Restoring Trust

Tweet

The Council of PR Firms executive director Kathy Cripps had a twinkle in her eye as she looked out across the expanse of The Yale Club’s Grand Ballroom in New York City yesterday morning. In spite of these recessionary times, the Council’s annual Critical Issues Forum drew a full house and a fair share of industry luminaries, many of whom are featured in this video.

All the big and mid-sized agencies were there, except perhaps for one, to hear the all-star panel featuring General Electric CMO Beth Comstock, PBS “Nightly Business Report co-anchor Susie Gharib, Morgan Stanley’s Jim Wiggins, retired GM corp comms chief Steve Harris and APCO CEO and Council president-elect Margery Kraus.

The always provocative and engaging Len Schlesinger, now president of Babson College, and formerly a top business executive and Harvard B School professor, handled moderating duties with his usual aplomb.

In the crowd, I was able to spot Harold Burson, MS&L’s Jim Tsokanos, Lou Capozzi, outgoing Council president and Ketchum CEO Ray Kotcher and his colleague Rob Flaherty, president of Ketchum who doubled as the event’s host, Ralph Katz, Andy Cooper and Anne Green of Cooper Katz, Maureen Lippe of Lippe Taylor, Abby Gouverneur Carr of Bliss PR, Lynn Casey of Padilla Speer Beardsley, F-H’s Nancy Seliger, and too many others to recall.

Of course, my trusty digital audio recorder was battery-challenged so I was only able to get a few choice audio bites from the panel discussion (that I thankfully tweeted). The conversation focused on how to re-build public trust in corporate America and the sorry state of the news media. Here’s a random smattering of paraphrased sentiments:

Jim Wiggins (joking): Perhaps GE should manufacture those mind-erasing devices used in “Men in Black”

Susie Gharib recommended that the audience go see Michael Moore’s latest film if only for the simplistic way in which it shows how we got into this mess in the first place.

Jim Wiggins: We ‘get it’ on the issue of executive compensation. Though it will probably not be enough to satisfy Michael Moore.

Susie Gharib suggested Goldman Sachs take its $20 billion in bonuses and "give it to people who don't have jobs or homes." (which prompted this PR person to interject from the audience "It would be seen as a PR ploy.")

Steve Harris: At GM, we've trained 10,000 people to use social media, and keep another 15,000 in the loop.

Susie Gharib: I agree with public perception of media as being biased. Old style objective journalism is dead...except at PBS

Beth Comstock: At GE, it's a fundamental re-set. We don't see things going back to where they were. One statistic says that jobs won't return until 2017 in this new re-set world.

Following the panel, we broke for lunch during which David Gergen and Len Schlesinger took the stage. I don’t know if it’s his southern and mellifluous cadence, but one could easily understand why Mr. Gergen has served as an advisor to a handful of U.S. Presidents across both sides of the political aisle.

He compared President Obama to newbie President John F. Kennedy, but acknowledged Kennedy’s command presence during the 13-day Cuban Missile Crisis as perhaps the single biggest display of executive leadership in this nation’s history. Here are a few (paraphrased) notable quotables from Mr. Gergen:

Were entering a new normal. The old normal is not returning.

Wall Street and the media are two institutions that have the least public confidence (from the JFK School of Government’s annual study)

Business is not off the hook. It's on probation.

…not sub-prime mortgages, but sub-prime leadership (citing Bill George’s explanation of why the bubble burst)

This year at Harvard Biz School. students self-organized to take an oath to serve the public good (70% took it)

Was death of Walter Cronkite the passing of an individual or the passing of an age?

We've taken another notch downward in last 2-3 years with the growing viciousness of what's on the blogosphere

The viciousness of blogosphere has migrated to cable, (eg, Olbermann, O’reilly)

If the pendulum doesn't swing back, we're going to entertain ourselves to death (on the type of news programming we’re seeing)

All in all, the Council should be proud of the timeliness and overall substance of yesterday’s discourse at the Critical Issues Forum. More tweets can be found by Twitter-searching this hashtag: #CIF09.

The Media Bypass

Tweet

Ad Age's Mike Bush today visits with a number of PR pros who wax poetic on how their clients bypass the media filter to reach customers directly.

We've covered this for a few years now, but it hasn't gone so far as to dismiss the value of media relations for advancing a client's communications objective.

