This week, I've been having an interesting discussion with a fellow professional communicator about the value of a blog post (written by yet another professional communicator) we both read on corporate use of Twitter.
In a nutshell, I felt it contained valuable information; she disagreed, for a range of reasons, one of which being that it could lead readers to make decisions about using Twitter "carte blanche" in certain situations.
In PR, other than "be honest," don't use any advice "carte blanche"
While we weren't on the same page about the blog post we were discussing, I'm certain my colleague and I completely agree about this: don't follow anyone else's advice about whether you should use any tool or tactic "carte blanche." Effective PR isn't achieved using templates -- though many, unfortunately, think that's the case.
There isn't a proven, right way to do anything every time; simply copying what some other organization did in a similar situation to yours won't necessarily work. And while we're at it, simply copying what you did the last time you were in a similar situation with the same audiences won't necessarily work, either.
The field is always changing.
The foundation of any good strategy in communications is knowing your audience. But that doesn't mean knowing their ages, genders, income levels, geography, etc. etc. -- it means knowing what makes them tick, what they care about, whom they're listening to and why. And those things are constantly changing.
Think about your own behaviour. Do you do the same thing every day, watch the same TV shows every night, visit the same websites on a scheduled basis? Do the people you follow in social media say the same things, time and time again?
Or do your behaviours and the external factors that influence them change over time?
Of course, they change. Which means the best way to reach you changes, too.
This makes the PR manager's job tougher - but is also why the PR manager has a job.
If people ran on predictable equations, "template" communication plans would be all you'd ever need. You would find out what your key audiences' habits and preferences are, and apply the appropriate plan for the situation.
But people don't run on predictable equations -- which means you need to always be interacting with your audiences to have a sense of where they're coming from (and where they're going) at any point in time. You can of course learn from what has and hasn't worked for you in the past, but you need to identify what's changed at your audiences' end to be able to address them properly.
Similarly, you can learn from what others have done in the past (hence the value of reading textbooks, blog posts, and presentations about their experiences); evidence of what has and hasn't worked for others can help steer us in the right direction, and can help us show why we're recommending what we're recommending.
But not because the tactic or tool will deliver exactly in our case what it did in the example: because it's one example that can give us a sense of what we might expect. Even more important than the results others have delivered using certain tactics, for our purposes, is how our situation is different from theirs. Only when we evaluate the two together can we really have a fair sense of what might work for us.
Take it under advisement
The only way to identify the best approach for your audiences in any given situation is to know the options, and know your audiences.
There are gazillions of textbooks, articles, presentations, and blogs out there that will give you advice -- including this one! -- but you shouldn't ever just implement someone else's plan with your audiences. Unless their plan worked with your audiences, in your situation, and at this particular point in time (which is impossible!), it won't be as strategic as it could be... and it won't give you your best shot at success.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Monday, April 4, 2011
From the archive: Writing an effective cover letter for PR
I wrote this post just about a year ago, for my graduating students. Having received kind words from a number of them about its usefulness, I'm re-posting it this year for our 2011 grads.
___________________
If you’re applying for a job in PR, your prospective employer may be evaluating your cover letter and résumé in more ways than you realize.
There are many different approaches to résumé writing; two of the most popular are the “chronological” approach, which is self-explanatory, and the “functional” approach, which organizes experience according to the skills or accomplishments it demonstrates.
While proponents of the “functional” résumé will tell you that presenting your material this way will help you play down gaps in your work experience or, even, your youth (?!), any potential employer who is on the ball will be asking the right questions either way.
So, what’s the right résumé for a PR job?
Over the course of my corporate career, I posted a number of PR jobs and likely reviewed a couple thousand applications. Here are a few things that, for me at least, were red flags:
As anyone who works in or even has studied PR knows, the key to success in any strategic communication is a focus on what the audience wants.
___________________
If you’re applying for a job in PR, your prospective employer may be evaluating your cover letter and résumé in more ways than you realize.There are many different approaches to résumé writing; two of the most popular are the “chronological” approach, which is self-explanatory, and the “functional” approach, which organizes experience according to the skills or accomplishments it demonstrates.
While proponents of the “functional” résumé will tell you that presenting your material this way will help you play down gaps in your work experience or, even, your youth (?!), any potential employer who is on the ball will be asking the right questions either way.
So, what’s the right résumé for a PR job?
Over the course of my corporate career, I posted a number of PR jobs and likely reviewed a couple thousand applications. Here are a few things that, for me at least, were red flags:
- Typos or grammatical errors – If you can’t get your own cover letter or résumé right, I have no confidence you’ll write well in my shop, no matter what your previous experience might be. Red flag.
- “To Whom It May Concern” – Take the time to find out to whom your application should be addressed; or, at the very least, say “To the hiring committee.” (On a related note: why do people capitalize each word in that phrase? See red flag #1.)
- “Objective: anything that isn’t the job I’m advertising” – Personally, I think providing an objective at the top of a résumé is a waste of your time and mine – I’d rather see you take the time and space to show me why you’re the right person to help me meet my objectives. (If your objective isn’t to get the job I’ve posted, why did you apply?) If you must, fine… but if you list a generic objective or even worse, an unrelated objective, it tells me you’re too lazy to revise your document. Red flag.
