High-Tech PR Blog >> Beyond the Hype

In Case Santa Reads Blogs

I'm much bigger on giving gifts than receiving them --  unless I am buying the gift for myself, that is.  So I don't have huge expectations this Christmas and will probably get a bigger kick out of watching my kids and husband open their presents than I will out of opening my own gifts.  But with that said, there are a few things I'd love to get as a busy communications person.

So, Big Man, if you're listening, all I really want for Christmas is:

• No travel delays during 2008
• Direct flights everywhere I need to go next year
• Occasional upgrades to first class (which are becoming scarcer every year), if an aisle seat or the emergency aisle isn't available.  Bonus points for you, S.C., if the seat next to me is unoccupied
• The ability to find any information I need in any of my files dating back through my 21+ years at the agency with a simple plain English command
• Jacoby Ellsbury still in a Red Sox uniform come opening day.  (We'd love to have Santana, but we don't want to give up this great kid.)

It's not a big list, right, Santa?  See what you can do for me.  And thanks again for that Thumbellina doll when I was 8 years old. 

Yours truly,

Lois

Where Everybody Knows Your Profile

As many of us search for great talent in a tight hiring marketplace, the advice offered by Lena West in Social Media 360 bears noting.

Companies can no longer afford to compete on cash, bennies and perks. They need to be cool and hip - or at the very least have a clue. . .

Companies that don't have a seat at the Internet's conversation table really are not part of the dialogue and good companies with bright futures are all too often being overlooked as potential employers. . .

Organizations that are not engaging with social media are getting the short shrift on top talent, because no one wants to work at an old-fart of a company.

She tells the story that a young job applicant turned down a solid company because she found their website was flat and they didn't have a blog.   It makes sense.  Although we work very collaboratively in teams at our agency, some of our employees have not had the chance to work with all of our senior people.  We have heard from many of them that they are learning a lot about our senior team members by reading their blog posts.  It is giving them an additional window into the people behind the brand and the collateral on the website.  It is helping us bring to life the principles we describe.

In many ways, the blogs and even participation in social media sites like Facebook are replacing the old after work watering hole as a way to connect with coworkers and learn the latest gossip. As much as it may frighten some of us who actually worked in jobs before email existed (if you can imagine that), it's an evolution we all need to embrace.  At the end of the day, it's about community and communication.

So I guess Cliff and Norm should probably spend less time on the bar stools and more time updating their profiles.  

Spinning Your Wheels - Pay for Placement PR

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal published an article about a small business owner named Ms. McKay that became frustrated with her first PR agency because after three weeks of starting her PR program and paying $3K, the agency hadn't generated any press coverage. So she took it over herself and unknowingly secured a spot on 20/20 about rude people - and she was one of the featured examples. She lost customers based on the coverage, so she decided she needed professional help again. But this time, she hired a PR professional that focused entirely on media relations and only charged her when coverage was generated.

The concept of pay for placement PR is not new, but I can't help but be a little surprised that the Wall Street Journal wrote an article about how this is a viable option for small businesses. As a business-minded publication, it seems to have a missed a major point to the other side of the story. PR professionals offering this arrangement are essentially working for free, with no guarantee of payment. Yes, companies engage with PR agencies with the expectation of coverage, which agencies ultimately provide (not always, I know). But getting from point A to point B takes time and a lot of work.

Coverage typically does not magically appear immediately (positive coverage, that is). It can't be guaranteed, and often there is a great deal of strategy and leg-work that goes into securing coverage, such as interviewing customers, gathering data, researching competitors, training spokespeople to articulate the story correctly, and creating solid, accurate messaging that is truly unique. It's difficult to place a story when the homework hasn't been done and there isn't much thought that goes behind the story you are telling. PRSA's chairman Rhoda Weiss summarized this point of view nicely in the article.

If you are a company considering public relations, think carefully about working with someone offering this model. Put yourself in their shoes. If you had a PR business, would you give all of your time away for free? And if you are working with someone that offers this model, I can't help but question the longevity of their business model. It's wise to establish long-term relationships with a PR partner, and this is highly unlikely with a pay for placement PR model (keep in mind there are always a few exceptions, of course).

