The PR Pitch

Tweet

Over breakfast downtown, I recently caught up with an old friend who heads the New York office of one of the hot, digitally savvy PR boutiques that's flourishing in this, the second coming of the startup revolution. We talked about the state of the business and the single biggest challenge she faces right now: how to make her youthful staff better at pitching (I mean engaging) journalists.

Huh? Was she telling me that her agency -- known for delivering cutting edge PR work -- puts its stock-in-trade in good old fashioned media relations? What about conversation mining, groundswelling, "owned" content, virality, sizzle reels, re-tweets, likes and shares, Reddit, Pinterest and Instagram, etc.?

"Oh sure. We do some of that," she said. "But it's media placement that continues to be the dominant measure by which our clients gauge and pay for our success." And that's OK.

In the new media ecosystem, there is no single solution for gaining mindshare for a client's product, service or POV.  Some self-anointed PR/marketing consultants have built businesses by simply mining their Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn contacts for their paying clients. 

These self-styled "Gladwellian connectors," as I like to call them, dash off an email, FB message or Twitter DM to make connections to advance their client's business interests, i.e., biz dev, a speaking slot or a Tweet from someone with Klout. No media positioning, messaging, targeting, engaging or training required.

Yet editorial coverage continues to drive conversations, and those who've been doing it a while no doubt recognize that it's gotten much harder to gain traction. Sure the 3:1 ratio of PRs to reporters doesn't help. But to my friend's point, an increasing number of those charged with engaging today's beleaguered journalists simply do not have the right skill sets or training for doing so.

BI's Shontell 

I was thus happy to re-tweet a post today from Alyson Shontell, the "popular" startup reporter for The Business Insider. It's title:

"Dear PR Lady: Here's Why I Didn't Open Any Of Your 3 Email Pitches (Although I Wish I Had)"

Working the startup beat in New York City where startups abound, Alyson has seen more than her fair share of PR pitches - like 200+ a day, I bet.

Here's what she advises the sender of three separate emails - each with different subject lines:

"Due to an absurd amount of startup pitches that infiltrate my inbox, I've learned to manage emails by scanning for three things: 

• The sender 

• The subject title 

•  The first sentence 

I use Gmail, so those are the three things I can see without clicking to open the message. The three emails I received...were titled: 

• The Trouble with Pebble: Kickstarter competitor Rally.org Sheds Some Light 

• Embargoed News: Rally.org secures unique round of funding from superstar investors 

• Social fundraising platform Rally.org raises $7.9 million in Series A funding online 

Here's why I didn't open them: 

• I had never met or heard of the people sending me the news, and it was clear they didn't know me either 

• I had never heard of Rally.org, so using the startup's name in the subject title wasn't alluring

• "Embargoed news" isn't particularly compelling either. No reporter wants news every other publication will be receiving. They want exclusives! 

The most interesting part of the news, the investors (which help give unknown startups credibility) were never mentioned up front."

Alyson, thanks for the schooling.

Shell-Shocking Creativity

Tweet

Many marketers toiling in the new media and communications paradigm view a campaign's virality as the holy grail measurement of success.  The bar to achieve such digital and social nirvana, however, is higher than ever given the firehose of content gushing from myriad sources. Did you know that YouTubers upload 72 hours of video every minute of every day?

More and more digital creatives have thus had to resort to shock and awe as a means for garnering those much coveted "likes," "re-tweets,""views," and "shares" in the social spheres.  The more outrageous, the bigger the social mojo. (Isn't this the not-so-subtle genius of sites like Buzzfeed and Gawker, and their founders Peretti and Denton?)

Furthermore, many viral-seeking content producers no longer feel obligated to even identify the client behind their audacious output. The provenance of everything from high-priced YouTube video clips to those especially nasty political spots often remains a mystery.      

With the advent of a direct-to-consumer "owned" media model, all hell broke loose. It now matters little who's behind that piece of digital content or whether it crosses the boundaries of good taste. It's all about the eyeballs and shareability. On the paid side of the media equation, I'd venture to say that the standards & practices departments of the TV networks and local stations have completely disintegrated. They're all too happy to rake in the ad revenue even though the funding and veracity of the paid spots they air leave their viewers hopelessly in the dark.

Several years ago I wrote about the trend wherein online marketers, mostly with roots in paid advertising, chose to exclude the name of their clients in their creative executions.



Where was that swooshy branding in that viral video of Kobe Bryant leaping over an oncoming Aston Martin?

