REICH COMMUNICATIONS

Feeding the PR stereotype

According to Jack O'Dwyer's Newsletter, the industry trade pub, The Princeton Review -- a college guide used by many high school students and parents as they explore colleges and possible career tracks -- is telling students they don't need to study public relations in order to succeed in the profession.  They also describe to student readers what PR people do, including a quote from an unnamed public relations person, who says "A PR person might have to shepherd an alcoholic half-mad author through a 20-city interview tour or try to put a warm 'n fuzzy spin on the company's latest oil spill."    (Oh yeah, that really explains what we do.)

They also quote another unnamed PR person who says, "If you can write a thesis about Dante, you should be able to write a press release."  (Really?!)

While there is some truth that some formal education in p.r. is not required (but it is very helpful), the write-up sends many erroneous and bad messages to young people about the work we do.

Commenting at the PR Conversations blog, Michael Zimet, who heads the IABC (International Assn of Business Communicators) Advocacy Work Group, reminds us that the Princeton Review's rankings are based on feedback from 120,000 current students.  Are current students qualified, he asks, to assess now the value of their studies in the workplace in the future?  Zimet also says Princeton Review is not associated in any way with Princeton University.  The publication is best known for its rankings of which schools are the best party schools.

But we can't afford to ignore this latest reinforcment of the stereotypes of public relations.  Most of us are not party-giving, handholding, lying spinmeisters trying to make an oil spill look harmless or cigarettes good for your health.

I think it's time for the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), the primary national trade group for PR, to take a break from its political infighting and take a real leadership role in correcting erroneous portrayals of our industry.  It won't be corrected overnight, but it must start.  They should follow the example of PR organizations in many other nations, where they work to promote the industry and push for public relations studies in college. 

Heather Yaxley, a PR professional who blogs at Greenbanana and teaches at Bournemouth Univ. in England, writes about undergrads she taught last year.  She notes that "Some may have been disappointed if they thought they were getting into a party-profession.  But the vast majority discover a much more interesting career.  During their studies, they gain a solid foundation in a wide range of specific and transferable skills -- covering everything from politics to economics, rhetoric to persuassion, new media to global affairs.  Most of the PR graduates I know from 2007 have opted for a career in the industry."

The bottom line...

PRSA needs to mount a serious and aggressive campaign to educate people about what PR is and what it does. If we are seen simply as party planners, publicity hacks and cover-up artists, we can hardly expect to be taken seriously by CEOs, CMOs and other marketing and communications disciplines.

It's time for PRSA to:

1) Target high school guidance counselors, to educate them with accurate information about what we do and what educational tools young people need to enter and excel in the profession.

2) Create an ongoing campaign to improve understanding and elevate respect for the PR function within the overall business community.

3)  Develop recommendations for training programs that p.r. agencies and corporate p.r. departments can use to train and develop recent college grads as they come on board.   

4) Push for more inclusion of public relations in marketing and general business curriculae at the college level.

It's ironic that PR has always suffered from bad PR about itself.  Step up, PRSA and take the lead.

P.R. Licensing -- the debate continues

There's been some heated discussion lately about licensing of public relations people.  It spilled onto the pages of my 2 cents last week, bringing lots of comment from around the globe, including several voices new to this blog.

It stems back to a story about the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) making a push to have p.r. pros be licensed -- an idea that I oppose.  Instead, I said, the work of p.r. people could be improved by focusing on three things.

1)  Education

Public relations should be a serious part of marketing courses in college.  Many courses and textbooks gloss over P.R. with a chapter at best.  Teaching future marketers a proper understanding of public relations and what it can -- and can't -- do would be good for everyone in marketing.  In fact, it ought to be a part of all business curriculae.

2) Training

At many agencies, especially many of the mid-size and larger ones, the extent of training seems to be... pressure.  Sell that story at any cost.  Badger reporters until they use your material (or hang up on you.)  Hype, hype, hype.  Your new gadget is the best, the biggest, the fanciest.  That, sadly, is the training too many young people get at agencies.  It's got to change.

3) Ethics and Courtesy

We need to be licensed to have ethics and to be courteous?

The discussion continues today over at MarketingProfs Daily Fix.  Click over there and jump in.

U Nd 2 Improve Ur Writing Skills

The New York Times reports that nearly half of entry-level workers today lack writing skills, where only five percent of recent college grads lack computer or technology skills.  So we have a new crop of workers who are unable to put their thoughts clearly into written words other than, perhaps, the shorthand of text messaging. 

I went to a college that specialized in engineering and science and I remember being shocked at how poorly my math-wizard classmates wrote.  They could zip through any formula, but write a letter to accompany a defective pair of ski boots being returned and they were lost.  They couldn't get past the blank piece of paper staring at them.

In the public relations profession, when I went to a large p.r. agency after 14 years at smaller shops, I was again shocked to see the poor level of writing, except this time these were not engineering students.  These were recent grads in marketing or liberal arts or general business.   Part of my job at the time included  serving as HR Director, and I was constantly amazed at how poorly trained so many recent grads were in writing skills -- a key skill for a public relations person.  It was so bad that the agency hired two retired  newspaper reporters to act as editors and rewriters.

The fact that so many people don't know how to write has worked well for me and others in my field.  Over the years, I've been paid nicely to write everything from press releases, newsletters and employee relations copy to seemingly simple things like letters and memos for top execs.

The other troubling finding from the survey, according to The Times, is that 27 percent of recent grads are deficient in critical thinking ability.

OK, they can text a mile a minute.  But will it make sense?  And, of course, we know it won't be spelled properly.   What cn u do?

The name game

Something light for the weekend...