Bush writes:

"...as the body count of magazines and daily newspapers continues to rise and the once-robust news and feature holes of surviving publications shrink along with reporting staffs, some marketers have given up on the traditional path to media coverage: pitching journalists.some marketers have given up on the traditional path to media coverage: pitching journalists."

Theoretically, perhaps, but in reality the number of pitchable (or should I say "engageable") "media" outlets is actually greater than at any other time in history. It's just that we, as PR pros, need to look beyond the imprimatur of a Newsweek or Fortune to those virtual voices that may exert even greater influence over the specific audience with which we wish to connect.


And it's not an either-or scenario. The creation and dissemination of original (and reporter unfettered) content will continue to grow in importance. PR exec Mark Hass shares his rationale for using YouTube for one of his automotive clients:

"They [the client] still have the usual car-and-driver folks drive and write about their cars, but that's becoming much less important than [it] used to be...You build a channel on YouTube and you get millions of views...And these people are coming from all over, and it's more about their interest in your product, as opposed to the readership and viewership of a particular medium. It's horizontal. If you wanted to reach that many people using traditional media, you would have to pitch and place in dozens of outlets."

Who among us can disagree? Plenty. There remains a vast swath of corporate communicators and their bosses in the C-suite for which a Twitterfeed, company blog, YouTube or Facebook page takes a distant backseat to a prominent piece in Business Week or The Journal or an appearance on "Today" or "Squawk Box."

Believe it or not, even a client's by-line in the world's most popular (and conversation catalyzing) blog Huffington Post isn't viewed by many as having the same value as a piece in The New York Times or the New Yorker. (Though the latter often end up being linked to by the former.) There exist countless (a majority of?) PR firms and pros who remain mired in the notion that the press clip is the end result -- as opposed to the customer, investor, legislative or regulatory action a piece of content or conversation may produce.

Unfortunately (or fortunately for many), this dynamic will persist as long as clients measure and pay their firms for ink and airtime impressions. If you happen to be in San Diego for the PRSA International Conference Nov 7-9, stop by our session late Sunday to hear more about the nexus of PR and social media from some of the best practitioners in the field.

Jackson Intervention

Tweet

With Michael Jackson mania poised to start all anew, it's curious to watch how Mr. Jackson, once k.a. "Wacko Jacko," may emerge as a whole new fellow.

Here's a tweet from the west coast editor for The Daily Beast:

KateAurthur Kudos to the Michael Jackson fans mad about the movie whitewashing the "grim truth" for the name of their website: this-is-not-it.com

Apparently, there's so much "the crowd" will take when it comes to spinning the truth. But who's to blame: Ken Sunshine, the Jackson family's hired-hand whose firm orchestrated the fawning media events in the aftermath of Mr. Jackson's demise, or SONY Pictures whose Jackson territory-HQ'd parent company spent $60 million for the rights to the new Jackson docu-pic?

My guess is both. Wasn't it SONY that gave the LA Times an exclusive look at select portions of the new film in exchange for a glowing Jackson tribute this past Sunday? And didn't Mr. Sunshine and company gloss over the singer's death by conjuring every known media asset of the singer's former triumphs, in effect drowning out anything that could be construed as deleterious to his legacy?

Can you blame either? Isn't this how they earn their keep? SONY revives Jackson's moonwalking days to draw boffo box office, while Sunshine earns re-invents Mr. Jackson so he's worth more dead than alive.

It's just that these revisionist tactics, while once sufficient to prevail with mainstream entertainment media scribes and programs, have less of an effect in today's RSS-fueled media democracy. Here's an excerpt from the release posted on the This-Is-Not-It website:

Who We Are : friends and fans of Michael, including some who were with him the last weeks of his life and who have witnessed to many of the events that led to his death. The latter group got so concerned about Michael Jackson’s state that on June 21^st, they decided to stage the first step on an intervention. They wrote him letters asking him to stop the tour if he was not up to it. Michael Jackson received these letters on June 24^th. The second step of the intervention was never to take place.

The New York Times today also weighed in with film director Ken Ortega's glowing words about Mr. Jackson, but also acknowledged the big spin now underway with its headline:

"Revising the Image of Jackson’s Final Days"

Again, I'll be curious to see whether the film's choreographed adulation will yield a citizen backlash, especially now that the statute of limitations has passed for the real truthsayers to emerge without being accused of having poor taste.

