politics and reach individual Americans. As a public relations professional and military historian, I have a few simple suggestions.

Find a spokesman (as Israel did more than a decade ago, with the cultured, American English-inflected Benjamin Netanyahu) who looks as if he could easily be American. In PR, you want your target audience to identify with you – and if you want Americans to identify with you, you must put an “American-looking” face on the story.

In framing the debate, use words that do not beat around the bush. For example, these are “vicious terrorists” firing “high-explosive war rockets” into “peaceful, innocent neighborhoods.” Calling them anything but vicious terrorists gives them a measure of credibility they don’t deserve. However, refrain from calling them “Muslim” terrorists, as this reframes the issue – and the issue isn’t that they’re Muslims, but that they’re vicious terrorists who are murdering civilians by raining thousands of deadly war rockets on peaceful neighborhoods.

Another example: calling the high-explosive war rockets fired by Hezbollah “Katyusha” rockets hides their real meaning and awful destructive use. Ask yourself: how many Americans really know what Katyusha rockets are? The answer: not many. However, anybody can visualize “high-explosive war rockets,” and only a dullard could fail to grasp the horrific impact of 2,000 such war rockets on a peaceful neighborhood.

Put the debate in terms Americans can viscerally understand. Ask them, “How would America react if cross-border terrorists had fired more than 2,000 high-explosive war rockets into Atlanta, or Kansas City?” Make it personal – make it American (we are, if nothing else, a fairly self-centered nation – even while showering the world with unprecedented charity, we still see things through our own perspective, and expect others to do the same).

Tell the story as it happened (from Israel’s perspective) – cutting through the media clutter that has so far succeeded in painting Hezbollah as victimized freedom fighters instead of vicious terrorists attacking civilian targets in Israel. Define the terms of the debate, rather than letting others (the New York Times, Time Magazine and MSNBC, among others) define the debate for them. President Reagan was successful in large part because he “went over the heads” of the media and talked directly to the American people. Israel needs to do this as well.

Begin reshaping the debate with a statement something like this:

“As of July 23rd, Hezbollah has fired more than 2,000 high-explosive war rockets at peaceful, innocent civilian neighborhoods in Israel. How would America feel – how would America respond – if cross-border terrorists (hiding among civilians in a neighboring country) had fired 2,000 high-explosive war rockets into San Diego, or El Paso? How would America react if Atlanta or Kansas City or Denver came under such a sustained, murderous attack? In the face of such horrific provocation – a cycle that was started when Hezbollah terrorists crossed the border and kidnapped two soldiers – would America be exercising near-miraculous self-restraint? Or would America seek out these terrorists – giving them no safe haven – if only to make sure that no more high-explosive war rockets were fired into the neighborhoods of peaceful American cities? The answer is clear – Americans would fight to defend their homeland and destroy the terrorists, the terrorists’ bases of operations, and those who support or shelter those terrorists.”

Following this approach, Israel would have at least a fighting chance of winning the PR war. As it stands now, by playing word-games with the anti-Israeli, left-leaning mainstream media, and by putting what seems to be a very foreign face on the news by using heavily-accented spokesmen who just don’t “look” American, Israel may be winning the war against Hezbollah, but they are increasingly losing the war for American support. The major US media are no friends of Israel. If that plucky country is to overcome this built-in deficit, they’ve got to fight back using tools and techniques that work, even in the face of opposition by the American media.

Ned Barnett has been a public relations specialist for 35 years, and has published nine books on the subject. He has also appeared on the History Channel seven times as a military historian.

High-Risk (to the PR Person/Agency) PR

2006-05-15T15:34:00.000-07:00

I recently got a fascinating query from a colleague in the publishing field. She's about to announce - for a publisher - an article soon to be published in a forthcoming scholarly (i.e., peer-reviewed) journal, and she was concerned about how to do it right.

This article is going to focus on research that claims that a specific U.S. company - a big one - contributed (apparently as a matter of corporate policy) to poverty in the U.S. I haven't read the article - I frankly can't imagine any company big enough and powerful enough to do that (nor can I imagine why any company would want to - where's the profit in poverty?) - but I took this at face value.

My colleage asked about potential issues, concerns and PR opportunities - and I saw a bunch of them, and thought my reply to her might have wider interest. If you - on the agency side or on the client side - ever have to issue a release that names and attacks a corporation, individual or non-profit organization, here are some things to be concerned about (as well as some PR strategies that might work).

Issue 1: Freedom of the Press - this applies to publishers (including the publishers of scholarly journals) but not to press releases - and freedom of the press doesn't protect even the dryest scholarly journals from the risk of libel/slander, defamation or injury lawsuits. A major US corporation accused of promoting and causing poverty in the US might sue the PR agency (and win) if the release constitutes (in a judge's eye) slander/libel, defamation - or even if it just hurt their business in any material way.

Solution 1: Require the scholarly journal to indemnify their PR agency, completely, from all legal blow-back - and just in case, they ought to indemnify themselves, for the full amount of the cost of a lawsuit AND of the damage award (include punitive damages) that might come from really hurting a major corporation. The agency should get a good attorney to write the agreement - fast - and get the client to sign it before issuing the release.

Issue 2: Personal Liability. If the agency is not an incorporated business, don't issue the release until the agency becomes incorporated (not LLC, either - full liability protection) - otherwise, the major US corporation (above) might sue the agency owners personally.

NOTE: I did incorporate last year for just exactly this purpose. The potential suit didn't happen (instead, my client decided to stop fighting/suing the other company and form a joint venture, but that's unlikely to happen in this one).

Issue 3: Paper Trail: Be VERY CAREFUL when talking to the press, writing pitch e-mails, etc. - if the PR person is quoted, that person (or agency) is toast. If you must pitch via email, at the very least, immediately delete from your hard drive (then do one of those "shred/scrub-with-bleach" kinds of things) all reference to that email, if for no other reason than to make sure your email pitches are not saved (so they can't later be subpoenaed). Do not put the instructions to delete emails in writing, either. You think I'm kidding? How many Enron execs will do time because they were hung by their own emails?

Issue 4: Personal Risk Revisited: If the Scholarly Journal won't protect agency, legally (or if they are too small/too broke to really protect you), don't do the release - resign the account if you have to.

Solution 4: However, there is a way around this. The scholarly journal can buy an indemnification insurance policy to protect the agency and it's staff (corporately and personally), regardless of their assets. They should buy one for them, too, even
though they have freedom of the press - that freedom doesn't protect them from libel/slander-type issues.

Issue 5: Generating Press Coverage. On an entirely different issue - not only release this story to the markets routinely covered by the scholarly journal, but also release it widely to the business press - and to the trade press - that routinely covers this major US corporation. If they're big, include cable business shows like Cavuto.

Assuming that these mainstream or trade-niche publications have never heard of this scholarly journal, pre-sell the release, before it goes out. Use emails (remember what I noted above about paper trails), phone calls, etc., to talk it up. Tease
this story so when it breaks, the key national and trade media will be ready. Assuming that this is a new media market for the scholarly journal, there will be a strong need to build awareness/demand for the story before the release comes out.

If major media offer/agree to embargoes, you MIGHT try it (I would be cautious if you don't know the reporters/editors, and also their publications' embargo policy), but embargo or no, you'll need to pre-sell this and not just drop it on them from on-high. Assuming you want coverage, go for it big-time by working the media in advance. When you do, consider other media:

* AP (this could be picked up locally in newspapers across the country, but won't from a press release)

* Editorial Writers (who can be outraged at this corporation - pity that A.M. Rosenthal just resigned)

* Known hostile-to-big-business Editors/Writers/Reporters/Editorial Page Editors (some journalists and news media outlets have a strong political stance or inner bias against corporations and in favor of the poor - they'll love this). To find the right anti-business media targets, start by picking any media reporter that Bill O'Reilly has railed against - if nothing else, that's a good place to start.

* NPR and PBS (but especially NPR)

* "News Magazine" shows like 60 Minutes, 20/20, etc. (for the same reason - they seem to be inclined, politically/editorially, to want to slam - or "expose" - corporations and exalt the poor)

* CNN, the three networks' nightly news programs, Keith Olberman, etc. (all for the same/above reason)

All of those media targets deserve up-front in-advance pitching.

Issue 6. Further Credibility: Scholarly journals are credible, but not often newsworthy. Politicians are seldom credible, but they have great news value. Find some politician who'll be willing to make a public statement, preferably from the floors of Congress (so he's got immunity from lawsuits himself - these guys aren't dumb) praising the study, denouncing the corporation, and making this national political news. A call for a Congressional Hearing (or Investigation) is always good for a one-cycle news hook, even if that call doesn't go anywhere (usually, it won't).

Taking on the really Big Boys sounds like fun - very/very dangerous, but fun.

Advice to an Aspiring PR Intern

2006-03-13T12:31:00.000-07:00

A proud father recently asked me for advice about his son's forthcoming college internship in PR. The advice I gave him might help you as well - whether you want to be an intern, or whether you "manage" an intern.

An internship beats a conventional summer job - one summer I interned, and got a lot more out of it (except money) than I did working on a loading dock (which paid better, but all it did was teach me some real-world facts about being a non-union worker in a union shop). Actually, I had two summer internships - the first persuaded me to change my career path (away from something else and into PR - a long story ), the second was doing PR for a small manufacturing company. That latter was very informative and useful.

Functions of an Intern:

Event management is, of course, important, and can often involve interns - some PR agencies specialize in this, others just handle them on an as-needed basis. In my experience, interns at those shops are the folks who carry the extension cords and make sure the coffee pot is plugged in. Rightly so, they're not given much to do that requires real skill (events like that are high-risk/high-reward events for clients and agencies, and few savvy agencies would trust anything of real importance to Jr. AEs, let alone interns - that's not an insult, just prudence). I used to do a lot of events management, and I started in the mid 70s by being the extension cord/coffee pot guy (for the Governor of S.C.) - I also wrote his speeches and press releases, but when it came events (press conferences), I prudently wasn't trusted with anything of substance.

Agency Size:

Small shops like mine often do not use interns; but when they do, the interns generally get more useful experience than they do in a big shop. In a big shop, they may never leave the mail room (some big shops are, in fact, very decent with their interns and actually get them doing real work, though most of them are inclined to treat interns the way Southern Planters treated folks with permanent suntans back before Lincoln freed the slaves, if you get my drift).

How would you prioritize your company targets for an internship?

Excellent question. As an intern, I would NOT go to an agency unless that was the only opportunity available. I would go to a "client-side" employer - probably (and preferably) a smallish non-profit. Non-profits tend to have tighter staffs, and they are also generally (not always) more "caring" - so the interns are likely to be given real work, and maybe even mentored a bit. Back when I was on the non-profit side (as PR Director for a county hospital, etc.) I did use interns, and I gave them real stuff to do and explained to them why. However, when I went to the for-profit side, I didn't have the time for that kind of mentoring - if I needed work done, I hired somebody then expected that somebody to be able to perform without instruction and with minimal guidance - not a good situation for an intern, as those without experience are likely to fail in a situation like that.

Philosophically, I don't think there are many folks gifted enough (gifted with insights into human motivations - this isn't about skills, but about orientation and attitude) to move into client service before they've spent a good deal of time (some of it in senior roles) on the client side. How can you meet needs you don't really understand? Before I launched my first agency 21 years ago, I'd worked on the client side for about 13 years - in that time, I'd had half a dozen or so agencies working for/with me, and I knew what I (as a PR director) expected out of those agencies. I was able to use that experience to begin on the agency side with a strong customer-service orientation and a real understanding of what clients wanted. So if I was to advise your son, it would be to start on the client side (both as an intern and in a career position after graduation), learn what clients want and need - then, either stay on the client side or migrate into the agency side, armed with the knowledge that will open the door to agency success.

Of course, there may not be any non-profit client-side internships available - it's more important for your son to get "some" experience than the "right" experience. However, I would advise any PR student to aim first for client-side employment, and not consider an agency until s/he had at least 10 years of really solid client-side experience, with some of it at the "Director of PR" level (especially helpful if they retained an agency and managed that account from the client-side).

Good luck!

PRSA Drops the PR Ball

2005-11-01T12:45:00.000-07:00

This article was written for, and first appeared in Jonathan Bernstein's excellent crisis manager e-zine newsletter, available at no cost (but worth a lot) from Jonathan by using the "subscribe to" box on the home page of Jonathan's site, http://www.bernsteincrisismanagement.com

Now, the article, complete with Jonathan's introduction ...

Editor's Note: Ned Barnett is very well known to PR-related listserv members as one of our industry's leading curmudgeons (a category I use to describe myself periodically). After seeing all of the comments about PRSA's conference debacle on my favorite PR listserv, PR Mindshare (hosted on Yahoo), I invited any member to submit an article, and Ned graciously accepted.

When it comes to making bad PR moves, few organizations excel quite as blatantly as the Public Relations Society of America. This is exemplified by their remarkably inept handling of the last-minute cancellation of their national convention, thanks to the intrusion of Hurricane Wilma.

In handling this eleventh-hour cancellation of their annual PRSA Conference - scheduled for October 22-25 in Miami - PRSA's staffers demonstrated, not for the first time, their apparent inability to practice sound PR principles themselves. You might think that PRSA should know that conference pre-planning must include crises pre-planning - particularly when scheduling a conference for the heart of "hurricane alley." If so, you'd be wrong.

When it comes to practicing what PR professionals preach, PRSA's staff are the original "gang who couldn't shoot straight."

There is at least one reason for this organization's continual failure to "do" PR, one related to the nature of member associations. From personal experience at one of those associations, I know most "outsiders" assume that staffers are experts in their association's field. When I was at the Tennessee Hospital Association, for instance, members just assumed that our professional staff understood hospitals - in fact, only two of 64 staff members had ever worked in a hospital. I was one of those two, and key execs often hunted me down for a reality-check. They weren't about to say something about hospitals that would make no sense - at least to hospital people.

The same situation appears to be true at PRSA - except that, apparently, PRSA didn't seem to have ANY staffers who've ever had a real PR job - or if they do, those individuals are clearly not being consulted.

This hurricane snafu is only the latest blunder in a series of ill-considered staff decisions that have cost PRSA dearly. For example, until earlier this year, PRSA hosted an Internet listserv - a highly professional virtual PR discussion group. Then, someone on staff decided that non-members were somehow "stealing" a benefit from PRSA, and with no notice, they abolished this highly-effective list, replacing it with a highly-moderated web-based bulletin board that was purely members-only. Not only did this exclusionary policy destroy something of real value to participants (for the most part, members), but they also closed the door on what should have also been a useful member-recruiting tool.

Worst of all was the way they handled it - abruptly, with no advance notice, and with no opportunity for participating members to approve - or disapprove. This so angered the listserv's members that - overnight - several new, independent discussion groups formed, continuing that useful once-PRSA-sponsored forum. There, a regular topic for discussion is PRSA's inept public- and member-relations.

Instead of serving members - which, after all, is an association's prime duty - PRSA further alienated both dues-paying members and potential members. In return, they got zero positive value from their decisive action. Zero.

Which brings us to their current PR debacle. In handling the hurricane-forced convention cancellation, PRSA did several things wrong:

1. First, PRSA scheduled a convention in Miami in the middle of hurricane season. This is not rocket science - they might as well have scheduled an outdoor tanning convention for Fargo in mid-January.

2. Second, when it became apparent that Wilma might target Miami, PRSA was painfully s-l-o-w to inform members of the cancellation. Based on performance, PRSA apparently had no on-call crisis PR plan waiting in the wings. They had no pre-existing mechanism for notifying members of the cancellation. And they made few - if any - efforts to reach out to the media to help spread the word. They even ignored in-house communications channels. Active accredited member Rich Barger commented that "PRSA didn't even bother to post anything about the cancellation in their own now-scantly-followed, draconianly moderated discussion forum."

3. Finally, they intentionally made it very difficult for members to reclaim their pre-paid registration fees. At first, there was no mention at all of refunds. When pressure built, they finally decided to refund any member's fee - but only if that member asked - in writing. Probably notarized in blood.

It would have been so easy to avoid this - first, by scheduling their convention outside hurricane alley, or for Miami before or after the hurricane season. Either option was available to PRSA.

Next, they should have had a crisis PR plan in place. It's not like member associations haven't had to execute last-minute cancellations before. It was only six years ago that the National Rifle Association had to cancel a long-planned national convention, tragically scheduled for Denver just days after the Columbine shooting.

If that wasn't close-to-home enough, the International Association of Business Communicators - PRSA's prime "competitor" - planned their 2003 International Conference for Toronto, about the time SARS all but closed down that city. However, IABC had a crisis plan, and easily salvaged their convention. Those experiences were crisis-planning wake-up calls for every member association, but apparently, PRSA wasn't paying attention.

Even without a plan, PRSA could still have sent e-mails to registered conventioneers (I presume that even PRSA now asks members for their e-mail addresses). This could have been buttressed by a PRNewswire press release that would have put the cancellation news on the Internet.

Finally, PRSA could have offered a member-friendly refund policy, instead of making members pull hen's teeth to get their money back. One useful approach: offer members the opportunity to apply their payment to any future PRSA event - many members would likely have accepted, knowing they'd be helping PRSA's cash flow without losing anything.

For those who preferred refunds, a simple web-page refund request form, promoted by e-mail, would have been a far more member-friendly approach. Instead, PRSA blundered once again, putting the needs of the organization (hold onto that cash!) ahead of their members' best interests.

In short, PRSA had options. Which they ignored - in part because the staff is not made up of PR pros, but of career association bureaucrats - and in doing so, blundered every step of the way.

No professional PRSA member would have made such monumentally PR-inappropriate decisions. This highlights the dangers of turning a PR association over to career "association executives" - instead of to PR professionals who also know how to run an association.

###

In 1978, Ned Barnett became (to that time) the youngest person ever to have earned PRSA Accreditation. He then served in a variety of PRSA chapter offices for a decade. Ned has written nine published books on PR, and he's won a PRSA Silver Anvil. He owns Barnett Marketing Communications, Inc., based in Las Vegas, Nevada; and although he's got years of experience in association management, he wants nothing to do with trying to salvage PRSA. Barnett can be found at http://www.barnettmarcom.com, or contacted at ned@barnettmarcom.com.

The "Seven Deadly Sins" of Using Pay for Play Public Relations Agencies and Campaigns

2005-08-15T15:08:00.000-07:00

"Pay for Play" - the "commission sales" side of public relations, is condemned as unethical by the prestigious Public Relations Society of America - and for good reasons, not all of them obvious. This brief analysis takes a look at seven of the most common problems/issues tied to Pay for Play.

While it is possible for an ethical and upright public relations agency to execute a legitimate Pay for Play campaign for a client without scamming or otherwise taking advantage of the client, the risks of being scammed are significant, and the potential for abuse by the agency is even more significant.

Pay for Play is quite frankly seductive to some clients - "we only pay for what we get," they say, thinking that they'll save money (they won't) and - perhaps more important, they won't waste money (which they, in fact, will). Like all "something for nothing" schemes, the risk is in the fine print.

Here are just some of the risks:

1. Motivation: This is primarily a risk clients assume when dealing with ethical agencies. Because everyone in business is revenue-driven, agencies that take on Pay for Play clients will quickly lose interest if they don't generate immediate results; and in effective public relations, it often takes months of hard work (laying groundwork, building relationships with reporters and editors, creating background PR materials, etc.), none of which is specifically covered in a Pay for Play agreement. At a point in time (generally six weeks, in my experience), the lack of immediate results causes the agency to lose focus and interest. Senior staff members are assigned to "paying clients," where they can generate billable hours, and only the more junior staff keep working on the client - even then, always giving priority to paying clients and billable hours. The end result is an ultimate loss of interest and activity, and a costly (in terms of time and opportunity cost) failure for the client.

