High-Tech PR Blog >> Beyond the Hype

Playing it out in the Press

Many times over the years our clients have come to us with situations in which they feel they need to sue a competitor over patent or copyright infringement or some other business or ethical violation and they often ask whether we should issue a public statement about this.  They feel that right is on their side so they want the court of public opinion to support them via the media.  We usually advise against this, as it is fraught with danger even for nonpublic companies.  And once a situation is public it can spiral out of control very quickly.

Witness the Salt Lake Tribune's piece this week noting that the public has grown weary of the public mud-slinging between Utah Gov. Huntsman and Crandall Canyon mine owner Robert Murray. 

"Most people's focus has been on moving beyond the verbal exchanges and trying to find solutions and making sure our mines are safe," McIff said.

Price resident Ron Jewkes said he's disgusted. "Murray and the governor should have both backed off," Jewkes said. "Common sense. There's not a lot of it being demonstrated right now."

It is unlikely that either party is helping their own cause or reputation by playing this out in the press.  And often that has been the reasoning that has stopped even the most passionate of our CEO clients from ignoring our counsel and saying "just do it" about going public with a competitive suit or tiff.  The potential downside is almost always worse than any possible upside.

Will Social Media kill the Dept. of PR Prevention?

So what is the Dept. of PR Prevention anyway?  I coined the term years ago, borrowing liberally from Monty Python's wonderful Ministry of Silly Walks skit. 

You know you are dealing with the Dept. of PR Prevention where any of the following are occurring: 

1. A "palace guard" approach to involving top executives in the PR program;
2. A paranoid view of media
3. A belief that it is better to do nothing and get no coverage than to have something wrong appear in print
4. A process of triple-thick screens on all media requests for interviews that kill more opportunities than they fulfill

We don't see this type of environment as much anymore, which is a great relief.  It is probably due to the fact that PR itself is changing so much that even PR Prevention Departments are evolving.  And since PR Prevention is so much about rigid controls, the current age of social media and connecting directly to customers through multiple channels blows a huge hole in anyone's perception that they can really block or control any type of communication.  And any time you have your executives blogging themselves or contributing to blogs, you definitely are removing the middle-man regarding access to that exec. 

We always have thought it was a sign of a great PR program when our spokespeople were being contacted directly by influencers.  We asked them to keep us in the loop and to ask for our counsel before jumping to respond, but we ultimately feel that the direct connection means we are doing our job.  It is not a threat to our job or our livelihood.

There has been a lot of talk lately about PR needing to change radically and, although I know much of this is about embracing social media and moving beyond old school media relations.  But I also feel that some of the talk is really about this old school approach -- the PR Prevention style -- that really causes more problems than it solves.   Anything that severely limits your opportunities to present your story to your customers through any and all relevant channels is not a winning strategy.  But it might make a heck of a good YouTube video takeoff on the Ministry of Silly Walks . . . 

Creativity is great, but is it selling?

As I was sitting on a US Airways plane yesterday morning trying to prep for the meeting I was attending, I was bombarded by the in-your-face commercials for US Airways, Avis, etc. that were tacked onto the safety instructions on the monitors.  We had not yet reached the point that I could plug in my noise reduction headphones, so I was held hostage by ads I did not want to see about vacation spots and car rental deals.  Later in the short flight, I read Burt Helm's Media Centric column in the latest BusinessWeek.  Interesting read.  Seems that TiVo's Stop//Watch study monitors which ads 20,000 of its households fast-forward through and which they actually watch.  Turns out that the least-fast-forwarded ones this June were for Cort Furniture (a rental company), Dominican Republic Tourism and Hooters Restaurant.  No comment on the last one, but rental furniture?

This got me thinking that we are so constantly assailed by distractions when we are trying to read or just to think that we need to apply finer filters than ever just to get through each day.  During my vacation I went to a couple movies and there were more commercials than there were previews of coming attractions!  I almost expect the next Mass I attend to be interrupted by words from the Church's sponsors.  I don't know about you, but I tend to tune these out or they blur for me unless it is something I really am in the market for at the moment.  And it seems I'm not alone, as the viewers in the study cited were whipping past image ads and, instead, slowing down for ads that included 800 numbers and specific offers.  I do pay attention to the commercial that shows a club where dancers are moving in unison to a Latin beat until the bartender momentarily stops grinding mint leaves for Mojitos.  Problem with the ad, though, is that it told me a lot about Mojitos, but I don't really remember what brand of alcohol it was selling.