Apple's Vaunted PR?

Tweet

Boy oh boy. Apple (AAPL) is on a real tear. Boffo earnings and equally boffo rumors including one alleging that Verizon is testing a 4G iPhone (take that AT&T!), keeps that brand in a state of PR nirvana.

As a result, the company's legendary PR department continues to grow in stature. Deservedly? I wonder.

It seems like eons ago when Apple couldn't get any mainstream respect. Does the name Gil Amelio ring a bell? After my former Intel client jumped ship to join Apple's PR team, she invited me to submit a proposal to help extend the company's rabid following beyond those die-hard attendees at the annual Macworld Expos.

Separately, for our Ziff-Davis Publishing client, we invited local TV reporters to accompany one of our Mac enthusiast magazine editors to a computer superstore to conduct a Pepsi-like challenge. The Mac prevailed on a number of levels. Hence, the PR idea was born: we would propose to Apple that they challenge the Wintel PC juggernaut in cities everywhere. As a veteran of the cola, burger, sneaker and toothpaste wars, I was up for a fight. Bring 'em on!

The proposal went nowhere, though today I smile when I see Apple's "I'm a PC and I'm a Mac" advertising creatives. Maybe it was time to give the Cupertino company another try? I noticed that Apple was about to open a shiny new store (see pic above) in my hometown. I tweeted on it a few times, but thought I could do more.

I dropped a note to the Apple PR person listed on previous store opening releases offering Flatiron's services to help engage local media influentials. No reply. (Not even a thanks, but no thanks.) No biggie. After the store finally opened on Saturday, I checked back to see whether Apple's vaunted PR machine succeeded in gaining any local (eg,. traffic-building) media traction.

I then learned the secret of how Apple PR rolls. The company issued, via PR Newswire, a media advisory inviting "accredited" journalists to call a number in northern CA to gain access to the store one hour before the doors open to the public. PR Newswire?! Could this be the store-opening PR team's main modus operandi? The media coverage spoke for itself:

• TUAW
• Macworld (Italy)
• macnn
• gearlog
• About.com
  

Nothing from Newsday, The New York Times, News12 L.I., Anton Publications, FioS Channel 1, L.I. bureaus of local broadcast, News 55 L.I.... Not even the local weekly. But then again, this is Apple. One-to-one media engagement? Not necessary. The store will be packed regardless.

Ironically, it is Microsoft that seems to be deploying the Pepsi Challenge: the day before the new Apple store opened, Reuters moved a piece touting Microsoft's first retail store.

Photo: Peter Himler with a Canon PowerShot SX20 IS

Bribing Bloggers

Tweet

PR Newser's Joe Ciarallo and AllThingsD's Peter Kafka's eyebrows were respectively raised when a PR (?) rep for the upcoming ad:tech conference attempted to barter for their editorial coverage.

Here's a piece of the proposed offer as outlined in an email:

"ad:tech will provide:

* Twitter announcement of your involvement with ad:tech New York to our 6,800+ followers.
* Your choice of: a free pass to the exhibit hall (valued at $35) or 35% off a full conference pass."

"We ask you provide:

* No less than 3 posts about ad:tech New York on Twitter, Facebook or your blog. Suggested postings: a session you're interested in, why you like ad:tech, the exhibitors that you want to see or technologies that you are interested in learning about. What you share is up to you-it just needs to be posted by November 1."

Yikes! What is the world coming to? Have the lines blurred so much that outright bribery for news coverage is accepted in some circles? I recognize that the IAB has come out forcefully against the new FTC rules for bloggers, but I imagine that many bloggers will find the ad: tech enticement, well, sufficiently enticing to take the bait.

Separately, I noticed a tweet today from a mommy-blogging friend in which she waxes pr-poetic
about Vail Resorts.

"Although my family often braves the perennially icy slopes here in the Northeast, nothing compares to the awesome ski terrain in the Rocky Mountains. Vail Resorts run 5 of the top ski resorts- Vail, Beaver Creek, Keystone, Breckinridge, and Heavenly – each of which has come up with winter plans of exciting innovations and celebrations., tantalized at the massive plans for each mountain it appears Colorado will be the place to be this winter."

The post was so PR-positive I had to wonder whether this was a pay-for-play gig or perhaps a ticket to an all-expense paid family ski trip. I then noticed the disclosure at the bottom:

I attended a press luncheon at Gramercy Tavern in New York City with the folks from Vail Resorts to learn about all their plans at each resort for the upcoming winter season.

