The Flack

Those writing on the ad/marketing beat give tech scribes a run for their money in terms of the number of misguided story queries that cross their desktops.

It's one thing to weigh the editorial merit of some cool new tech product, yet quite another to do the same in the promotion-laden world of consumer packaged goods.

Frankly, those toiling in that often undifferentiated ad-driven space would probably be better off foregoing the quest for news coverage and look to the social nets for niche followers. Over-the-edge advertising or digital video also has turned a few ad/marketing reporters' heads, if not for their traditional news palettes, certainly for their expanding digital channels (or vice-versa).

But back to the original premise of this post: the fortitude needed by some reporters in dealing with PR people who simply don't get it. Take The New York Times Magazine's "Consumed" columnist Rob Walker who. a few weeks ago, exposed on his blog the reason why decent media relations pros are have such a tough times nowadays engaging.

"How am I on this PR person’s blast list?" Walker writes. "She seems to know my name — but at the same clearly has absolutely no idea who she is writing to."

He's referring to his receipt of a spam-like email, which arrived with an (unsolicited) 1000-word by-lined article for his editorial consideration. Huh? A cursory glance at his column would reveal that this pitch was destined to the dust bin, as apparently was its purveyor:

Seems like a waste of money to pay someone to send stuff like this around. And since I always tag such solicitations as junk, it kind of eliminates the publicist my from radar permanently.

You gotta love the fact that one mine his blog for these tortuous tales using the tag "Annals of Publicity."

Labels: Bad Pitch, Consumed, media relations, murketing, PR, Rob Walker, The New York Times magazine

So once again, the world's all a flitter over a prominent journalist jumping ship to get into the PR game. After all, they reason, who knows more about dealing with the news media than an actual member of the fourth estate, from a TV network no less? Right? Well...not necessarily.

Frankly, I found all the coverage of former MSNBC GM and show host Dan Abrams' foray into PR somewhat amusing, if not familiar.

For decades, toiling as a print reporter was almost a prerequisite for landing gainful employment in the enigmatic world of public relations. More recently, broadcast producers and journalists having jumped onto the PR bandwagon with the notion that they have a greater wherewithal to"train" newsmakers in the do's and dont's of media command-and-control. According to Abrams in the NYO:

"It’s a mix of TV, online media and print people,” said Mr. Abrams. “I think it’s somewhat equally weighted. Maybe a little bit more heavily toward TV. It’s everything from household names to producers to bloggers to people who have started their own online media entities."

Well those days are waning. Not only is teleprompter-reading meaningless in today's world of public relations, but working one's clients through the mainstream media filter is a discipline that plays an increasingly smaller role in the PR toolbox. Mining the online conversation, engaging mainstream and citizen journalists, creating, optimizing and syndicating (captivating) digital content, navigating the social nets, microblogging, building personal networks...are just some of the new tools expanding our trade.

And let's not forget one not unimportant underpinning: good ethics and instincts. Knowing when and how to address a PR issue takes more than just a few years to hone.

I am impressed that Mr. Abrams succeeded in enticing the former media reporter from the world's most trafficked weblog to his new enterprise, adding some currency and cache. But, again, does shitting on scores of suppliant PR people really give one the skills needed to sit in the C-suite offering strategic PR advice? I hardly think so.

Dan, I am a big fan and I wish you well. I mean how did you assemble that most luminescent advisory board? Still, may I offer a piece of advice? Among the "20,000 experts" you hope to have in your database, you probably should consider adding a few actual PR professionals. They might add a dimension missing from the "experienced media insiders, bloggers, and authors" whom you propose "to help companies make smarter decisions about marketing and communication."

Labels: Abrams Research, Dan Abrams, PR, public relations, Rachel Sklar

This morning Saul Hansell, in the New York Times's "Bits" blog, draws our attention to Amazon's "Holiday Customer Review Team," or as Saul calls it, a "user-generated public relations" program.