2. Loyalty: Good PR agencies develop strong bonds with their clients, and are constantly looking out for the clients' best interests. They scour editorial calendars (a time-consuming process), then spend months courting editors, ensuring their clients get covered. They seek out opportunities for product reviews (another very time-consuming process), comparisons, "shoot-outs," etc. - things which, when published, add real benefit to the client - but which are, by their nature, both speculative and time-consuming. The agencies do this because they are constantly looking to serve their clients' best interests, knowing that if they succeed, their clients will remain loyal to them. This is a two-way, long-term commitment based on mutual benefit - something that literally can't exist with a hit-or-miss Pay for Play arrangement.

3. Continuity: Public relations is not a "hit-or-miss" activity - most companies, especially start-ups (who seem most attracted to Pay for Play because of budget limitations) need a measured, sustained public relations campaigns. They need to create awareness, generate interest and motivate action - both on the company itself and on their products - and this can not be done on a hit-or-miss basis. This process, from scratch, takes months of consistent, well-funded and highly-focused activity - something that Pay for Play cannot deliver. A company and a product that are both well-known are frankly the best candidates for a successful Pay for Play campaign (because it can build on previous awareness), but they are the least likely to take such a fly-by-night approach, since they've long since learned the benefit of sustained PR efforts.

4. Counsel: Public relations is more than press clips. Strategically, PR offers counsel to clients - up front advice, based on years of professional experience - that can help clients both maximize opportunities and avoid pitfalls. Such counsel can be especially effective in times of crisis - the resignation of a C-level officer, a strike, a product defect/recall, etc. None of this counsel is available from Pay for Play agencies - or if it is, the client must always be aware that the counsel may be skewed by agency self-interest - the client's needs are never first with a Pay for Play agency, and this must always be taken into account.

5. Limited Impact: Public relations is more than just a few fancy press clips. Effective PR involves the creation and maintenance of effective websites (complete with website press rooms that reporters need in order to effectively cover a company or product), press kits, backgrounders, corporate histories, corporate exec bios, etc. One of the most important parts of PR is follow-through - the distribution and building upon individual success efforts - something no Pay for Play agency will do, as there's nothing in it for them. In some instances, companies invest in all of these tools, then let a Pay for Play group come in and skim the cream of the hard work done by others - taking the credit (and the reward) for what is essentially the work of others. However, companies without this kind of resource-base are unlikely to receive useful press coverage.

6. Value Received - 1 - Costly Clips: Pay for Play sounds like a bargain - until you run the numbers. Because there is on ongoing retainer to cover costs, and because this is a highly-speculative (high-risk) effort for the agencies, the fees received for specific and individual pieces of often-disjointed press coverage are - they have to be - extraordinarily high. No agency is not only going to take all the risk AND work for competitive rates - there is no business sense in that at all. As a result, even if the clips are useful, their cost will likely be exorbitant.

7. Value Received - 2 - Worthless Clips: In any Pay for Play scheme, it is difficult (if not impossible) to set up (in advance) criteria on which clips are useful, and which clips are less-than-useful (or even which clips totally worthless). Even an ethical agency will seek out all the low-hanging fruit, regardless of it's actual merit to the client - while an unethical agency will only look for volume. And every agency knows ways (legitimate for some clients, who understand what's being done, but not useful for all clients) to "salt" the clip files of their clients. A couple of examples of ways that legitimate PR activities can be "cooked" in order to provide Pay for Play agencies with huge windfall profits for services that should cost clients (under traditional relationships) only a small fraction of the Pay for Play reward:

7a. MAT services - in this, an agency will pay a fee to place an article (generally of 500-750 words) with one of several services that provide ready-to-run articles to small and mid-sized newspapers, mostly in "heartland" areas of the U.S. For some clients (those with widely-sold products, for instance), this is a legitimate and useful service. But for specialty companies, tech companies, new product/start-up companies and others, there is little value in this service (unless the release is carefully written and targeted). Still, a typical MAT Service release will land in 750 newspapers across the country - and if an end-user is paying $500 for small clips under a Pay for Play agreement, this one placement could wind up costing $375,000 - a huge sum for something of very little worth. Even if the clip is worthwhile, under a retainer agreement, the entire process could be handled for under $10,000 in most cases.

7b. VNRs - Many Pay for Play agreements place a premium on television coverage, and often for good reason. What end-users don't know is that PR agencies know how to create and place news stories - called "video news releases" (VNRs) - with from 50 to 100 local stations at a time, using companies that specialize in creating such news stories. VNRs are often legitimate; but they are also reasonable in cost for those who need them. However, under a Pay for Play agreement, the agency could create and place a VNR for about $25,000 - then when those 50 uses come in, collect a quick quarter-of-a-million dollars (assuming a "reward" of $5,000 per incidence of local TV news coverage)

7c. Internet - Because of the huge importance of Internet media (ezines, business news websites, etc.), coverage here is almost always included in Pay for Play agreements. What end-user clients don't know, however, is that many of these websites (Yahoo Business, for instance), automatically pick up and republish virtually every business press release sent out over PRNewswire or BusinessWire. If a press release costs $250 to place in a small market, and the reward for Internet placement is just $500 per "hit" (not unusual or unreasonable), literally every press release issued is guaranteed of earning the Pay for Play agency a $5,000 profit - even if the release is never picked up by any legitimate news sources.

7d. Wire Services - Wire services such as The Associated Press, Bloomberg and others (not to be confused with paid press release services, such as PRNewswire or BusinessWire) are useful ways of disseminating news to a large number of local and regional news media sources. When a story has a certain sizzle, it can be picked up by many newspapers around the country, all based on a single placement. One client we worked with had an AP story that was picked up (according to Bacon's media clipping service) by just over 1,000 newspapers, radio stations and other media - all for a single PR placement effort that took about five hours, beginning to end. But under a Pay for Play agreement, those 1,000 clips would have cost the client around $500,000 (instead of the $750 they were billed for the effort). Wire services are legitimate, for sure - but is any one story, endlessly repeated, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Bottom line - It is the business of PR agencies to create news coverage for their clients - and to do this, ethical PR agencies have a wide variety of perfectly legitimate approaches that are routinely used to generate coverage on an ongoing, reliable basis - all with the bottom-line intent of helping the client meet their corporate goals for image, awareness, and business support. Under a retainer agreement, these legitimate approaches provide the foundational coverage that solid campaigns are built on - they are not the end-result, but only the first step. However, by "gaming" the system, a creative and profit-driven Pay for Play agency can cost a client literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs, without generating anything like reasonable benefits for those costs. Not all Pay for Play agencies are unethical - many provide a legitimate service for those willing to take the risks involved - but very seldom do they generate sustained PR efforts that, in a cost-effective way, really help their clients.

Effective PR campaigns are well-planned, well-supported, and sustained over an extended period of time. They often include sage counsel (including crisis counseling when a business venture "explodes" in the client's face). Each clip generated is the result of a targeted effort linked to the plan (and ultimately to the client's bottom line goals). They support sales, help launch new products, build investor confidence, or lay the groundwork for future corporate expansion. While any of these things "might" happen under a Pay for Play agreement, all such results are secondary to the agency's primary goal - create clips (of great or little value) in sufficient quantity to generate the kinds of profits that support the risk such agencies are set up to generate.

Barnett's Top Ten Ideas for Transitioning From A Real Job to Gainful Self-Unemployment in PR

2004-12-25T14:31:00.000-07:00

By Ned Barnett
(c) 2004

The good thing about starting a small side business is that you can do that and still look for a job - and once you get the job, if you negotiate the terms of your job properly, you can probably still keep working with your clients.

I got my first free-lance clients in 1975/76, and kept getting a few clients (with permission) even while working for several employers - and that process continued for a decade, until I started my own first business in '85. When that business didn't quite work out as I'd hoped (in a nutshell, my partner robbed me blind), I got back on the job circuit, but still kept (with permission) a single client. Then, over the next decade and a half, I kept bouncing between job and self-employment (I'd go back to my business when the job went away), until finally, after 9/11/2001 and the "last great layoff," I decided I was functionally unemployable. However, hope sprining eternal, I occasionally still try for a job (but at 53, nobody will talk to me, let alone hire me), so I keep plugging away at the self-employment thing. And after two decades of trying to make it work, I think I've finally found the secret to success. Perserverence!

A couple of suggestions - actually, my "Top Ten" ideas for folks making the transition to this freelance/small shop business thing:

Barnett's Top Ten Ideas for
Transitioning From A Real Job to Gainful Self-Unemployment in PR

1. Always get your money up front. If you work on the basis of being paid later, expect to have to fight tooth and toenail to get paid at all, and expect it to be late, and expect to get it only after much grief. This won't always happen, but it will happen often enough to make you wish you'd paid attention to me. Unless you get paid, in full and up front, expect to get stiffed at least some of the time. Trust me on this - the voice of experience now going on 30 years of doing this kind of work, and of being stiffed occasionally (OK, I'm a trusting soul and a slow learner). In one two-year stint of self-employment in South Florida, I had a 100% record - every client stiffed me, at least once, for sums ranging from under $200 to greater than $15,000. Ouch. As an adjunct to this, wait until the check clears before you start (as I write this, I'm still trying to collect on a bad check from a client I've worked with for a dozen years).

2. Put together a rate sheet, along with a rationale for why you're billing up front. I've attached mine as another blog at: http://barnettmarcom.blogspot.com/2004/12/barnett-marketing-communications-rate.html - feel free to steal from it, or copy it, or ignore it. It's free - and worth every damned cent you'll ever pay for it.

3. Create a website. Mine is a good example, though it's damned long (I like to write, and I have a lot to say - and after more than 30 years of freelancing and gainful self-unemployment, I've got expertise in a lot of areas). But long as it is, the website was not expensive - simply because it's got no bells or whistles. You probably have the skills to create a website, or know somebody who does - but if not, I'll be glad to refer you to my webmaster, who hangs the moon as far as I'm concerned.

4. Blog - but do it with a difference! I don't use blogs as a way of venting ideas of the moment - I use them to publish the kinds of articles that might be printed in trade journals (in fact, some of them have previously been printed in just that way). You can go to my Barnett on PR and Barnett on Marketing blogs and see what I mean. Some of my older, pre-election blogs were political (but always tied to PR), but many are just about PR or Marketing. Some are about experiences I've had. Some are about what Martha Stewart and the U. of Colorado should have done to avoid disaster. Give advice, show your stuff, etc. The point is this - don't use blogs to vent emotions or trial-balloon ideas - use them to publish well-considered PR and marketing concepts that will impress others (especially prospective clients or employers), and use them when searching for new business. I have, and frankly, I'm amazed at how well this has worked for me.

5. Network. Locally, of course, but also on every PR listserv you can get on. Get to know people there, then let them know (subtly or blatantly) that you freelance. Lots of my work is as a subcontractor for other agencies that - in other cases - might have been my competitors. Two of my largest and steadiest clients are other agencies. But go beyond the listservs - also go to the chamber of commerce, the local PR and Ad and Marketing clubs (the main ones and ones specializing in niche markets). Get involved with a local college PR program - guest lecturer, whatever. More on this below (see number 10): volunteer for PR work at high-viz charities (but make sure that the Board knows what you're doing - don't let the in-house PR guy or gal grab credit for your work). Bottom line: Get your name known.

6. Promote yourself as a successful PR practitioner. Send out press releases on everything you do (I wish I'd follow my own advice on that more often). Announce new clients, successful campaigns - even new blogs or trade-journal articles. And post all the press releases on your website press room.

7. Promote yourself as a source. Develop a list of media types and blast email them with news story ideas, etc. Recently I gave a story to Fox News - they asked me my "angle" and I just told them that I thought they'd be interested ... that I had no linkage to the story, except a desire to help. They liked that. But putting out ideas also pays off - tomorrow (as I write this) I'm going to be on Fred Imus's show (Don's brother in Tucson) for 30 minutes talking about public policy PR - all because they liked an idea I pitched them (and dozens of other radio producers). I do maybe four or five interviews a week, and some of them pay off with leads, contacts, maybe even clients - the rest are just fun, and help me feel like I'm really doing something, even when I'm between clients.

8. Find ways of contributing to PR trade publications. Right now, I'm on the advisory board of PR-News (just because I asked, after contributing to their publication more than a few times), and last week, I gave an in-depth interview to PR Week. Don't know if it helps a lot, but it can't hurt - and one interview I gave last summer for Book Marketing Update got me a client, so it does help. Remember, there are a few major PR trades, but literally hundreds of niche-market PR trades (including association journals) - many of them are starved for GREAT copy on focused PR issues. So get the lists - all you can - and start pitching ideas.

9. Speak out - in public. Get on the agenda to provide programs to civic clubs, fraternal organizations, business groups, etc. Put together compelling talk ideas that link your expertise in PR to their specific focus - and when you're there, speaking, network again. Collect business cards (offer them a deal, or have a drawing, or something).

10. Charity organizations - get involved. I once picked up a client by offering a PR plan in a raffle my son's school held as a fund-raising program. A local printer bid $500 for the plan (worth, as I delivered it, about $1,500 - but I had the time, so it cost me nothing), then he retained me to fulfill the plan. It was a sweat deal. But beyond that, offer your services to local groups. Two years of volunteering for the United Way got me two clients the following year, and staffing a Business-Labor-Healthcare Coalition not only got me a client, but it got me a sweet job offer, too. On the other hand, the last time I was hiring, I was overwhelmed with over-qualified candidates, and couldn't decide. Then I went to a local charity event and saw one of the candidates "working" the media for the event (as a volunteer). I liked what I saw, and the next day he was on the payroll. So it can work for freelancing and job development, too.

That's it - ten solid tips for those just out of the job market and into the exciting life of self-unemployment. I hope you enjoy it - and if you have any questions, drop me a line.

Barnett Marketing Communications Rate Sheet - Updated October 18, 2004

2004-12-25T14:27:00.000-07:00

Introduction

I referenced this in a blog on ten tips for the newly self-unemployed, so I thought I ought to post it for those who'd like to see what I was talking about. In addition, because this is a fairly innovative rate schedule (with a sliding scale, and an up-front payment policy), it might prove helpful to others in PR and Marketing. So if you'd like to see how a consulting operation in business for 20 years has evolved it's rate structure, take a look.

Ned

***

Thanks for asking for my pricing structure and billing options. My rate structure is based on a sliding scale – the more work I do for you, the lower my hourly fee. I generally work on a month-to-month retainer basis, though I also take on project work.

Because my rates are dramatically lower (for a professional with 30-plus years of experience and my level of credentials) than those offered by major agencies, I ask my clients to pay me up front (each month, for retainers, or at the start of the project, for project work). This keeps my operating costs down and my fees low – a win-win situation for both of us.

Here is how I usually work:

1. Clients – those who agree to a monthly retainer fee – receive a much lower rate, a rate based on the hours retained. A retainer allows clients up to a given number of worked hours per month in exchange for a flat hourly rate. For instance, a retainer of $1,500 per month would purchase up to 10 hours per month at my base retainer rate of $150/hour.

2. This retainer fee is paid at the beginning of each month, before work for the month begins. Client-approved hours worked that are above the hours retained each month are billed at the lower retainer rate – this bill goes out at the end of the month, and is due to be paid by the 15th of the next month.

_________________________________________
420 N. Nellis Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 89110
Phone 702-696-1200 – FAX 702-696-1211
email: ned@barnettmarcom.com
http://www.barnettmarcom.com
Page 2 – Fee Structure - Barnett Marketing Communications

Retainer rates (per hour) are based on the size of the monthly retainer budget:

a. Monthly Retainer Budget – $1,000 - $2,499 – hourly rate: $150/hour

b. Monthly Retainer Budget – $2,500 - $4,999 – hourly rate: $137.50/hour

c. Monthly Retainer Budget – $5,000 - $7,499 – hourly rate: $125/hour

d. Monthly Retainer Budget – $7,500 - $9,999 – hourly rate: $112.50/hour

e. Monthly Retainer Budget – $10,000+ – hourly rate: $100/hour

Because these quoted retainer rates are sharply discounted off of Barnett Marketing Communications’ standard base rates for stand-alone projects, each retainer payment must be made by the client at the beginning of each month (or at the beginning of each billing period). Bills for extra hours – and for expenses, if applicable – must be honored in a timely basis (i.e., paid by the 15th of the following month). Retainer agreements may be canceled by either party on 60 days’ written notice.

3. I prefer to work on a retainer basis, and as a result, my retainer rates are much lower than my project rates. However, clients occasionally need a one-time project completed, often on a “rush” basis, and in those cases, I offer them my standard project fee. My base rate for project work is $200 per hour. This rate is reserved primarily for one-time clients, and for unscheduled rush projects. Clients who prefer a project basis can work in one of two ways:

a. A fixed-fee project, with one-half due at the outset and one-half due 30 days from the start of the project (or mid-way through the project, whichever is sooner)

b. A fixed-fee project, for up to a pre-determined number of project hours; hours above that to be billed in 30-day increments (in advance) at an hourly rate to be set at the time the project is contracted. Project fee to be paid one-half at the start, and one half 30 days from the start of the project (or mid-way through the project, whichever is sooner).

Obviously, because of the risk involved in fixed-price projects (i.e., the chance for in-process changes adding to the time that must be committed to the project), rates for fixed-price projects tend to be higher; but they are fixed, and some clients prefer that option.

Page 3 – Fee Structure - Barnett Marketing Communications

4. Expenses are often far less of a factor than in prior days, thanks largely to the low cost/no cost communications made possible by the Internet. However, if expenses are necessary (and this is will be agreed upon in advance at the time we strike an agreement) – they will be estimated at 10% of the monthly retainer or project fee. Expenses will be billed out at actual cost at the end of each month, due by the 15th of the following month. For clients/projects that involve anticipated expenses, those expenses which are at or below 10% (for long distance phone, Fed-X, etc.) are not itemized nor do they require prior client approval; expenses above 10% are itemized, approved in advance and receipts are available for review.

Some other particulars you’ll want to note – taken from our standard client agreement:

a. If expenses are deemed appropriate for the client/project, as indicated in the agreement – Barnett Marketing Communications will be entitled to bill all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses for items such as postage, delivery and travel, separately, each month (due and payable within 10 days of invoicing). Unless an expense escrow account is set up to cover these costs, hard-cost invoices will be marked up at the industry-standard rate of 17.65%. This reflects a 15% increase over the actual costs (the mark-up covers our accounting and carrying costs). All mark-ups will be set aside if there is an expense escrow account, or if the client direct-pays expenses.

b. Whenever possible, we arrange for our client to be direct-billed for travel, or by hard-cost vendors, saving clients the mark-up cost and focusing more of their budget – of your budget – on productive deliverable services, rather than overhead.

c. Collateral material, press materials, audio-visual production, and advertising production requested by the Client will be billed at the industry-standard markup of 17.65%, which reflects a 15% increase over the actual hard-costs of these deliverables – unless these are direct-paid by the client or are covered by an expense escrow account. Note: Such costs are increasingly less likely to be incurred, due to the cost savings made possible by the Internet.
Page 4 – Fee Structure - Barnett Marketing Communications

d. Unless the client direct-pays these expenses (the preferred situation for both parties), Barnett Marketing Communications will receive 50% of all bid third-party costs in advance of the start of projects involving third-party vendors. This advance policy applies primarily to collateral and production expenses – and will receive the final 50% ten days before the estimated delivery date of the deliverables.

e. For advertising placement, the industry-standard commission of 15 percent is billed (client pays gross charges, agency pays the media at the net rate); all advertising is pre-paid in full by the client, which enables us to negotiate the lowest possible ad placement fees on behalf of the client.

Payment

For your convenience, payment may be made by direct deposit into my checking account. Account information will be provided to facilitate such direct deposits. We also accept payment by wire transfer, or by personal or business check, with payment made out to Ned Barnett or to Barnett Marketing Communications; however, we require that such checks clear before we can begin work. PayPal may also be used, but requires a 5% service fee (to cover PayPal’s charges to me).

