RepMan

Look both ways before crossing an intersection and listen to all stakeholders before engaging in social media

I recently shared a Bulldog Reporter audio conference panel with two corporate communicators and another representative from the dark side (read: PR firms). The topic was social media and, thanks to some excellent moderating by the lovely and talented Brian Pittman, the discussion was rather lively.

I found myself disagreeing with one of the corporate panelists who advised the 150-plus listening audience to engage in social media at all costs, 'Look,' he advised, 'Social media is the future and you might as well engage sooner rather than later.'

I agreed, sort of. I think personal engagement in social media is, indeed, a no-brainer. But, an organization should think long and hard before taking the plunge. The corporate panelist said organizations can learn as they go. Well, yes, but some serious, and potentially devastating missteps can occur during that learning phase.

I likened social media to a busy intersection in a large city. Conventional wisdom holds that one should look both ways before crossing. Social media is the same: organizations should listen to all stakeholders before proceeding. Does each and every audience need/want your organization to engage with them in a social media dialogue? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe information overloaded employees don't want or need a company Facebook page. Maybe long-standing customers prefer the pleasures of a face-to-face meeting over a Don Draper-like scotch and soda. And maybe local community leaders expect a town hall type back-and-forth on issues of the day.

The social media land rush mentality can undermine your organization's image, reputation and credibility if you dive in without listening first.

Brian Pittman asked what sort of questions an organization should ask of its stakeholders during a listening phase. That's easy: the exact same questions neophyte journalists are trained to ask before crafting a news article: who, what, when, where, why and how.

Make sure your audiences want to engage in social media before you decide to flip on the switch. Just because your management wants to, or your competitors are doing it or, even worse, some expert says it's here to stay and you better engage are the wrong reasons.

In the same way rushing across an intersection can be detrimental to one's health, diving pell-mell into social media can be dangerous to one's brand.

So, how did you feel when you first learned your son had third degree burns over 75 percent of his body?

My alma mater, Northeastern University, is featuring me in an upcoming section celebrating 
the 100th anniversary of their cooperative education curriculum (a five-year plan in which students alternate between classroom study and relevant work experience).

I majored in journalism and was incredibly fortunate to land three stellar co-op jobs:

- as a copy boy/news clerk with The New York Times
- as a reporter/sportscaster/talk show host for WGCH Radio in Greenwich
- and, finally, as a news writer for WEEI News radio in Boston.

As I was being interviewed, I was asked why I'd chosen public relations over journalism. “That's easy,” I responded, “I hated asking the 'So, how did you feel' questions to victims of fires, parents of kidnapped children and other people who suddenly found their worlds turned upside down.

I remember my WEEI news editor once yelling at me to track down the survivors of a horrific fire in Dorchester that had occurred the night before. “Get one of them on the phone and, so help me, do not hang up until you ask them how it made them feel!” He felt I wasn't getting enough emotion in my interviews.

I couldn't deal with the intrusiveness of it all. Nor could I deal with the jaded, world weary personalities of the journalists with whom I worked. I didn't want to wake up one day and be as burnt out as so many of these professional journalists appeared to be.

I bring all this up because I see the “...So, how did it make you feel?” question being asked more often than ever nowadays. In fact, it's become a staple of the morning talk shows. Maggie Rodriguez of ‘The CBS Early Show’ just asked the mom of some poor kid who had been badly burned how she felt. As soon as the interview ended, Maggie smiled at the camera and previewed an upcoming segment on women's health.

I couldn't do that. I couldn't keep up a false front or 'compartmentalize' the horror and personal tragedy.

I think it says something about the image and reputation of journalism that, as the media skew more and more towards the tawdry and sensational, we're seeing more and more digging into the human tragedy that goes along with modern-day life. Sleaze equals ratings, pure and simple.

Journalists may pillory public relations, but most of us focus on telling the positive side of a story. And, for that, I'm grateful (and proud.)

The network who cried wolf

What should constitute 'breaking news'? The Kennedy assassination would certainly qualify in my mind. So, too, would the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. And, I'd also list Michael Jackson's untimely passing as another breaking news item.

But, the powers that be at CNN have certainly watered down my perception of breaking news with their reportage of Jacko's memorial service.