Last comment on the WSJ story: PR people don't charge their clients for mentioning their name in conversation at a cocktail party (as the article mentions). If your agency does, you need to find another partner, fast.

Social media influence on IT pros

The social network IT Toolbox just released the second "wave" of its ongoing survey project that examines how much social media influences IT decision-makers.  The first set of results focused on the trust IT pros place in social media, showing that they rely on peer-generated content more because it "probe[s] more deeply into a solution than dealing with a vendor and their customer references."

The second survey examines the influence of social media at "distinct stages of the purchase process and...assess[es] the credibility of online communities as an extension of personal networks."  The participation level increased considerable in this second wave (4,400+ respondents vs. 2,000 in the first wave), and the results show a substantial rise in the consumption of peer-generated content by IT purchasing decision makers, particularly at the executive level.

To me, the most notable findings revolved around the fact that "topic-based" networks and communities are the most important sources of information during the "consideration and final evaluation stages of purchase."  Given that -- once again -- these IT pros responded that they spend more time consuming peer-generated content than traditional editorial content, the "topic-based" sources refer to blogs, social networks and discussion communities forming around various sub-segments of IT.

Of course, anyone consuming this information should take into account the fact that IT Toolbox itself is an aggregator of such "topic-based" networks and communities.  However, it is quite successful with 1.2 million members and $8 million in ad revenue.  Regardless, these are data points that paint a clear picture for where influence is moving, and to be sure, our friends in the trade media have been evolving rapidly in the past year as a result, creating new communities leveraging their brands for similar participation and interaction among IT peers to take place.  All of this further suggests that companies must evolve their programs to identify and engage with these communities.

The Steroid Era

Besides being a communications professional, I'm also an avid baseball fan, so today is a very interesting day as these two passions are converging.  The long awaited Mitchell Report was released at 2 p.m. today, and the names included are coming out slowly.  Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Miguel Tejada and Eric Gagne are among the most notable to be named so far.  A total of 78 are named.

Bud Selig's press conference just started, and as it unfolds, I have to comment what a farce this is.  Selig just said that "it is important to hit the issue of steroids head-on" to "preserve the integrity" of the game.  While he's trying to convey a take-no-prisoners approach to cleaning up the game, this is a CYA move by the commissioner to shift perception.

George Mitchell stated in his press conference that anabolic steroid use has been prominent for a decade, during a period of time when Selig has presided over the game.  It has been during this time that Major League Baseball has enjoyed arguably its greatest prosperity for owners, players and, of course, the League.  Everyone has talked about how Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa's single season home run record chase in 1998 brought the game back after the strike in 1994.  Both players have been among the most suspected of cheating.  Of course, since then, Barry Bonds has become the poster child.  Now, these three have 78 co-conspirators to share the spotlight.

It looks from the early reporting on the report that the focus will be on the players (and the clubhouse personnel and trainers supplying them).  To me, this is a calculated move to shift perception away from the real enablers of the widespread use of performance-enhancing substances -- the owners and the League.  Why is this? 

It's been several years since the curtain has been raised on what's been going on inside clubhouses.  It's provided great fodder for talk show hosts and media during that time.  Yet, the popularity of the game has only increased.  This has given the commissioner and the League a good idea of how the public would react to the "call to action" Selig stated he is doing.  As has been the case during the past few years, the game will not suffer -- in terms of attendance, TV ratings, etc.  Selig's response to a question during the press conference was very telling in this regard.

Question: "Will this limit the number of fans that come out to games?" 

Answer: "We're past that because this has been going on for a while."

It doesn't sound to me that he's too worried that the game's prosperity is at risk, yet he is hoping to come across as tough on this issue so as not to be remembered in history as the commissioner who presided over baseball's "steroid era."

Social Media's implication on PR

I attended last week's 2nd annual Society for New Communications Research Symposium in Boston.  One of the big draws for me was the first session delivered by Paul Gillin, John Cass and Greg Peverill-Conti, titled "New Media, New Influencers & Implications for the PR Profession."  Implications for the PR profession -- OK, so we finally can cut to the chase.