International clients (clients based outside the US or making payment from non-US banks) must make payment by wire transfer or PayPal, in U.S. dollars. International checks will not be accepted as payment for services.

Conclusion

I am also open to other working arrangements; however, these approaches have served me and my clients well for nearly 20 years. They are fair to all parties, they promote trust, and they ensure that the work gets done on time and in a fully professional manner.

I hope this answers your questions. If you have further questions, please let me know.

All the best

Ned Barnett, APR
Fellow, ASHMPR
Barnett Marketing Communications

Historically Failed PR Strategy Adopted for Presidential Campaign

2004-08-22T23:15:00.000-07:00

By Ned Barnett
© 2004

Just heard this unanswerable question on Matt Drudge's talk radio program that got me thinking about the role of prior military service on a Presidential candidate's electability – and what I realized is surprising. Since 1960, honorable military service has had no positive impact on Presidential electability. Surprised? Me too.

But that's not a "hidden" fact - anybody who's looked at post-World War II Presidential campaigns will draw the same conclusion after not much more than five minute's study.

So why would a campaign base it's primary PR thrust, it's primary campaign message, on combat experience?

Here's the question:

"Who was the genius who sold Kerry on the idea of talking about Vietnam in 2004?"

As a frequent "historical expert" (their term, not mine) on the History Channel, I decided to take a historical perspective view of that question – you might be surprised to find out what the answer was – I certainly was.

Since Ike defeated Stevenson in 1952, there has been no obvious link between honorable service and electability – and since 1968, Vietnam has been a deadly "third rail" – nobody who tried to make the war a big issue has won the Presidency.

Item: Navy veteran John Kennedy beat Navy veteran Dick Nixon in '60 – but both served, and their service was not a decisive issue in the election.

Item: Navy one-mission (as an observer on a milk run) "veteran" Lyndon Johnson beat Air Force General Barry Goldwater – and even this early, the issue was Vietnam, and Goldwater (who wanted to either get out or capital-W "win") lost on his perceived stance on Vietnam.

Item: None of the several prominent Democratic anti-war candidates in 1968 could even get nominated. The election in November was won by nominal (not particularly a hairy-chested combat vet) veteran Richard Nixon, who defeated non-veteran Hubert Humphrey. In that election, the decisive issue wasn't war service, but Humphrey's defense of the Johnson failed Vietnam war policy.

Item: Nominal Navy veteran Nixon easily beat legitimate combat-pilot war hero George McGovern, over McGovern's strong anti-Vietnam war stance – once again, Vietnam proved to be a deadly "third rail" for those who made an issue of it.

Item: Decorated Navy combat veteran Gerald Ford lost to former post-war Naval officer Jimmy Carter. Combat service clearly wasn't significant as a benefit for Ford.

Item: Nominal veteran Ronald Reagan (he was an actor-in-uniform, and didn't consider that "real" military service) easily defeated Naval Academy graduate Jimmy Carter.

Item: Nominal veteran Ronald Reagan defeated post-war Army corporal Walter Mondale.

Item: Combat Navy Pilot George H.W. Bush defeated Dukakis, who served in the Army and was stationed in Korea after that war – both served honorably, and the varied nature of their service was not an important political issue.

Item: Bill Clinton admitted dodging the Vietnam draft, but in 1992 he still beat decorated combat pilot George H.W. Bush – avoiding Vietnam was not a dominant negative issue for Clinton, though Bush tried to make it so.

Item: Bob Dole has a crippling war wound, earned in heroic service against the Nazis, and he couldn't get to first base against admitted Vietnam draft dodger Bill Clinton. Again, dodging Vietnam was not seen as a liability, though Dole tried to make it so.

Item: The Other Kerry (Senator Bob Kerrey) won a Medal of Honor in Vietnam – where he lost a leg – yet he was a non-starter in the Presidential sweepstakes four years ago.

Item: George W. Bush's relatively anemic National Guard record, vs. the almost equally anemic service record of nominal Vietnam non-combat veteran Al Gore (he was a reporter for Stars & Stripes) was a non-starting issue in 2000. Gore tried to make Bush's Guard service an issue, but it didn't prove decisive.

Item: A more recent election was not Presidential, but it’s still related. Triple amputee Max Cleland, after a long and honorable career in the Senate, was voted out of office in 2002. Georgia’s voters realized that his many years of voting in the Senate (badly, apparently, from conservative Georgian's perspectives) trumped his unquestioned heroism in Vietnam. That voting record also trumped his unquestioned sacrifice (his horrendous wound). As Dole had learned before him, honorable wounds – even visible wounds – do not make a winning election issue.

Here's the bottom line. History has shown that Vietnam is a third rail in Presidential politics, and has been since 1964. Time and time and time again, Vietnam has proved to be an attraction – seductive as an issue (to candidates who think they can exploit it), but ultimately Vietnam has always proved to be a fatal attraction for those who think they can exploit it. Candidates who tried to make Vietnam, including opposition to – or service in – Vietnam, an issue ALL failed.

Beyond that, history has shown that heroic service – and heroic wounds – are not significant assets in Presidential elections.

Which brings us to this 2004 election. Given all those facts above, let's consider that provocative question again:

"Who was the genius who sold Kerry on the idea of talking about Vietnam in 2004?"

Who's "bright idea" was it to bet the farm, in 2004, on making a 35-year old war one of (if not the) major issues in this campaign?

Especially when Kerry's combat record has been controversial at least since 1971.

As a historian, and as a long-time political campaign speechwriter, media handler and strategist, I have got to ask, "what were they thinking?"

About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

As a political consultant and speechwriter, Barnett has worked for candidates and officials from both parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment and healthcare. As a historian, Barnett is widely published in military history magazines, and has appeared a number of times on the History Channel, discussing military technology.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.

© 2004 – Ned Barnett
Barnett Marketing Communications

The Candidate's Crucial PR Challenge - Stay On Message

2004-08-02T22:56:00.000-07:00

Ned Barnett
(c) 2004

Senator Kerry is facing a serious PR-related problem – fringe stories are dragging Kerry "off-message" when he desperately needs to stay on-message. During Convention Week, there are three glaring media distractions: the NASA Bunny Suit photo op/flop, Teresa’s "shove it" dust-up, and the "salute." None of these is a big issue, but each is an unwelcome distraction – and they’re coming at a time when Senator Kerry cannot afford distractions.

The NASA photo flop was just bad campaign management (I know, I've been campaign media manager before). The Kerry campaign knew that both NASA and media pool photographers were there taking still and motion pictures – one look will show Kerry posed for them. But beyond that, EVERY event a candidate attends is photographed – that’s SOP for campaigns, and the media, and the Kerry Campaign’s managers know this, as does the candidate himself.

Afterwards, NASA submitted the photos to the campaign before they posted them. There were no problems until the media started to make fun of the photos, and of Kerry in his “bunny suit.” Some said he looked like a Saturday Night Live-skit “human condom;” others thought he looked more like Woody Allen’s “human sperm” from his “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex” film. Regardless, the candidate was being made fun of, during Convention Week!

Immediately the campaign's chairwoman, Mary Beth Cahill, went on Brit Hume’s Fox News Channel program, where she charged that this photo op was a Republican set-up. She claimed that the campaign knew nothing about these "surprise" photos. This was blatantly false, as NASA proved and Hume pointed out, but Cahill’s “conspiracy” claims kept the story alive for another news cycle. Then NASA was pushed to take the photos off their official website (Kerry’s campaign complained that the Hatch Act, of all things, was being violated), which kept the story alive for yet another news cycle. The next day, NASA's attorneys said "this is no Hatch Act violation" and told NASA to put the photos back up, keeping the story alive for a third extra day. At a time when Kerry needed to stay on message and focus on his candidacy, his campaign self-inflicted an annoying PR screw up, keeping this minor story alive for three extra days, and making it seem far more significant than it really was.

The "shove-it" comment by Teresa Heinz-Kerry was, in itself, is no big deal; however, in the middle of a dull campaign, you just know that lots of reporters (especially those covering Teresa) suddenly realized that she's got a thin skin and a quick temper. From now on, they'll be "gunning for her," trying to provoke her into making more on-camera (or on-mike) angry statements – not because those statements are momentous news stories, but rather to get themselves a quick 90 seconds on the national news. This will prove to be especially true for local-market reporters wanting a bit of national exposure. From now on, Mrs. Kerry is a "target-rich" environment for reporters on-the-make. And each time a reporter succeeds in provoking the now-famous Teresa temper, the story itself will be a small thing – but each incident will once again distract the media away from covering what Kerry wants them to cover.

(However, there is one balancing factor for the campaign out of this – see Kerry finds an Attack Dog Surrogate blog for details)

The third annoying distraction – the one Kerry could have prevented all by himself – is the "salute." Every veteran and many other citizens know that the US military has a very specific way of saluting. Each raw recruit has had this salute drummed into his head, and every veteran recognizes the difference between a real salute and a bogus one. I had the only official salute drummed into my head in ROTC, and I have never forgotten it. However, for whatever reason, US Navy veteran John Kerry saluted the convention (and the world) in a way that is nothing at all like a US military salute.

Now, at a time when the Senator is trying to win over veterans, and many of those veterans feel insulted by his non-regulation salute. And, at a time when more Vietnam vets oppose him (the last numbers I saw were 48% against and 42% in favor), at a time when the campaign is vigorously pushing Kerry's Vietnam record, this kind of simple-to-prevent dust-up is just exactly what Senator Kerry does not need. Not only does “salute-gate” distract at least some of the media from his message, but it risks tearing down the one element of his record that Senator Kerry most wants to promote ... his role in the military.

Bottom line for Kerry – in a very tight race, coming out of a convention that yielded – at best – a dead-cat bounce, the Senator just cannot afford these kinds of distractions.

This election is just as tight for President Bush, too, but – after a dropped-ball winter (with his endless ROTC-record “problem” which went away as soon as he released his records), and after a dismal three-month run of news in Iraq and on Capitol Hill, the President (for the moment) seems better able to keep things on-message. That could change tomorrow, but for now, the President seems to be winning the “on-message” competition.

About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

As a political consultant and speechwriter, Barnett has worked for candidates and officials from both parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment and healthcare. As a historian, Barnett is widely published in military history magazines, and has appeared a number of times on the History Channel, discussing military technology.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.

© 2004 – Ned Barnett
Barnett Marketing Communications

Website Pressroom - A Key PR/Promotional Tool

2004-07-18T11:28:00.000-07:00

NOTE: This article was first developed as two articles for my website - the first a broad overview, and the second a more in-depth discussion of specifics. Both of these are included here -overview first. Both are written to the PR consultant, but applies equally to the in-house PR Professional.

The media – local, national, trade and specialty – are important targets for the client’s online and off-line promotional efforts. A major online pressroom, resident on the client’s website – and appropriately echoed on the product websites (as they’re developed), should be a major asset in the client’s promotion of – by reaching the press. In this way, the pressroom will be positioned to pave the way for the use of the media in the promotion of the client’s services. The following are some ideas on ways to accomplish this ideal – to create a fully useful website pressroom.

The website’s pressroom should be a welcome resource for reporters and trade journal editors – and it should be virtually a stand-alone site (everything they need to write about the client or any of our services should be here – even if it’s also located elsewhere on the website). At one site, they should have access to as much of the information they might need to tell the client’s story as we can pack in there. And though some might consider it redundant, information found elsewhere should be “echoed” in the pressroom – so reporters and trade journal editors can find what they need without having to leave the client’s pressroom. We definitely don’t want to encourage them to surf away.

An effective pressroom has several distinctive, effective features designed to meet the information needs of working reporters and trade journal editors. These include posting both press releases and links to substantial supportive documentation (when available), including downloadable photos, logos and other illustrations (making reporters’ and editors’ jobs easier).

This depth of material, easily accessible by reporters and trade journal editors, will make it possible to generate coverage by distributing brief, provocative press (teasers) – an approach that can be (when done properly) ideal for supporting cost-effective brief wire-posted announcements. In addition, a strong website pressroom can support faxed or e-mailed briefings or press advisories and announcements.

Taken together, this becomes a cost-effective alternative to mailing out (or especially to posting to wire services) longer press releases and full-blown press kits. Research indicated that, in addition to controlling the costs of press release distribution, this approach actually improves press interest – and coverage.

There is a very simple reason for this. Reporters and trade journal editors tend to be (or at least see themselves as) overworked, underpaid, rushed and impatient. A pressroom that, by design and content, does much of their work for them, is a pearl beyond price. Reporters are not, by nature, “lazy” – but they are loathe to recreate the wheel. When the client provides them with usable material – assuming there is a legitimate story behind the material – they will strongly consider using that material.

Some key information in the client’s pressroom (more details on some key features follows the bullet-point list) should include:

* Bios of the key players at the client – CEO, President, CFO, Directors, sales reps in the regions – anybody we’re likely to write about or quote

* Downloadable graphic images of the key players (as well as company and service line logos – in short, good, solid PR photos and images that we’d like to see used)

* A “story” about the company – one that should be updated with each change

* Background (features and benefits of all the service lines, profiles of target users for each of the service lines, etc.) – this may be on the website elsewhere, but it needs to be echoed here so reporters aren’t asked to navigate away from the pressroom to find what they need

* Captured web pages from the client’s subsidiary websites (those for individual service lines)

* the client business philosophy and high probability sales approach philosophy (but told in a literate, not a “corporate,” style)

* Kudos from satisfied business partners and end users – these are vital to create a sense of strong support – and we need to make sure that we have an avenue in place that will help reporters contact these satisfied customers for follow-up quotes

* Case studies from or about both partners and client and partner patron end-users (including photos of the people involved in the case studies, contact info, etc.) with permission-to-quote from them (so reporters know it’s OK)

* Screen-shot captures (or digital reproduction) of articles about the client and the various service lines – these should be sorted by topic as well as by date (at least) – we’ll want to gain permission from the publications for each of these. A good way of doing this is to include complete contact and subscription information at the bottom of each article (this should also be – along with most of the above information, echoed on the sales-portions of the website)

* Any business performance information (sales trends, etc.) we are permitted to include – while privately held (meaning we don’t have to tell anybody anything), we should strive to be as aggressively forthcoming as the owners will allow, in order to earn the trust of the press

* Press releases and press advisories (sorted by topic and then again by release date)

* Breaking Industry News (updated whenever we can – daily is unlikely without a significant investment, but weekly should not be out of the question) – this can often be “bought” from a service that monitors news for just this purpose (cost may be an issue) – but it helps to give reporters and trade journal editors easy access to this kind of information (which brings them back, or at least makes them feel welcome)

* Links to background information on each press release (ideally, these links should lead to a frames page – so the reporters can see the material in the linked sites without leaving the client’s pressroom (examples could be the clients’ or partners’ websites)

* A geographical sorting of business partners’ websites (for times when they want to contact a “local” business partner (all the usual cautions need to be applied here about turning the press loose on our Partners without a head’s up to the Partners).

* A calendar of upcoming (planned) events, including (where possible) launch dates of upcoming service enhancements, pilot programs, etc. – kind of like an editorial calendar … we’ll need to update this regularly as dates slip or change, etc.

* Research findings from the website’s ongoing online survey (and other sources) – more details are below

* Fun stuff (like downloadable or online Buzzword-Bingo and Trade Jargon "Bullshit-Bingo" games)

* IMPORTANT – Contact information – who (and how) to contact to follow-up with media interest.

There are other things that could be included in the pressroom – this is just start (a template, so to speak) and something with which to begin discussions.

For those who want to explore this topic in more depth, please read on ...

In more detail, the client’s Pressroom should include:

* Hard-hitting, well-written (in accessible language) case studies featuring successful (and well known, especially at first) partners using the client’s products and services to meet their important patron relations loyalty-building and business-building goals. It’s helpful to have two or three for each kind of client and partner type – you’ll never know what will catch a reporter’s eye. This can be echoed (much of this can be echoed) from elsewhere in the website. We want these case studies to be written in such a way that a reporter could just lift it and publish it (i.e., we want to use a professional, trade journal-style prose)

* Breaking news relevant to the client – this could be national or regional news, or it could be trade-industry news. This will require monitoring the news or licensing access from a news service to give topical reporters a second- or third-choice for information they want and need in order to keep their constituencies informed. There are low-cost information feed services that can provide a core of information – this is useful to the media; and it gives users and prospects a reason to come back to the website. This really works – it helps you become a “portal” for trade reporters, which is definitely a plus for us (this feature would also be interesting to Partners, suggesting we might also want to have a partner-only website section).

* New organizational news and service-line news press releases, along with all appropriate back-up and supporting materials – including bios, position papers, financial statements (think data analysis here), etc., as well as links to supportive documents and related websites. These should be updated regularly – in the initial phase of our re-introduction to the media, we need to try to put out (at a bare minimum) three to five press releases each month. This volume of releases suggests “activity” and growth to reporters – and in the client’s field, “activity” is a very good thing. The importance of providing organized background information (bios, case studies, etc.) WITH these press release cannot be over-stated. Reporters and trade journal editors are busy people – the easier we make their jobs, the more likely they are to respond to us. Initially, we won’t have much to offer (besides, perhaps, some sales literature, rudimentary bios, company and product logos – and head-and-shoulder PR photos), but we need to offer what we have while building a better archive of useful information.

* Lists of useful spokespersons (within and without the client), along with their contact information – this also makes the reporters’ “digging” job far easier, and wins them as friends. The ‘outside the organization’ spokespersons should be with our partners (with their advanced permission, along with impartial trade associations, or perhaps respected academics (or similar, based on the nature of the releases). By reaching beyond our own staff (though they absolutely should be included, and focused on), we gain visibility and enhanced credibility – and the patina of the credibility those spokespersons bring to the table will rub off on the client.

* Archives of all former press releases, grouped by topic as well as by date (and sorted by date within each topic) – these are often useful for reporters wanting to back-track information. Go one step further and add a search-by-keyword function – reporters really appreciate that extra help. We won’t need it immediately, but we should immediately plan on having that feature.

* Archives of all former press COVERAGE, grouped by topic (and by date – and also sort the material within each topic by date – and we’ll need to have a search function here, too). This extra material provides a “balanced” counterpoint to the archived press releases, making this site a further benefit to reporters. Every favorable mention should be included. Whenever possible, this press coverage should involve screen-capture material from the media’s websites, rather than links (that might grow stale). We’ll need to obtain permission, but in my experience, as long as we include full contact and full subscription information, the publications will play along. Occasionally there’s a small fee for use (and for reprints – a separate topic, but one we all know has important sales implications); when the articles have value, we should pay the fee. We do NOT want to risk ticking off the media by “borrowing” their favorable coverage without permission.

* Full background information, including service lines, history and officers, along with whatever financials we care to release (the client is privately held and is under no obligation to report anything – but there is often benefit to being as open as an SEC-regulated company, at least in press relations). We want to include other relevant information on the client and our services – carefully cataloged for easy identification. Again, if the reporters do not have to dig, they can do a quicker story (and will be subtly grateful for the assist, ensuring more balanced coverage). Companies with something to hide are red meat to reporters; companies with full open-door websites are seen as reliable and are generally not the target of exposes. the client should seem open.

* Website survey “findings.” Elsewhere on the client’s website, we can – and should – ask, in survey form, provocative questions of web-visitors. These questions should have a special orientation to issues of interest to prospects (this can be achieved by focusing the questions) – but we should also ask questions that will deliver slam-dunk media coverage. For example we’ll be sure to get solid press coverage if we report that “62% of “white-tablecloth” client and partner GMs surveyed think that their business will rebound within six months after the successful conclusion of a war with Iraq.” We may not want to get that political, but we can be certain such provocative questions will intrigue the media. This is yet one more version of the “factoid” approach I keep advocating. Once we have the statistical “facts”, we then, “announce” the findings (we do not hide the fact that this kind of opt-in research has no meaningful scientific value – but the media won’t care because such findings still makes for great, quotable factoids). We need to feed the media’s need for plausible-sounding statistics and quotes – and when we do, we’ll see the results in coverage.

