04/04

http://weblog.siliconvalley.com/column/dangillmor/archives/000914.shtml

This is important news for PR practitioners.  It means crisis news and rumors have another way to sweep through a population before practitioners can respond.   If rumor-mongering seemed fast when TV arrived and sped up with the Web, text-messaging phones are lightning bolts spraying through crowds. 

How does one react to this new medium?  It seems to me PR practitioners should have pre-planned phone text-message responses ready to send immediately.  Something like, "XYZ company is responding to an emergency.  For further information, dial xxx-xxxx or go to our web site at (URL)."

The key is to control panic.  The Chinese government apparently failed to stop panic in the south where SARS seems to be rampant.  The government is now quarantining buildings and the people in them:  Airlines are cautioning travelers to avoid Hong Kong.  The panic is so widespread that economists are predicting that SARS will affect the business of all of Southeast Asia.  Many ask if it had to get out of control like this and they fault the Chinese government for failing to communicate.  Whether the government is at fault or not, fast communication and response are essential. 

SARS has reached across the world.  There are several cases in Toronto, Canada, and doctors fear more are to come.  It is in parts of Europe.  It has reached Australia.  The worst news is that doctors are struggling to determine what SARS is and how to treat the disease, but they haven't succeeded as of this hour.  The good news is that Western medical services are over-communicating about SARS and its symptoms.  We know what to look for now.
 

04/03

No one argues that the Times was right.  We live in a world in which digital photo manipulation is as easy as editing text.  Newspapers cannot afford to sacrifice credibility by allowing news photos to be manipulated without telling readers that this has been done.

This got me to thinking.  How much manipulation should PR allow in photos destined for news distribution?  Shouldn't we hold ourselves to the same rule?  I've never thought much about this, and photo manipulation is normal, but should we rethink the issue?

There is no question that with portraits of individuals, such as executives, we are going to smooth blemishes and feature the person in the best light.  A newspaper and a reader expect that.  But, what of a candid shot of the CEO shaking hands with employees in a factory?  Should we put more employees into the background of the picture, or leave it as it is?  I should think we would leave it alone.  The credibility issue is too great internally and potentially, externally.  Certainly, one would not fool employees who were there.  They would remember.

How about photos of products?  Should we allow melding of backgrounds, matte shots that place our product on a picturesque cliff in Colorado, shots that have our earthbound product flying through the air?  This seems to be OK because it is clearly understood for what it is.   But what about the photo of the product in action in a crisis situation?  Should we play with that?  I don't think so.  We are saying this is a real shot of a real incident.  Manipulation would be playing with the audience's belief.

It's a tricky question but in the age of digital photography, it is one PR should be thinking about.  The credibility issues facing newspapers also apply to us.
 

04/02

You would think if PR were well-established that one would not be asked so often what the discipline is.  But no.  How many people ask what is law or marketing or management?

I think it safe to say that PR is a niche of communications that will never be well known.  We are too different in what we do and also, too common.  Everyone thinks that he or she can do PR, and many can without formal training.  But most cannot.  They don't understand the basic principles of human relations and communications -- or they think they can bend them to their own purposes without taking into account message receivers. 

PR is fundamentally about credibility and too many organizations are ready to sacrifice credibility for short-term gain.  Hence, they believe in "spin" but not in public relations.  Only a few companies and organizations have been able to maintain relationships with customers and others for the long term.  They work hard at it.  They know PR whether they have studied it or not. 

I wonder what I should  be telling people who ask what PR is about?  Common sense communications?  Unfortunately, common sense in communications has never been common.
 

04/01

There is never an excuse for vile language to co-workers by e-mail.  It shows a complete lack of understanding as to what written communication is about.  It's lousy public relations and bad management as well.  Workers cited such things as unfair comments sent by e-mail and unwelcome personal remarks.  Apparently some managers think they can avoid face-to-face confrontation by sending criticism by Local Area Network.  How stupid.

It takes no understanding at all to know that e-mail is easily misread and cannot give one sufficient clues to just how annoyed or unhappy another party might be.  That is why we have emoticons to indicate the mental state of the sender.  Bosses are apparently so smart they don't know that.

As you can tell without emoticon, I get angry with such basic communications failures. You needn't go through a PR course to know what e-mail etiquette is about nor does one need extensive training in social skills.  It is long past the time when managers and workers should understand how to control themselves when relating to one another through e-mail.  Flaming should be reserved to bulletin board sites where others are prepared to ignore you or flame back.  The workplace must remain civil if it is to be productive.

There...  Now, I'll get off my soapbox.
 

03/31

Already people are worrying aloud that the war is bogged down -- this in the 11th day of it -- and are wondering if we have entered a Vietnam quagmire.  I am a Vietnam veteran, and I seem to remember the war went on longer than 11 days.  Be that as it may, the administration went into this conflict without concurrence of major allies and over opposition of millions.  It has a narrower PR window in which to keep supporters in place and hold back the effects of protests worldwide.

That is why there are fingers being pointed in multiple directions over the "delay."  Apparently, many of us had an impression that Saddam's soldiers were going to lay down their arms, that we were going to dash to Baghdad and that it would be over in a week.  It hasn't turned out that way, and soldiers and civilians are dying.  Each death is laid at the administration's door and bodies are piling at a warlike rate.  Every corpse is a PR failure for the White House -- and the White House knows it.

There is not much one can do at this point.  It is too late to back out without a declaration of defeat and without harming our own forces who have sacrificed in the deserts of Iraq.  So, the president does what he wants to do anyway -- stay the course.   But staying the course means he must be cheerleader-in-chief and keep morale up while the troops work.  It is the most visible kind of leadership.  So far, Bush understands that he cannot  hide and that he must hammer on the theme of endurance. 

The polls show that what Bush is doing is working -- so far.  But, as I have written in this space before, it is high-roller PR.  I am not sure I would have the courage to do what Bush is about -- even if I was convinced I was in the right.   It takes a certain kind of will.