1/09

Under the heading of "PR Madness" the reporter took after Porter Novelli for sending an elaborate invitation by Fedex, although the Porter Novelli's offices are just four blocks from FAST Company.

The reporter then described in detail with accompanying photo what was in the kit.  At the end, he said, " I would have read the invitation on paper, honest."  He accused Porter Novelli of waste.

I could pass this off as usual journalist moaning but there is something to be said for his point of view.  Too many invitations, press kits and other items sent to reporters are exercises in excess without a good reason for expenditure.  PR practitioners want to do something unusual and spectacular, whether or not the situation calls for it. 

I call these "Award Mailings."  Just wait.  The invitation will be submitted at Silver Anvil time as an example of a successful program.

Ad agencies do the same thing.  They make beautiful ads that often do not serve the client but are terrific at winning statues and plaques.  One agency -- Chiat Day -- was a master of this technique.  In that agency's defense, however, It  also created powerful advertising that got a client's message across beautifully.

PR starts with content, not flashy designs.  Marketing PR agencies don't believe that, but let me say it again. PR starts with content.  The invitation invited the reporter to a breakfast during which Gillette is going to unveil a product.  An e-mail would have had the same effect, it seems to me.  As it is, the reporter wrote he is undecided whether he will attend the breakfast or not. 

I'll bet that invitation kit cost more than $10 to make, and the response was no better than a 10-cent phone call.

01/08

Of course, neither can be excused for intemperate rhetoric and both are practicing the worst form of communication.  Rather than persuasion, they use invective to blacken the reputation of the other side.  Unfortunately, allegations, especially outrageous allegations of Nazi-like behavior, require extraordinary proof. 

It turns out, however, that invective is more for supporters than for those not persuaded.  It motivates believers to action.  Impartial outsiders cannot understand how civilized adults descend to bickering children.  "Did too.  Did not.  Nyahh Nah Nah Nah Nah."

Is there any wonder that millions of Americans are turned off by the political system?  We're embarrassed to know either side. 

Politics should be hard-fought and civil.  It seems to me that a political group that uses persuasion should have a greater chance of building public relationships than a party that chooses to hate.  (On the other hand, Stalin and Hitler prove me wrong.)

I hope that one or both parties come to this realization sooner rather than later.  But, it doesn't look like it will happen this year. Howard Dean is known for his shoot-from-the-lip style and drive-by accusations.  (Dean has not accused anyone of Nazi-like behavior, as far as I know, but some of his supporters have.) 

There should be vigorous debate about the country's future.  We're facing deep and seemingly insoluble problems from an escalating deficit to the looming retirement of millions of Baby Boomers for whom we do not have enough Social Security.  But politicos are Hatfields and McCoys taking potshots at one another across the gulch that divides them.  Regrettably, political commentators say this standoff is likely to continue because division extends to voters' themselves who are equally divided over the future.

Rather than despairing, I think this is an opportunity for PR to promote coalitions.  But, it seems that we're not quite there yet.
 

01/07

Then, I had a greater pleasure of answering each of the questions to see if I could get the client out of the insinuations and accusations.  I like doing such FAQs because they test one's ability to penetrate tough issues and to find responses to handle them. 

It is possible to stump oneself and to learn there is no good answer.  Then real work begins.  How does one answer without being hypocritical or evasive? What can one say that is truthful and factual without resorting to "no-comment?"  Can or should one duck the question? I argue with colleagues over the answers.  From the cut and thrust of response, critique, modified response, new critique and new response,  we find an answer that withstands severe challenge.  This is PR at its finest, in my opinion. It is helping a client find the right way to say something without resorting to "spin." 

I dislike the term "spin" because it implies one is not telling the truth  One should tell the truth, but the presentation should be clear and persuasive -- and that is where PR comes in.  Often clients are their own worst enemies when they try to explain difficult issues.  And, they admit later that they blew what they were trying to say.  The news clips bear them out.

Once answers to this set of dirty questions are finished here, we will send them to the client for review and debate.  There is no certainty the client will accept them.  That will require internal selling.   If we are successful, we should have a set of responses to a ticklish issue that positions the firm on the side of the angels.  And, that's satisfying.
 

01/06

While NASA is justified in celebrating a difficult engineering success and its engineers are overjoyed that the "Great Galactic Ghoul" did not claim another victim, there is much more than meets the eye in news bulletins, photos and press conferences. 

The fact is that good news stakes a claim on budget.  The better the news, the better the position to get scarce resources from Congress.  But that's not all.  The greater the success of the Mars mission, the more that NASA can put recent failures behind it.  But even more than that, the greater the success of the robot vehicle, the more that Jet Propulsion Laboratory can defend its unmanned missions against NASA demands for manned Spacelabs and Shuttle missions.  And finally, the more NASA can show it knows how to operate on Mars, the more it can justify sending a manned mission to Mars someday.  

That's a huge PR burden on the Mars mission and that is the reason why NASA is flacking it heavily and well.  The natural interest is there among the media.  It is an exercise in feeding the media beast and NASA knows how to drop meat into a maw.  It learned this in the early days of the astronaut program in the 1960s and during the moon missions more than 30 years ago. 

The agency hasn't had much chance to celebrate in recent years with relentless budget cuts and demands to get more efficient.  Regrettably, it has chosen the usual bureaucratic path of trying to sustain too many programs on too little budget, which means it has been sloppy in key areas, such as safety.  So, good PR is just what the agency needs  -- and the Mars mission is giving it. 

Break open the bubbly.
 

01/05

Three days ago, I was printing pictures for my daughter who got a Kodak digital camera  for Christmas.  Suddenly, the machine plunged into a Blue Screen of Death with an ominous message about  core memory.  It then went black. 

The computer was on, but I could not turn it off.  The on-off and reboot switches were somehow disconnected from the hardware.  It was as if the computer had a stroke. 

After fiddling and staring for minutes, I disconnected the USB devices from the machine to reduce stress on the system.  Then I pulled the power cord from the back of the computer to see if I could get the machine to reboot.  That worked, but the system was unstable.  I reloaded Windows XP (A miserable operating system for this machine) and the computer functioned for the rest of the day. (I did not dare turn it off.)

The next morning I received a notice that updates were due on the operating software.  These come from Microsoft automatically.   I accepted the updates, but at the end of the download, a message said the machine needed to reboot for the updates to take effect.  I rebooted -- and another stroke. Black, dead black.

I fiddled again, thinking it had to be different this time, but again, removing the USB devices and hard booting brought the machine back to life.  However, I was running scared.  I backed up everything onto my 65-gigabyte Maxtor external storage and thought over the situation.  The troubles started with the Kodak camera docking station connected to the computer. 

Actually, the troubles started with digital photography.  Digital cameras don't save money.  They cost bundles for peripherals  -- extra computer storage, printer, more powerful processing chip, flash memory cards, rechargeable batteries and battery charger (proprietary for the Kodak system), special photo paper, etc.  What happened was the new Kodak docking station and new Maxtor external memory to store photos had overwhelmed my three-year-old computer. 

I fought with this throughout the day but in the end, I gave up.  I ordered a new computer from Dell that has the power to handle everything I need to do.  A digital camera that cost about $300 has now run to nearly $1700 of expense. 

And I thought I was smart about technology.