* “Kudos” – favorable comments from users/readers/customers/clients who have benefited from, and praised in writing (or e-mail) – along with notations that these individuals’ bylined comments can be reprinted without further requests for specific permission.

* Graphic illustrations that can be downloaded – corporate and product logos, photos of the products and the people, and other appropriate illustrations. When we can create data-based charts-and-graphs that can be reproduced (with credit) note that on the site – and provide for their easy download. The same holds true for self-tests and other crowd-pleasing tools and gimmicks. Promoting the site is important – if reporters don’t know about it or use it, the best pressroom site on the Internet is all but worthless. A few ideas that work include:

* Not on the site itself, but in promoting it, use e-mail “teasers” to encourage reporters to revisit the pressroom site to view the site’s response to emerging or breaking news within the company or within the industry. These can be distributed to opt-in e-mail lists, or by individual e-mails that I’ll handle. Colorful postcards are also low cost and useful in promoting reporter visits to the website, especially when not tied to timely breaking news.

* Another time-tested website pressroom promotion strategy involves producing weekly or monthly “potential story idea” sheets – then distribute these tip sheets to the media by fax, e-mail or other means (and post in the pressroom to catch reporter visitors). Follow-up using usual PR response systems set up for handling media calls. Most of these should relate to the client – but if we see a trend in the industry (even if our involvement in the story is peripheral), we should include these in the tip sheets. Why? Because if we help reporters do their jobs, we’ll build goodwill that will eventually help us in generating coverage that will help us. There’s no formal quid-pro-quo, but reporters remember (and often cultivate) helpful sources.

* Related to that, but of a more individual nature, distribute individual or breaking story idea pitches to local, regional and national trades (ideally by e-mail to a standardized/customized opt-in list) to generate potential trade coverage. We would then make sure that all the info they need to follow up on the suggestion is easily found in the pressroom (we’d put it there before we sent out these press alerts). Again, if they see us as a “source,” we will reap the benefits of that evolving relationship.

In summary, the client’s online pressroom must become an inviting location for reporters to visit and use. The site can also be a place where we (together) can build “virtual” relationships that will help make you better respond to press needs – and to generate more, and more favorable coverage for the client.

About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

As a political consultant and speechwriter, Barnett has worked for candidates and officials from both parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment and healthcare. As a historian, Barnett is widely published in military history magazines, and has appeared a number of times on the History Channel, discussing military technology.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.

© 2004 – Ned Barnett
Barnett Marketing Communications

Public Relations The Key to the 2004 Election?

2004-07-07T14:58:00.000-07:00

I've been invited to be interviewed on a local talk radio program next week on how PR and Marketing will impact the Presidential election this year.

I decided to put together some thinking points that might me focus my thoughts before this interview.

Here goes:

I've got two items in my blog column now on the truly odd presidential campaign we've got going on right now.

One deals with pro-active PR in business and politics (and makes a case for Kerry releasing information that he's stonewalling on and getting any pain behind him - as President Bush eventually did with his National Guard records).

The other deals with the eerie parallels between the elections of 1864 and 2004.

Beyond that, I have been closely examining and exploring the fact that, unprecedented in recent memory, the two election campaigns seem to be almost totally decoupled. By that I mean that Bush is running on (and against) his record, while Kerry is running on (and against) his apparent lack of public awareness and personal trust.

Completely against character for a political campaign (that almost always pits one candidate against the other), Kerry (or Bush) can go up or down in the polls without impacting the other candidate's numbers.

I don't want to over-use the word "unprecedented," but that's exactly what's going on. The two candidates seem to be running very separate and independent-of-the-other campaigns - each trying to win his own campaign, pretty much regardless of what the other campaign does.

This decoupling of campaigns has never happened before, but it does make for an interesting and quirky campaign - especially from a PR and marketing communications point of view.

What that means is this: PR and marketing communications will be more important than ever before. As each side struggles to motivate their base, they realize how important it will be to get their base fired up and eager to turn out and vote. To do that, they've got to employ really savvy public relations efforts to reach and motivate their bases without offending the volatile middle.

Yet, even as they try to motivate their own bases, they can't pander to moderate voters without risking the wrath of those base groups of passionate liberal or conservative voters. Bush found this out the hard way when he proposed to grant virtual amnesty to 8 million illegal aliens, and faced a harsh conservative backlash. Kerry is just starting to see this same factor at work as he begins to feel the feminist backlash from his comment last weekend that "life begins at conception."

This need to placate and motivate the base - this "passionate base" factor - will tend to keep the two campaigns decoupled. Each will face a real risk if they take their own base for granted and "run for the middle," which is the usual SOP in presidential campaigns.

Perhaps almost alone among those who've worked politics (and I've done so, professionally, since 1976) and who are handicapping the race, I do not believe this will be close. I have no solid idea who'll win (at this point, a strong case can be made for either one), but I do not believe it will be close. I think the popular vote will split by at least 5 percentage points, and the electoral collage will probably have an even larger split.

And oddly, the factors that will ultimately decide the split are almost out of the hands of the two candidates to influence.

For two years, the Democrats counted on the economy to be Bush 43's undoing, just as a weak economy in 1991-2 torpedoed the second term hopes of Bush 41. However, since the first of this year, that hope has all but evaporated. Even strong Democratic power-brokers see the economy as a default-win for Bush.

As an aside, this makes the choice of Edwards "interesting" - his one-note primary campaign was all about his vision of the "two Americas" - yet the economic numbers suggest that we're moving rapidly toward a single, prosperous America.

Dealing with desired perception (two Americas) versus the apparent fiscal reality of huge economic growth and big gains in jobs will be an important PR challenge for the Democrats - one that is possible, but not easy.

As what is basically a PR issue, I think it remains to be seen if the richest man who's ever run on a major-party ticket for President, along with a self-made multi-millionaire, will be able to pull off a campaign as champions of a downtrodden underclass (and also if that matters, since the small underclass we do have seldom votes in serious numbers). Yet if they want to run and win on the economy, they will have to convince voters that the economy is not as strong as the numbers suggest - and that they, as two very wealthy white men, can impact the economy for those truly in the underclass.

Frankly, there aren't enough votes in that issue - not anymore - to carry the Democrats to victory. And in spite of their rhetoric this week, Kerry and Edwards know that.

So the issues that remain are Iraq and terrorism. And here the Democrats have a real problem - or, perhaps, a series of problems:

1. Both Senators voted for the war resolution in late 2002 (though both later voted against funding the war's reconstruction). They clearly are not solid anti-war candidates, even though much of their base is passionately anti-war.

2. The Kerry position is to "stay the course" in Iraq - a position not all that different from that of President Bush. That creates further problems with the K/E base, though not with the mainstream, which embraces the Kerry/Bush "stay the course" policy. For now.

3. Edwards' lack of any military service tends to neutralize (at least a bit) Kerry's personal war record (which is also tainted, at least electorally, by his later strong anti-war position in the early 70s). It entirely negates Cheney's willingness to embrace a series of draft deferments in the 60s.

4. The K/E ticket has yet to offer a distinct alternative to the Iraq status quo, even as the Democratic Party moves ever closer (at least in it's base) toward a firm anti-war position. This is where this year's election gets so eerily similar to that of 1864 (see my blog here on those eerie similarities).

What the Democrats' election bottom line amounts to, though it may seem crass to say so, is this: If Iraq simmers down, if Saddam is tried and convicted, and if terrorists in Iraq can't totally disrupt what we're trying to do in pacifying the country, this Iraq issue will go, by default, to Bush. However, if there is a serious Iraq melt-down (another scandal akin to the prison scandal, or a major terrorist success in Iraq), Bush's Iraq policy will be discredited and the issue will go to K/E by default.

That means one of the two major Democratic issues left on the table is totally out of the hands of Kerry and Edwards - and almost as completely out of the hands of Bush. Since neither one of them can really impact what will evolve in Iraq, both must turn to narrow-market PR tactics and techniques to keep their base pumped up ... just in case.

Then there is the domestic terror issue.

Oddly, my read (from a PR position) is that if the terrorists pull off a domestic attack in the U.S. close to the election (as they did in Spain), the public will turn TOWARD the Administration, rather than rejecting Bush for failing to stop the terrorists. Again, the issue really is out of the control of the Democrats, or the Republicans - so both keep running their separate, decoupled campaigns aimed at energizing their bases, while they cross their fingers and wait for the world to deliver the events that will decide the election.

I guess the PR/Marketing bottom line for election 2004 is this - given two largely similar (in the polls) candidates with largely similar fund-raising war chests, the Administration will win as long as the status quo keeps tracking forward, with a strong economy and fewer problems in Iraq. Add to that the wild-card - a pro-administration bump that a late-season domestic terror attack could provide - and Bush is on track for re-election, regardless of current polling numbers.

On the other hand, if the economy even hints that it might quiver, K/E will be helped, significantly. Just a slight drop and the Democrats will move heaven and earth to resurrect the economy as a deal-breaker issue for Bush. It could happen, and Kerry is sure to be prepared, just in case.

In the same way, if Iraq's current slow progress goes retrograde, K/E will be helped - and although they have no positions strongly at odds with Bush, they will benefit if Iraq goes backwards toward chaos.

In two plausible scenarios (neither of which Kerry can influence), the current Bush momentum could shift to Kerry in the blink of an eye. Either of these will almost certainly give the K/E campaign the boost they need to take the White House.

In addition, if the terrorists are unable to stage a late-term domestic attack - if there is no wildcard of a terrorist "October Surprise," then K/E will be helped, but not as obviously. Strange as it may seem, if terrorists are deterred, that will not help Bush.

No matter which way it comes out, though, I do not think the election will be close. And as decoupled as these two campaigns seem to be (and, I think, they will be likely to remain), the final outcome is really outside the control of either candidate.

So - helpless to impact the issues that will really make a difference in this election - and knowing that the middle will be up for grabs right up to election day, each candidate will continue to try to aggressively motivate their own base of support to turn out.

The side with the stronger, more motivated base (which is a huge PR and marketing issue - one that at this point could go either way) is the one that, all things being equal, will win.

About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

As a political consultant and speechwriter, Barnett has worked for candidates and officials from both parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment and healthcare. As a historian, Barnett is widely published in military history magazines, and has appeared a number of times on the History Channel, discussing military technology.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.

© 2004 – Ned Barnett
Barnett Marketing Communications

Target Marketing Q&A #1 - Free-Standing Self-Serve Car Wash

2004-07-07T14:27:00.000-07:00

We get questions …

As a long-time PR and Marcom practitioner, I get a lot of questions from colleagues and friends, looking for ideas for marketing and promoting specific business ventures. As an occasional feature here, I’m going to present the questions – and with permission – present the answers I developed for those questions. These answers are quick-and-dirty, informal and focused on presenting concepts, rather than detailed how-tos on the concepts.

The intent is to bootstrap a new online service – market/product-specific promotion and marketing tips – which we’ll be debuting shortly on http://www.barnettmarcom.com as part of our new feature, “Deal of the Century.” Take a look, then let me know what you think.

Thanks

Ned

Question: How to market and promote a free-standing, self-service car wash

We just bought a new home and want to build a free-standing self-service car wash out there near us as it’s very undeveloped now and land prices are only going to be going up. There are homes from the $90’s to the $1mm+ price range within 10 miles of the area we’re looking at. I don’t know yet how we’d bill it. There’s just no other self-serve car wash around. As a business, it’s pretty low maintenance. We see it primarily as a source of passive income.

We’re planning on having 8 bays to wash and then more in the back to vacuum. However, I just don’t know what people in the area would want. If it’s soccer moms, I’m thinking they’d want to wash their cars as quickly as possible to get going again. There will be people with collectible cars in the area, I’m sure, and they will want to baby their cars. The site is near the lake, and I’m sure people will want a place to clean up their boats before taking them back home, too.

Make sense?

We plan on having cameras there to oversee things, too. If the facility gets vandalized, we’ll be able to see who did it, hopefully – and beyond that, we’ll have insurance. You can mitigate risk, but we know you can’t eliminate it entirely.

We’ve got a vendor lined up who stocks everything needed at a self-serve car wash. They can insert their machines into the car washes, restock them as needed, and help ensure customer satisfaction and cash flow. They’ve been doing this a long time and can tell us pretty much everything we need to know – except what our area will call for. They say it’s best to have it on a road at 40mph, but the street we’re putting it on is a major thoroughfare and it’s 60mph. I still think we’ll be ok since there’s absolutely nothing out there except a plant nursery, a restaurant and boat storage in the nearby vicinity.

What do we need to do to market and promote this operation, and to succeed?

Answers

1. Based on the information you’ve provided, I recommend that you position the car wash as upscale, at least to the extent that you have a couple of “detailing” bays that go beyond vacuuming. They could also have special high-pressure devices for cleaning tires and wheels (maybe coarse scrub brushes, too), as well as vacuums with special attachments for dusting dashboards, etc. Check out a few “detailing” shops to see what kinds of detailing equipment they have. I think you’ll have less trouble and do more business with an upscale image. This will require a bit more maintenance, I suppose, but I think you’d also be able to charge a bit more – and you’ll get more business.

2. Be sure that at least some of your bays are big enough to handle the largest of the new SUVs (the Ford Expedition is 19 feet long). Ensure that at least a couple of bays are high enough to accommodate pleasure boats on trailers (since you’re near a lake, boat access should be a major consideration). Also have at least one bay high enough to accommodate bus-high RVs.

3. Your advisors are right about a 40 mph road being an optimum location. At 60 mph, you’re going to need some prominent coming-and-going permanent billboards, located a good way off from your site, as well as a BIG sign that can be seen from a fair distance. Remember – 60 mph is a mile a minute (88 feet per second) and it takes the average car one second per 10 mph to stop. At that rate, you’ve got to give drivers sufficient time to register on your sign (3-5 seconds), plus time to react (1-2 seconds) and 7 seconds to stop. This is especially important since, as we both know, in a 60 mph zone drivers will be speeding along at 70 mph. Best to figure 10-15 seconds of advanced warning – that’s 900 to 1300 feet in round numbers. Unless your signs are as recognizable as McDonalds (and yours won’t be), they’ve got to be visible from at least 1,000 feet from your site. Better yet, erect a visible series of billboards or signs at 1,500 feet, 1,000 feet and 500 feet (and one even farther away if you can get the rights and afford the signs). Better to own the signs outright than to rent, I think, but your accountant should be consulted on that. Don’t forget to figure in the upkeep on the signs (undoing the damage caused by gang-banger graffiti artists, etc.). ALSO, if your road has got a median, you’ve just cut your spontaneous traffic down by half. The ideal would be 40 mph with a “suicide” center turn lane, but even without the ideal, you can use your signage to help “make it work.”

4. As you’re selecting your site, explore striking a deal to build your car wash next to a name-brand auto parts store (AutoZone, Checker, etc.) you’d help each other with business. For instance, do-it-yourself car mechanics/detailers would want to use your facility, while people washing their car might decide to buy new wiper blades, etc. It could be an important win-win marketing opportunity.

5. Be careful of those expensive security video cameras – they are very often stolen (small, portable and with some street value) – so be sure to put them in cages or something like that.

6. As far as vending, think upscale. Try some high-end products like the new premium Turtle Wax polishes – that might really work as cash-generating products, and you might even be able to get some co-op marketing deals going with the manufacturers/distributors. I would also suggest that all of your vending machines take ATMs, Debit Cards and Credit Cards (don’t you just hate having to lug $5 in quarters to the car wash?).

7. When you’re thinking of vending machines, don’t forget refreshments. And if you go “upscale,” be sure your refreshments include some upscale items – lattes or cappuccinos, Snapple, low-fat or low-carb snacks, etc.

8. Building a sense of community is vitally important – even for an unstaffed self-service car wash – and there are a number of ways of doing this.

9. Come up with crowd-drawing publicity stunts – such as “wash-offs” – where area residents could compete to see who can wash a car (well) fastest. That’s a “for instance,” but seek out ideas like that – ones that will draw crowds to participate, and to watch. Maybe these could also be held in conjunction with charities, which will add to your crowd-draw and overall positive brand image.

10. Work with your area community colleges and host some hands-on “how to detail your own car” classes – and generate good PR for them, as well as for your facility.

11. Work with local churches, school bands, Boy Scout and Girl Scout groups, etc. Arrange for them to stage fund-raising car washes (where the client feeds the kitty for the water and soap and things you usually charge for, then the client donates to the groups who do the actual cleaning work). Again, those kinds of fund-raisers are also great for generating local publicity, so be sure to tip off the local community newspapers.

12. Work out a deal with neighborhood kids to offer their services to customers – to do the washing/drying for them. Even if this isn’t a charity operation, I’d bet a lot of ambitious 14-to-16 year olds (who may be too young for work permits in your market) would like to work on a piece-work basis at the car wash. In all cases, be sure get parental permission, in advance. Issue the parentally qualified kids with photo IDs that tell your customers that these kids are for real. Then, using prominent signage, make sure that customers know these kids work on commission, and that the customer is under no obligation to use them. When I was that age, I caddied at a local country club on just such an arrangement – I was an “official” caddy with a photo ID, but I only got paid what the golfers chose to pay me. Following that example, set a standard rate so the kids and customers don’t get ripped off – and post that “suggested” rate prominently. This Tom Sawyer/Andy Hardy approach to giving your customers the option of washing themselves or hiring an ambitious kid can also be good PR – but first and foremost, make sure it’s legal and not a violation of child labor in your market before you proceed.

13. Set up a secure, open-but-shaded area where kids can watch Disney-like videos while mom and dad are washing the car. This area should be open (where parents can easily see in), but also covered. Of course, the TV monitor should be secured behind a locking screen. A playground might also be nice, but think of the liability. Better to just have a video baby sitter in a safe, open place (with warning signs around written – nicely – by your lawyers to reduce liability exposure).

14. Set aside a “picnic” area (doesn’t have to be large) where you can host chili cook-offs and other weekend events that will bring people out. Tie them in to charities or churches, but also do them on your own.

15. If you’ve got the land, look into playing host to turkey shoots in conjunction with charitable and civic groups such as the Lions Club. These events were very big in Nashville, and I used to win all kinds of turkeys – and side bets – by acting like a dumb business exec who didn’t quite know which end of the shotgun was which. More important, they drew huge crowds (hundreds per day) to the sites. Turkey shoots can only works if you’ve got the land, and a backstop wall, and no problems from local police officials. If you are able to stage these, be sure to hire off-duty, uniformed police officers to provide security and add to the public’s comfort level. This idea is a bit off-the-wall, but if you go forward, you’ll find that it’s a great traffic builder.

16. Contests and give-aways. Tie in with a local detailing shop to provide free detailing services to the winners of your various contests. Ideally, all prizes should tie in with your theme – from detailing to cans of high-end car wax, remind them (in your contests and promotions) about your business by tying in the prizes to the core business – the car wash.

17. Don’t forget that website! Even a self-serve business needs a website.

18. Set up a kiosk at the car wash where people can enter their e-mail addresses so you can send them no-cost announcements about special events and promotions. People WILL give you their email addresses (and be sure to include that in offer to register them online in every direct mail and door-hanger promotion – have them to go your website to register), and then you can market them for free.

19. Set up a photo board (also on your car wash’s website) of the best “before-and-after” photos of dirty-to-clean cars and trucks, as well as of car wash “events” you host. Use this to build a “community” feeling at the place. Set up a drop box for hard-copy photos, and a place on your website where customers can download digital photos.