In his post he describes how the online retailer has deployed ordinary citizens, i.e., prolific product reviewers on the Amazon site, as "third-party" company spokespersons. The retailer has offered up these gadget guru-wannabes for media interviews. From the company's news release this week:

"The Amazon Holiday Customer Review Team will be available now through Dec. 25 to discuss Black Friday and other holiday deals, tips for cutting costs over the holidays, best holiday gift items, and specific products they have reviewed."

Amazon claims that these are "real people giving unbiased advice to fellow consumers. They are not employed by Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates." However, as Saul astutely notes, there is more to these citizen reviewers than meets the i...phone:

"Some team members have been flown to Seattle to conduct broadcast interviews on behalf of the company. Moreover, they have been given free products to review and keep. The freebies are part of the Amazon Vine program the company started last year. Top reviewers get free products if they promise to write about them."

There's the rub. The online retailer promotes these reviewers as real people with no inherent bias in their product reviews. And in fact, the product reviews tend to be mixed. Yet, leveraging for PR the citizen-like allure of its reviewers, which is nothing new, without fully explaining their in-kind ties to the retailer strikes me as a tad disingenuous.

I suppose it's worse when a company pays a "third-party" expert or celebrity spokesperson to promote its wares without revealing the fee arrangement -- an industry practice that's seen celebrities promote remedies for irritable bowel syndrome, athletes with asthma, or retired generals advocating military policy. The media, on the other, has mostly caught on to the ruse of the so-called third party expert, and now demands full-disclosure, at least in the news equation.

Also, as a retailer with a myriad product lines, Amazon is less prone to allegations of product bias from its reviewers. In reality and in aggregate, these crowd-sourced reviews are invaluable. Personally, I'd prefer Saul's colleague David Pogue whose nifty Pogue-o-matic bowed last week as a means to slice and dice this season's must-have gadgets.

As for the reviewers' "mediability," the jury is out. So far Saul hasn't "seen any print articles yet that quote the review team members."

Labels: Amazon, citizen PR, David Pogue, PR, product reviews, Saul Hansell

This blog has frequently looked at the succession of White House spokespersons over its three+ year run. A persistent theme centered on how the public faces of this administration -- Fleischer, McClellan, Snow and Perino -- have sold their souls to blindly advance the political POVs of their bosses.

Most people today acknowledge that these ill-conceived (PR-driven?) policies have created the debacle in which the nation now finds itself - both here and abroad.

While one former Bush spokesperson had a "come to Jesus" moment in which he publicly atoned for his sins, and another sadly passed away before being able to do so, the remaining two -- Mr. Fleischer and Ms. Perino -- have steadfastly defended this disastrous presidency.

Loyalty is one thing, but when loyalty comes at the expense of the greater good, we must question the ethical underpinnings of those stubborn sound-bited soldiers. Today the Wash Post's Howard Kurtz took a spin with Ms. Perino in her "final days" as White House press secretary. Here are a few notable quotables:

"I absolutely feel comfortable with what I said."

"We took it from all sides, and it was difficult," Perino says. "When you're that close to your boss, it's hard sometimes not to take it personally."

"I'll give you eight months" [before the media honeymoon ends, she told Rahm Emanual ].

"There's no doubt that when you're more popular, your press is better."

[On MSM bloggers], "it's snappy, sarcastic. It doesn't necessarily engender trust between the reporter and the press people." And she sees the growth in "analysis" pieces as an excuse for some reporters to vent "what their feelings are about an issue."

It's a shame that Ms. Perino will not see this post:

"I stopped reading blogs about me and told my mom to stop, because it was so vitriolic," she says.

I would say that America is ready for Robert Gibbs.

Labels: Ari Fleischer, dana perino, Howard Kurtz, PR, Robert Gibbs, Scott McClellan, sperson, White House spokesperson

One would be hard-pressed today to attend a media, marketing or PR conference where social media and ground-swelled client case studies didn't dominate the agenda.

I can't recall a time in which so many similarly themed panels abounded, and this includes the dot-com era. (Admittedly, this PR pro has presided over his share.)