My my, all that adulation in exchange for a free lunch? Well, it was at Gramercy Tavern, Danny Meyer's tony eatery that earned three New York Times stars when last I checked. Still, she could have asked about the (sobering) prices of this season's lift tickets to create some balance. Do the FTC's new blogger rules apply to free lunches?

Update (10/17) - ad:tech's Mike Flynn offers an apology. (Truth is Mike, ad:tech is a fab event whose speakers/topics alone merit blogger/reporter interest/attendance.

Peter, and all,

Please accept our apologies. We recognize we made a foolish error. You can see our full apology at http://www.adtechblog.com/blog/d...tail/apologies/ .

Sincerely,

Mike Flynn,
Event Director, ad:tech North America
mike flynn | Homepage | 10.17.09 - 1:44 pm | #

Sidewiki's PR-ospects

Tweet

The digital marketing cognoscenti are nearly unanimous in their advice to newbie clients seeking to manage/advance their brands' online reputations. Listen first! After all, how could a company know where to apply its marketing/PR muscle (and tools of engagement) without knowing what is being said about it?

Listening to (or monitoring) the online conversation is so essential that it has spawned a cottage industry of specialist providers. Among them: Radian6, Converseon, Visible Technologies, Crimson Hexagon, DNA13, Trackur, Scout Labs, and too many others to remember. The price of admission: the ability to capture and organize voluminous amounts of brand or product-specific consumer and news-generated content derived from Twitter, the blogosphere, websites, group discussions, web comments, and even offline news sites, etc.

Many "conversation mining" companies also claim to automate the process of "sentiment analysis," but be wary of this. To date, this holy grail capability remains somewhat rudimentary, i.e., "positive, negative or neutral," given the myriad nuances that define the nature of a conversation. This will change over the next year or two as AI algorithms grow in sophistication.

Today, MediaPost's Laurie Sullivan draws our attention to a new, but potentially significant development for those of us charged with online reputation management. It's Google's Sidewiki toolbar about which Ms. Sullivan writes:

The toolbar, called Sidewiki, which launched in September, provides a venue for venting and posting derogatory comments on virtually any Web site that only those who install the toolbar can read. And although many realize that Google never intended that the toolbar be used for evil, some believe the Mountain View, Calif. company's innovation could create a nightmare for marketers and Web site owners if they choose not to download and install the tool.

Google claims that its own algorithm has a built-in capacity to ferret out non-useful (or destructive?) comments on Sidewiki. A Google spokesperson:

"Rather than ordering entries chronologically, we use a unique algorithm that incorporates various signals about the entries to rank them in terms of usefulness. The signals include language modeling for the text, and information we know about the author, such as the quality of past Sidewiki entries he or she has written.

The community using the tool monitors Sidewiki entries by voting up content that is useful and informative, and voting down irrelevant or unhelpful posts. Similarly, the community can flag any illegal, pornographic or copyrighted content by using the 'Report Abuse' button."

"What Would Google Do" author Jeff Jarvis even took issue with Sidewiki, less for the challenges its secret society of brand detractors might potentially pose to PR pros, and more for putting the conversation his site generates behind a "hedge." On September 23, he posted on BuzzMachine:

"Google is trying to take interactivity away from the source and centralize it...It takes comments away from my blog and puts them on Google. That sets up Google in channel conflict vs me...It robs my site of much of its value... On a practical level, only people who use the Google Toolbar will see the comments left using it and so it bifurcates the conversation and puts some of it behind a hedge."

Stephen Foley, iCyte CEO (and an Aussie in New York) has taken up the charge to prove that Google may be compromising its "Don't Be Evil" mantra. In a post titled "Sidewiki Gone Mad," he writes:

"I have a nice house. I have spent many years building it. I have a large fence out the front. Up until yesterday no-one could write on my fence, but that has all changed. Now anyone can write anything they like on my front fence...."

Others see the tool as a "next generation TripAdvisor." While it's too soon to predict Sidewiki's uptake, reputation managers (and the mining companies they employ) should pay heed to the perilous potential this tool holds. In other words, sign up and listen.

World Series PR Pitch

Tweet

It made perfect sense. Why not glom onto the current national obsession for the national pastime to spark media interest in your company's predictive technologies?