As anyone who works in or even has studied PR knows, the key to success in any strategic communication is a focus on what the audience wants.
We carefully craft articles, news releases, event plans, presentations, and everything else we do, to make them as persuasive as possible to our intended audience. We structure our communications to make them easy to receive, accept and act on. We answer that all-important question “what’s in it for me?” because we know that’s what people respond to.
So why would you send out a résumé and cover letter that don’t do the exact same thing? Especially if your target audience is a communicator, who wants to hire someone who can show they’re able to put theory into practice?
What a hiring PR manager wants
Your cover letter and résumé will be the first test your prospective employer puts you through; (s)he wants to see whether you “get it.” If your application materials show that you do, and can apply the principles of good strategic communication, your application will be far less likely to hit what a former boss of mine called the “circular file” (i.e., the recycling can).
So, let’s do a little audience analysis. Your target audience in this case is likely:
So why would you send out a résumé and cover letter that don’t do the exact same thing? Especially if your target audience is a communicator, who wants to hire someone who can show they’re able to put theory into practice?
What a hiring PR manager wants
Your cover letter and résumé will be the first test your prospective employer puts you through; (s)he wants to see whether you “get it.” If your application materials show that you do, and can apply the principles of good strategic communication, your application will be far less likely to hit what a former boss of mine called the “circular file” (i.e., the recycling can).
So, let’s do a little audience analysis. Your target audience in this case is likely:
- reading many applications from people who aren’t qualified at all (“All my job experience is in retail, but people tell me I’m a people person, and I’m a good speller, so I think I’d be great for PR!”)
- reviewing a large number of applications, so doesn’t have a lot of time to hunt for the relevant information in each one
- wanting to see evidence of strategic communication and technical accuracy (that means proofreading!)
- hoping against all hope that the right applicant is in this pile, so (s)he doesn’t have to go through this process again anytime soon.
Between the job ad, the employer’s website, and your friendly Google machine, you have all you need – though knowing someone on the inside never hurts.
First, the job ad.
In the job ad, the employer has likely told you what (s)he will be looking for – so structure your letter and résumé accordingly. Open your letter with an expression of interest in the position because of what you can bring to the employer (not what the job will do for you), and then match up what you bring with what they’re asking for. You can even use bullets, or put it in a table format if you want; believe me, the employer will appreciate a straight-to-the-point, easy-to-follow demonstration of how you meet their requirements.
As for your résumé, again, let the employer’s needs tell you how to structure it. I never cared that much whether the information was provided by function or by chronology – what mattered to me was whether it showed abilities and aptitudes to do what I’d need an employee to do. So organize your information in whatever way makes the most sense to you; just make sure the information you choose is related/appropriate/helpful in showing you meet the employer's needs.
If you're just graduating from college and all your paid jobs have been in retail or food service, that’s fine – everyone in this industry once had a first job. Just make sure your application materials focus on the communications-related volunteer work you’ve done and education you've had. As a hiring employer, I’m less concerned with whether an applicant got paid to do PR work than the fact that they’ve done it and been successful at it.
Secondly, the Web.
You have my advice on how to write your cover letter and résumé. But what should you include other than your clearly-organized, well-written evidence that you meet the employer’s minimum requirements?
This is where you have another chance to shine: do some research on the organization. Look at its own website, and look at what its competitors/opponents/mainstream media and bloggers are saying about it (and its industry, if applicable).
First, the job ad.
In the job ad, the employer has likely told you what (s)he will be looking for – so structure your letter and résumé accordingly. Open your letter with an expression of interest in the position because of what you can bring to the employer (not what the job will do for you), and then match up what you bring with what they’re asking for. You can even use bullets, or put it in a table format if you want; believe me, the employer will appreciate a straight-to-the-point, easy-to-follow demonstration of how you meet their requirements.
"Experience working with the media: I acted as the media liaison for ACME Clothespins Inc. for two years; in that role, I wrote media advisories, news releases, and backgrounders and developed media kits which led to significant positive coverage. I also organized and ran successful news conferences, and acted as the company’s media spokesperson."If you clearly show how you meet each of the criteria listed, the time-strapped employer doesn’t have to go looking for it – and knows that you know how to tailor communications to meet your audience’s needs. Check, and check.
As for your résumé, again, let the employer’s needs tell you how to structure it. I never cared that much whether the information was provided by function or by chronology – what mattered to me was whether it showed abilities and aptitudes to do what I’d need an employee to do. So organize your information in whatever way makes the most sense to you; just make sure the information you choose is related/appropriate/helpful in showing you meet the employer's needs.
If you're just graduating from college and all your paid jobs have been in retail or food service, that’s fine – everyone in this industry once had a first job. Just make sure your application materials focus on the communications-related volunteer work you’ve done and education you've had. As a hiring employer, I’m less concerned with whether an applicant got paid to do PR work than the fact that they’ve done it and been successful at it.