The proliferation of these kinds of events is understandable. The changed marketing and media environment spawned a cottage industry on which trade associations and conference companies have capitalized. Then there are the media companies, which have been forced to create new revenue sources to supplant their diminishing advertising intake.

What's unfortunate is that the economic downturn will invariably create a Darwinian downturn in the number of these industry events just at a time when marketing professionals needs them most. Earlier this week I received multiple Facebook messages alerting me that the Webby Awards I had planned to attend was cancelled.

In spite of the myriad events where pundits proudly pontificate on our industry's prospects, PR practitioners still need to know a thing or two about media relations. Sure, we recognize that tech-savvy reporters in certain industry beats, e.g., tech, marketing, media, boast of bypassing "the PR filter" through micro-blogging, social networking or just plain networking. Truth is, we're grappling with the same tools to bypass "the media filter" to reach end audiences. But this is a conversation for another day.

For many media beats, e.g., entertainment, biz/financial, travel, etc., the back-and-forth rules of journalist engagement still apply. Did you see the piece in today's New York Times in which L.A.-based entertainment scribe Brooke Barnes dissects the deal to bring images of Angelina and Brad's twins to the cover of People magazine?

Here's what she wrote in her story titled "Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image":

"According to the deal offered by Ms. Jolie, the winning magazine was obliged to offer coverage that would not reflect negatively on her or her family, according to two people with knowledge of the bidding who were granted anonymity because the talks were confidential. The deal also asked for an 'editorial plan' providing a road map of the layout, these people say."

The insinuation of an editorial quid pro quo for access and a future guarantee of positive coverage prompted this vitriol from a Time Inc. spokeswoman:

“These claims are categorically false,” the statement said. “Like any news organization, People does purchase photos, but the magazine does not determine editorial content based on the demands of outside parties.”

The truth lies somewhere in-between. The PR handlers of in-demand celebrity newsmakers, of all stripes, can and do leverage access in exchange for editorial consideration - both tonal and topical. The big established news organizations will effusively deny they compromised their editorial integrity, but rest assured, negotiations take place where ground are laid -- whether they be for Angelina Jolie, Tom Cruise or Sarah Palin.

What's most impressive, media conferences notwithstanding, is that Ms. Jolie appears to personally preside over these chores. From The Times:

"Most skillfully, she dictates terms to celebrity magazines involving their coverage of her and her family, editors say, creating an awkward situation for publications that try to abide by strict journalistic standards. In a separate 2006 negotiation with People, Ms. Jolie invited magazine editors...to bid on exclusive photos of her and her adopted Cambodian son, Maddox. But she made coverage of her charity work part of the deal."

So this prompts the question: Angelina, would you care to serve as a guest speaker at our next Publicity Club of New York luncheon? I promise no personal questions.

Labels: Angelina Jolie, media, media relations, New York Times, People magazine, PR, Time Inc.

I had a chance to spend the morning at NYC's Waldorf Astoria's Starlight Roof. No. It wasn't a wedding, bar mitzvah or even a debutante ball. Rather, our industry's leading weekly magazine gathered PR's movers and shakers for a look at What's Next.

The PR Week NEXT Conference, in celebration of the glossy's 10th anniversary, commenced at 7:45am with a handful of roundtable discussions over croissants and coffee. I had the great fortune to explore the future of media, as moderated by former CBS-TV News prexy Andrew Heyward. My tablemates included PR thought leaders from both agencies and companies, in New York and beyond. We explored the cacophonous media environment and what it takes to succeed (an admittedly much longer conversation).

Publishing director Julia Hood introduced Lord Michael Heseltine, chairman of the UK-based ad/PR/marketing media powerhouse Haymarket, who recounted how he decided ten years ago, with the urging of Richard Edelman, to take his successful PR franchise across the pond. The million-dollar start-up cost was cushioned by the half million he solicited in initial advertising.