I'm speaking of course about the baseball playoffs, and more specifically about the two teams that will end up in the season-ending best-of-seven.

One enterprising company claims to have analyzed some 40 years of baseball stats to conclude that this year's World Series will be an all-southern California affair. In fact, the quants at Information Builders went so far as to predict the winner. Here's a take from the pitch letter:

"To come up with their prediction, the company analyzed 40 years of baseball statistics from all of the teams that made the playoffs such as winning percentage, runs scored, batting average, total extra base hits, earned run average and fielding percentage. As a result, Information Builders was able to predict The Los Angeles Dodgers will defeat the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in the 2009 Fall Classic."

As we all know, the quality of the pitch matters little if the batter is inherently predisposed. I mean if I were to receive this, I would probably give it short shrift given my predilection for the prospects of the New York Yankees. In this case, the pitch recipient was Larry Dignan, editor of ZDNet and an avid Philly fan. His take:

"But before pitching someone the PR teams should at least check a locale or two. I’m a tweener between New York and Philly. Do you honestly think I’m going to be hip to a Dodgers World Series win? And can I really take a predictive modeling exercise seriously that left out my Phillies?"

I suppose the LA Times sports or technology desks might have been a better place to start, but then again Dignan did finagle a hit out of the pitch.

The FTC Tête-à-Tête on Twitter

Tweet

If you've been following the digital discourse set off by the alleged $11,000 fine levied this week by the FTC against some bloggers, then you might enjoy Thursday evening's Twitter exchange between BuzzMachine's Jeff Jarvis and Mediashift's Mark Glazer (@mediatwit).

In case you've been out of the country, the FTC finally instituted its guidelines designed to ferret out commercial deception in the social spheres. Mathew Ingram managed to tease out the tête-à-tête by twipping off Jeff to Mark's POV on the new rules.

Here's the exchange as it unfolded in 140-character twincrements:

mathewi: @jeffjarvis? RT @mediatwit: I think the FTC rules are good. I doubt they will enforce every tiny thing and any push for transparency is good

jeffjarvis: @mediatwit Good, God, Mark, you endorse the FTC rules in a tweet? Shall we discuss govt interference in public speech? The 1st Amendment?

jeffjarvis: @mediatwit And I don't buy the FTC's pr on this: 'Oh, don't worry about us.' What matters is the rules. Successors will enforce.

jeffjarvis: @mediatwit But do the FTC rules extend to journalists on papers, magazines? No. So bloggers become 2nd class citizens w/fewer rights.

jeffjarvis: @mediatwit Of course, transparency is good. But you think govt should define & enforce it just for a) bloggers and b) celebs but not hacks?

mediatwit: @jeffjarvis And what shouldn't be enforced? Are you defending blogger's rights to deceive people with reviews?

jeffjarvis: @mediatwit Then use existing fraud laws against anyone who defrauds (including the press). Don't single out bloggers.

mathewi: @jeffjarvis: hey, maybe @mediatwit was compensated by the FTC for that positive tweet -- that would be so meta :-)

jeffjarvis: @mediatwit Let's push for transparency in govt first. And business. And journalism. Bloggers are citizens talking.

jeffjarvis: @mediatwit Government regulation of speech chills speech. It is a 1st Amendment matter. We should be defending speech.

mediatwit: @jeffjarvis Defending the 1st Amendment is one thing. Defending deceptive business practices, false advertisements on blogs is different.

jeffjarvis: @mediatwit If I say something nice about BestBuy after speaking there I'm now liable. What's deceptive there? If Pogue does, he's not. Huh?

jeffjarvis: RT @mathewi: @jeffjarvis: hey, maybe @mediatwit was compensated by the FTC for that positive tweet -- that would be so meta :-)

mediatwit: @jeffjarvis What kind of speech will be chilled? Reviews of products on blogs? You really think bloggers will stop reviewing things?

jeffjarvis: @mediatwit See my Post, Mark. It's much more complex than 140 characters.

mediatwit: @jeffjarvis @mathewi The FTC is totally right! [This tweet paid for by the FTC] #joking

jeffjarvis: @mediatwit Yes, Mark, they will. They are now in jeopardy. Pogue isn't. Papers should be defending bloggers right. As I'd think you would

jeffjarvis: @mediatwit I was about to say something nice about BestBuy but I am indeed liable. I'm chilled. No deception. Life under govt regulation.