20. Put up a locking bulletin board available to community groups (accessible only through you – no direct posts) to further build the sense of community. Be sure to echo those postings on your website.

21. When it comes to neighborhood promotion, remember this – your primary market is not a 10-mile radius. The typical retail primary service area for a free standing (non-mall) operation is a 3 mile radius. Three to five miles is second tier, and the ten-mile radius you cited is a third-tier market. Some of this depends on your roads, but it would be an optimistic mistake to presume a ten-mile radius for a self-serve car wash.

22. Within that 3-mile radius primary service area, you’ll want to do direct mail. Direct mail houses now have e-mail lists, too – so when you’re doing your carrier route-sort mailings, you can also buy e-mail lists for your 3-mile, 5-mile and 10-mile radius. BEST to let the direct mail service do the e-mailing, so you don’t get dinged for SPAMing people.

23. You’ll probably want a phone book ad, too, even though people won’t call. And you’ll want to do door-hanger ads (you can get youth groups to do that for you, and donate a fee to the group itself – and get a tax write-off to boot). Magnets are also good marketing tools (for the direct mail). However, you’ll do yourself a lot of good by tying in with local church, school band and youth groups (as noted above), as they’ll bring in supportive parents and friends and such.

24. REMEMBER – people won’t remember something like a self-serve car wash, so you’ll need to keep prompting them. And prompting them. And prompting them. All of the events and strategies suggested here are intended to give some form and substance to that prompting.

About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

As a political consultant and speechwriter, Barnett has worked for candidates and officials from both parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment and healthcare. As a historian, Barnett is widely published in military history magazines, and has appeared a number of times on the History Channel, discussing military technology.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.

© 2004 – Ned Barnett
Barnett Marketing Communications

Jump-Starting Loyalty and Affinity-Group Programs

2004-07-05T02:24:00.000-07:00

This article was originally published in The Wise Marketer, an excellent online marketing 'zine (with a free e-mail-feed subscription - available on application ...) published out of the UK - Wise Marketer can be found at: - my thanks to editors Peter and Robin Clark for inviting me to discuss loyalty programs, and what makes them work.

I've left the article intact-as-published, including the UK-variant on spelling ...

What kind of consumer buy-in can triple loyalty results?

By Ned Barnett
Published by The Wise Marketer in July 2004.

Successful corporate loyalty programmes try to create in the consumer a kind of self-generated identification with the company, eventually leading to loyalty. So why do some fail, and what can be done to help them succeed?

Successful corporate loyalty marketing programmes - from airlines' frequent flyer programmes, to retail loyalty points schemes, to credit card rewards programmes - are a kind of marketing Nirvana. Their intent is to create a kind of self-generated identification, by the consumer, with the sponsoring corporation. This identification, in turn, is supposed to lead to greater purchase loyalty, more frequent spontaneous referrals, and - ultimately - more business generated at less cost.

That's the goal. The reality is often far different. Frequent flyer and point programmes too readily become an added cost that generates little offsetting revenue - a defensive strategy to retain existing volume from current clients, rather than an offensive strategy that attracts new clients and increased business from existing clients. There are a few reasons for this but they tend to boil down to a combination of incentive and emotion.

Alumni successes
Some classic success stories include college/university alumni associations. Four years at a college or university 'imprints' a person, creating an emotional bond that will shape actions, often for their entire life. For decades, this loyalty was mostly manifest during university fund-raising drives (along with, on a small scale, the sale of university-branded products). However, the sale of branded products - from t-shirts to coffee mugs - faced stiff purely-commercial competition and seldom produced significant revenue for the alumni associations.

That formula for limited success changed with the advent of what's come to be called cause marketing, through which consumers can elect to make use of services (e.g. credit cards or long distance phone services) that provide their alumni associations (and later, their favoured charities or causes) with per-transaction revenue. Academic researchers have found that consumers are willing to pay slightly higher prices, and to acquire or use products and services preferentially, when they know that a portion of the proceeds will benefit their favoured cause.

Charities followed
Cause marketing was quickly adopted by charitable organisations, which had long paralleled alumni associations, capitalising on similar emotional ties. It was no surprise that the main donors to the cancer society were people who had experienced a cancer-related loss among their immediate family or circle of friends. So, once universities began experiencing real success with cause marketing affiliations, it was inevitable that charitable non-profit groups quickly adapted the concept to their own benefit - and savvy commercial organizations hopped on the same bandwagon.

American Express, more than a decade ago, proved to itself (and to other businesses after extensive coverage in the Harvard Business Review) that cause marketing could increase sales. Several years in a row, the company fielded Christmas-season promotions promising consumers that their designated charity (each consumer could choose between two or three) would benefit from each transaction. These promotions significantly increased the company's market share during the peak consumer-buying season of the year.

Using emotional ties
The lessons from these activities was simple: if you could follow the long-standing charity/alumni approach and capitalise on pre-existing emotional ties, you could generate additional commercial sales from consumers who would preferentially use your products or services in order to support their favoured causes. A 1996 Harvard study found that 54% of consumers would even pay over the going rate cost for a given retail product or service simply to benefit a chosen cause.

However, most commercial loyalty programmes have tried to succeed not with emotional ties but with often-vague promises of consumer self-interest, frequently manifested in miles or points that can be traded later for benefits or goods (which are sometimes also not very clearly defined). Looking back, many of these have failed to greatly benefit the sponsor organisation. The reason may be that those commercial loyalty programmes failed to create an emotional link. Without that, they failed to require consumers 'buy in' in some way. With no emotional ties, and with nothing of value at stake, too many consumers just don't care enough about the points to actively participate.

Differentiation needed
For example, when all airlines had adopted similar frequent flyer programmes, truly frequent travellers joined all of them, slowly accumulating reward miles that they might eventually be able to trade for extra trips. Even without the limits and conditions that made such miles seem less valuable, extra travel proved to be a remarkably de-motivating incentive for those business travellers who already seemed to live in airports, taxis, and hotels! What had been intended as a way of attracting new customers - and additional business from existing ones - had become an added marketing cost spent to defend existing market share.

Similarly, some points programmes from hotels, car rental firms, credit cards and other high-volume businesses proved equally de-motivating. Having joined casually without any personal motivation, customers were often only marginally aware that they were even members of these programmes, and felt no particular incentive to try to capitalise on them. There are two possible reasons for such failure: First, the consumers had no emotional ties to the corporations; The incentive that works so well for alumni associations and charitable or cause organizations was absent from these programmes. Second, the members had no commitment; They had no motivational buy-in, and therefore no particular reason to care about the programme. Without some believable and motivating incentives, consumers disengage from such loyalty programmes.

Consumer buy-in
Yet, handled properly, commercial loyalty programmes can be effective marketing tools. As already noted, cause marketing efforts that link corporations to favoured charitable causes or fraternal organisations have a long track-record of success. However, there is an even better approach - one that not only motivates consumers but becomes (at least partly) self-liquidating. This approach is a programme that requires consumers to invest in it, and offer some true commitment.

In working with a client which provided effective loyalty programmes for 'white tablecloth' restaurants throughout the USA, Barnett Marketing Communications had the opportunity to see first-hand the real impact of such consumer buy-in. The client provided a turn-key internet-managed loyalty programme which provided consumers with points that could later be redeemed for free meals and other benefits. In addition, members were offered discounts, birthday gift bottles of wine, special desserts and other interim incentives to motivate their return to the sponsoring chain of restaurants (in order to build up points). In implementing the programme, some restaurants charged an annual membership fee, while others opted to give away the programme. This gave me the perfect opportunity to test out my theory about commitment as an important measure of the success of points-based loyalty programmes.

Triple the results
By head-to-head comparison, I was able to determine that programmes which charged a joining fee of US$20 signed up roughly 33% of the new members each month as those which simply gave away the same membership programme. But those that charged for membership saw triple the rate of points redemption compared with those that offered the same programme for free. But while these two methods might appear to produce much the same result, they don't. Those that charged the US$20 fee had, in effect, a self-liquidating marketing programme: On the balance sheet they were already a long way ahead of those that had initially absorbed the costs of the programme themselves. In addition, with triple the number of members to service, the 'free programme' restaurants had three times the programme overhead costs. It turned out that charging a membership fee - asking members to commit themselves financially - was a double-win situation for those that charged the joining fee.

Some of our branded restaurant chain clients did programme comparisons, with some restaurants giving away the programme while others in the same chain charged the fee. Every one of those restaurant chains, after completing the comparison, converted to the fee-for-membership version of the programme.

Conclusion
So, if you have (or are planning) a membership-based loyalty programme, either tie the programme to a cause or organisation that capitalises on pre-existing emotional ties, or develop a programme that requires members to demonstrate some buy-in before they can benefit. Both approaches, based on the core principles of motivational psychology, are valid - and both work.

For more loyalty marketing feature articles:

BTW - all memberships/subscriptions are on application. At least in the UK, it's become fashionable to "subscribe" under pseudonyms such as "Michael Mouse", and the editors at The Wise Marketer therefore review each application to make sure the publication is going - for FREE - to a real marketer, and not (apparently) to a Mickey Marketeer.

Copyright © 2004 Barnett Marketing Communications

About the author...

Ned Barnett, the owner of Nevada-based Barnett Marketing Communications, has over thirty years of experience in high-stakes, crisis-management public relations, and is a well used information source for both print and broadcast journalists. As a political consultant and speechwriter, he has worked for candidates and officials from both US parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment, and healthcare.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He has earned PRSA's coveted 'Silver Anvil', two ADDY awards, and four consecutive MacEacherns. In 1978, he was the youngest (at the time) person ever to earn accreditation from PRSA and, in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association.

Barnett Marketing Communications can be found online at http://www.barnettmarcom.com.

Turning Ethics Into Profits

2004-07-03T15:01:00.000-07:00

A visionary colleague and good net-friend of long standing, Shel Horowitz, has scored a hat trick (that's "hockey" for a trifecta, to you dog-racing fans out there) with his new proposal to start a movement calling for high-level ethics in business.

One - he's positioned himself as a highly ethical businessman (something I've always known him to be) to a wide and growing audience

Two - he's starting a movement that, while Quixotic (tilting, as it is, at the windmill that is nothing less than the face of greed - a powerful motivator), still has a chance of actually making a positive difference in business, society and the lives of individuals

Three - come up with an interesting, personal example of "cause marketing" (something I've long championed myself) - but this time using the cause to market his own new book (rather than using the book to market the cause)

In all things, Shel has long been an innovator, and I salute him for his latest efforts.

You can learn more about this effort, you can sign a strongly-worded pro-ethics pledge, and you can buy Shel's book, at .

I thought about weighing in on ethics myself, but after some reflection, I decided to let Shel's efforts stand (for now, at least) on their own clear merits. So click on over and take a look - and if you agree that business ethics are too precious to be left to Fortune 500 CEOs, give some thought to signing on to Shel's crusade.

Ned

Eerie Historical Parallels - America's Presidential Elections of 1864 and 2004

2004-07-02T12:37:00.000-07:00

I've been reading a lot about the Civil War recently, prepping for a History Channel program on which I was a talking-head expert, as well as a behind-the-scenes "advisor," and that research has made it rather shockingly clear to me that there are some eerie parallels between the challenges (and the paths taken) by the Democratic party in 1864 and the Democratic party in 2004. This is not to imply that old saw, "those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it" (in part because it's in no way clear that the Democratic Party in 2004 is "doomed"), but it does make it clear that historical parallels can be remarkable, and fascinating.

In 1864, the Democratic Party started out by opposing President Lincoln - which was purely natural, since they were, at that time, the opposition party - but over the time between 1862 and 1864, this opposition to the President himself morphed into an opposition to the War to save the Union (and even into an opposition to Lincoln's efforts to abolish Slavery).

The extreme anti-war segment within the Democratic Party took control of the party, and of the party's 1864 Presidential convention. This group even went so far as to pass a platform that claimed the War to save the Union could not be won. This plank called for an immediate cease fire, and the speedy negotiation of a peace treaty with the Confederacy. Then, hoping to win the election in a country that was by no means as anti-war as was the Democratic Party itself, the convention's delegates nominated a former military man - General George McClellan, who had been head of the Union Army in late 1861 and early 1862. However, upon nomination, McClellan made it clear that he would NOT stop the war.

Now for the parallels. In 2002, most leading Democrats voted to support the President in a proposed invasion of Iraq, though they did not support President Bush himself, and found fault with the way he proceeded. However, since that time, a powerful faction within the Democratic Party has pushed the party from a position of opposing the President (which is only natural), to a position of also opposing the war and subsequent post-war reconstruction of Iraq. However, they have voted (as a party) to nominate former military officer John Kerry, who has repeated said that he would NOT stop America's post-war reconstruction actions in Iraq, even though he is (as McClellan did) eagerly accepting the support of anti-war Democrats.

To date, the parallels are almost eerie. However, at this juncture, we have no way of knowing if history will repeat itself or not - in spite of the parallels, there are no guarantees.

In 1864, it worked out that, just two days after the Democrat Party (in that party's convention) formally announced that the War to preserve the Union was hopeless and unwinnable, General William T. Sherman took Atlanta. A couple of weeks later, General Phil Sheridan won three battles (in the period of just one week) in the strategic Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. These two events, on top of Admiral David Farragut's recent success in capturing the fortresses guarding Mobile Bay (a battle in which he uttered the immortal "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead"), made it clear that the war not only could be won, but that it WAS being won.

Our future remains just that - the future, as yet unwritten. However, with the Iraqis enjoying now sovereignty, and with Saddam Hussein on the block for his crimes - before an Iraqi court - it is at least possible that history (which has repeated itself so remarkably so far), might entirely repeat itself.

But that decision won't be left up to history - it will be up to America's voters.

And that brings up one last eerie parallel. In 1864, the rest of the world was amazed that, even during a war, not only did the United States hold an election, but the soldiers who were fighting were allowed - even encouraged - to vote. In fact, official voter registration teams from states permitting absentee ballots were given priority access to men from their states - and, for states that had no provision for absentee ballots, whole regiments of soldiers from states were furloughed home to be able to vote. And, although some have expressed concern that terror attacks might disrupt (even force the government to postpone) our elections, I am confident that in this case, history will repeat itself. No matter what terrorists might try, America will vote - for either the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate - on November 2, 2004.

In that regard, we will be exactly as we were in 1864.

About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

As a political consultant and speechwriter, Barnett has worked for candidates and officials from both parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment and healthcare.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.

Updated Top Ten Tips For Promoting Books and Authors

2004-07-02T03:43:00.000-07:00

Last night an author I've been advising had an appearance on one of the cable news programs - and his appearance reminded me of a couple of key things that I'd neglected to include in my original "Top Ten Tips" for promoting books and authors; with that in mind, I've enhanced my original Top Ten list to include several additional - and very important - promotion concepts.

You'll find them embedded below, but here are a couple of hints:

1. If an author is scheduled to appear on any broadcast, get that word out widely, in advance, so interested parties can tune in. I am constantly amazed at the number of regular guests on cable news - authors who have a book to sell (and who also have an e-mailing list of fans at their finger-tips) who do NOT announce their upcoming appearance. The few who do - and my hat's off to all of them - include James Taranto at the WSJ's "Best of the Web," and The Nation magazine's editor, Katrina Vanden Heuvel. They never fail (as far as I know) to let their readers know, in advance, of their scheduled appearances.

2. If an author is scheduled to be interviewed in print format (or on a website), get that word out, too - and if the print interview will be echoed on the publication's website, put that in the announcement (not all of us read the Milwaukee Journal, but all of us can find their website).

3. If the author is interviewed, reviewed or cited in a major media outlet (of the Newsweek caliber - or the equivalent within the author's trade-media niche), put out a press release ... and put that release on the wire, and distribute it to all the talk show hosts/producers and other media decision-makers you can find. This actually works - for reasons beyond the scope of this column, media decision-makers often "run in packs" - one good review or prominent mention in a media leader seems to "validate" the author for other media, and a single break-through in coverage can lead to lots of other successful coverage.

In short, build success on success - do not be afraid to "pile on" and use all the coverage generated to create new waves of additional coverage. Then, like a surfer, ride that wave as far as it will take you.

In adding these three concepts to the Top Ten list, I had a chance to reflect on each of these ten concepts - and in every case, I've found ways to beef up those concepts, adding new dimensions to my initial marketing and promotion suggestions.

So, even if you've read this blog before (in it's earlier version), if you're interested in book/author promotion and marketing, I think you'll want to re-read this.

With that said, if you'd like to see how these ideas integrate into a solid Top Ten list of the best ways to promote a non-fiction book author (either in the mainstream or in a relatively narrow business market niche), please read on.

Because of my passion for promoting books and authors, I put together this Top-Ten list of solid PR- and marketing-related promotion ideas - suited for either a narrow trade/business/professional market niche, but easily adaptable to any book other non-fiction book - and for a good many works of fiction, too.

This advice is based on lots of experience. I first got involved in the publishing industry in '74, and began actively promoting books and authors in '82. Since then - in addition to my own nine published books (7 on PR/marketing/advertising) - I've worked for or with three different publishers (in the VP/Marketing role), I've owned a literary agency and I've promoted several dozen books and authors.

Without further ado, here are my "Barnett's Top Ten Tips for Successfully Promoting A Non-Fiction Book (or author)."

1. In cooperation with the book's publisher, contact the various appropriate print (or even broadcast or online) media outlets - the ones that tie in naturally to the book's topic - (including trade journals, if appropriate) and propose that they "brand" the book. For example, in my guise as literary agent, I sold a book to Simon & Schuster and arranged for Casino Magazine to "brand" it - the book, when published, was released as "Casino Magazine's Play Smart and Win" - and Casino Magazine not only loaned us their name (for free) but actually did a promotion to subscribers to help sales.

1a. If successful, work with this publication to ensure ample pre-publication publicity and promotion, as well as a big splash at the time the book is released.

1b. Also work with the publication to "serialize" part of the book before it's released, to whet the appetite of the publication's audience.

1c. Try to strike the same kinds of deals with the "branding" publication with regard to regular bylined columns (which can continue past the publication date, and give the author a firm position to promote and market this and future books, speaking engagements and other activities).

1d. If successful, be sure to coordinate this with the publisher's own in-house promotion/marketing department.

SUGGESTION: Clearing self-promotion activities involving the book with the publisher is always a good idea - even if they have no right-of-first-refusal on such promotion activities (and - though it's a surprise to many authors, many publishers do have such rights built into their book contracts).

It's also a good idea to always keep the publisher's own in-house promotion/publicity/marketing department in the loop on all planned (and especially all successful) self-promotion activities. Getting them on your bandwagon will generally help open additional doors for successful publicity.

2. Beyond the "branding" publication (#1, above), contact the various other appropriate print and web media (including appropriate trade journals) to propose having the author "serialize" parts of the book (i.e., adapt published chapters or parts of chapters into article format) in their magazines or on their websites.

2a. Depending on the author's publication contract and ownership of the copyright, permission for serialization (and perhaps even fee-splitting) must be cleared with the publisher ... and once approved, be sure to touch base with the publisher's own publicity/marketing department.

3. Contact those same targeted media to propose that the author do a regular bylined column for them, on the topic of the book. Generally, this is seen as a separate business venture, and no permission from the publisher is needed.

NOTE: Regarding 2 and 3 - if the publications which agree are non-competing, there is no good reason to limit the serialization (or the columns) to a single publication or website.

4. Create a website for the book. Then create a blog on the topic(s) covered in the book. Then create a subscription (free or paid, depending on your market and your marketing strategy) e-zine newsletter based on the book and it's topic(s) - and if this proves really successful, you can consider a print newsletter down the road. The goal here is to turn readers into subscribers - as well as vocal advocates for the book - and to ultimately create an affinity group based on the book, the blog and the newsletter. This will be useful in many ways, from boosting book sales to creating markets (and marketers) out of readers.