Then PR Week editor Keith O'Brien segued to the first panel featuring a rather lengthy introduction by Porter Novelli's Marian "metrosexual" Salzman who moderated former US magazine and American Media editrix Bonnie Fuller, The New York Times's R&D chief Michael Zimbalist, and long-time TV writer/producer Bill Persky who caught the wired audience off guard with his talk of mimeograph machines and hand-edited TV scripts.

Both Zimbalist and Fuller were exceptionally well-spoken and very plugged in to the trends. From Zimbalist:

"How are we going to reach consumers? We got it backwards...they're reaching us...Most profound change is that actual production and distribution has been outsourced to the consumer for immediate accessibility...People are looking for some means to filter all this news content...there's a need for authenticity."

And from Fuller:

"I am a woman who owes an incredible amount to Britney Spears...she was a gift to the newsstand who just kept on giving. she was a watershed...the world of the weekly just couldn't keep up...because of Britney, I had to change to meet the needs of readers."

I did take exception to their shared opinion that video production should not be left to PR people. From Zimbalist:

"...content creation is not a core competency of PR people..."

From Fuller:

"PR (corp comms) people need to recognize that they are not content providers...I would outsource to others to create content...work with people who are excellent at content creation."

Hmmm. We'll see about that!

It was Persky, however, who made the greatest impression, at least on this blogger, with his engaging perspective on how technology-driven scripting and editing has hampered the very essence of the creative process:

"...once the computer arrived, we immediately saw a change in the tv scripts...edits no longer flowed...they bumped...the computer led to language loosening up...it became lascivious rather than fun...a lot of creativity became lost...as a result of technology...what makes people laugh, what makes people cry, remains the same...it's not how you deliver it to them...the time to think has been removed by the speed with which you can reach people."

The next conversation featured a private equity executive who knew a thing or two about media and marketing services companies, and the valuations thereof. Robert Nolan, managing partner of Halyard Capital, noted that:

"...what matters most to investors that there be multiple sources of revenue," and that "location-based advertising enabled through broadband gets me excited."

It was followed by a panel titled "The Next Digital Era" that I suppose was the raison d'etre for the conference. Moderated by Peter Kim, it featured Steve Rubel, SVP, Edelman Digital; Mark Donovan, SVP of mobile and senior analyst, comScore; Tom Arrix, VP of sales, Facebook.

Steve Rubel shook things up right off the bat with his three "directional" trends:

1. "...all tangible forms of media will be in sharp decline."
2. "...as social networks rise, the whole notion of peers filtering info from pros is a big deal."
3. "I believe that Google is media, and what is found there is media. This is something that PR people need to be aware of immediately"

True to his ad sales roots, Facebook's Tom Arrix complimented P&G as:

"...the most innovative company on the planet, thought leaders, metric-driven..."

and cited MTV's creative use of FB as a means to

"...assess Britney's relevance during her comeback on the Video Music Awards."

He went on to say that:

"as we get better, we'll figure out betters ways to measure performance. We're rolling out FaceBook Connect experience."

ComScore's Mark Donovan waxed poetic on the prospects for mobile:

"one in five U.S. mobile phone users used their phone to access news in the last year......mobile technology node that connects people to people, people to brands, people to facebook...in next 12-18 months we're going to see a big proliferation of mobile media..."

Peter Kim posed the question of the day:

"As more people participate with social media, how to reconcile when personal brands and corporate brands collide?"

Clickable's Max Kalehoff, following my Tweets from afar, weighed in:

"I ask that question all the time. Nobody's answered it. It's an issue of management control and values. It goes far beyond superficial trends and "social computing" technologies."

Rubel did say that this collision, for him, is like "walking a tightrope" everyday. Peter Kim then observed that many companies block Facebook and even iPhones in the enterprise, prompting this comment from Rubel:

"The companies with the most liberal IT policies are going to win..."

And this from Arrix:

"You're far better off as a brand to allow your people to be on Facebook. You have no choice."