jeffjarvis: @mediatwit Now say something nice about the LAT, CNET, Conde, NYT, EW, Merc, Nieman and then you must disclose or risk fine.

mediatwit: @jeffjarvis I will concede that disclosure is good, but if the FTC is really going to enforce in every tiny case, there would be a problem.

mediatwit: @jeffjarvis Why can't you say something nice about Best Buy after speaking there? Just disclose. I would want that as your reader.

mediatwit: @jeffjarvis If I write in-depth about PBS, LAT, USC, I do disclose that I work or worked for them. It makes sense to me.

jeffjarvis: @mediatwit I do disclose. http://bit.ly/ZuP0x (expand) That is my choice. I don't want it by govt. fiat and under risk of prosecution. Do you? Truly?

jeffjarvis: @mediatwit Only in-depth? What about a tweet? You're a media critic and you've been paid by media you write about. I trust you. Govt? No.

jeffjarvis: @mediatwit Murdoch wasn't right about Delph, MySpace, LondonPaper.....

mediatwit: @jeffjarvis No, you are right. I like the idea of disclosure, but after

jeffjarvis: RT @mediatwit No, you're right. I like the idea of disclosure, but after looking at the rules, they don't make sense. Doubt they'd be legal

jeffjarvis: @mediatwit bravo, mark. i salute you.

mediatwit: @jeffjarvis I agree that these rules have nothing to do with people who are NOT being paid by companies currently.

jeffjarvis: @mediatwit We agree abt PayPerPost et al. I hate them. But the FTC sullies and puts at risk all bloggers - citizens talking - as a result.

jeffjarvis: @mediatwit They should enforce fraud laws. But leave speech unregulated.

mathewi: In case you weren't following the Twitfight between @jeffjarvis and @mediatwit over the new FTC rules, @jeffjarvis won :-)

Growing PR Spheres

Tweet

Silicon Valley Watcher's Tom Foremski has made a sport out of scrutinizing the PR profession these last few years (often with good reason).

Yesterday, he raised a provocative question from which one might infer more disrespect for our perennially beleaguered profession:

What are the implications when PR pros, who've built large online followings, use their new digital spheres of influence to advocate for clients?

He cites Todd Defren, Steve Rubel and Brian Solis, with their five figures of followers apiece, as prime examples of practitioners whose authority may exceed that of the very journalists they seek to sway. To his credit, Foremski also takes his reporter colleagues to task for their slow digital uptake (Brian Stelter and David Pogue notwithstanding). He concludes:

"The PR people could post the stories themselves and pitch them to their already large communities and get a far higher readership! But, the problem they face is that this would be a "pay per post" type scenario and they would lose credibility very quickly. Also, having someone else write a story about your client, on a third-party site, where there has been no exchange of money, conveys far higher value to the story. That's the paradox of PR peoples' large, personal media footprint -- they can't use their own access to large numbers of people to promote their clients."

From my perspective, this is exactly what these forward-thinking PR pros and others like Ford's Scott Monty and Comcast's Frank Eliason should be doing: building their digital footprints.

Don't misunderstand me. Pitching story ideas to influential journalists remains a core PR competency, but the atomized media landscape demands other, more scalable (and some believe controllable) means for influencing the conversation. It's what recently prompted 35 prestigious universities to recently band together to create their own digital wire service for science news.

As for whether blogging and tweeting PR pro should be trusted, I raised that question years ago when I asked burgeoning blogger Steve Rubel whether he considered himself a "...PR guy or journalist?

I mean if 35,000 people follow Michelle Malkin, what's so bad about a PR pro taking the reigns over his client or employer's message? And even if PR pros gain meaningful followings, won't the digital court of public opinion ultimately determine his or her credibility (and virality)? If not, then maybe, just maybe, the FTC will intercede.

PR Newser also picked up on Foremski's post.

Image via Fast Company

The Art of the PR Job Hunt

Tweet

Last week I was invited to City College of New York to talk about "career paths in social media." I ended up dwelling on career paths in public relations, under which social media most often resides. My co-presenter was the very capable Nadina Guglielmetti (say that three times fast!), who leads Wag-Ed's digital consulting practice in New York.