From the conference program:

This study explores these changes to the media and communications landscape and includes: an examination of the current PR landscape with regard to social media; what social media elements are being adopted by specific industries; defining new influencers and success stories.  Based on this research, a series of recommendations for the PR profession will be presented.

Despite the fact I was disappointed to hear that the majority of respondents were "power users" (wouldn't "moderate users" add some additional perspective?), I found one aspect of the initial findings interesting -- that even those most savvy in social media are still stuck in an old way of thinking with regards to certain types of measurement.  Specifically, when asked about the most important criteria for determining the relevance and potential influence of a blogger or podcaster, the top three responses were quality of content on the blog or podcast, relevance of content to the company or brand and search engine rankings.  At the bottom of the list were more meaningful (or telling) measures of engagement and influence: the number of comments on a blog, syndication of the content and "longevity" -- or how long the content is discussed.

The initial conclusion, largely based upon the data points above, is that influence in the blogosphere doesn't always come from the A-list bloggers.  The opportunity for communications teams is to track the path of an idea as a way to understand and determine influence.  In other words, it's not always what the A-listers are writing about.  It's just as important to understand what (and who) influences them.  A good blogger relations program therefore should analyze all levels/tiers of bloggers -- to see how this chain of influence forms -- and engage bloggers at each level.

My own takeaway from all of this: it's not about content, but how the content creates a connection and a chain of influence.  This is key essence of social media, which is ultimately about creating one-on-one relationships one-by-one.

Media Control Dept.

Two reminders of my day job hit me during my quick getaway weekend in Orlando.  First of all, I wish Universal would buy better biometric readers at their turnstiles.  Either no one has told me that I'm in the witness protection program and my fingerprints have been altered or they have the worst readers in the industry.  More amusing for someone who just returned from media training 42 people at one of our clients a week ago was the intro to the T2 Terminator show at Universal Orlando.  The staging area offers this premise:  Cyberdyne's Community Relations Director is introducing a short video about the wonderful technology advances in store for all of us through their "world domination of communications."  The actress does a great job of being controlling, in her fake-sweet way, describing her position as being in charge of community relations and media control.  I laughed out loud at that last part.  For more than 21 years we have been helping prepare our clients for interviews with media and analysts and, now, bloggers.  Just as I've repeated over and over again that "there is no such thing as off the record," there certainly is no such thing as media control. 

Getting back to the 42 "students" we just worked with, it's been fascinating to review their feedback from the sessions.  The majority are hungry for two things -- more practice with interviews so they can feel comfortable when the real event happens and more specifics from their own PR team regarding approved messages, customer references and anything else PR can give them so they are armed and ready with the most up-to-date, safe information to discuss.  I applaud their interest in trying to help their company through the right kind of communication.  This session also gave our respective client's PR team great leverage to influence all of these potential spokespeople to carry the right messages at the right time.

I'm hopeful they also heard my often-repeated "no such thing as off the record" speech.  With the rapidly increasing news cycle caused by blogging and online media, it is so easy to unwittingly provide a "scoop" that will quickly swirl out of control and make it hard for a company to get the right kind of coverage for its news.  It may seem like fun give someone in the media an inside tip about some news "off the record" -- especially an influential business press reporter or top blogger.  The ramifications can be very bad, however, and all of the great plans your communications team made to do a "big splash" with your news and inform all of your key influencers at the same time will be blown.

And if you make this mistake, your PR team can't fix it. There is no such thing as "media control" except, perhaps, in the Universal Studios Cyberdyne alternative universe.  Your PR team is really trying to help you.  They also are doing their best to maintain your -- and their -- relationships with all of the influencers you did not whisper the news to who will feel they missed a good story.  So before you offer that juicy tidbit "as background," just pause long enough to repeat to yourself "there's no such thing as off the record."  And then stop talking.

Rest in peace, Marc

I was so very saddened to learn yesterday that Marc Orchant, a client of ours and well-liked and respected blogger, did not not survive the heart attack that felled him on December 2.  In my post last week, I remarked how, despite knowing Marc for less than a year, I quickly came to know what a smart person and great human Marc was.  And seeing the outpouring of support since made me understand that so much better.