Comment of the day from ComScore's Mark Donovan:

My mother calls Facebook "My Face"

Labels: Edelman, FaceBook, Haymarket, Julia Hood, Keith O'Brien, NEXT Conference, Peter Kim, PR, PR Week, public relations, social media, Steve Rubel

So by now, you've read the unfortunate news that the SEC has charged Mark Cuban with insider trading. The original maverick who made a gazillion dollars by selling Broadcast.com to Yahoo! and taking the money to buy the Dallas Mavs, today comfortably resides at the intersection of media, technology and sports.

This blogger has admirably followed Mr. Cuban's punditry these last few years. He's one of the more astute and outspoken observers of how the digital revolution impacts our lives.

Yet, with this latest news crashing all around him, he has said nothing, zilch on his blog about it as of 1pm EST today. There are many learning of this story who will have a hard time reconciling this maverick's over-sized personality with his weblog's conspicuous void.

I mean this is a guy who's not shy about speaking his mind 0n any subject - no matter how testy or un-PC.

Freshly minted "social media experts" will offer the usual advice urging Mr. Cuban to confront this adversity by posting his position publicly on his personal pulpit. One picayune problem: Mr. Cuban's lawyers. They've clearly shared their sagacity: the sanctity of the sound of silence.

It's one thing to post your thoughts after being maligned in the media, but quite another to do so when what you say "can and will be used against you in a court of law."

Personally, I don't expect Mr. Cuban to remain silent for long. I just wonder what form it will take and how much temperance we'll see. Stay tuned.

Update (2:28pm EST): About an hour after I posted this item, Mr. Cuban turned over his blog to his lawyer in a post titled "The SEC" in which Mr. Cuban inimitably stated:

“I am disappointed that the Commission chose to bring this case based upon its Enforcement staff’s win-at-any-cost ambitions. The staff’s process was result-oriented, facts be damned. The government’s claims are false and they will be proven to be so.”

Mr. Cuban intro'd the post as follows:

"I wish I could say more, but I will have to leave it to this, and let the judicial process do its job."

Labels: Blog Maverick, insider trading, Mark Cuban, PR, SEC

Labels: A-list bloggers, Authority, blogosphere, blogs, citizen journalism, digital media, journalism, media, new media

One of the older case studies I like to cite in my public talks on the changed PR landscape entails citizen empowerment and the hatchet job The New York Times did on Blog Maverick Mark Cuban several years ago.

Instead of sulking or demanding a printed retraction, Cuban took to his keyboard to cut and paste into his blogging pulpit the unedited interview he conducted via email with the Times reporter. He made sure to wrap some fresh text around his post to highlight where the reporter allegedly erred. What better and faster way to gain retribution?

Yesterday evening, Slate's Ron Rosenbaum, another storied storyteller, decided to take to task former print scribe and current new media pundit Jeff Jarvis for perhaps telling it too much like it really is. His piece, "The Good Life of a New-Media Guru: Is Jeff Jarvis gloating too much about the death of print?", lambastes Jeff for laying the blame for print media's disintermediation at the foot of the industry's foot soldiers, the journalists themselves:

"Not all reporters had the prescience to become new-media consultants. A lot of good, dedicated people who have done actual writing and reporting, as opposed to writing about writing and reporting, have been caught up in this great upheaval, and many of them may have been too deeply involved in, you know, content—"subjects," writing about real peoples' lives—to figure out that reporting just isn't where it's at, that the smart thing to do is get a consulting gig."

Without missing a reporting beat, Jarvis took to his keyboard to rat-a-tat out an eloquently pointed counter-point to Rosenbaum titled "There, there, Ron":

"...He’s mad because I’m not acting sufficiently mournful and respectful at the demise of his friends’ journalistic careers (and perhaps his own). I’m “increasingly heartless” about these “beautiful losers. Sadly, Rosenbaum doesn’t debate the idea and history and fate of journalism, which might be productive or at least provocative. Instead, like a pissy third grader, he attacks me."