4a. Create a website press room that includes ALL the reviews (HINT: solicit some pre-publication reviews to aid in publicity), as well as a bio, a book summary, and all the other things a good publicity/PR rep would put into a press kit (the virtue of a website press room is that you don't want to have to pay to have it printed, but the material is still there for reviewers and other media).

4b. Put all the content of the website press room on a CD/ROM disk, and send it out with press releases, review copies, etc.

HINT: The concept of putting a website press room on a CD/ROM disk has played very well among media I've worked with at conventions and trade shows I've participated in over the past two years - you don't need a book to adapt this concept to your other PR activities.

5. If the book involves a business segment, market niche or issue of interest to some segment(s) of the business marketplace, contact the various trade (or special interest) associations (local, state, national) that cover the markets addressed directly or indirectly by the book. Then implement Top Ten Tips #1-3 (above) with as many of these associations as possible. Most targeted associations have member publications and websites (including e-zines) which constantly need new, fresh and appropriate copy of value to their members.

5a. Voice of Experience (I used to be an Association VP/PR-Marketing) In spite of the potential of these markets for all kinds of public relations, associations often receive far less input from writers/contributors/PR folks than do commercial publications. There are HUGE opportunities here.

NOTE: Associations are seldom competitive - if your book crosses topics, you can strike parallel deals with different associations in the same or similar markets without conflict.

5b. Arrange a deal whereby the association becomes a reseller for the book, promoting and selling it to their members - as a former Association VP/PR-Marketing, I know from experience that associations are always hungry for "unrelated income" to help them balance the books while keeping dues and member fees low. If you succeed here, work with the association's PR team to "get the word out" to both members and to the media that covers the association's market niche, as well as to other media on your list.

5c. Arrange for the author to put on a workshop/seminar for/with the association - either as a member service or a revenue-generator for the association. If targeted associations accept this approach, see (and implement) 5b. above, as well - then hold a book-signing at the session. Again, if you succeed here, work with the association's PR team to "get the word out" to both members and to the media that covers the association's market niche, as well as to other media on your own list.

5d. Arrange for the author to be a featured speaker at an association conference, trade show or convention (not a stand-alone workshop, but one of the keynote or working/break-out session presenters); and if so, again see and implement 5b. above. Once again, if you succeed here, work with the association's PR team to "get the word out" to both members and to the media that covers the association's market niche - and to other media that are on your own list.

6. Wherever the author goes (on business trips, vacations, etc.), arrange a B&N or Borders (or related) bookstore book signing - preferably in conjunction with a local business association (or a bunch of them - lawyers and accountants, for instance, aren't generally ashamed to be seen with each other). Chambers of Commerce might also be interested, especially if they can tie in book sales or a member service/revenue-generating program. If you succeed here, work with the book store's(and sponsoring organization's) PR teams to "get the word out" the media that covers the bookstore's and sponsoring organization's market niche - and to other media that are on your own list.

7. Arrange for speaking engagements at big national, regional and state conventions (the kinds that, unlike trade associations, pay their featured speakers - and that don't have speakers bidding for the opportunity to speak for free). Conventions like to have interesting speakers who are only tangentially related. I recall that a healthcare marketing/PR group (part of American Marketing Association) had, at a national convention about a dozen years ago, Joan Borysenko (of Harvard) speaking on her scientific research which validated the efficacy of prayer on hospital patients (we were mostly hospital marketers there). Her talk had nothing to do with PR or marketing, but it was fascinating, and much more relevant than the luncheon speaker they'd had the year before - G. Gordon Liddy! Anyway, the point is, there's a market here, and they pay speakers, and you can also do book signings. If you succeed here, work with the sponsoring organization's PR team to "get the word out" the media that covers the organization's market niche - and to other media that are on your own list. If the event is big enough, let the various radio talk show and cable news program producers know - the event might, in itself, justify them renewing their interest in the author or the book.

7a. Develop a speaker pitch kit - including a video/DVD (also on streaming video on your website) that shows the author as a speaker, plus book reviews and raves from group's s/he's spoken to, etc.

7b. Develop several programs that meet different needs of typical convention. For example, develop a "lunch program" talk on the issues dealt with in the book, but for the "laity" business folks who aren't focused on the "inside" of the trade book's topic. Also develop a "spouse program," using whatever stretch you can make to create a link between the book's topic and the audience's likely interests (insider "war stories" can often work). Be sure to develop a stock "keynoter" address, too.

7c. Pitch the author as an expert who can also talk to non-specialist business people (or other relevant audience group) - and aim broadly, as these target groups will have differing topics/themes and speaker needs.

7d. ALSO - position the author as an ideal "last minute" speaker who can fill in when scheduled speakers drop out (but define "last minute" - a day, a week, a month, etc.).

7e. When it comes to book signings/sales at these speaking engagements, the author have to handle the books without help from the sponsoring group. The author can obtain these books from the publisher, generally on consignment - assuming the author has got that kind of deal with the publisher), or the author can contract with a local bookstore to handle it. I was at a Sean Hannity speaking event last winter and he'd arranged for Waldenbooks to be there and sell books (which he then autographed). He would have made far more money if he'd sold these books himself, but I guess he didn't want the hassle of putting it all together (for his book promotion tour, he spoke to probably 200,000 people over ten weeks, and it could have been a huge hassle - besides, he was charging for the events and making a royalty on the book, so he didn't need to be greedy). The author can work it out that way, or you can take copies of the book on consignment (suggestion - have them drop-shipped to the convention site and arrange to have them delivered to the auditorium right before the event) and sell them yourself. You'll make more money that way, and most conventions will provide access to hourly local staff who can handle the credit card imprints, etc. (i.e., the local worker bees you'll need to pull this off). If you succeed here, work with the book store's PR team to "get the word out" the media that covers the bookstore's market niche - and to other media that are on your own list.

8. When sending out books to be reviewed, ALSO be sure to send out a ready-for-publication book review written (and bylined) by some name-brand expert - a Ph.D. or CPA or college professor or somebody like that who, on the face of it, is obviously an expert. In my status as "adjunct professor" at a couple of universities (in PR at one and Marketing at another), I've written such reviews for my clients or under contract - these reviews then went out with the books, and you might be surprised how often a trade journal or business publication editor will decide to publish the canned review, rather than actually read and review the book. Really, this approach works very well.

8a. Of course, with or without a review copy, you'll also want to have a press release done - and send it out along with a CD/ROM copy of the website press room.

8b. Regarding the press release, consider also "popularized" articles you can put out in a MAT service such as NAPS (http://www.napsnet.com/) or Metro Creative Graphics (http://www.metrocreativegraphics.com/). Those reach and are placed in 700 or so small/mid-market newspapers. From this placement, you'll generate lots of nice clips, and they really do support sales. The cost of this is more than a release sent out on PRNewswire or BusinessWire, but the service costs far less than an ad, and the end result looks like pure editorial (which enhances credibility). Of course, it has to be written in newspaper (not press release) style, but that makes it function even more credibly than a press release. I understand that there is a similar paid-placement news story service for radio (for radio news and radio talk shows), and I imagine that it can also help to generate awareness and stimulate business (though, in point of fact, I've not used one of these).

8c. Don't forget putting out at least one press release on BusinessWire or PRNewswire - shoot for broad distribution, with a 400-word-or-less announcement of the book pegged for the non-trade publications (those you hit directly, of course). This will appear (based on the quality of the release) in dozens-to-hundreds of news outlets, plus on 1,500-plus online databases that capture press releases (topically, or generally).

8d. If the book/author scores big with a prominent review, an interview on a major talk show - or any other kind of impressive, favorable coverage - send out follow-up press releases on these successes. This series of releases creates a "breadcrumbs" trail that members of the media can follow as they research the book and author online - giving them a greater sense of the legitimacy of the book and the author.

NOTE: That (8d) is a strategy that has much broader applications in public relations and marketing - even if you don't "do" books or authors, jot this one down!

8e. When you're thinking "press releases" don't forget the growing market in online web-zines and similar sites that include news/promotion feeds. These are an increasingly important PR market, though the word isn't always "out" there yet among book-promotion PR folks.

9. Once the core book is completed and in the publisher's hands, think about publishing an "executive summary" book - a condensed (think "Reader's Digest") version that boils the key points down for the busy CEO, CFO or self-employed person. Offer it WITH the full-text book in some kind of two-fer, as well as selling it stand-alone. You'll need to work this out with the publisher, but because of the profit potential, publishers are increasingly open to this kind of add-value additions to the core book.

9a. Along with the Executive Summary version, you can do an audio version in cassette and CD, for the busy exec stuck in traffic. Again, the publisher must be involved - but again, the publisher should be open to this added route to sales success. I believe this concept is what "Positioning" innovators Trout and Reis (doesn't that sound like a fancy dinner in New Orleans?) called "line extension" - and handled properly, this approach works well in building both sales and profits.

10. Position the author with all the cable news (business especially, but not exclusively) bookers/producers - and all of the business radio talk show producers, as well. Be sure to prepare appropriate pitch kits for producers.

10a. List with Radio/TV Interview Report (http://www.rtir.com/) and GuestFinder (http://www.guestfinder.com/Index.htm). They both have worked for me.

10b. Do the same (Top Ten Tip #10) for business publications outside the book's core niche, and especially general business publications - you never know when they'll need an expert on the subject of the book.

10c. As noted at the very beginning, every time you score with 10, 10a or 10b, be sure to put the word out in every way you can - let your author's "fans" know when and where to tune in, and let other talk show producers know that your author is "hot." Use great publicity to generate more great publicity.

Here's the bottom line: If you're going to promote or publicize (or market - the terms aren't entirely interchangeable, but there's a lot of cross-over) a book or author, these Top Ten strategies are a good place to start. And even if you're not in the book/author field, these strategies have a lot of bleed-over potential for the markets you do work with.

Obviously, if you need some support (this isn't a pitch, but I'd be a fool not to offer), I'd be glad to help.

About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

As a political consultant and speechwriter, Barnett has worked for candidates and officials from both parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment and healthcare.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.

Pro-Action and Public Relations - In Business and Politics

2004-06-29T03:20:00.000-07:00

When it comes to public relations, there are often two competing needs. In one, you want to "get the word out" - to the right audiences, generally as quickly and completely as possible. But for the other, you want to stop "the word" from getting out - generally because of a concern of negative backlash from the release of that news.

From a human perspective, that second need is understandable; but from a PR perspective, it's almost always a bad idea. In our open society - made far more open by the Internet (including Blogs such as this) - it's almost impossible to keep a secret. So instead of trying to keep "the word" from getting out, often the correct PR answer is to manage the way that this "word" gets out. To get it out pro-actively, rather than responding to the news once somebody else "leaks" it. In today's society, trying to stifle the news can only lead to others putting that word out, generally in a context that's less favorable than you'd use yourself.

Sometimes, timing can be an issue. For example, some years ago I was working with a county hospital that - in an extremely competitive labor market - was faced with the need to significantly raise wages. This would, in turn, lead to a rise in rates - something that was sure to play less than enthusiastically among the county's budget-conscious voters. There was a natural desire - among the hospital's executives - to wait until the last minute, hoping this situation would just "work out" - but as the hospital's PR consultant, I didn't think that was a sound long-term PR strategy.

So I proposed an alternative, and it worked.

In March, we announced - as a routine item at the monthly board meeting (covered by the press) - that if the competitive labor market situation didn't change, the hospital would be required to implement the wage increase the following October - six months in the future. The media noted this, but did not think such a long-term measure was particularly newsworthy.

Then, at the October board meeting, we announced that - as we'd said the previous March - stiff competition for key personnel (registered nurses, primarily) had forced the hospital to implement the previously proposed wage increase. The media remembered that we had, in fact, announced this increase six months previously, and decided that this was "old news," not really worth covering in depth.

So, instead of a problem - one that could have become a crisis in this politically contentious county - the necessary wage increase was implemented, in full public view, with only minimal public comment. In both March - and again in October - the wage increase was mentioned, but well down in the routine press reports of the monthly board meetings. In neither case, did the press highlight it, and in neither case did the public raise any objection. The legal and moral requirements of running an open operation at a publicly-owned institution were met, in full, but in a way that strongly limited the potential for public criticism of an action the board felt was fully justifiable.

This same principle has been followed many times - by my clients and by the clients of hundreds (perhaps even thousands) of other PR professionals who understand the value of taking the sting out of "breaking news" by acting pro-actively.

Which leads us to politics, today.

There is a ticking PR time bomb out there - right now - facing one of the two Presidential candidates. If I was consulting with that campaign, I'd advise a swift and pro-active de-fusing of this time bomb, following the pattern noted above.

Here's the background: A week or so ago (as I write this), following a request of the Tribune Media Company, a state judge in Los Angeles ordered the release of previously sealed divorce records of a man running for the US Senate from Illinois (who had been divorced about four years earlier, in California). That the judge was appointed by a Democrat and that the candidate was a Republican may or may not have had anything to do with the decision - it really doesn't matter. What does matter is that judge created a persuasive legal precedent - the public's right to know now "officially" trumps any private reason for a political candidate to keep his or her divorce records sealed.

This state judge's action could now have profound impact on Presidential candidate John Kerry, who's own 1988 divorce records have been similarly sealed. The ruling becomes more relevant because the Tribune Media Company also owns a media outlet in Boston, where the Kerry divorce was finalized. There is current public and media discussion about the potential of a similar media request (from the Trib or other media organizations) seeking to force the release of Senator Kerry's divorce records. Not surprisingly, spokespersons for the Kerry campaign are arguing against any such release, while Republicans are pointing out that this is a media issue (not something they are doing).

Adding to this context, the campaign has already been fighting to keep another generally private record just that - private. Specifically, the Senator's wife has declined to release her own (filed separately) IRS tax records - something that no other spouse of a Presidential-level candidate has ever successfully done. Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro's husband did try to keep his records private, back in 1984, but intense media and public pressure finally forced the release of these records - which showed nothing of any consequence.

As a general rule, I personally and strongly support the rights of free citizens to keep their personal business private. However, when a person offers for election - especially for the Presidency - that claim of privacy seldom stands for long. The public (or at least the media, acting for the public) demands full and open disclosure, and when candidates resist this pressure, they face a negative and repetitive news story that just won't go away.

That is why I would counsel Senator Kerry to pro-actively go public with those divorce records. Chances are there is nothing in the divorce records that would cause more than a ripple of interest - after all, the ex-Mrs. Kerry wrote a tell-all book back in 1996 - and that book didn't actually tell very much, beyond the fact that it's hard for someone suffering from clinical depression to be the wife of an ambitious politician.

That "revelation" is hardly a secret, or a surprise.

At the same time, I would suggest that the current Mrs. Kerry release her tax records - records that have certainly been carefully completed by some of the most astute CPAs in the country, and which therefore certainly contains nothing illegal - and chances are, nothing particularly embarrassing. After all, the current Mrs. Kerry has been the wife of two United States Senators (Senator Heinz died in a tragic plane crash quite a few years before she married Senator Kerry) - she's lived a very public life for more than two decades, and in that kind of fish-bowl life, it is extremely unlikely that she's done anything likely to be problematic. The public already knows she's a billionaire - which is no crime - and I frankly can't imagine anything else in those records that could cause much of a problem.

By going pro-active and releasing all this information, all at once, the Kerry campaign would take a pair of probably pointless stories that are nonetheless sure to nag them every week or two from now until the election - and convert them into a single story that would run a news cycle or two, then disappear forever. If they released this news now, before the upcoming Democratic Party Convention, the story would have already disappeared by that time - well before most undecided American voters begin to make their who-to-vote-for decision.

Just as in my client hospital's experience, something that could have become a serious problem would, instead, disappear from view.

Bottom line: making potentially controversial news stories "go away" - not by covering them up, but by releasing them at the right time and in the right context - is one of the most important (but one of the most mis-understood) roles of professional public relations.

About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

As a political consultant and speechwriter, Barnett has worked for candidates and officials from both parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment and healthcare.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.

Comdex RIP

2004-06-21T08:14:00.006-07:00

Comdex has been, for those in high-tech PR - and for those who just like an outrageously huge and ostentatious show - a kind of secular Mecca. It is startling to find out that it's now just a memory ... http://tinyurl.com/3xvd8

Yeah, the god-king of conventions has secumbed to competition - younger, more flexible, more focused shows that earned their own keep while generating more revenue. CES is one that, this year, nearly rivaled Comdex at it's best. Which is to say that I wish I'd worn roller-skates as I made my way through the vast halls, button-holing reporters and doing what I could to advance the business interests of my client (who was paying me such an attractive day-rate to work the press room for them).

Without Comdex, I'm not sure what Bill Gates will do in November to get his annual Christmas message out to his masses of adoring fans - but with $58 billion to help him, I'm sure he'll think of something.

The demise of Comdex speaks to the mortality of all "icons" - if Comdex can become obsolete, what else that we count on is likely to fade, too?

Oddly, the high-tech world is nearly as vibrant as it was during the "bubble" years of Silicon Valley - vibrant, and I think a lot healthier, since it's built on ROI, not HYPE. Don't get me wrong - Silicon Valley hype was very, very good to me ... for several years, it kept a roof over my head (and kept me commuting to San Jose every Monday morning). But it was a house built on sand. What we have now is a mansion being built on the granite of solid business principles.

I suspect that's what helped to do in Comdex - too much sand, not enough granite. Too much hype, not enough solid business follow-through. Like the dinosaurs of old, it may have grown just too big to live - or as Yogi Berra said (of a restaurant), "Nobody goes there anymore - it's too crowded." In fact, Comdex was too crowded. You could get lost in one corner of one of the immense convention halls, and while you'd see a lot of fascinating booths, you'd still miss "the show." Perhaps there's a critical mass, beyond which trade shows cannot grow - not if they want to survive and prosper.

In that, they may be like PR-driven news stories with too much hype, too much of the 15-minutes of fame - stories that burn brightly, and fast, but quickly disappear.

Segway, anyone?

Breaking News-Letter - June 23, 2004 - How Today’s News Will Impact Tomorrow’s Public Relations ™

2004-06-21T08:14:00.005-07:00

The full version of this (the version including the calendar - which won't format on the Blog) can be found at my website, http://www.barnettmarcom.com

June 23, 2004

Introduction to This Edition of Breaking News-Letter

“Breaking News-Letter” is intended to help PR professionals focus on those news-making events – at least the ones we can anticipate – which will prove so seductive to reporters, editors and producers that we will find it more difficult to pitch stories. This editorial fixation may be caused by news so compelling – as was 9/11 – that they can’t tear themselves away from CNN long enough to consider their own publications. But this editorial fixation may also occur because of relatively unimportant stories that nonetheless capture the media’s attention – the way the OJ trial did.

Either way, this is bad for those of us in PR, even if only because it’s harder than usual to gain our media contacts’ attention. We can’t always anticipate these events – “news” happens in spite of our best planning – but when we know something’s coming, it’s only prudent to plan ahead. And that’s the point of “Breaking News-Letter.”

There are several things we can do in times like this. One option is to find a tie-in to the news – though there are dangers to that, as reports from a colleagues (below) suggest. Another option is to undertake activities other than pitching during the time that the media is absorbed in the super-story or 800-pound-gorilla story.

When President Reagan died earlier this month, I sent all of my clients a note suggesting that most media pitching efforts would be less fruitful during his funeral week. I then mentioned that, for this reason, I was shifting my focus (on their behalf) to other PR-related activities (developing media lists, drafting case studies, etc.) that would put their resources to better use. I didn't actually stop my pitching activities entirely, but I did shift focus, and all of my clients seemed pleased to know I was pro-active – and considerate of their needs and resources.

That event, my actions and their positive outcome were all part of the springboard that led me to create this newsletter.