Secondly, the Web.
You have my advice on how to write your cover letter and résumé. But what should you include other than your clearly-organized, well-written evidence that you meet the employer’s minimum requirements?
This is where you have another chance to shine: do some research on the organization. Look at its own website, and look at what its competitors/opponents/mainstream media and bloggers are saying about it (and its industry, if applicable).
By researching what’s going on with that employer, you’re in a better position to understand its overall PR objectives – and then to show how you can help meet them. For example, the job ad may not have asked for experience dealing with environmental issues; but if a scan of the media coverage on your employer shows it's been the target of some activism and you have experience that could help them build bridges with the activist group, you may be able to set yourself apart from your competitors. At the very least, the employer will know you’re the type to scratch below the surface of an assignment – never a bad thing.
Final advice?
Don’t lie, and don’t stretch the facts.
Ever.
You may fool an employer in the short term – you may even get the job. But if you’re not qualified for a job, you won’t do well at it, and your reputation will pay for it in the long run.
Final advice?
Don’t lie, and don’t stretch the facts.
Ever.
You may fool an employer in the short term – you may even get the job. But if you’re not qualified for a job, you won’t do well at it, and your reputation will pay for it in the long run.
There are lots of PR jobs out there; find the one that’s right for you, and make your best case.
Good luck!
Thursday, March 31, 2011
"We are excited" to bring you this news release
PR pros write news releases respecting a number of conventions which make them easier for journalists to use.
While the rest of the news release should be written in as objective a voice as possible (for maximum usability at the media end), the quote is an organization's opportunity to throw in its official opinion on the news. It's OK, because it's attributed to someone - just like opinions should be in journalism.
The wasted quote: a common rookie mistake
If I had a nickel for every news release I'd read with a quote that said simply "We are excited," "We are proud," or "We are delighted" to announce whatever the news is, I'd be rich. (I'd also likely have earned a couple of bucks thanks to some of my own early news releases.)
It's a comfortable place to begin, and it somehow seems personable to say the company is excited or proud or delighted about its own news. The problem is that no-one really cares how the company feels (or, alternately, would expect the company to feel that way about its own news, making the pronouncement irrelevant and decidedly not newsworthy).
Good news release writers understand that the quote is our shot at positioning the news in the light in which we want it to be considered. If the rest of the news release has to be "just the facts," the attributed quote is our opportunity to provide some context and colour, to help move our communication objectives forward, whatever they might be.
I took a quick scan of the newswire a couple of minutes ago, and found a couple of examples that make my point.
1) A news release announcing the agreement to renew AMC's Mad Men.
This is news many Mad Men fans like me have been waiting for; in fact, we are excited and delighted by the news. And while AMC does admit to being "thrilled," it's in the context of good news many in recent days had begun doubting would ever come -- and it's after AMC's key messaging.
"AMC's original programming began with a mission to create bold storytelling of the highest quality, and 'Mad Men' was the perfect expression of that commitment. We've been proud to support this show from the day we read Matt's ground-breaking pilot script and have loved building it with Matt and Lionsgate into the cultural phenomenon it has become," said Collier. "For everyone involved in the show and its passionate fans, we are thrilled to announce that the series will continue on AMC under the exceptional vision of Matt Weiner."
2) A release about a celebration of foreign-trained doctors being accepted into a residency program
The hook for this news release is actually that a celebration of this achievement took place tonight. Of course, everyone there is excited and delighted, and probably proud too. But the quote in the news release is wisely used to communicate key messaging aimed at persuading readers to agree with the decision.
"International medical graduates are extremely valuable members of our health-care system's team of care providers. These international medical graduates are working extremely hard to earn their certification in Ontario and I'm happy to join them as they celebrate this tremendous achievement," said Deb Matthews, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.
Make every sentence matter
In today's by-the-minute media industry, we don't have the luxury of assuming journalists are reading every release from top to bottom, or having the time to figure out why our news will be important for our audiences.
It's our job in PR to connect the dots, and the attributed quote is the one place in the news release we can provide subjective opinions that help our audiences interpret the news the way we think they should.
So don't waste your quotes on niceities that are either irrelevant or assumed; take advantage of the opportunity to position the news the way you want audiences to see it.
 |
| Credit: Design Thinking Blog |
- We write them in Canadian Press style (American Press in the U.S.), so journalists can use our content without having to do too much copy-editing.
- We give them straight-forward titles that explain the news - not expecting busy journalists to take the time to decipher cutesy headlines (chances are, they won't have time to).
- We write them in an "inverted pyramid" format, with the most important information provided first, in the lead paragraph, and further information provided in order of decreasing importance - so no matter when a journalist stops reading, we know (s)he's gotten the most important details.
- We finish with a "boilerplate" paragraph describing our organization.
- We signal the end of the release with the notation " -30- " though no-one knows exactly why... but both PR folks and journalists know that means "the end."
While the rest of the news release should be written in as objective a voice as possible (for maximum usability at the media end), the quote is an organization's opportunity to throw in its official opinion on the news. It's OK, because it's attributed to someone - just like opinions should be in journalism.