Not that I have any desire to jump into this war of wordsmiths, but I thought the quality of the discourse merited sharing with you. After all, as falls media, so falls PR, as some say. Others paying attention:

• Silicon Valley Insider's Henry Blodgett "Slate Rips Jeff Jarvis a New One"
• The Atlantic's Jeff Goldberg "In Defense of Ink-Stained Wretches"
• John McQuaid "The Rosenbaum-Jarvis smackdown"
  
• Twitterers
  

Labels: BuzzMachine., Jeff Jarvis, journalism, Mark Cuban, new media pundit, PR, print reporters, Ron Rosenbaum, Slate

I've been thinking about the return to television of "24," the tense, terrorist-inspired weekly drama whose ticking digitized clock gave "60 Minutes" stopwatch a run for its money.

The gripping Fox TV series, which fulfilled the Republicans' playbook for inciting homeland fear, disappeared from my home screen eons ago, and will soon return to a much changed (and still receptive?) political environment.

The show's nearly two-year hiatus had something to do with a writer's strike and jail time for Kiefer Sutherland, who plays the torture-loving patriot Jack Bauer. While Kiefer was in the slammer, TV viewers had to settle with his father who plays the patriarch on one of the dopiest shows on TV, "Dirty Rotten Money."

Anyway, "24" returns to broadcast TV with a two-hour special on November 23, followed by a four-hour "season premier" on January 11 and 12. Already, the buzz has started. The L.A. Times reports: "Fox's '24' is planning to kick off its seventh season not with a car chase or gunfight but with an art show" featuring photos of its 35mm shoot on location in South Africa.

In spite of Fox (News's) penchant for propping up the Bush Administration these last seven years, I didn't hear a single TV pundit reference the possible role the show played in paving the way for red-staters (and others) to accept an African-American as U.S. President. After all, actor Dennis Haysbert served our nation most admirably in his role as President Palmer (rhymes with Obama) in the top-rated TV series. What do you say about that, Nate Silver?

Anyway, it's curious that season seven of "24" will feature a woman as president, played by Cherry Jones. Could life imitate art again? If so, I sure hope we're talking Hillary and not that numbnut from Alaska.

Labels: "24", Barack Obama, Dennis Haysbert, Fox, Hillary Clinton, jack bauer, Kiefer Sutherland, politics, race and politics, Television, U.S. president

As someone who's endured more than his share of misguided PR pitches,e.g., think inane dot-com come-ons, The New York Times's intrepid NY-based tech reporter and "Bits" blogger Saul Hansell definitely deserves a medal for his fortitude.

It's a wonder to me that he still works with so many PR people, let alone has the time to offer up pointers on how best to engage him with story pitches. Today on his blog, Saul proposed the notion of "SEO for Gmail."

Here's his response to an e-mailed story pitch for a widget company:

"Keep me posted on what these folks are up to, with an occasional e-mail. Don't worry if I don't respond. The way my life seems to work, suddenly something happens, and then I'll be interested in, say widgets. I'll remember you sent me something on a cool widget company, search my e-mail and get on the phone."

One of the biggest obstacles PR pros face can be found in the nebulous prose they use to make their editorial case. Saul cites this pitch:

Hope you're well. I'd like to introduce you to xxxx , a new, place-based out-of-home digital network that delivers relevant, localized media within the rhythm of consumers' daily rituals, like afternoon coffee or sandwiches at lunch.

Geesh. Any pitch that starts off with "hope you're well" is, in my book, the kiss of death. Here's Saul's take:

It turns out that the company puts video billboards in delis. My hope is that if people realize that a reporter is much more likely to search for "video billboard" than "place-based out-of-home digital network" this may be an incentive for PR people to brush up on their English a bit.

Amen. This blogger would be lost without the ability to search GMail, which is now using 5673 MB (78%) of the allotted 7260 MB of free space.

It's probably also worth noting that the second edition of Mike Moran's best-selling book Search Engine Marketing Inc. just came out. Hint.

Labels: Bits Blog, Gmail, media relations, New York Times, PR, public relations, Saul Hansell, search engine optimization, SEO

I finally got around to reading (my collector's edition of) The New York Times late yesterday. I gleefully waded through the election coverage to eventually find SF-based tech reporter's Claire Cane Miller's piece on layoff rumors in the age of Twitter. Before I go there, wasn't yesterday a glorious day!?