Bona fide PR firms learned a painful lesson from non-disclosure in the VNR era, and today tend to take a more prudent approach to disseminating original content. Could PR pros' grounding in news-driven content creation put them at a disadvantage as compared to the no holds barred campaigns emanating from those on the other side of the marketing aisle? If you're in Cannes this week, you'd think so. The PR biz fell way short on the awards front. 


In a piece appearing on Paul Holmes blog, "Creativity at all Costs? PR Firms Ponder Lessons from Cannes Lions," Arun Sudhaman observed:

Cannes, Lion D'Or"Even if you accept that the Cannes Lions are a vehicle to access the consumer marketing side of the equation, there is plenty to ponder in the results from this year’s competition. Unlike last year, when the judges made behavioural change a clear priority, this year’s panel appeared to place a higher premium on, as jury president Gail Heimann put it, “an unbelievable, jaw-dropping idea.”

Mashable just reposted a piece that appeared in the Daily Dot titled "Fake Viral Campaigns Shock Users, But at What Cost?" In it, writer Lauren Rae Orsini cited a campaign by the Troy (MI) public library, which was in danger of closing its doors:

"...suddenly, the Book Burning Party arrived. Yard signs, a Facebook group, and a Twitter campaign popped up with the message: “Vote to Close Troy Library on Aug. 2 — Book Burning Party on Aug. 5.”

The campaign achieved the desired result:

"Citizens were furious. Outraged voters showed up to the polls to make their opposition to book-burning known. The tax hike passed by a landslide. It was only after the campaign had made national news, however, that the Book Burning Party was revealed to be an advertising hoax by Leo Burnett Detroit. The campaign even won an award."

She went on to cite another "shell" campaign:

"Just last week, an unbelievable social campaign popped up on a site that claimed to be owned by Shell Oil Co. “Let’s Go!” was purportedly a campaign to inspire Shell fans to come up with slogans about the positives of drilling for oil in the arctic. Not surprisingly, it was soon hijacked by environmentally minded users who created ads to make Shell look bad.

That was exactly what the campaign’s real creators, Greenpeace and the Yes Men, intended. Participants may have felt clever using Shell’s own interface to deride it, but they were less than pleased to learn that they were the ones being manipulated."

So I ask:

Just how far will marketers go to rise above the clutter that flows incessantly across consumers' desktops, laptops, and mobile devices?

Does the PR industry really need to sell its soul for a Cannes Lion d'Or?

Apple Disconnect

Tweet

Maybe it was the advance, much-tweeted meme that screamed with credulity Apple's intentions to use its annual WWDC to announce a re-vamp of its entire product line. Or the resurfaced rumblings about the debut of the long longed-for Apple iTV or even the next iteration of the iPhone.

Whatever I had come to eagerly anticipate from Apple on Monday fell short on Tuesday. Maybe because I had my heart set on a newly designed 13" Macbook Pro after the genius at my local Genius Bar informed me that my six-year-old Macbook Pro was nearing the junk heap. Or perhaps I was looking for the definitive reason to jump to an iPhone -- even without a VZW eligibility upgrade.

In either case, I'm sure I wasn't the only Apple fan boy who had expected a few surprises from the stage of Apple's extravagant Worldwide Developers Conference this week, but felt short-sheeted. Instead, we got a new 15" Macbook Pro with Retina Display (at $2200), partnership deals with the rust belt that will bring Siri to your driveway (in a year), more on Mountain Lion, and iOS6, but not until the fall TV season.

None of it gave me that instant gratification I felt upon seeing the shuttered Apple Online Store re-open a few hours after a real breakthrough product announcement.

This SRO event -- blogged-but-not-live-streamed -- started off in the usual fashion with Apple's chief Cook running through the litany of mind-blowing stats -- 400 million Apple Store accounts, 30 billion downloads, 225,000 apps made just for iPad -- as if the audience needed to be reminded just how consumer-dominant this brand really is. We then had a few videos, followed by some product announcements, none of which rose to the level of Steve Jobs unveiling an entire new line of iPods, Touches, Nanos and Shuffles, or the miraculous iPad.

Even this week's debut of a new Macbook Pro, while easily the sleekest laptop in the public domain, won't immediately let users fully appreciate its most compelling upgrade -- the Retina display -- since many apps have yet to be written for it. No matter. It still sold out.



The question with which I'm grappling, as a PR pro, is whether Apple's extreme code-of-silence leading into its new product announcements actually helps or hurts the company's marketing aspirations. One rule in my biz is to under-promise, then over-deliver. In this case, Apple, with its strictly enforced quiet period, does neither. It turns the communications reigns over to others to publicly ruminate on what to expect.