The wasted quote: a common rookie mistake
If I had a nickel for every news release I'd read with a quote that said simply "We are excited," "We are proud," or "We are delighted" to announce whatever the news is, I'd be rich. (I'd also likely have earned a couple of bucks thanks to some of my own early news releases.)
It's a comfortable place to begin, and it somehow seems personable to say the company is excited or proud or delighted about its own news. The problem is that no-one really cares how the company feels (or, alternately, would expect the company to feel that way about its own news, making the pronouncement irrelevant and decidedly not newsworthy).
Good news release writers understand that the quote is our shot at positioning the news in the light in which we want it to be considered. If the rest of the news release has to be "just the facts," the attributed quote is our opportunity to provide some context and colour, to help move our communication objectives forward, whatever they might be.
I took a quick scan of the newswire a couple of minutes ago, and found a couple of examples that make my point.
1) A news release announcing the agreement to renew AMC's Mad Men.
This is news many Mad Men fans like me have been waiting for; in fact, we are excited and delighted by the news. And while AMC does admit to being "thrilled," it's in the context of good news many in recent days had begun doubting would ever come -- and it's after AMC's key messaging.
"AMC's original programming began with a mission to create bold storytelling of the highest quality, and 'Mad Men' was the perfect expression of that commitment. We've been proud to support this show from the day we read Matt's ground-breaking pilot script and have loved building it with Matt and Lionsgate into the cultural phenomenon it has become," said Collier. "For everyone involved in the show and its passionate fans, we are thrilled to announce that the series will continue on AMC under the exceptional vision of Matt Weiner."
2) A release about a celebration of foreign-trained doctors being accepted into a residency program
The hook for this news release is actually that a celebration of this achievement took place tonight. Of course, everyone there is excited and delighted, and probably proud too. But the quote in the news release is wisely used to communicate key messaging aimed at persuading readers to agree with the decision.
"International medical graduates are extremely valuable members of our health-care system's team of care providers. These international medical graduates are working extremely hard to earn their certification in Ontario and I'm happy to join them as they celebrate this tremendous achievement," said Deb Matthews, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.
Make every sentence matter
In today's by-the-minute media industry, we don't have the luxury of assuming journalists are reading every release from top to bottom, or having the time to figure out why our news will be important for our audiences.
It's our job in PR to connect the dots, and the attributed quote is the one place in the news release we can provide subjective opinions that help our audiences interpret the news the way we think they should.
So don't waste your quotes on niceities that are either irrelevant or assumed; take advantage of the opportunity to position the news the way you want audiences to see it.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Internal communications case study at school
Over the last couple of weeks, first-year students in Red River College's Creative Communications program have been looking at internal communications: principles, tactics and tools.
As it happens, they also got an insider's look at a case study on internal communications in the age of social media, when they learned (via Twitter, for many) that beloved Journalism instructor Steve Vogelsang will be leaving the College at the end of this academic year to pursue new opportunities.
They responded immediately, and with hashtags.
While the departure of a teacher isn't the same as a major management change in a career, it can bring about some of the same feelings: losing an advocate and/or mentor, less certain footing for the future. It also illustrates a point about how people would rather hear about changes in their own "management" from the person making the change.
In Steve Vogelsang's case, he didn't stand a chance of beating Twitter. I'm not sure what his order of notifications was, but I do know that, when I read about his departure on Twitter and emailed to ask him whether it was true, he said that it was -- and he'd just shared the news 11 minutes earlier.
I saw a class shortly after the news had hit. Many students professed shock -- one asking me whether I had a "crisis communications plan" to address his departure -- and some were disappointed that they'd "had to hear about it on Twitter."
The fact is that, short of interrupting the school day and bringing all seven classes together for an assembly (an unprecedented action, to my knowledge), there isn't any way Steve could have simultaneously shared the news with everyone in person. I explained that at the time, and of course they understood: they were just sorry to hear he was leaving.
Think you're going to beat Twitter? Good luck!
The stakes are higher, of course, when a major change takes place on the job. Change can be nerve-wracking, and study after study shows that employees are better able to manage change when they hear about it directly from management before the news gets "out there."
This gives them the chance to let the news sink in before they have to discuss ramifications with anyone external, as well as an opportunity to ask questions about what the news will mean to their jobs. It also shows that the organization will give them as early notice as is possible under the circumstances.
My tenure in a corporate communications department preceded Twitter: in those days, our main adversary in the internal information race was the grapevine (potentially just as effective, locally, but not at lightning speed!). But even so, we created long and complicated notification timelines to ensure (as best we could, anyway) that every employee personally affected by a change would hear about it as quickly, personally, and from as appropriate a source as possible.
Nowadays, organizations have to recognize that the first wave of information may become instant public disclosure.
What does that mean for internal communicators? A couple of things.
1. They have to be vigilant about timelines, setting up rolling series of meetings to enable the rapid sharing of major change information to as many "affected" people as possible. When it's a question of helping employees deal with major change, and people's jobs are involved, you should hold that assembly. You interrupt the work day, because you want to show those employees that their well-being is more important than keeping to a normal schedule, even if only for 15 minutes.