Interestingly, another BusinessWeek article in the same issue talked about how Saturn returned to its back-to-basics approach to advertising and marketing after a flight of ads that looked more like BMW performance ads fell flat.

"The emotional connection with Saturn is security and trust," says Daniel Gorrell, president of AutoStrategem, a marketing consultancy in Tustin, Calif.  "You can't suddenly say it's about excitement."

Now I'm not trying to knock our advertising colleagues, but I do think this cut-to-the-chase-tell-me-what-you-are-selling-me ethos bodes well for PR, especially the kind of PR that is very focused on getting direct information to targeted customers through social media channels as well as traditional media and analysts.  And it makes me wonder about all of those major pushes for creative out-of-the-box thinking that for years has been a challenge for PR.  Creativity is great and, given the reduction in the number of traditional media outlets, you have to be extremely creative and smart to get attention.  But maybe customers just want you to tell them specifically what you are selling them and why they should buy it so they can make a decision and then move on.  And that's what good PR does extremely well.

Late summer Friday fun

A lighter post today...

I've watched this three or four times now and find it fascinating each time.  I always think the same thing..."and I thought my job was tough!"  Although, I'm not sure which one has it tougher, the person outside or the one in the helicopter.

Enjoy!  (And note that I tagged it About the "buzz."  You'll see why.)

Green is the New Black - Even in IT

  Since January, Lois Paul and Partners has been co-chairing the Austin Clean Energy Council, an organization founded in 2005 consisting of clean technology companies, universities, etc. that are based in Austin, Texas.

I think it's fair to say that most people have been blindsided by how fast climate change has hit mainstream thinking. I was sitting next to one of the members on the council a few weeks ago, and he explained to everyone that the company he works for - CB Richard Ellis Group (NYSE:CBG) (an S&P company and the largest real estate firm in the world) announced this summer that it will make all of its existing and new buildings carbon neutral by 2010.  Afterwards, in passing, he said that if someone would have told him a year ago that this was going to happen to his company, he never would have believed them. He would have thought they were crazy....

We have several clients creating critical and timely technologies that will help people reduce their energy output on a daily basis, such as Valence Technology and Freescale Semiconductor.

Though, from a communications standpoint, we're seeing companies of all types and sizes leaping at the opportunity to address their "greenness," especially in IT. You can look at this situation in two ways: 1) the company really does have something to offer its customer-base to help them address this issue, and 2) The company clearly sees the hype machine and hopes to ride the wave, even if the offering doesn't have substance.

We all know which option we want to see. But I think the larger question is - as businesses explore ways to operate more efficently from an environmental standpoint (fortunately, Wall Street is now starting to demand it, and federal regulations loom in the distance), what is the individual doing on a daily basis at home and at work to change their behavior for the better? I know most of my habits still need serious work in this area.

I met with a person yesterday that runs a company called Green Habits, which works with companies to implement company-wide environmental policies. Her take was this - the companies that institute these changes early on will have the competitive edge quickly as more and more companies change their policies - then look for partners and suppliers with similar values. We shall, but she does make an interesting point, regardless of industry.

Community video

I've read a lot over the past couple of weeks about what SAP is doing to build community through social media.  It recently held a summit with select bloggers to solicit input as part of its planning for the next year.  Jeremiah Owyang posted tonight about how he has been to SAP three or four times, and remarks how open SAP has been to bloggers and community members

But I found this post very interesting about how SAP has retooled its community TV channel to use kyte.tv, a service that allows anyone to create their own interactive TV channel.  It can be a live TV broadcast through a blog, website, social network or mobile device.  The most compelling aspect of it is how viewers can chat with each other and the host in a window next to the video "screen", or add their own content.

I've been keeping an eye on how kyte.tv has been used and who has been using it.  Besides Robert Scoble's channel, nothing has stood out.  As a result, I find it significant that SAP has started using it.  I'll be tuning in, as I feel this has great potential as part of a community building effort.