News Overview

Pop-Culture Non-News Issues: The role of non-event stories on the media (“celebrity” trials, hot “reality shows,” etc.) has become increasingly important. These events – Scott Peterson’s trial is a perfect example – have no true societal impact, yet the media obsesses over these pop-culture “issues” to the detriment of other news coverage. If we are pitching one of the media obsessing over these non-event stories, be very much aware that we’re competing with a media “pack mentality” that will tend to push even important stories off the news pages.

Cycles in Business and News: There are cycles in Business, and cycles in News. Sometimes these overlap (as in the annual pre-Christmas and post-Christmas business news coverage, which almost seems as if it could be repeated verbatim each year, without modification). Identifying Business cycles (in our, or our clients’ market niches) can be a big help to us in identifying news opportunities – and doing so far enough in advance to give us a leg up in pitching our own story leads.

However, what too often happens is that easily-anticipated cycles reoccur seemingly without warning – and when a down time comes, PR people quietly start to panic, either because there's no business coming in (for themselves or their clients) or there’s no news being generated. What we should do is be aware of the pattern of cycles, in business and in the media, and plan accordingly.

Factoids: One way to work around the down-times in press news cycles is to find ways to “create” news when nothing is happening. “Factoids” – statistical snippets of news that so many in the media find irresistible – can be generated easily, and at low cost, by asking pointed questions in online (i.e., http://www.zoomerang.com –like) surveys, then packaging these factoids for use by the media.

For example, in almost any industry, we could ask:

1. Will your business prospects improve if President Bush is re-elected?

2. Will your business prospects get worse if President Bush is re-elected?

3. Will your business prospects improve if Senator Kerry is elected?

4. Will your business prospects get worse if Senator Kerry is elected?

5. Will your business prospects improve regardless of who is elected?

6. Will your business prospects get worse regardless of who is elected?

The answers to these six questions will certainly generate sufficient statistical “facts” to be the basis of media coverage that will mention our employer’s or client’s name, and position them as an organization that has taken the pulse of it’s own marketplace and knows what’s coming.

That’s an image most businesses and trade associations would be eager to have.

However, we don’t have to go with politics to generate newsworthy factoids – and as long as the information we present seems newsworthy, we can place it everywhere from the front page of USA Today to the news pages of any media we care to target.

Tying our pitches to breaking news: This seems like a slam-dunk idea, and when an 800-pound gorilla seems to be blocking our access to news coverage, it is a strong temptation. However, there are risks involved. A Canadian-based colleague and friend, Duncan Matheson, offers the following cautionary tale:

Duncan Matheson wrote: Ned, I think most of us try to tie our releases into current news to give them more media appeal, but the trick is how to do it effectively. Often we hit, but we have one particular example were we fell dead flat.

Our client had developed an interactive storybook based on Anne of Green Gables, the story of a girl growing up in rural Prince Edward Island. The book is considered a timeless classic is particularly popular among the Japanese. Our client was trying to capitalize on the fact with a product for girls, which we planned to launch in connection with the opening of the Confederation Bridge (the longest bridge ever built, connecting Prince Edward Island to mainland Canada. We had a girl who had professionally played Anne in costume and we were really to get our share of all the international media, and especially media from Japan, who would be there.

However, we hadn’t anticipated the world’s largest traffic jam, thousands of cars ready to cross this amazing 13-mile bridge. “Anne” and I ended up hopelessly stuck, until I stopped a motorcycled cop – they were the only people who could move – and persuaded him to take Anne to the site, in full costume, on the back of his cop motorcycle.

But I digress. The point is, we got next to nil for coverage. The tie-ins that we thought the media might run with simply did not resonate, with anybody. In retrospect, the bridge was the only story. As a PR effort, we would have been much better off if we hadn't seen this big collection of media from all over the world as “fertile ground.” It was anything but.

Super-Story™ 2004

This week’s “Super-Story” seems to be Bill Clinton’s new book. It has monopolized talk shows, and – because of Mr. Clinton’s amazing popularity (and glimpses of that amazing temper, as seen on BBC) – the media doesn’t seem to be able to get enough of him and his story. If you’re pitching political, lifestyle or cultural news, and you’re not factoring the Clinton Impact, you’re making life harder for yourself than you need to.

This story will likely dominate the media (though it will start to fade in about 10 days) until the Democratic Party Convention – then it will either fade entirely or burst into new life. At this point, it looks like it could go either way – in Las Vegas and Atlantic City, all bets are off!

An 800-Pound Gorilla Story™

The Olympic Games in Athens, Greece – later this summer – will be a true 800-pound gorilla of an event. Sporting events and their results may be just part of the story. Much attention will focus on Athens itself, while other attention will look at how unprepared Greece is to host the games to which it gave birth. There are many business stories to be had about corporate sponsors (and maybe those companies that found ways to generate the benefits of sponsorship without the costs of investing in the games). There will be media debates about how the games are timed (or not timed) to play in US Prime Time. And all of that is without the terrorist angle. There will even be stories tying Athens (Greece) to Athens (Germany) – or at least there would be if I was pitching for the University of Georgia (which I helped get involved in the 1996 Atlanta games).

The more I hear about these games, the more convinced I become that this will be the sleeper story of the summer – with the media satiated by American Presidential politics (and their audiences growing bored by the longest campaign in history), they will turn on Athens, Greece and the 2004 Summer Olympic Games with a ravenous hunger.

This will be a great time to pitch Olympics-themed stories, but take heed of Duncan Matheson’s cautionary tale – make sure the stories really do relate. Or, the Olympics might be a good time for that summer vacation you’ve been trying to schedule.

Seasonal Gorilla Stories

There will be a few seasonal “gorillas” – stories mostly of short duration that nonetheless will capture the media’s attention for a bit. Absent any shocking terrorist stories (or an unexpected economic crash), look for the media to briefly fixate on things like:

 Back-to-school
 The Major League Baseball All Star Game – July 13
 Just before the election, the World Series – starting October 23
 The ever-earlier start of the National Football League season – August 9
 That increasingly moving-target event, the fall TV program premiere season

We can also expect the media to continue to obsess over major “trials” – Scott Petersen, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson – that have no real news value (in the sense of breaking legal ground) but which will dominate the media as they attempt to score another full-frontal OJ.

Making use of the Calendar:

You can use this calendar here (not shown in the blog edition of this Breaking News-Letter, but available online at http://www.barnettmarcom.com) as a template to plug in local “gorilla” and “super-story” items for your own use. These might include local mayoral elections, festivals, St. Patrick’s Day in Chicago, etc.). If you’d like a template, I’ll be glad to send you a copy of the calendar in WORD. Just drop me a line at ned@barnettmarcom.com and I’ll send you one as an attachment.

If you use this template, remember that, in WORD, you can color-code events to help make the calendar even more useful for you.

About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.

The Other Ned Enters the PR Blogging World

2004-06-21T08:14:00.003-07:00

That other Ned in PR - Ned Lundquist (creator of Job of the Week, the hugely entertaining and informative e-newsletter of PR jobs around the world) has now entered the blogging field. I admit it - his looks better than mine (though mine has more words - and better words ). Seriously, check out the Other Ned's new Blog:

http://pimpmyjob.blogdrive.com/

About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.

Recruiting Rape - How to Mis-Handle A Campus Crisis

2004-06-21T08:14:00.002-07:00

The University of Colorado Football Team Rape story - one of what I deem the most criminally-inept public relations on the part of the University of Colorado - has re-surfaced in the past week.

The University President (a woman, for gosh-darn sakes) testified under oath that she'd heard the foul four-letter insult (the notorious "c-word"), the one that had been hurled at the female place-kicker by a male team-mate - used as a term of endearment ...

She said that in public, where the press could here her - and Ib believe she said it under oath ... and, well, I just presume somebody's gone and shot all the PR people in the entire state of Colorado, because it's damned sure nobody there is listening to any professional PR advice.

I'd originally written what follows (pre-blog) when the story was first public two months ago. I was offended that the coach and I shared a name (though we're not kin), and I was offended by the incredibly inept way the school was handling this PR crisis (I used to be in college PR, and have some firm views on the right way to handle such crises).

Now that it's back in the news, I thought I'd update my original thoughts and put it out here ...

***

Rape is a crime. There’s nothing ambiguous about rape. And when it occurs on campus, against students, it’s a crime that cannot be tolerated, condoned or overlooked by University officials.

Handling a rape crisis is – or should be – equally unambiguous. But remarkably, that seldom seems to be the case, even for college administrator who clearly ought to know better.

It wasn’t all that long ago that American colleges were deemed to stand “in loco parentis” for their students. That’s a fancy Latin legal term which means, quite simply, that the college was supposed to assume parental-like responsibility for the students – bluntly, the students were treated as if they were the college’s children.

This all changed during the Vietnam war, when students facing the draft – and others who’d just come home from the war – won their emancipation from this tight, legally-mandated University oversight. However, the basic principle – that colleges have some responsibility for their students’ safety, as well as for the actions of students who are acting under the auspices of the college – remains.

Fast-forward a generation. A religiously inclined high school student – a candidate for a football scholarship – blew the whistle on the University of Colorado’s use of prostitutes, strip-club visits and wild parties as part of their student-athlete recruiting program. This report triggered an outpouring of other charges – including the charge of rape, made by woman students against student athletes on the University’s football team.

Suddenly, the University of Colorado had a huge, hydra-headed public relations crisis – and like so many other executives in the public and private sectors, the University’s leadership performed a remarkable deer-in-the-headlight performance. That performance did nothing to resolve their PR crisis – in fact, their actions compounded what was already a dismal situation. It got so bad that the University’s mis-handled rape crisis was even mocked in Doonesbury, made fun of on Leno and Letterman, and it made the University the subject of outrage, scrutiny and scorn.

As if this rape crisis wasn’t bad enough, the head football coach – an unfortunately-named gentleman (who is absolutely no relation to this author) – made an intemperate on-camera press statement about one of the alleged rape victims, who was a member of the football team at the time of her rape (or alleged rape, to satisfy any lawyers in the audience).

He said, in effect, that she was a lousy football player whose presence on the team was resented by the guys on the team – in part because of her poor performance as a player. Because she was resented – and by the way, because she was not very good at playing football – the coach made it seem that this alleged rape victim was therefore somehow “asking for it,” especially from the other football players. Those were not his exact words, but that was the impression the coach created with the media, and with the public.

This, of course, created a media firestorm. Attempting to stanch the flow of blood, the University took a series of remarkably lame actions, concluding with putting the coach on leave-with-full-pay while they “investigated” a situation that had been videotaped, and was therefore fairly obvious – even to college administrators. Then, two months later, they reinstated him without penalty - in fact, nobody in authority is being punished, sanctioned or even spoken to harshly - but the University promised to "do better" in the future. Or something like that.

Amazingly, the Administration seemed surprised that their “decisive” actions didn’t do anything to stop the bleeding. So the University President, a woman, came forward and swore that she'd heard one of the foul insults hurled at this woman student on the team (that notorious "c-word) used as a word of endearment. Uh, yeah. Right.

Clearly, the University either had no competent public relations counsel (which I can't believe) – or, more likely, the Administration just wasn’t listening to the PR advice they were getting.

I’m guessing that the college administrators did meet with their senior PR counsel, and that in doing so, they got a full measure of competent advice. I imagine that this meeting – which would have taken place shortly after the Administration first put that coach on paid administrative leave (and were therefore surprised when this “bold action” didn’t make the problem go away) – went something like this:

College President: “This is a PR nightmare, Jack. What can we do?”

Jack Flack: “First, tell me what happened. What really happened.”

College President: “It started when this religious fanatic …”

Jack Flack: “A religious fanatic? Who?”

College President: “This, uh, recruit – a high school student athlete. He objected to some – and I want to make this clear – strictly unofficial recruiting practices. Practices that we knew nothing about. Absolutely nothing.”

Jack Flack: “You knew nothing about University athletes taking high school students to strip clubs, wild parties, or setting them up with prostitutes? You didn’t hear a word about this? Not a hint? Not even a rumor? Nothing? Nada?”

College President: “Well, no, at least nothing official. Nothing – besides, Jack, doesn’t everybody do it? I mean, look. We never condoned any official violations – certainly nothing like this. Our Alumni strongly support the football program – they often help with our team’s recruiting efforts. And of course, the NCAA has its own rules governing recruiting …”

Jack Flack: “You didn’t want to know about what might be going on, did you?”

College President: “We have never had never any kind of recruiting problems here at the University, Jack. Nobody had every complained. Not once.”

Jack Flack: “I’m sure you’re correct. High school aged male student athletes seldom complain about being treated to strip shows or prostitutes or wild parties – you’re right about that. Until this one high school student athlete, who apparently has strong religious convictions, complained. To the media. Then what?”

College President: “Well, we made it clear that any unauthorized recruiting violations which might have occurred were strictly unofficial – and besides, those strip club parties were all off-campus. What goes on off campus isn’t really our responsibility, is it?”

Jack Flack: “OK, you told the media that whatever might have happened was unofficial and off campus. So what happened next?”

College President: “Once this story broke, some women – women students – came forward with unsubstantiated claims about having been raped. They claimed that they were sexually assaulted by football players, or by recruits, or by people supposedly related to our athletic program. Some of these claims were four or five years old.”

Jack Flack: “So then you were faced with claims of rapes perpetrated against students by student athletes. What did you do about that?”

College President: “Why, we condemned it, of course. Rape is wrong, and we said so.”

Jack Flack: “You came out four-square against rape? Very courageous.”

College President: “Why thank you, Jack – we certainly thought so, too. After that, everything should have been just fine …”

Jack Flack: “Just fine for who?”

College President: “Why, for the University, of course. And everything would have worked out, too, if that coach hadn’t shot his mouth off to the press.”

Jack Flack: “Oh? What did he say?”

College President: “He made some unflattering observations about one of the women students claiming to have been raped by one or more members of the football team – she’d been a place-kicker and part of the team at the time of the alleged rape. The coach said she had been a divisive influence on the team, and that she wasn’t a very good football player, either. Can you imagine? And he said all of that during an on-camera interview. Almost immediately, feminist groups from all over made it sound like he was claiming that the young woman had asked for it, or that she somehow deserved it.”

Jack Flack: “And that was a problem?”

College President: “Absolutely! By the time that young woman surfaced, we were all more than ready to just move on. But after what the coach said, the press just wouldn’t leave the story alone.”

Jack Flack: “That’s not good, is it? So what did you do to the coach?”

College President: “We immediately took decisive action, Jack. We put him on administrative leave – paid leave, of course - at least until this blows over. I mean, at least until we can get to the bottom of this painful and troubling situation.”

Jack Flack: “You put him on administrative leave, with full pay, is that correct?”

College President: “Of course. What else were we supposed to do, Jack?”

Jack Flack: “This man – this coach – is an executive employee of the University. As such, he was responsible for the actions of his student athletes. He permitted this young woman to be a place-kicker on his team …"

College President: But he didn’t recruit her – she’d been on the team when the coach came to the University."

Jack Flack: “So she wasn’t his responsibility?"

College President: “Well, no, but – well, she wasn’t one of his student athletes.”

Jack Flack: “I’m not sure other people would agree with you. The coach allowed her to remain on the team, and that made him responsible for her welfare, as well as for the welfare – and actions – of other team members, including those who have been accused of having raped her. As an official of the University, this coach also had a primary responsibility to set an example. His statement, which seems to condone rape of a student he clearly didn’t welcome on his team, is clearly not the example you want your officials to set. Is it?”

College President: “Well, when you put it like that, I guess it wasn’t the best possible example for a University official to set. Perhaps our actions didn’t make this as clear as we might want it to be. So what should we have done?”

Jack Flack: “You should have immediately suspended him – without pay – and said something like this to the press:

“As a University official, our coach had a positive responsibility to not only set an appropriate example, but to protect his student athletes – and high school student athlete recruits visiting our school – from criminal assault. He must also never, ever seem to condone criminal actions, especially those allegedly committed by or against student athletes or student recruits. This man’s press statement was clearly unacceptable, and as a result of his statement, we are putting him on unpaid leave until such time as we can legally terminate his services. As an employee of this University, the coach has certain rights, and we will scrupulously respect all of those rights. But this University has no place for senior employees who do not understand their responsibilities to their students, to the citizens of Colorado, and to the laws that govern all of us.”

College President: “Can we do that?”

Jack Flack: “Absolutely. You’ll want to make sure your attorney vets the actual termination process, but as long as you protect an employee’s rights, you have the right to terminate any employee for cause. And as long as criminal charges are alleged, you have the responsibility t
o ensure that all University employees – especially senior officials – respect the rights of victims, as well as those who are accused of crimes not yet proved. Your University tried hard to sweep these charges under the rug; when that became impossible, your corrective actions were – at least from a PR perspective – too little, too late.”

College President: “So what do we do now?”

Jack Flack: “You need to give more than lip service to the idea that University officials have a positive obligation to protect students and student recruits from criminal activity. You have to actively and aggressively cooperate with off-campus police and prosecutors. You need to protect the potential victims – while making sure that the accused also have their rights protected …”

College President: “That’s a tough balancing act.”

Jack Flack: “Yes it is – and it’s been made much tougher by your actions to date. But it is because of those very in-actions of yours that you now need to go the extra mile. Beyond what I’ve already outlined, you also need to reach out to student groups, the alumni association – and to those who advocate for the victims. Beyond that, you need to enact – and enforce – policies that will make sure this never happens again.”

College President: “And this will make the problem go away? This will rehabilitate our image?”

Jack Flack: “Eventually, but not immediately. If you do everything right – if you aggressively enforce real, meaningful standards – this problem will start to go away in about five years.”

College President: “Start to go away? Five years? Why so long?”

Jack Flack: “When the last freshman now on campus has graduated, the collective memory of your betrayal of your responsibility …”

College President: “Betrayal? Jack, isn’t that a bit harsh?”

Jack Flack: “No, and as long as you continue to think that it’s too harsh, you’re not going to turn this situation around. It will take five years for the last student now on campus to have graduated. And it will take five years for the last of today’s high school freshman to have already selected the college they’re going to – before this problem will really begin to fade. Imagine that you’re the parent of a high school athlete – would you want your son to come to the University to be recruited?"

College President: “No – not when you put it that way."

Jack Flack: “Well picture this. You’re the parent of a high school-aged daughter. Would you want her to come to the University? To an institution who thinks that rape is something to be swept under the rug?”

College President: “No, I don’t guess so. But Jack – isn’t there some other way? Some faster way to turn this around? What you’re prescribing seems like mighty harsh medicine. What would happen if we just let this die down?”

Jack Flack: “Do you remember the Navy’s Tailhook scandal?”

College President: “Of course. Everybody remembers the Tailhook scandal. But Jack, that was years ago …"

Jack Flack: “Tailhook was a dozen years ago. That was also an unofficial activity. It also took place “off-campus.” And it didn’t even involve students, or people presumably responsible for protecting children under their care. They were all consenting adults, attending an adult-only party at a casino hotel in Las Vegas. Sin City, USA. Yet everybody still remembers the Tailhook scandal. The Navy never effectively faced that crisis, and a dozen years later the stain of that scandal still hasn’t gone away. Do you want that to happen to the University? Or do you want to take your medicine, now, and let the healing start?”

***

Initially, I wrote: "Only time will tell if the University’s leaders were listening when they got this kind of sage, savvy PR advice. In this case, while the right words are critical – and the wrong words, as the coach found out, can be devastating – actions still speak much louder than words."

What's clear, now, is that nobody in power was listening - least of all the University President. Her actions - her words - have made a bad problem much worse. It will be interesting to see if the University's alumni will support her, or the football program. I understand the coach had a winning record recently - but it remains to be seen if he'll be able to recruit quality student athletes ... or if parents will even consider letting their sons and daughters attend the University of Colorado.