2. In between announcements like these, they need to ensure the corporate culture is such that employees understand why information is shared in the format and order it is. This helps to avoid inadvertent insult, and to ensure employees understand the organization respects them and cares about their feelings... and will do everything it can to get the information they need to them as soon as it can be shared.
That means open, two-way lines of communication, in normal times and in times of change.
And as for our students?
While they're disappointed to be losing a favourite instructor, they're happy for him -- and even happier that he'll be sticking around until the school year's out.
And even after he's gone, you have to know they'll be following him on Twitter.
As it happens, they also got an insider's look at a case study on internal communications in the age of social media, when they learned (via Twitter, for many) that beloved Journalism instructor Steve Vogelsang will be leaving the College at the end of this academic year to pursue new opportunities.
They responded immediately, and with hashtags.
While the departure of a teacher isn't the same as a major management change in a career, it can bring about some of the same feelings: losing an advocate and/or mentor, less certain footing for the future. It also illustrates a point about how people would rather hear about changes in their own "management" from the person making the change.
In Steve Vogelsang's case, he didn't stand a chance of beating Twitter. I'm not sure what his order of notifications was, but I do know that, when I read about his departure on Twitter and emailed to ask him whether it was true, he said that it was -- and he'd just shared the news 11 minutes earlier.
I saw a class shortly after the news had hit. Many students professed shock -- one asking me whether I had a "crisis communications plan" to address his departure -- and some were disappointed that they'd "had to hear about it on Twitter."
The fact is that, short of interrupting the school day and bringing all seven classes together for an assembly (an unprecedented action, to my knowledge), there isn't any way Steve could have simultaneously shared the news with everyone in person. I explained that at the time, and of course they understood: they were just sorry to hear he was leaving.
Think you're going to beat Twitter? Good luck!
The stakes are higher, of course, when a major change takes place on the job. Change can be nerve-wracking, and study after study shows that employees are better able to manage change when they hear about it directly from management before the news gets "out there."
This gives them the chance to let the news sink in before they have to discuss ramifications with anyone external, as well as an opportunity to ask questions about what the news will mean to their jobs. It also shows that the organization will give them as early notice as is possible under the circumstances.
My tenure in a corporate communications department preceded Twitter: in those days, our main adversary in the internal information race was the grapevine (potentially just as effective, locally, but not at lightning speed!). But even so, we created long and complicated notification timelines to ensure (as best we could, anyway) that every employee personally affected by a change would hear about it as quickly, personally, and from as appropriate a source as possible.
Nowadays, organizations have to recognize that the first wave of information may become instant public disclosure.
What does that mean for internal communicators? A couple of things.
1. They have to be vigilant about timelines, setting up rolling series of meetings to enable the rapid sharing of major change information to as many "affected" people as possible. When it's a question of helping employees deal with major change, and people's jobs are involved, you should hold that assembly. You interrupt the work day, because you want to show those employees that their well-being is more important than keeping to a normal schedule, even if only for 15 minutes.
2. In between announcements like these, they need to ensure the corporate culture is such that employees understand why information is shared in the format and order it is. This helps to avoid inadvertent insult, and to ensure employees understand the organization respects them and cares about their feelings... and will do everything it can to get the information they need to them as soon as it can be shared.
That means open, two-way lines of communication, in normal times and in times of change.
And as for our students?
While they're disappointed to be losing a favourite instructor, they're happy for him -- and even happier that he'll be sticking around until the school year's out.
And even after he's gone, you have to know they'll be following him on Twitter.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Exploiting Charlie
Over the last week or two, you'd have to have been living under a rock not to have witnessed at least part of the circus that is Charlie Sheen's public life.
If you're just crawling out now, here's a selection of his recent statements.
At first, Sheen's behaviour seemed to indicate a huge ego and, possibly, a huge quantity of drugs/alcohol. People followed along as he lashed out, entertained by his anger and unreasonableness and hubris, waiting anxiously for the next installment of his tirade - as well as his inevitable crash back to rehab.
But as this week progressed, public perception seemed to change a bit. We started to hear medical experts on the newsmagazine shows speculating about frontal lobe issues that could be driving Sheen's manic beviour, and the entire affair started to feel pretty uncomfortable for some.
Were we watching someone self-destruct before our eyes? Would Charlie Sheen be the next celebrity about whom we said "it was obvious, he was clearly sick, why didn't somebody do something to help him," the way we did about Michael Jackson?
For the networks, though, it was an opportunity too good to pass up.
The mainstream media tripped over themselves to come up with the latest content to feed social media: it was the first time I was conscious of watching the mainstream media work consciously to create viral video.
It helped that Sheen was more than willing to help them all out: it seemed he was giving everyone an exclusive. The guy can't help himself - it's part of his illness/personality/addiction/whatever it is we're watching him suffer from right now.
I was discussing this my friend Sherri Vokey this week, and she said it best: "it's like we're watching an episode of Intervention, but no-one's intervening."