I'm neither hard-hearted nor mean-spirited but, excuse me, the Paris Jackson quote is not breaking news.

I typically click on the CNN breaking news alerts when I spy them on my blackberry. But, after a week's worth of non breaking news alerts, I'm becoming a little gun shy. By crying wolf with these bogus alerts, CNN runs the risk of alienating audience members like me. So, note to the CNN newsroom folk: let's schedule an internal meeting ASAP and review the parameters of what constitutes breaking news and what's better left for the evening tabloid shows.

The rules don’t apply to me

Power brokers think the rules don’t apply to them. That’s certainly true of sports stars, rock impresarios and politicians. It’s also true of executives. Take the latest findings released by UberCEO.com that reveal a near total use of social media tools by Fortune 100 chief executive officers.

UberCEO thinks CEOs are either distracted or too timid to engage in the blogosphere. Timidity (or fear) is a likely culprit. But, so too, is hubris. CEOs move in rarified worlds and breathe rarified air. As a result, most think the rules governing mortal men simply don’t apply to them. One needs only to think of, say, Bernie Ebbers, Bernie Madoff, Dennis Kozlowski or Jeff Skilling to prove the point.

I think CEOs think social media is for the hoi polloi. They don’t need, or want, to dirty their hands by interacting with the masses. They already have their hands full with such irritants as analyst calls, CNBC interviews or annual meetings. Who has the time or patience to write a blog, Tweet or maintain a home page on Facebook?

Sure, one needs to factor in Sarbanes-Oxley when conjecturing why CEOs avoid social media like the plague. And, yes, there remains a solid business case why the big kahuna needs to do this citizen journalist ‘nonsense.’ But, I think the average chief executive officer thinks just like the J. Walter Thompson CEO I once worked for. He felt himself above the fray and looked down his nose at lesser mortals. Let them eat cake (or hit ‘send’).

Until, and unless, we have some truly enlightened CEOs sitting in Fortune 100 corner offices, I don’t think we’ll see any blogging or podcasting. CEOs think that’s something for the ‘marketing guys’ to deal with. In the meantime, they have bigger fish to fry: Wall Street is unhappy with the stock performance, the board is questioning the latest downsizing and the charities are demanding some sort of sustainability program. Blogging? Bah humbug!

*Thanks to Greg Schmalz for the idea for this post.

I highly recommend it

Public relations is in the midst of unprecedented change. Traditional media relations, while still important, has been equaled, if not surpassed by social media. Indeed, we’re seeing more and more clients ask about word-of-mouth. How does one inspire, motivate and encourage a prospective or current customer to ‘recommend’ an organization’s product or service to a peer? The answer  to that single question contains the key to the future of marketing communications.

 

Like many forward-looking organizations, we’re grappling with how one goes about ‘encouraging’ or ‘enabling’ recommendations. We don’t know the full answer, but we have some ideas. In the spirit of openness and transparency, we’d like to get your perspective as well.

So, if you don’t mind, click the survey link below and let me know what you think. I promise to share the findings in a future blog that, I hope, you’ll highly recommend to others.

Check out the survey here.

"Time Out New York" Should Have Taken a Time Out

Today, senior account executive Lia LoBello has written the following special guest post.

Tuesday, media outlets were quick to report that actress Natasha Richardson had been critically injured in a skiing accident in Canada.  And while this story has now reached its unfortunate and sad conclusion, details over its course have remained scarce. Over the last two days, many news outlets cautiously reported the conflicting reports of Richardson’s injuries– all that is, except one. With an abandon you’d associate more closely with the New York Post’s 'Page Six' or Gawker, of all media outlets, it was "Time Out New York" that tried to break the story open mid-day Tuesday by citing one singular “source close to the family,” that the actress was “dead” and posting RIP Natasha Richardson: 1963-2009.  Within minutes, blogs such as PerezHilton.com had picked up the story, offering their condolences to the families involved.  Yet, there was one major issue– the actress had not yet died.  At that time, she was potentially brain dead– but by broad consensus, alive.

In the race to number one, such a critical and egregious error– particularly on such a serious claim– is the equivalent of falling flat on your face.  And despite posting an apology once the account was refuted– which took longer than normal to go live as the site crashed under traffic– readers raked the magazine through the coals, expressing anger at the irresponsible, opportunistic reporting. Odder still, yesterday, no link to the story appeared at all on the magazine’s home page.  Late last night, a retrospective of her work went live on the site– a piece much more reflective of "Time Out's" normal brand of journalism.