It is just tragic.  Marc celebrated his 50th birthday this year, and my immediate impression of him was what a zest for life he had, what a passion he had for blogging and what a genuine and noble soul he was.  For a better understanding of who Marc was, read the memorial by perhaps his closest friend, Oliver Starr.

On behalf of everyone here at Lois Paul & Partners, our deepest and most heartfelt sympathies go out to Marc's wife Sue, his children Rebecca and Jason and his extended family.  I will always remember you, Marc.

Sun is Shining on Russia

Last week, I attended a semiconductor networking event in Austin sponsored by SEMI and Concurrent Design focused on new opportunities in the solar market. I have lived in Austin for nearly seven years, and I must say - I was floored by the turn-out. It had the same energy as a start-up party during the dot com glory days when I lived in San Francisco. People were excited, and yes, people were even cheering - with their microbrews in the air - as the speakers rallied them on about solar opportunities. There was a line out the door, at least 4 or 5 new solar start-ups represented that no one even knew existed and plenty of old and new faces in the room from the semiconductor industry. The room was alive with optimism about the market potential. The price of solar manufacturing has finally come down to the market price for utility energy, making this a market that really is going to take off dramatically over the next few years.

Since that time, Austin-based solar company HelioVolt received the second largest single clean energy investment in 2007, raising $77 million in its first round to build a manufacturing plant in Austin. It's nice to see solar developments escalating in the U.S., so we can hopefully catch up with Germany and Japan. I was surprised, however, to see a report done this week by SEMI that announced the trade organization will hold its first conference in Moscow, Russia in 2008. Apparently, the Russian government is putting semiconductor development at the top of its list, and solar is included in the mix with 10 projects underway.

Russia seems to see the writing on the wall in regards to soon to be international climate change policies. The country is allocating prior oil and gas investments into semiconductor and solar developments. Time will tell if Russia makes a name for itself in the solar technology world, but it sure will be interesting to follow.

Methinks they buried the lead

Let me preface this by stating for the record that I hated those assignments I got as a journalist to take a huge collection of survey data and summarize it in a coherent article.  With that said, however, I have to take issue with the summary of the CEO survey recently published by PR Week.  The article covering the survey of 144 CEOs from companies ranging from under $10M (25.7%) up to $1B or more (17.4%) and everything in between had some interesting pull quotes that talked about the challenges CEOs face communicating with all of their various constituences.  It noted that 85.4% of CEOs believe it is "extremely important" to be perceived as an influencer in the industry.

But it failed to point out some findings that practically jumped out and whacked me in the face as I was going through the charts that accompanied the text.

Asked "for which of the following objectives is PR extremely important?" this group of CEOs listed managing the media second to last (influencing government policy was last). 

Asked "which activities would you describe as extremely effective in terms of building your profile as a CEO?" they ranked writing a blog dead last. 

Asked "which group would you describe as extremely influential to your business decision-making?" they listed bloggers/online discussion boards last.  For perspective, note that trade pubs were listed in the 12 spot, followed by online news or business titles (15), analyst/analyst reports (16), print newspapers (17), television business news (18), and print business magazines (19).

Hold, if you will, the disdain shown above for media relations and the influence of the media overall (in their rankings).  Now consider that, when asked, "which media outlet's coverage would you describe as extremely influential to a company's business?" they listed the usual suspects, rattling off BusinessWeek, Fortune, WSJ, Forbes, NY Times, and so forth.

This is where I am scratching my head to understand the findings and why this wasn't more prominent in the coverage of this survey.  If a high percentage (nearly 30%) of these companies are under $10M, a group that needs to have lean, focused outreach programs, why don't they think writing a corporate blog is something to consider?  They want to go as directly as possible to their customers and seem to think  media relations isn't as effective a channel to their constituencies.  Why aren't they watching blogs as a  way to connect and communicate with their customers and potential buyers?  How do they think they are going to get into that important list of business pubs (which earlier in the survey didn't seem so important, by the way) if they believe media relations isn't a key element of PR?

Ah, surveys!  We can't live with them and we can't live without them.  Do take a look at this one and see if you share my confusion with the findings.