Personally, it all gives me a sick feeling in the bottom of my stomach. I've never been able to watch shows like Intervention, Hoarders, name the watch-the-sick-person program -- I'm not entertained by other people's suffering.
But I understand the business.
The issues manager in me is starting to get nervous, though.
I get it that the networks have to be on top of this story - audiences don't seem to be able to get enough of it.
But the issues manager in me has to wonder what they'll be saying if, say, he ends up hurting others or himself in his delusion. They were pleased to report on the contribution Michael Jackson's entourage made to his death; if Charlie Sheen's public "meltdown" really is that, will they accept a share in the blame?
Will the rest of us?
On a related topic, I caught this tweet from the American Red Cross this week.
In PR classes we talk about creating newsworthiness/buzz by tying our messages to stories in the news - clearly, that's what the Red Cross is doing. And it caught my attention, so good for them!
Except I hope for their sake (as well as for his, of course) that Charlie Sheen recovers.
I wouldn't want to be the spokesperson for a humanitarian aid organization that had exploited the rantings of a person suffering from mental illness for publicity, if that illness caused him to hurt someone or himself (more than he already has, of course).
If you're just crawling out now, here's a selection of his recent statements.
At first, Sheen's behaviour seemed to indicate a huge ego and, possibly, a huge quantity of drugs/alcohol. People followed along as he lashed out, entertained by his anger and unreasonableness and hubris, waiting anxiously for the next installment of his tirade - as well as his inevitable crash back to rehab.
But as this week progressed, public perception seemed to change a bit. We started to hear medical experts on the newsmagazine shows speculating about frontal lobe issues that could be driving Sheen's manic beviour, and the entire affair started to feel pretty uncomfortable for some.
Were we watching someone self-destruct before our eyes? Would Charlie Sheen be the next celebrity about whom we said "it was obvious, he was clearly sick, why didn't somebody do something to help him," the way we did about Michael Jackson?
For the networks, though, it was an opportunity too good to pass up.
The mainstream media tripped over themselves to come up with the latest content to feed social media: it was the first time I was conscious of watching the mainstream media work consciously to create viral video.
It helped that Sheen was more than willing to help them all out: it seemed he was giving everyone an exclusive. The guy can't help himself - it's part of his illness/personality/addiction/whatever it is we're watching him suffer from right now.
I was discussing this my friend Sherri Vokey this week, and she said it best: "it's like we're watching an episode of Intervention, but no-one's intervening."
Personally, it all gives me a sick feeling in the bottom of my stomach. I've never been able to watch shows like Intervention, Hoarders, name the watch-the-sick-person program -- I'm not entertained by other people's suffering.
But I understand the business.
The issues manager in me is starting to get nervous, though.
I get it that the networks have to be on top of this story - audiences don't seem to be able to get enough of it.
But the issues manager in me has to wonder what they'll be saying if, say, he ends up hurting others or himself in his delusion. They were pleased to report on the contribution Michael Jackson's entourage made to his death; if Charlie Sheen's public "meltdown" really is that, will they accept a share in the blame?
Will the rest of us?
On a related topic, I caught this tweet from the American Red Cross this week.
In PR classes we talk about creating newsworthiness/buzz by tying our messages to stories in the news - clearly, that's what the Red Cross is doing. And it caught my attention, so good for them!
Except I hope for their sake (as well as for his, of course) that Charlie Sheen recovers.
I wouldn't want to be the spokesperson for a humanitarian aid organization that had exploited the rantings of a person suffering from mental illness for publicity, if that illness caused him to hurt someone or himself (more than he already has, of course).
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Gaga over Maria
This week, media (mainstream and new, Winnipeg and international) fell in love with 10-year-old Winnipegger Maria Aragon.
This video was first posted to YouTube on February 16th, and as CBC News reports, went from 3,100 hits to over 2 million within 24 hours, after Lady Gaga herself tweeted how much she loved it.
Shortly after the viral video came mainstream media coverage, from the Winnipeg Free Press to The Huffington Post.
Local radio station Hot 103 brought Maria in studio on Thursday, where she chatted with Lady Gaga herself -- and viewership of that video went wild, too.
This is a great social media story. Perez Hilton reportedy sent Lady Gaga the link to Maria's video on YouTube; Lady Gaga liked it, and tweeted it to her 8 million followers, unleashing a wave of attention little Maria likely never expected.
Maria Aragon is a talented (and adorable) little girl -- and would have been without YouTube, Twitter, and the always hungry 24/7 media beast. But with all those things, she's talented, adorable, and a superstar... even if the latter is only for a local news cycle or two.
As for Lady Gaga...
With that little-girl's-dream fulfilling phone call on Thursday (recorded for posterity and shared online for all to enjoy), Lady Gaga won some hearts. With her invitation for Maria to sing with her on stage in Toronto a few months from now, she won a few more (and will win even more, I'm sure, at that show). And while she was at it, she got people (in this town, anyway) to stop talking about how much the new single sounds like Madonna's Express Yourself for a while.