Credible, but still speculative sites like MacRumors, 9-to-5 Mac, TUAW, Mac Observer, and AppleInsider drive the conversation - for better or worse.  This disconnect between the rumors and the reality often results in coverage like this CNET piece featuring a scorecard of who got it right and who didn't.

What if...and this is a big what if... Apple opened its kimona just a tad to let some of the air out of the pre-event hype. In other words, when the news is not as game-changing as an iPad or an iTV, perhaps Apple would do itself some good by posting to its blog a sneak peek of what its fan base might actually see -- in an effort to manage expectations.

(Oops! Does Apple even have a company blog or Twitter handle?)

Then again, maybe the company truly believes that everything it announces is game-changing? Had ZDNet's Rachel King been given a reality-based head's up, would she have written: "Why I won't be upgrading to Apple's Mountain Lion OS X:"

"Furthermore, I didn’t see anything mentioned during the keynote demo yesterday that really piqued my interest. It’s a modest update, at best, along the lines of what Snow Leopard was to Leopard."

Apple CEO Tim Cook at 2012 WWDC

As a result of this expectation disconnect, Apple CEO Tim Cook had to borrow a page from Steve Jobs' playbook to personally write an email to a disappointed customer to promise that the entire MacBook Pro line would in fact be upgraded by 2013. From the LA Times:

"The email from Cook followed the Worldwide Developers Conference keynote in which Apple neglected to mention the Mac Pro line despite labeling it with a "NEW" tag on its website and giving it a minor update that included improved processors."

Here's what Mr. Cook said, as confirmed by Apple's PR department:

"Although we didn't have a chance to talk about a new Mac Pro at today's event, don't worry as we're working on something really great for later next year."

Can't wait...to guess what the next announcement will be.

New York Tech Scene Heats Up

Tweet

At the conclusion of Tuesday night's New York Tech Meetup, a few of the venture capitalists gathered impromptu in a group to compare notes. I didn't want to eavesdrop, but couldn't help overhearing the assessment of the evening's final presentation from NimbleTV, which has plans to disrupt the TV viewing experience a la last month's fave startup - Aereo TV. The big question then and now was whether Aereo and Nimble, with their different schemes for delivering TV programming to one's digital device, stand on legal terra firma. The jury's out.

I recognized investor Alan Patricof of Greycroft and Apax Partners fame, and had a chance to say hello to Rose Tech Ventures' David Rose, founder of New York Angels, who was seated behind me when NYTM executive director and moderator Nate Westheimer encouraged a "peace be with you" moment for the 800+ in the SRO audience. Their attendance, plus that of others I've seen at previous events like former NBCUni chief Jeff Zucker, speaks volumes about the innovation and excitement emanating from New York's tech startup community.

By the way, I should give Nate props for the fab job he does moderating these monthly meetups. His manner is mildly reminiscent of Wayne in Wayne's World and I'm still getting acclimated to his Cincinnati baseball cap, but the Tech Meetup wouldn't be the same without his aplomb and good humor. Of the ten presentations this month, all had redeeming value -- a testament to NYTM's managing director Jessica Lawrence and her team, which pores through scores (hundreds?) of submissions each month from mostly New York startups hoping to take the stage at NYU's Skirball Center.

Tom Lehman of RapGenius

Tom Lehman of RapGenius, with his Gladwellian haircut, and Kellee Khalil of Loverly, in silver glittery pumps, were the two presenters who IMHO garnered the most adoration from this very discerning audience of New Yorkers. RapGenius is a site that seeks to discern the hidden meaning of today's most popular rap and hip-hop lyrics. Its visitor trajectory is extraordinary (8 million uniques/month and growing), and as a result, its success in soliciting first-hand input from the "verified" songwriters featured. Is Bible verse next?

Kelly Khalil of Loverly

Ms. Khalil started Loverly, a wedding resource site, after serving as bridesmaid for her sister's
nuptials. (I think she characterized the experience as a "total nightmare.") The audience quickly warmed to her after her self-deprecating remarks lamenting her own state of singledom that infused her preso.

CompStak

Three real estate apps graced the stage - one for commercial properties, another for residential rentals, and the third for spontaneous workspace. CompStak and RentHackr capture publicly accessible and crowdsourced data, respectively, to provide commercial real estate comparables and potential residential rental vacancies to their respective users. CompStak claims to have data covering 50% of the New York real estate market, while RentHackr is national, but relies on renters to fill out an online form.

RentHackr

Loosecubes facilitates peer-to-peer sharing of office space ("cubes") around the world. The startup's staff recent annual fam trip took them to Singapore to check out operations there.