I wonder if an Obama administration will provide as much PR fodder for this blog as the Bushies? Doubtful, though we'll definitely keep an eye on how the groundswell is put to use once President Obama shifts into gear.

Also, did you hear about the lines that formed around The Times's Eighth Avenue headquarters in NYC where demand for the November 5 edition outstripped newsstand supply? Long live the newspaper!

OK So here's the deal on the piece about layoffs in the age of Twitter. The premise was that when layoff rumors surface online -- true or untrue -- the employer must go public ASAP to set the record straight. And what more expeditious way to do this than through a blog post from high up. From Ms. Cain Miller:

"Companies feel pressure to break bad news on their own blogs so that they can better control the message. However, experts in human resources and public relations say it is only a matter of time before companies of all sizes and in all industries will feel compelled to blog about painful news."

Wrong. No one will argue about the downside of downsizing, and specifically when employees first learn about it through the media, blogs among them. But knee-jerking with an oh-so-public response is not the way to go.

Rather than post to world, senior management must first directly and genuinely engage the employee base, linking to and correcting the online conjecture. E-mail, text, phone, in-person meeting, or any internal channel should suffice. It's less a function of command-and-controlling the news as it is one of decency and corporate culture.

Invariably that internal missive will find its way into the public domain, in effect, killing two birds with one stone. The value of blogging about a layoff accouncemnt lies in its inherent transparency, but also in its ability to provide an outlet for diaogue.

"The demand for transparency has forced small start-ups to act like public companies, he said. At the same time, 'it makes private companies much more accountable to the people they retain and who leave, and that’s probably a good thing,' Mr. Kelman said."

Labels: blogging, command and control, employee relations, HR, layoffs, online rumors, PR

So how did you embellish your election viewing last night? Was it with one of the electoral widgets many of the digitally minded news organizations offered up for download? Did you register for real-time results delivered via SMS to your mobile phone?

Or did you simply plop yourself in front of the flat screen TV with laptop on laptop to supplement CNNHD's election night coverage, highlighted by a Star Trek-like holographic transport of pundits to its studios? (photo)

To that last point, I wonder whether these austere times, let alone Time-Warner's stock price, call for something less over-the-top than the 35 high-def cameras needed to create the Princess Lea-like illusion? Cisco's Telepresence, perhaps? No matter. It was an historic evening.

As for me, I was on the couch in front of a SONY Bravia 52" LCD teathered to the Internet via my crackberry, shuttling between Twitter Mobile and GoogleTalk, with an occassional email and text message thrown in for good measure.

I initially scoped out Twitter's mass election feed, but found its discourse too far-afield to arouse any personal passion. It was then I began to truly appreciate the 250+ Twitter "friends" whom I've judiciously selected to follow over the last year. They are comprised of a cross-section of thought leaders and characters from the worlds of media, marketing, technology, PR and politics. All have strong opinions and few have qualms about sharing them.

So with all the pre-election inducements to buddy up with one of the broadband-delivered, graphically fueled dynamic news sites, I found myself most buoyed and informed by the 140-character text-driven thoughts that crossed my 2.75" screen.

For me, the real magic of this micro-blogging platfiorm lies in its sometimes voyeuristic, but often alluring idea exchange between those whose opinions I care about. It has become for me a modern day equivalent of the Algonquin Roundtable.

(Now if only Twitter didn't require a manual refresh to dynamically advance these tweets.)

Labels: CNN, election coverage, Googletalk, holography, politics, Twitter, Twitter mobile Blackberry

As you set out on this historic day, you may wish to read the urgent plea Stanford University Law Professor Lawrence Lessig posted on the eve of the election. It recounts where we were at this time in 2000 and 2004, and the dangers of complacency.

Lessig, like many of us who choose the future over the past, is worried. I can't blame him.