Twitter's impact on media

My colleagues have written here about the impact blogs are having on "traditional" media, most recently how the evolution is seeing "consolidation" taking place.  This underscores how integrated blogs have become within media properties, as journalists (and bloggers) leverage their immediacy and the freedom to offer more opinion to give readers more complete information -- on which they can comment.  Of course, we've seen for a few years how publications have integrated podcasts and video into their content.

Now David Berlind gives us some great insight into how media properties might be thinking about integrating micro-content channels like Twitter, Pownce or Jaiku into their sites.  In particular, David calls out how he had embedded his last ten Tweets into his blogs, and how he is using it (in part) to communicate to his readers summaries of interesting news releases that cross his desk.  He includes his entries about recent releases from Citrix and Red Hat.

We've seen many bloggers embedding Twitter widgets into their blogs to let their readers see the thoughts they are passing along through this channel.  What David is doing I believe will be the start of a significant wave of media properties weaving Twitter into the way they deliver information to their readers.

What this means for communicators is the need to think about working micro-content into the mix of information we create and disseminate to key editors, bloggers and other influencers.  For example, based upon David's suggestion, adding a Twitter summary to social media releases that can be cut and pasted into an editor's or blogger's Twitter channel.  How else do you think Twitter and the like will impact media and how we communicate? 

The "Me Generation" of Computer CEOs

Computer company CEOs lead the world in narcissism, according to a study by Penn State University, as reported in Network World recently. 

Several other publications like Forbes reported on the study as well, noting that it is coming out in January 2008.

Some highlights to give you a flavor of the Network World article and the study itself:

If you have a hard time getting your CEO’s head through the office door, you should prepare yourself and your company for a business rollercoaster ride from hell. That’s the conclusion of a Pennsylvania State study that measured the level of narcissism exhibited by 111 CEOs of computer software and hardware companies and compared it to the subsequent strategies and performance of those companies. Narcissism involves a lack of feeling for others, attitudes of entitlement and belief in one's superiority, researchers say. These characteristics make it difficult for a person to work with others and maintain relationships.

"Highly narcissistic CEOs -- defined as those who have very inflated self-views, and who are preoccupied with having those self-views continuously reinforced -- can be expected to engage in behaviors and make decisions that have major consequences not only for the individuals who interact directly with them, but also for broader sets of stakeholders," Donald Hambrick, chair of management at Penn State's Smeal College of Business. Hambrick and professor Jean Twenge, wrote the study. Twenge noted that people high in narcissism lack empathy for others, are aggressive when insulted, seek public glory and favor self-enhancement over helping others look good.

Narcissists are also more likely to be materialistic and to seek attention and fame. "While less narcissistic CEOs may be inclined to pursue incrementalist strategies that entail refining and elaborating on the status quo, more narcissistic CEOs gravitate to bold and highly visible choices," they wrote. The Penn State research indicates no relation between executive narcissism and how well a company performs. "Although narcissists tend to generate more extreme and irregular performance than non-narcissists, they do not generate systematically a better or worse performance," they found.

If you read the blog post by my colleague Carol Walker about high tech CEOs in Texas participating in a volunteer program to help prisoners get a chance for a better life by learning how to be a successful entrepreneur, it's hard to rationalize this view of the leaders of the high tech segment.  So many of the CEOs we have worked with over the years have been dedicated philanthropists, giving both of their time and their money.  This is not to say we have not encountered a narcissist or two in our 21 year history.  We certainly have.  But we have gotten much better at detecting this type of CEO over the years and have steered clear during the mutual due diligence phase as much as possible.

As a PR professional, I had to chuckle at some of the criteria for detecting narcissistic CEOs, listed in the Louisville, KY Courier-Journal's account of the study:

Narcissism was measured by the prominence of the CEO's photograph in the company's annual report, the frequency of the CEO's name in company press releases, the CEO's use of pronouns like "I" or "mine" in interviews, and the CEO's pay compared to the second-highest executive.