Given the softness in the PR job market, and the equally incongrous eagerness of the 40 or so students gathered that day, I tried to manage expectations by keeping it real and actionable. Here were several of the pointers:

• Listen to the conversation. Seek out those authoritative voices in the PR/media/marketing space and follow their blog posts (and blogrolls), Twitter tweets, and RSS feeds. Who knows. It may just lead to @heatherhuhman with her entry-level PR job and internship postings.
  

• Get physical. Go out and mingle with those in the field at the countless free meet-ups and tweet-ups that occur nightly in New York City. Meet-up.com is a good place to start.

• Tool with the tools. If there is a silver lining on the PR job front, it's for those with a modicum of digital and social media know-how. Start a blog; set up Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn accounts; learn how to shoot, edit and upload a video on YouTube; check out Posterous, FourSquare and FriendFeed. Then add this new-found acumen to your resume.
  

• Find your passion. No, PR is not a passion. Music, theatre, sports, business, the environment...these are passions. But know that PR is applicable to all of these areas (and so many more). Build your resume based on your interests/credentials, i.e., that which you're passionate about, then apply for those jobs...via the PR department.
  

Talking about passions. Did you see the story in today's New York Times about former PR agency chief David Kratz? After departing EuroRSCG, he took to painting. This week he was named president of the New York Academy of Art. Good for you, David. I bet the Academy is pleased with the editorial bi-product of your ascendancy there.

Thanks to David Thompson, Associate Director of Career Counseling and Professional Development, CCNY, for having me to campus. Also, great to see my old H&K colleague Lynne Scott Jackson, or Professor Jackson as she's known on 138th Street.

Press Cred

Tweet

I was checking out the speaker line-up for BlogWorld and New Media Expo after hearing all the Twitter chatter for the Oct. 16-17 confab in Las Vegas. It looks like a great event, and I'd certainly love to attend. After all, this blogger's been at it a while, bowing in the spring of '05 "in a Gawker moment."

Still, it's a bit surprising that a show called BlogWorld retains its vitality in an age where Twitter, Facebook and the ascendant Friendfeed, Posterous and FourSquare increasingly dominate the digital discourse. In fact, some prognosticators have thrown cold water on blogging as a viable or minimally, monetizable medium.

The most popular blogs -- from HuffPost to TechCrunch to Glam -- have already morphed into the mainstream (albeit with their own journalistic sensibility) -- while the solo blogging acts may one day evolve into personal "lifestreams."

But, back to BlogWorld. My buddies over at Shift Communications are handling press inquiries and credentials for the show. For them, I have one question: why would one need to credential any journalists when there are hundreds if not thousands already registered? Here are the posted requirements to grab a cred:

Complimentary Editorial Media badges will only be issued to reporters who are directly covering the show in an editorial capacity for a recognized business or technology news source. Topics must directly relate to coverage of the show, Internet trends, blogging, podcasting, new media, social media networking or online marketing and communications trends. Editorial topics in other industries (politics, sports, leisure, social, etc.) qualify the individual as a traditional show attendee, not as press.

I'm wondering what constitutes "a recognized business or technology source." As a blogger who follows the media and communications industries with a reasonable dose of technology, would I even qualify? Or does the phraseology imply that "complimentary editorial media" badges are for the mainstream only?

The question of whom to credential and who not has always been a murky decision even in an era when we didn't have a myriad media with which to contend. For example, we used to limit event photo credentials to only those on assignment from a "recognized" media organization. No photo agencies or shooters-on-spec need apply. Today that policy is untenable considering the reach of Getty and Corbis. Shift further qualifies the qualifications:

Note that editorial credentials will be issued to individuals who are covering industries of blogging, podcasting or new media. Indirect relationships will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for coverage and credential availability.

So, with all the equivocation, the credentialing policy still provides some wiggle room, and rightly so. I'd just hate to learn that the blogger sitting next to me grabbed a press cred, while I was rejected.

Update (10/3) Rick Calvert, founder and head of Blogworld and New Media Expo, weighs in:

"At those events and at BlogWorld & New Media Expo we have to be especially thorough in determining who gets a press pass. No matter where we draw the line it will always be a subjective one. One mans press is another mans blogger looking for a freebie.... So we ask lots of questions. We are looking for media outlets that cover the business of media both old and new. We have turned down traditional media applicants because we have determined they want to come to the show to learn about new media. Not cover the event."

More of his remarks in comments below.