Not bad, for 140 characters' work!
I'm not at all suggesting Lady Gaga's tweet was a publicity stunt; and even if you're suspicious of her motivations in agreeing to the phone call with Maria, I don't think you can deny that she seemed genuine, and that she absolutely thrilled that little girl.
But with that said, Maria's video does give us an excellent (and heartwarming) example of the impact social media can have in terms of publicity, given the right story.
This video was first posted to YouTube on February 16th, and as CBC News reports, went from 3,100 hits to over 2 million within 24 hours, after Lady Gaga herself tweeted how much she loved it.
Shortly after the viral video came mainstream media coverage, from the Winnipeg Free Press to The Huffington Post.
Local radio station Hot 103 brought Maria in studio on Thursday, where she chatted with Lady Gaga herself -- and viewership of that video went wild, too.
This is a great social media story. Perez Hilton reportedy sent Lady Gaga the link to Maria's video on YouTube; Lady Gaga liked it, and tweeted it to her 8 million followers, unleashing a wave of attention little Maria likely never expected.
Maria Aragon is a talented (and adorable) little girl -- and would have been without YouTube, Twitter, and the always hungry 24/7 media beast. But with all those things, she's talented, adorable, and a superstar... even if the latter is only for a local news cycle or two.
As for Lady Gaga...
With that little-girl's-dream fulfilling phone call on Thursday (recorded for posterity and shared online for all to enjoy), Lady Gaga won some hearts. With her invitation for Maria to sing with her on stage in Toronto a few months from now, she won a few more (and will win even more, I'm sure, at that show). And while she was at it, she got people (in this town, anyway) to stop talking about how much the new single sounds like Madonna's Express Yourself for a while.
Not bad, for 140 characters' work!
I'm not at all suggesting Lady Gaga's tweet was a publicity stunt; and even if you're suspicious of her motivations in agreeing to the phone call with Maria, I don't think you can deny that she seemed genuine, and that she absolutely thrilled that little girl.
But with that said, Maria's video does give us an excellent (and heartwarming) example of the impact social media can have in terms of publicity, given the right story.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
PR's new career path starts in school, not the newsroom
In the next week, 70 or so first-year Creative Communications students at Red River College will declare their "major" area of study for their second year: Advertising, Journalism, Public Relations, or Media Production (formerly "Broadcasting").
Many already know what they want to do when they leave college, but some are still on the fence, weighing their options and trying to figure out which major will be the best fit for them.
A fair number have come to ask me for advice, and I tell them all the same thing: they should major in whichever of the fields they plan get a job in, because that's what their portfolio will be best-suited for when they graduate.
I read an interesting article on the New York Times Education blog recently, about Mary Ellin Arch, a news editor who'd been 'downsized' from the newspaper where she worked, after 29 years in the news business.
Not yet ready to retire, she did what many journalists had done before her: she decided to look for work in public relations.
And after four months of “no bites, no interviews, no calls, no interest whatsoever,” she realized she was losing all the PR jobs to people who were educated in PR.
The way it was
Not that long ago, it was a pretty normal thing for journalists to make the move to PR once they either realized they weren't going to become Walter Cronkite/Barbara Walters/Bob Woodward/Carl Bernstein, or they decided they wanted a job that might be a little more family-friendly.
In fact, if you talk to many veteran PR pros today, they'll even tell you that you should go work in a newsroom before making the move to PR, because it'll make you a better PR guy.
They say that, because that's how it worked for them, back then.
It made sense, really. Even a decade ago, a good understanding of how the mainstream media worked was sometimes the most important characteristic of a successful PR professional. The mainstream media represented one of the very few ways we could practically get our messages out to our external audiences. Logically, who'd know better than someone who'd been on the other side, right?
On top of that, working in a newsroom was how you learned to write like a journalist, which is what PR folks aim to do.
The way it is
Today, a few variables in the equation have changed.
First, public relations programs have grown and expanded in colleges and universities around the world, at the certificate, diploma, degree, and graduate levels.
Students in these programs learn the fundamentals of organizational communications, and put them into practice. They learn what they need to know about their audiences in order to get -- and hold -- their attention. And they explore the creativity they need to figure out how to break through today's noise with a meaningful and persuasive message, on top of learning how to write for PR.
The "learn-it-by-watching-it-from-the-outside" approach of reluctant journalists doesn't hold up as well anymore. They are competing for PR jobs against people who can show employers work samples illustrating the range of skills they're looking for. PR grads don't have to say "trust me -- I have experience in a related field, so I'll probably be pretty good at PR."
Secondly, while understanding how the media work remains important for PR pros, organizations' reliance on media relations for mass communication will decrease steadily as social media grow.
There's a reason newspapers and magazines are fighting for audiences these days -- and it's because those audiences are getting their information online. Today's PR pros do need to understand how to work effectively with the mainstream media, but they also need to be able to communicate much more broadly -- a skill that requires a far greater breadth of PR knowledge and experience than having written for a newspaper.
Don't get me wrong
Please don't think I'm saying it's impossible for a journalist to switch into PR today, because it isn't. It continues to happen, and I expect it always will, for certain people.