What's interesting about this measurement is that two of the measures are the same ones many systems use to determine prominence of a company in press coverage -- i.e., if there is a photo related to the company and if their spokespeople are quoted in the stories.   Certainly the "I me my" speech pattern isn't something that is the measure of a "feature" versus a "mention."  And the pay differential is a whole different issue.  I guess if you pull back a bit, it's essential to have a certain amount of showmanship and solid ego to be a CEO and to be an executive spokesperson.  Where it becomes problematic for the company is where that strong sense of self devolves into destructive narcissism.

The matter of control

Wired reported Tuesday about a new service developed by a CalTech graduate student that lifts the curtain on anonymous contributors to Wikipedia.  The student, Virgil Griffith, created a database that connects changes made to Wikipedia entries anonymously to the organization from where the changes were made, based upon IP addresses.

If you go to the site, Wikipedia Scanner (which is very slow now due to the deluge of hits from the Wired, Valleywag, US News and several other stories on it), you'll see "Editor's Picks" of organizations with a large amount of edits (e.g. over 1,200 from ExxonMobil's IP addresses).  Actions range from Diebold deleting paragraphs related to questions about e-voting security, to Wal-Mart counter-balancing negative content with positive data and information.

This is the latest on the issue of how social media has changed the level of control that companies, government organizations and other entities have over their messages.  Uncomfortable with the "wisdom of the crowds" concept that drives Wikipedia content, organizations resort to hiding behind the veil of anonymity to control the information presented there.  But digital fingerprints make it possible for such action to be brought out in the open.  From the Wired article:

Griffith says he launched the project hoping to find scandals, particularly at obvious targets such as companies like Halliburton. But there's a more practical goal, too: By exposing the anonymous edits that companies such as drugs and big pharmaceutical companies make in entries that affect their businesses, it could help experts check up on the changes and make sure they're accurate, he says.

As the Wired article points out, most of the "self-interested" changes it reviewed happened before 2006, suggesting that perhaps companies slowly are becoming more transparent in their actions.  But other recent outings, like the Wal-Mart "fake blogs" scandal last year, show that many still are clinging to the old model of control.  All of this suggests that it's time for a new definition of "control over the message".  What do you think this definition should be?

Thought leader, conversationalist or a bit of both?

The term "thought leader" has been thrown around for a long time by many.  But, I wonder if the term is outdated.  Is thought leadership an empty term whose meaning has eroded over the years or is it still valid and distinguishable?  What does thought leader mean to you?

Wikipedia defines thought leader as:

a buzzword or article of jargon used to describe a futurist or person who is recognized among their peer mentors for innovative ideas and demonstrates the confidence to promote or share those ideas as actionable distilled insights. 

In the book, The Art of Original Thinking:The Making of a Thought Leader by Jan Phillips, she says,

To be thought leaders in any area, we need to be free and original thinkers, capable of focusing on how we are thinking as well as what we are thinking.

Many other leadership books talk about how true leaders have thoughts that inspire change or action. 

To me, being a thought leader means that you must be a recognized and regular source of good ideas or compelling views and communicate them effectively so that you not only inspire new ways of thinking but provide an emotional value connection that motivates action or change from your audience.  You can't just have good ideas; you have to have good ideas and be a change agent toward those ideas. 

Lately, there has been a fair amount of discussion about the importance of being a "conversationalist," or a person who not only disseminates information but incites discussions or engages people to respond. David Armano wrote an interesting opinion article for BusinessWeek entitled, "It's the Conversation Economy, Stupid" that talked about the need to become "conversation architects" to move beyond one-way messaging communication to facilitate conversations instead. (BTW: Amano describes himself as a thought leader.) In Lois Kelly's new book, Beyond the Buzz: The Next Generation of Word of Mouth Marketing, she talks about conversational marketing and the importance of "having conversations and engaging people in interesting discussions through new and traditional channels."  She cautions that the content of the conversations is most important.

Clearly, the definition of a thought leader has changed or at least expanded. You can't be a thought leader anymore without also driving or shaping some dialogue through social media.  However, what still separates the true "thought leaders" from the rest is the content and value of what they say through any channel of communication. Will we see some new taglines emerge out of this, such as "thought blogger" or "conversation shaper" or will our old tagline "thought leader" just expand to "thought leader and conversationalist" or does it need to change at all?  What do you think?