There are serious PR lessons to be learned here - beyond not shooting your mouth off - about what a University or college (or similar organization) should do when faced with a crime-related crisis (especially if that crime is rape).

When a crime-related crisis like this comes up, sage PR advice can be summarized in a few simple rules:

1. If a crime or scandal is alleged, take it as seriously as if the victim was your son or daughter, wife or husband, father or mother.

2. Accept responsibility, and take meaningful actions to make amends

3. Move immediately to protect the rights of the victims – and of those who are alleged to have been the criminals – but do nothing that smacks of cover-up or special treatment for athletes or other prominent individuals

4. Ensure that all officials either speak from an approved script, or remain silent

5. Take decisive action at once – don’t settle for lip service or symbolic gestures – make real changes

6. Expect the problem to get worse before it gets better, and expect the reverberations to be heard for years

7. Get professional public relations crisis counsel – and listen to the experts

This list of suggested actions isn’t intended to be a cookbook – it’s not even a road-map – but these broad guidelines will help with a college executive's initial actions and statements - at least until they can bring in effective professional support.

Some crimes linger in the memory, and only really effective public relations can help erase that memory, and replace it with something more positive.

About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.

Breaking News-Letter - June 15, 2004

2004-06-21T08:14:00.001-07:00

This is the first in a series of newsletters on ways that world-shaking events covered by the news media can impact the way that public relations practitioners can effectively pitch the media.

Included in this newsletter is a calendar that, however, won't show up on a blog like this. To see the full calendar, go to http://www.barnettmarcom.com - and while you're there, take a few moments to check out the website ...

Thanks.

And now to Barnett Marketing Communication’s Breaking News-Letter©

How Today’s News Will Impact Tomorrow’s Public Relations©

June 15, 2004

Introduction

What’s breaking?

News. Lots of news. And that news is going to impact how we practice public relations in the days, weeks and months to come. Sometimes the news will have just a small impact on PR; sometimes the news will have a profound impact on what we’re able to do.

The death and funeral of President Ronald Reagan demonstrated the power of breaking-news events to disrupt the normal flow of both press coverage and the activity of public relations professionals. Reporters and editors are human, and are as susceptible as the rest of us to distractions caused by fascinating and compelling news stories. So for a full week, from Saturday through Friday, the business of public relations slowed dramatically.

This ability of news stories to slow – or stop entirely – PR efforts really hit home to me in the aftermath of the terrorist strike on September 11, 2001. For weeks after we all witnessed the destruction of the Twin Towers and the deaths of 3,000 Americans, reporters and editors were as shell-shocked as the rest of us – and at least until the first week in October, efforts to pitch business-as-usual news stories largely fell on deaf ears. This shocking event, and its unanticipated PR backlash, began to crystallize in me an awareness of the impact of both unexpected and “scheduled” news stories. As a result, I began to track, measure and evaluate the impact of these on the practice of public relations.

The result of this is “Breaking News-Letter©.”

This news-letter (pardon the pun) is intended to help those of us in public relations to plan ahead. In each issue, we’ll consider upcoming scheduled (and anticipated breaking-news) stories that have the potential to directly or indirectly impact our ability to place our news.

Some of these big-foot stories will impact all of the media, but most of them will only selectively limit our ability to reach reporters, editors, producers and webmasters. But when the news intervenes, all we can do is go with the flow. These are, after all, the people who are the defacto gateways between public relations practitioners and the public at large, and when something in news or society catches and holds their attention, we either climb on that particular bandwagon or wait patiently for the parade to pass.

News Overview

Every season has it’s “super-stories©,” over-arching 800-pound gorilla society-wide events that transcend their own niches and effect all of us – as well as the media that serves us. The balance of this year will have more than its fair share of super-stories. As we face the balance of 2004, it would do well for all of us in PR to consider how these 800-pound gorillas will impact, shape or limit our abilities to pitch stories to the media, and to generate positive coverage for our clients or employers.

We're now facing, in addition to the annual summer family-vacation season, two Presidential conventions, the 9/11 anniversary and the Presidential election. Then we’ll be facing the annual holiday season, but this one particularly important because of the outcome of the election and the potentially shaky nature of the economic recovery. All of these super-stories will tend to slow down PR’s ability to effectively pitch – our news contacts will be on vacation, or distracted, or even involved in the super-stories themselves.

Although it’s been three years now, the 9/11 anniversary will still have an impact, one that will be enhanced by the focus brought on that tragedy’s remembrance by the Republican National Convention, held in New York the week before the anniversary. One “hidden” reason why this date will have an impact – many of the nation’s media offices are located in Manhattan, some just blocks away from the Twin Towers. On 9/11, I was in a hotel room in the SF Bay area, getting regularly-updated bulletins from the editor of a niche-market business journal, based on what he could see out of his window. Even though not all media are in New York, and not all businesses will be directly effected by 9/11, count on many of them to look for ways to tie in this national disaster to their breaking-news coverage.

Presidential election years always capture a greater portion of the media’s attention, all the more so when the elections are close. This year will see an election that most pundits predict will be extremely close, and signs are already clear that the election will be hotly contested. New election-financing laws, the scheduling of the political conventions, the ongoing war in Iraq (and the related war on terrorism) – and the tightness of the 2000 election – will all tend to focus media attention on this election.

This media attention will spill over into the business media – touching issues of trade, interest rates, taxes and increased governmental regulations – as well as into the entertainment and popular culture media. Let’s take a quick look at a few of them.

Hollywood is lined up on one side; defenders of the cultural status quo are arrayed on the other side; and both seem to see this election as a near-apocalyptic referendum on truth, justice and their vision of The American Way. There is not a business issue or market niche that won’t be touched by the election, and this will both shape coverage over the next four months, but will directly impact PR’s ability to pitch stories. Just getting reporters to care about your “new” v.6.5 release of software, or the upgraded, redesigned widget will be a real challenge.

All of the negative impact of these 800-pound gorillas will change if, in some way, you can tie your news to one of the season’s dominant super-stories. For example, many almost-unrelated businesses – especially those with corporate histories that date back to the 1940s – made PR capital out of the long-planned dedication of the World War II Memorial. In the war, wood-workers made assault gliders or landing craft and sewing-machine manufactures produced machine guns – and all of them had the chance to reflect on that faded glory with self-congratulatory press releases and PR outreaches that found fertile ground in the media.

Super-Story© 2004

The super-story for 2004 has got to be the US Presidential Election. No election has begun so early – the Democrats front-loaded their primaries, and the Republican President had no in-party challenger – which means that the final candidates were both selected by March. That’s a full four months earlier than usual. This could lead to voter burn-out, it seems certain that as the polls show candidates locked in a statistical dead-heat, the campaigns will get ever nastier … and ever more newsworthy. Which means that in the next four months, the media – not just the political media, but almost all of the sub-sets of the media – will become more caught up in the election battle.

There will be at least four media “high points” in this election cycle, time-centered events that will suck all the oxygen out of any media that covers national politics:

 The Democratic Convention in mid-July

 The Republican Convention in late August
 The three scheduled debates in late September and early October
 The final two-week “sprint” to the ballot box

If your pitches are targeting reporters, editors or producers who follow the election as a major news story, these four time-periods might be good times to take a break. Update your CRM databases, clear out your e-mail in box, clock out early to catch a round of golf with the boss, or just kick back and relax. However, if your media targets are less professionally focused on politics, you should still be aware that their interest may be distracted during this time period.

PR Tip: Find ways of tying your news pitches into the election – directly or indirectly. Be very creative – remember that lots of your PR colleagues will be trying the same thing, too.

An 800-Pound Gorilla Story

The commemoration of the 9/11 Terror Attack will again capture the media’s attention for the week leading up to that date. This will have some impact on your pitching, but won’t skew coverage in the way it did in 2002. However, if terrorists try to revisit their “success” of three years ago – something that seems to be keeping the FBI burning the midnight oil – then expect this story to become much bigger, even if the terrorists fail.

In fact, the potential for terror attacks later this year may prove to be the sleeper “800-pound Gorilla” story. This potential will be a major focus of coverage of the Democratic and Republican National Conventions; the Olympics in Athens, Greece; the three Presidential-level debates, and the election itself. Then, if no terrorists strike during these events, we can expect to see a replay of concern over terrorist strikes during the holidays: Thanksgiving, Christmas and the New Year. Whenever this highly-focused attention comes up, opportunities will be created for those of us whose clients in some way touch security – or the economic or social impact of terror attacks – but the rest of us can use the time to catch up on our filing.

Seasonal Gorilla

This year, the “seasonal” story – how well products are selling, how many jobs are being created, things like that – will have a rebound in interest. This will reflect, first, a return to “normalcy” after the endless coverage of the Presidential campaign. But intensive coverage will also be focused here as the media – in all segments – tries to read economic tea-leaves for 2005. This year has been a year of recovery, but polls show that people don’t really believe that the economy is bouncing back; in those kinds of “official” (i.e., media-determined) economic insecurity, count on an increased level of media coverage.

Offshoots of this intense media focus will be the new perennial stories on whether or not e-commerce has come of age, as well as a careful tracking of those dinosaur industries (department stores, catalog operations, other “traditional” sources of Christmas spending). There will be lots of opportunities for savvy PR folks to cash in on this predictable media obsession – but for those of us with no tie-ins to the holiday season, it will be an exceptionally quiet period, one in which pitching efforts will bear few fruits.

Breaking News-Letter – How Today’s News Will Impact Tomorrow’s Public Relations
Editor, Ned Barnett; Research Director, Karol Ann Barnett
© 2004, Ned Barnett, Barnett Marketing Communications
http://www.barnettmarcom.com – 702-696-1200

About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.

Martha, My Dear … How Disastrous PR Paved Martha’s Road to Hell

2004-06-21T08:14:00.000-07:00

By Ned Barnett, APR
Fellow, ASHMPR

She's back in the news - a Secret Service agent lied under oath in her trial, and she might now get a new chance for public humiliation ... and it could have been so easily avoided.

Martha Stewart is living proof that incredible wealth, undoubted talent and real power mean exactly nothing – at least, nothing without effective public relations. She’s now facing jail time.

Even though she's not in jail - yet - she’s already been to see her parole officer. Viacom dropped her program from CBS and UPN. Her corporate board voted her right out of her own company.

And all of this could have been avoided – if she’d listened to (and acted on) solid public relations counsel.

I say “listen” because Martha is reported to have retained no less than four different high-powered PR agencies (leading to some interesting behind-closed-doors “negotiations” about what she should say to the press). Assuming that her high-priced PR counselors were competent, they had to have been giving her sound advice – wise counsel that she refused to act on.

There is, quite literally, no other rational conclusion.

But what would a competent, high-powered professional public relations counsel have advised Martha Stewart?

Let’s review the facts:

1. Martha Stewart got some information about ImClone stock. Was it “Insider” information, or just good advice from her broker? The prosecutor and the courts ducked this issue, so nobody really knows for sure. However, from a PR perspective, it really doesn’t matter. The appearance of impropriety was there, right from the beginning, and that’s what did in Martha Stewart.

2. Martha Stewart apparently acted on that information about ImClone, selling off 4,000 shares and saving the half-billionaire a whopping $50,000. Put into perspective, this savings represented .0001 of her net worth – one one-hundredth of one percent of the wealth she owned and controlled.

3. As soon as her actions became public, Martha Stewart began to take flak on her actions, and began to act the way guilty people do. First, she deleted a message (then realizing that this was destroying evidence, she restored the message); then a few days later, she apparently lied to the FBI about this message (among much else).

4. Then there’s the arrogance thing …

Let’s stop right there.

As soon as Martha Stewart realized that she had a PR problem – as soon as the media began to apply “heat” to her for what already appeared to be insider trading – she should have sought out her high-priced public relations counsel, Jack Flack, and asked for his help.

The conversation might have gone something like this:

Martha Stewart: “Jack, the media is coming down on me – hard – about this ImClone thing. What should I do?”

Jack Flack: “Before I can help you, I need you to tell me what happened. What really happened.”

Martha Stewart: “I got this call on the plane. My broker said ImClone was about to tank. All the big boys were bailing. So I sold. What else was I supposed to do?”

Jack Flack: “There’s got to be more, Martha. Tell me the rest of it.”

Martha Stewart: “Well, when I got back to my office, I found records of a phone message that – if you didn’t understand it in context – would look bad. So I had my assistant delete it. Then I realized that deleting the message might look like an admission of guilt, so I had the guys in IT jump through a few flaming hoops and get it back. No harm, no foul, right? That’s the whole story, Jack. So what do I do?”

Jack Flack: “It’s simple, Martha. We’re going to go public. You’re going to admit that you made a mistake – that you reacted on the spur of the moment, without thinking. Then, realizing how it bad that stock sell-off would look, you panicked – just for a moment – and destroyed evidence. But as soon as you calmed down, you knew that was wrong, so you restored the message.”

Martha Stewart: “You want me to admit a mistake? You want me to say that I panicked? Jack, do you know who I am?”

Jack Flack: “Yes, I know who you are, Martha, and that’s why you need to admit this. But you need to go farther. You need to say that, because you know how this all looks, you want to apologize. To America. To the stockholders of ImClone. To all the stockholders in Martha Stewart Living. To your fans, those who watch your show, and those who buy your product.”

Martha Stewart: “Apologize? But I – Jack, I did nothing wrong. At least not technically. Not if you look at it the right way.”

Jack Flack: “You’ll do more than apologize, Martha. You are going to offer – to everyone who bought any of your ImClone shares, to anyone and everyone who bought ImClone right after you issued the sell order – you’re going to offer to make them whole. You’re going to offer to buy their stocks back, at full market value – plus 10% for the trouble they went through. Ten percent – maybe fifteen.”

Martha Stewart: “Buy the stock back? Are you crazy? Why, I’d lose fifteen, maybe twenty dollars a share. Jack, I sold 4,000 shares – if I follow your advice, I could be out $50,000 – maybe even $80,000! Are you out of your mind?”

Jack Flack: “I’m not out of my mind, Martha, and that’s exactly what you’re going to do. You’re worth a half-billion dollars, maybe more. And to salvage your image, your influence and your marketability, you’re going to be out maybe one one-hundredth of your net worth. Isn’t your reputation worth that?”

Martha Stewart: “When you put it that way – I’ve already spent more than that on attorneys, Jack …”

Jack Flack: “And you’ll spend a lot more than that on lawyers if you’re not careful.”

Martha Stewart: “Well, maybe.”

Jack Flack: “One more thing, Martha.”

Martha Stewart: “Oh, good god, Jack, what else?”

Jack Flack: “You’re going to admit, publicly, that what you did was probably wrong. Maybe even illegal. And you’re going to say that you want to make amends. That you want to meet with the SEC and in that meeting you'll offer to pay any fines, or to do whatever else they ask, to make this right. You'll offer to turn state’s evidence if they need you to.”

Martha Stewart: “Why on god’s earth would I want to do that, Jack?”

Jack Flack: “Because if you admit you were wrong BEFORE the SEC can formally charge you with anything – or before they can even turn the FBI loose to begin to investigate you – they’ve go no where else to go. Instead of being a suspect, you’ll become an icon of corporate responsibility. A poster girl for doing the right thing. You’ll be a hero, and people will love you.”

Martha Stewart: “Love me? For admitting I was wrong? But I’m Martha Stewart. I’m never wrong … Jack, there must be some other way.”

Jack Flack: “There is, Martha. You can stonewall. You can proclaim your innocence. You can lie to the prosecutors, and you can tell your investors that this is all a witch hunt. You can spend $400,000 a week on attorneys – probably for years. And when it’s all done, you’ll face 12 people who’ve never made – or lost – $50,000 on a stock deal in their lives. You can flash your wealth and power in their faces. And when it’s all over with, you can wonder what the hell happened. When they find you guilty of being arrogant, then find some kind of crime to attach to that verdict, you’ll wonder if your pride is worth the price you’ve had to pay.”

Martha Stewart: “What? Nobody would do that to me!”

Jack Flack: “Martha, they’d love to do exactly that. To you. They’ll be sticking it to a corporate fat cat – a Ken Lay in a designer dress. They’ll be on Larry King and they’ll all write “as told to” books about being on the Martha Stewart Jury. They’ll be heroes, triumphant victors over the last of the Robber Barons. And when they’re done, you’ll have lost everything you have – your wealth, your company – your freedom. And like any other convicted felon, Martha, you’ll go to jail.”

Martha Stewart: “Jack, I can’t go to jail. For god’s sake, I’m Martha Stewart. I’m an icon, a diva, a goddess. They – those people – can’t do that to me.”

Jack Flack: “Can’t do that to you? They can – and they will – and they’ll love every minute of it. There is only one thing more powerful in the human psyche than the desire to bring low those who would put themselves above others. To bring down people just like you.”

Martha Stewart: “Two things? What’s the other.”

Jack Flack: “Forgiveness. The desire to embrace the prodigal, to forgive all – especially the mighty who have fallen. But forgiveness only goes to those who sincerely apologize. Martha, listen to me. If you want to keep your wealth, your power and your company – if you want to keep your butt out of jail – you’ll apologize. Sincerely. You’ll make good the losses of everybody who even might have bought one of your shares of ImClone. You’ll beg for the opportunity to pay fines and turn state’s evidence and wipe the slate clean. And in the end, you’ll be more popular, more powerful and wealthier than ever before. And you’ll be loved, Martha, loved and forgiven by the very people who’d otherwise be so eager to put you in jail.”

Martha Stewart: “You’re sure about this, Jack?”

Jack Flack: “Absolutely.”

Martha Stewart: (sigh). “OK, where do I sign. Let’s get this over with.”

That’s all she needed to do. Admit that, like everybody else, she reacted without thinking. Faced with a big stock loss, she instinctively sold her shares without considering the consequences – or the law. And, when the issue went public, she got scared – she panicked for just a minute – then she reacted in fear. Only after she’d done that did she realize what she’d done. Finally recognizing what she’d done, a repentant Martha Stewart set out to make a clean breast of things. To set things right.

If she’d done that, she would never have been charged, tried and convicted. She would never have lost her company or most of her once-vast wealth. She would never be facing prison time, her reputation forever in tatters.

That’s how PR could have saved Martha Stewart.

***

Of course, Martha Stewart made other PR mistakes. Given that she was going to trial where she’d face a jury of a dozen citizens who were as unfamiliar with her lifestyle as she was with theirs, she clearly did not listen to competent PR counsel. While wearing Martha Stewart-brand K-Mart clothes was not necessary, she should have worn off-the-rack from Lord & Taylor or Saks – and she should have carried a bag any woman on the jury could imagine buying for herself. Instead of bringing Rosie O’Donnell and Bill Cosby – two people who made it clear to the jury that Martha wasn’t like “other people” – she should have brought her hourly employees to support her, to show that she was in touch with everyday Americans.

Those were all PR gaffes – but they were tactical, not strategic. One of them might have been decisive – we’ll never really know. But an apology, delivered within the first week or two after the news broke, could have stopped all of the legal problems – stopped them dead in their tracks. An honest (even if in her heart she knew it was insincere) effort to make whole those who lost money by buying her stock would have made her look like a corporate hero, instead of a female Ken Lay. And a willingness to pay legal restitution and turn state’s evidence – that’s all it would have taken to make all these criminal charges go away, two years ago, and at minimal cost.

That’s what any skilled and honest PR counsel would have advised Martha Stewart. She had very high-priced PR counsel, so I have to believe that she heard something like this.

In most crises, what you do at first has far more impact than what comes later. And in any crisis – if you’re guilty (or at least not innocent) – a swift and complete apology, coupled with an offer to “make good” on any damage done, that is often all that’s needed to make the crisis go away.

That’s not only good PR, its good common sense. And as Martha Stewart proved, common sense – like clients willing to follow savvy Public Relations counsel that runs against the grain of their own human nature – is
that most uncommon of virtues.

About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.