 I enjoyed seeing former Wall Street analyst Leigh Drogen of Estimize, Inc. who very cleverly recognized the disparity between what the Street projected a company's earnings to be, and what they ultimately were. He created a crowdsourced platform for anyone to enter his or her earnings predictions for any company, and claims that his "crowd" collectively beat institutional analysts 67% of the time. 

Other startups worth checking out include Venmo, which lets anyone instantly make and share payments with friends, Fitocracy, a fitness app that derives its "dopamine" with badged and community envouragment, and Contactually, a "personal assistant" to help one mange his or her contacts.

Finally, like last month' Aereo TV, we heard from NimbleTV, a subscription-based platform that allows users to access "all of their television from anywhere in the world." Anand Subramanian said that his platform works with one's TV subscription service, and that his team will even contact Time Warner or FiOS or whomever on your behalf to set you up.



He didn't say what it costs (on top of your regular TV subscription fee), but he did demo the feature-rich, cloud-based service that comes with unlimited DVR'ing capabilities. Cool.


Photos & Video: Peter Himler Canon PowerShot SX20 IS

Dem Talking Points

Tweet

Periodically I'll hear from a former (big agency) colleague advising me to tread lightly on the political tweets and posts. A few even share my politically progressive persuasion, but most warn that overt politicking may not be good for my firm's sustained health. (Would they rather I sell my soul to Koch Industries or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?)

Frankly, as a long-time proponent for quality journalism and the vital role it plays in a democratic society, I find it difficult not to share a sense of outrage when confronted at the gym each morning by wing nut propaganda posing as news delivered by four smiling couch puppets on the Faux News Channel. Should I be reassured that their supreme leader acknowledges that Fox & Friends is not held to the same journalistic standards as the network on which it airs? (And what might those be anyway?)

I could go on about this faux news network's round-the-clock campaign of dishonesty to unseat the nation's first African-American President, but this is ostensibly a blog about PR and Friday's jobs report left me scratching my head on that front. Why were the Dems and their surrogates MIA in the MSM on this made-for-Fox news day? The Times slugged its lead editorial Saturday this way:

"With Democrats paralyzed and Republicans offering wrong economic answers..."

Doesn't David Axelrod and his communications consiglieres have enough fact-based ammunition about the recovery this President has orchestrated after eight years of Rove-Bush economic destruction? Even this particular jobs report could be positioned as a win when compared to the job losses suffered during that last administration's reign of power.

What I find especially disconcerting is the booking bias that permeates the Sunday TV news talk circuit. In April, a study by FAIR determined that these programs were dominated by "white conservative talking heads." The study began:

"If the Sunday morning TV chat shows seem like a sea of Republican politicians and conservative spinners lately, it’s not your imagination."

But I wonder: is it bias on the part of the TV producers and guest bookers or are the Dems just lame in securing those interview slots?

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-FL)

It'll be hard enough to compete against the billion dollars in paid media that will be spent by the John Roberts-created conservative Super PACs.  But Dems can certainly do better in the earned media space with a more assertive effort to book their qualified spokespeople on television (and elsewhere). Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Obama can only carry the torch so far, while Bill Clinton and Joe Biden just can't seem to stay on message. As good as he is, is Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley all they got?

Meanwhile Willard & Co. appears to be eating the Dems' lunch. The Washington Post noted:

"Mitt Romney is mobilizing a fast-growing network of surrogates to help make his case with voters as his campaign begins to exert greater control over the GOP messaging operation. Romney is relying on a diverse cast of politicians, business leaders, athletes and celebrities to court key groups of voters, including social conservatives, Hispanics and suburban women."

Perhaps more importantly, a further look at the GOP's PR playbook will not only reveal its surrogates' ubiquity on the small screen, but their uncanny ability to sing from the same hymnal.

In a post titled "Got Talking Points?" Nicole Belle took an informal look at a recent Sunday's talking points from seemingly unconnected GOP surrogates -- Carly Fiorina, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich and Ed Gillespie -- appearing on different CNN, NBC and CBS news programs. (No need to look at the Faux News Channel since it rarely gives time to non-conservative talking heads, and that includes its show hosts.)

Nicole observed that:

"Fiorina's comments seem eerily familiar to anyone forced to watch the Sunday shows.

For all their digital connectivivity, the Dems just can't seem to pull it together when it comes to identifying passionate and persuasive spokespeople who can deliver a unified message on a moment's notice. What internal communications mechanism is giving the GOP this edge? A secret daily list-serv? Limbaugh?  Yammer?

IMHO - The Democrats' inability to go toe-to-toe with the GOP on two TV fronts - advertising and now news - does not bode well for their party's prospects in November.