It started yesterday with a scurrilous email my sister forwarded to me (and to all her online buddies) that had her nearly convinced that Islamists are behind Sen. Obama's political journey. I searched for the facts and replied to all with the link, chastising her for succumbing to these Republican-fueled fabrications. I included the Fight the Smears link for good measure.

Then David Kurtz over at TPM picked up on Sarah Palin's last ditch effort to swing some votes her way by releasing late yesterday her own version of Troopergate. (It exonerated her on the basis that she was not responsible for her husband's actions in the firing of that state official.)

Mrs. Palin aides also released her long-promised "medical records," which consisted of a two-page letter from her physician saying she is in excellent health. What's missing of course are any details of her having given birth. Fat chance we'll ever see that.

Timing is everything in PR, as we know, so in spite of a 24/7 news cycle, yesterday was the last viable time for the retro Palin-McCain ticket to connect with a voting block that is anything but wired.

Labels: Election Day, Fight the Smears, Lawrence Lessig, medical records, politics, PR, Sarah Palin, TPM, vote

As a politically progressive person, I often spend my free time perusing the gamut of like-minded blogs, thought-leading news sites and one especially dominant microblog. In so doing, I've gained a better understanding of how news and views gain currency in today's changed media ecosystem. (In PR, this is probably a very good thing to know.)

Traditional PR'ists have frequently looked to one of a handful of influential mainstream news organizations to jump start their client's story. An exclusive in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or "The Daily Show" for that matter, still has an uncanny ability to kindle "the conversation" -- both online and off.

With the advent of citizen journalism, many in our midst were smitten by the most catalytic blogs, i.e., those with the greatest capacity to set tongues a wagging. Other forward-thinking PR pros embraced the viral virtues of bypassing journalists altogether by search-optimizing and self-syndicating their media "assets" for direct discovery by end audiences -- a direct-to-customer approach if you will.

In today's new PR reality, none of these tactics are mutally exclusive. All merit consideration, likely in combination, for advancing a client's communications and business objectives.

More recently, however, I've noticed that individual blogs or mainstream outlets rarely have the capacity to singularly drive a national conversation. Rather, I've seen a clustering effect among like-minded bloggers, many of whom know and are friendly with one another. Together, they have the capacity to concoct a most concentrated cup of Google juice than any one can alone.

Consider Arianna Huffington, a political potentate in and of herself. Ever notice the confluence of shared themes and links across Ms. Huffington's friends at TPM, 23/6, Think Progress, Daily Kos and the Daily Beast? Well, she's not alone. The same gang-like approach also applies to clusters on the right side of the political spectrum, not to mention those blog beats where social media is especially developed, e.g., technology, media and marketing.

These clusters are especially strong story amplifiers, but they also can be unnerving to those of us charged with minding the reputations of the objects of their disaffection. It's much easier to quash a lone detractor through fact-based engagement than it is to silence a sour-noted chorus of kindred spirits who regularly scratch each others' backs. Quick and nimble is now mandated to head off the echo chamber, as Sen. Obama's Fight the Smears site demonstrates.

In a related story today, The Times's Jacques Steinberg took a look at Media Matters, which monitors news and commentary for misinformation -- mostly of the Republican variety -- surfacing the most malicious and misleading propaganda of the day:

"...Media Matters has given the Democrats a weapon they have not had in previous campaigns: a rapid-fire, technologically sophisticated means to call out what it considers 'conservative misinformation' on air or in print, then feed it to a Rolodex of reporters, cable channels and bloggers hungry for grist...the team of researchers search for the kind of “gotcha” moment that the organization might publicize."

No longer can issues advocates rely on a single outlet to create that contagious conversation. Better to consider the clusters of influencers, and feed from there. Also, this cluster approach is not relegated solely to the blogosphere or MSM. One's Twitter followers can serve as a potently aligned force for amplifying one's POV.

Labels: blogosphere, citizen journalists, daily beast, Huffington Post, journalism, media, media matters, politics, pr strategy, Twitter, viral campaigns, word of mouth