When I was the director of a corporate communications department, I hired a number of former journalists -- all of whom demonstrated in their portfolios and in interviews their understanding of how PR works.
I also interviewed and declined to hire many more, who didn't.
If you want to work in PR today, you'd do yourself a favour by entering a formal PR program in a post-secondary institution, and by building a portfolio that shows your understanding of the fundamental principles of effective communications and how you respond creatively to a range of communications challenges.
Writing articles is only one of many writing-based skills a PR pro needs -- not to mention the need to understand different stakeholder motivations, to be able to create effective strategies to reach them, and how to use the growing number of communication tools at our disposal effectively.
I got lucky.
I entered this profession in the mid-1990s, before the Internet was even widely used. I received my PR education "on-the-job," when I was mentored by a partner in the communications firm that hired me based on my English degree, my strong writing, and the strength of my interviews.
Today I wouldn't stand a chance. There are far too many grads of public relations programs who can prove they already know what they're doing, and are ready to hit the ground running for their client.
My PR majors would have beaten me out for that first job in a minute, I can guarantee it... and I'd have been back to school.
Many already know what they want to do when they leave college, but some are still on the fence, weighing their options and trying to figure out which major will be the best fit for them.
A fair number have come to ask me for advice, and I tell them all the same thing: they should major in whichever of the fields they plan get a job in, because that's what their portfolio will be best-suited for when they graduate.
I read an interesting article on the New York Times Education blog recently, about Mary Ellin Arch, a news editor who'd been 'downsized' from the newspaper where she worked, after 29 years in the news business.
Not yet ready to retire, she did what many journalists had done before her: she decided to look for work in public relations.
And after four months of “no bites, no interviews, no calls, no interest whatsoever,” she realized she was losing all the PR jobs to people who were educated in PR.
The way it was
Not that long ago, it was a pretty normal thing for journalists to make the move to PR once they either realized they weren't going to become Walter Cronkite/Barbara Walters/Bob Woodward/Carl Bernstein, or they decided they wanted a job that might be a little more family-friendly.
In fact, if you talk to many veteran PR pros today, they'll even tell you that you should go work in a newsroom before making the move to PR, because it'll make you a better PR guy.
They say that, because that's how it worked for them, back then.
It made sense, really. Even a decade ago, a good understanding of how the mainstream media worked was sometimes the most important characteristic of a successful PR professional. The mainstream media represented one of the very few ways we could practically get our messages out to our external audiences. Logically, who'd know better than someone who'd been on the other side, right?
On top of that, working in a newsroom was how you learned to write like a journalist, which is what PR folks aim to do.
The way it is
Today, a few variables in the equation have changed.
First, public relations programs have grown and expanded in colleges and universities around the world, at the certificate, diploma, degree, and graduate levels.
Students in these programs learn the fundamentals of organizational communications, and put them into practice. They learn what they need to know about their audiences in order to get -- and hold -- their attention. And they explore the creativity they need to figure out how to break through today's noise with a meaningful and persuasive message, on top of learning how to write for PR.
The "learn-it-by-watching-it-from-the-outside" approach of reluctant journalists doesn't hold up as well anymore. They are competing for PR jobs against people who can show employers work samples illustrating the range of skills they're looking for. PR grads don't have to say "trust me -- I have experience in a related field, so I'll probably be pretty good at PR."
Secondly, while understanding how the media work remains important for PR pros, organizations' reliance on media relations for mass communication will decrease steadily as social media grow.
There's a reason newspapers and magazines are fighting for audiences these days -- and it's because those audiences are getting their information online. Today's PR pros do need to understand how to work effectively with the mainstream media, but they also need to be able to communicate much more broadly -- a skill that requires a far greater breadth of PR knowledge and experience than having written for a newspaper.
Don't get me wrong
Please don't think I'm saying it's impossible for a journalist to switch into PR today, because it isn't. It continues to happen, and I expect it always will, for certain people.
When I was the director of a corporate communications department, I hired a number of former journalists -- all of whom demonstrated in their portfolios and in interviews their understanding of how PR works.
I also interviewed and declined to hire many more, who didn't.
If you want to work in PR today, you'd do yourself a favour by entering a formal PR program in a post-secondary institution, and by building a portfolio that shows your understanding of the fundamental principles of effective communications and how you respond creatively to a range of communications challenges.
Writing articles is only one of many writing-based skills a PR pro needs -- not to mention the need to understand different stakeholder motivations, to be able to create effective strategies to reach them, and how to use the growing number of communication tools at our disposal effectively.
I got lucky.
I entered this profession in the mid-1990s, before the Internet was even widely used. I received my PR education "on-the-job," when I was mentored by a partner in the communications firm that hired me based on my English degree, my strong writing, and the strength of my interviews.
Today I wouldn't stand a chance. There are far too many grads of public relations programs who can prove they already know what they're doing, and are ready to hit the ground running for their client.
My PR majors would have beaten me out for that first job in a minute, I can guarantee it... and I'd have been back to school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)