Putting aside the baffling entrance and even quicker apparent exit of "Time Out" (for non-readers, the magazine provides listings for events happening each week in the City, sprinkled with a light feature or two), into the gossip circus, the gaffe serves as a grave reminder that public goodwill is a fickle commodity– here one day, but gone the next, should a corporation stumble. In addition, in an era when information changes hands in the blink of an eye, in the handling of the scoop of a lifetime (as I have to imagine "Time Out" believed they had,) the rules of Reporting 101 must stand:  corroborate facts with several sources or make absolutely sure your singular source cannot be refuted. In not doing this, Time Out created a public relations nightmare and significantly damaged an otherwise intact reputation.  A little fact-checking– not to mention discretion– does, indeed, go a long, long way.

Snow is Like Crack Cocaine for Newscasters

Monday's "mega storm" or "East Coast Event" as the media are billing it has made a lot of newscasters very, very happy.

Newscasters live for big snow storms. They're like little kids in a candy store. You can sense their excitement as they talk about high wind gusts, treacherous road conditions and school closings.

And, they just adore total team coverage. I was just watching the local Fox affiliate correspondent reporting "live" from Rego Park, Queens. Gee whiz. Live from Rego Park, Queens? Wow. Anyway, she was bundled up like an Eskimo, scrunched over like an elderly woman with osteoporosis and screaming triumphantly, "Just look at that wind whipping the awning of the bodega behind me! This is pure white out stuff, Curt!"

The media love to end every weather report with the same daunting admonition, "If you must travel today, please be sure and take mass transit. But if you don't have to travel, by all means stay safe at home!"

The collective media overkill  makes me wonder what these intrepid "journalists" would do with a real Rocky Mountain-type blizzard that dumped, say, four or five feet on New York? They'd probably go on a 72-hour, non-stop media bender. You'd see beaten and beleaguered field reporters standing on snowy street corners hour after hour. I can just imagine an "anchor" sitting inside a warm studio, directing his freezing and exhausted cohorts to pack it in. "Amy, you've done enough. Go home and get some warm soup inside you!" But, being the formidable frontline correspondent that she is, Amy would bravely refuse. "No Curt. My job is to be here at exit 124 on the Long Island Expressway, letting our viewers know just how bad it is. Remember everyone, if you must travel, for god's sake, take mass transit! As for me, I'm staying here, Curt, right up until the bitter end."

Newscasters use a combination of frenzied excitement and somber gravitas to make it seem as if they're covering a fire fight on the Gaza Strip instead of a 6 to 10 inch snowstorm. They're not happy unless they've succeeded in shutting down every school, emptying the shelves of every Acme in the tri-state and interviewing every last stranded passenger at LaGuardia.

Yes, for the media, a snowstorm is the most wonderful time of the year.

It's Always a Perfect Storm for the Media

Do the media love weather, or what? Good weather, bad weather, they love all weather. Whether it’s serious, or not.

Take Tuesday’s light dusting, for example. I happened to be working out at lunchtime and caught some of ABC’s "Stormtracker" coverage that interrupted regularly scheduled programming. I couldn’t hear the audio, but I could sure imagine it…

"This is Curt Constantinople, live in ABC’s Stormtracker headquarters. We’re following what could be a real whopper of a snow storm bearing down on the New York metropolitan area. Our Stormtracker team is on-site at some 31 locations throughout the tri-state area and will be providing live reports throughout the day. Let’s check in first with Hazel O’Hara in Hackensack. Hazel, it’s really coming down out there, isn’t it?"

Hazel: Not yet, Curt. But we sure are expecting it. In fact, stores are completely sold out of snow blowers thanks to our warnings on last night’s newscast.

Curt: That’s great to hear, Hazel. Our economy could sure use the boost. Keep us posted. Now, let’s go to Robin Rabinowitz in Rye. Robin: Whassup in Westchester County?

Robin: Curt, the winds are really whipping up here. I’ve had to put extra hair spray on in order to do this live remote. Thankfully, there’s no precipitation at all. I so do not need a bad hair day right now. Back to you, curt.

Curt: Hang in there, Robin. And stay safe. Now, let’s go out to the island and check in with Gaby Gomez in Garden City. Gaby. I can barely see you.

Gaby: That’s because the cameraman just fell, Curt. Ok, there we go. Curt, I’ve been covering weather for 30 years and I’ve never seen an entire town so eerily quiet.

Curt: Wow. Tell us what the weather’s doing. Is it a white out?

Gaby: Actually the sun is still shining, Curt. But I do see clouds and we both know what’s inside those clouds, Curt.

Curt: You bet we do. Clouds contain precipitation which, depending upon the temperature, can be either rain or snow. Which one is Garden City expecting, Gaby?

Gaby: Neither Curt. But we are expecting it to get dark within a few hours and you know what that means.

Curt: Yes I do. Darkness means colder temperatures and that means ice. And ice means icy roads. And, icy roads mean fender benders. And, if we’re fortunate enough, a few fatalities to report on. Hazel, Robin and Gaby, thanks for braving the conditions.  ABC’s Stormtracker team will continue to provide you round-the-clock coverage of this rapidly-developing weather situation. Will it rain? Will it snow? Will nothing at all happen? We’ll be the first to tell you.

Is it any wonder the media always shares the bottom of the trust and image rankings with used car salesmen and atheists? When it comes to weather, they’re the institutional boy who cried wolf.

It's the Media, Stupid!

David Leonhardt's otherwise excellent column in the January 21st New York Times misses the mark in explaining why so many Americans are pessimistic about our short-term economic prospects.

Leonhardt does an exemplary job of comparing and contrasting today's travails with the last truly sizable recession in 1982. Despite the fact that the '82 downturn was more severe in almost every sense, Leonhardt reports that Americans were more bullish about an upturn than now.

He explains the disconnect in two ways: the economic expansion that just ended a few months back wasn't nearly as strong as the one in the 1970s that preceded the last big recession. Second, people today seem to realize we haven't yet bottomed out and that the worst is yet to come.  

Here's the real reason everyone's so gloomy: it's the 24x7, non-stop negative stories from Leonhardt and his peers. It's the media, stupid! In my opinion, the media's a big reason why the downturn started in the first place and why we remain mired in despair.

I'm not suggesting they sugarcoat otherwise negative news. But the media's hyperbole, in combination with their round-the-clock need to feed the beast keeps Americans scared. It's the current day version of the 2002-'03 "heightened terrorist alerts." Remember how the initial ones just paralyzed people with fear? Leonhardt & Co. are doing the exact same thing today with their reportage. C'mon David. Cut us some slack and report something positive for once.

Mom always said to think before you speak

Guest blog written by Meaghan Hayden.

Three weeks ago, “Costas Now” re-appeared on HBO, touting a roundtable discussion on the role of internet media (i.e. blogging) in the sports industry.  The show’s guests for the evening were “Friday Night Lights” author Buzz Bissinger, Deadspin.com editor Will Leitch, and Cleveland Browns’ wide receiver Braylon Edwards.  What could have been an intelligent conversation between men with differing views on what constitutes sports “news” quickly fell apart as Bissinger attacked Leitch, proclaiming, “I think you’re full of ****” less than two minutes into the show.

Bissinger, a Pulitzer Prize winner, then continued on an angry rant against Leitch and all sports bloggers, using profanity and sweeping generalizations to accuse bloggers of being profane and inaccurate.  Predictably, Bissinger’s bitter tirade hurt himself more than Leitch or the sports blogosphere.

Aside from being massacred by bloggers everywhere (a group Bissinger would no doubt ignore), Bissinger’s fellow print journalists fell in line to criticize his lack of control. New York Times reporter Richard Sandomir called him the symbol of “the mainstream media’s fear and suspicion of [blogging’s] influence,” and the  Wall Street Journal praised Leitch’s response to the episode, believing he showcased well-placed restraint and politeness when confronted by Bissinger.

To cap his stellar performance, Bissinger used one of RepMan’s favorite phrases, “perception is reality,” in an attempt to force Leitch to admit that public perception of blogs is poor and therefore blogs are a poor excuse for journalism.  Maybe Bissinger should have repeated that statement to himself before going on national television because public perception of Mr. Bissinger is, well, not so great anymore.