There's a report in the news today listing the top names this year for dogs and cats.  The #1 choice for both dogs and cats is Max.

The article says it's a good name because it's short, easy to say and simple for a pet to understand and respond to.  (Does your cat respond to anything, other than the sound of opening the food can?)

The rest of the top dog names are, in descending order, Molly, Buddy, Bella and Lucy.  For kitties, it's Chloe, Lucy, Tigger and Tiger.

What happened to the days when dogs were named Spike, Rover,  Lassie or Laddie?   And when cats were called Fluffy or Felix.   

(above: Loki and my grandson Jack. Note: Jack is the #1 name for boys this year.)

If you heard those names, you knew someone was referring to a dog or cat.  Now, someone talks about taking out Max and you could think a hit is being ordered on your uncle.  Or Molly, Lucy and Chloe... I know people with those names.

A dog or cat name used to be a form of branding.  A big dog might be Brute or Brutus or Butch.  A real testosterone-laden name that meant this guy's a serious watchdog -- don't mess with him.   The name sort of represented what the dog or cat was about.

Of course, you can't go by me.  My first dog, a big black lab, was named Muffin.  When people heard me call her, they'd laugh.  "That's a Muffin?" they'd say, expecting to see a little poodle come running to me.  Our next lab was Flapper, which brought similar reactions.  We finally got it right with  our current lab, whose name Loki means the Norse god of mischief.

So while companies spend millions researching and promoting a name, it doesn't seem to be so scientific when it comes to naming our pets.  But... Max? 

Plugola - Ethical or Not?

Word-of-mouth, we all know, is one of the most powerful and effective marketing tools.  Hollywood relies on it heavily to draw people into the theaters.  Small businesses and restaurants need it, often in place of costly advertising.

The Los Angeles Times Friday reported on word of mouth campaigns spurred by stealth programs that provide freebies and discounts to people who talk up products to their friends and acquaintances.

P&G, for example, enlists 225 teens to sample products and tell their friends about them.  The L.A. Times says P&G has a total of 725,000 unpaid "connectors" who regularly receive samples, along with suggested talking points.

A consumer watchdog group, Commercial Alert, has asked the FTC to investigate world-of-mouth marketing.  The industry's trade assaociation, WOMMA, has established guidelines encouraging members to disclose who they represent when they reach out to consumers.  But realistically, how many of those "connectors" are going to say, in the course of conversation, that they are part of a company's marketing campaign?  Maybe they'll mention they received a product sample and that's why they're talking about it.

Stealth marketing, to me, walks a fine line between ethical and deception.  To me, the use of "connectors" is not deceptive, as long as the connectors are clearly told who is providing the samples.  It's really not much different than a company doing a sampling program.  The "connector" has the choice to talk or not talk about the product, depending if they feel it's worth telling their friends about.  Where it can get a bit dicey if if the "connector" is paid to spread the word, or where they're made to feel if they don't talk up a product, they won't get more samples and inside information.

Stealth marketing practices where the targeted consumer is totally deceived into hearing a sales pitch is, in my opinion, wrong.  A campaign, for example, where actors are hired to go to high-traffic locations, ask a stranger to snap a picture of them in front of a tourist landmark, and then start giving a sales pitch about the camera, disguised as friendly conversation is sneaky and unethical.  I recall when it was done here in New York and it received a lot of criticism.

The challenge for marketers is to find ways to encourage word of mouth, but in an open and honest way. If you try to trick consumers and they find out, you run the risk of alienating them and losing them forever as customers.  And rightfully so.

Honesty is the best marketing tool.

 

Licensing Public Relations

According to Amanda Chapel, who blogs as Strumpette, the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) is exploring certification of public relations practicioners.  The group set up a task force to explore professional credentials.  PRSA Chairman Rhoda Weiss is quoted as saying, if the profession doesn't "take hold of the reins, the government will."

Hold on a minute.  I think the government has to "take hold of the reins" in many other more important areas, before they get to regulating public relations.  Weiss' veiled threat seems to me to be a justification for establishing a task force, costing I wonder how much of PRSA members' dues.

PRSA has had a certification program in place for easily 30 years -- the APR (accredited public relations) certificate.  The association has done a terrible job promoting the APR over the years, and it's generally not taken seriously by many in the field.  Those outside the field who might hire PR people, like marketers, probably know absolutely nothing about the APR.

Strumpette's blog quotes, with gushing reverence, Toni Muzi Falconi, a public relations guy who is former chairman of the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communications Management (never heard of it, but what do I know) and a professor at NYU's Masters in Public Relations program.

Mr. Falconi says "government regulations make sense when they seek to ensure acceptable degrees of quality, fairness, timeliness, soundness and transparency of communication from... organizations that have demonstrable influence on voter, consumer and citizen attitudes, opinions or behaviors.  From this perspective I believe it's fair to say that just about every form of public relations activity today bears such impact, thus requiring overall regulation."

Jeez.  I know what I do is a significant part of the marketing mix.  But it's so impactful that the government needs to watch over me?  I should tell my clients how important I am, and maybe they'll pay me more.

With all due respect to Strumpette and Mr. Falconi, let's put this into perspective.  The public relations profession, like so many others, can benefit tremendously from major improvements in education and training of young people and infusions of courtesy, consideration and ethics.  These are not things that can be regulated by the government and, certainly not by PRSA, many of whose leaders seem to be ethically challenged, if you believe what you read in Jack O'Dwyer's PR Newsletter.

Here's what the public relations field needs --

1)  Education.  Public relations should be a serious part of marketing courses in college.  Many courses and textbooks gloss over P.R. with a chapter at best.  Teaching future marketers a proper understanding of public relations and what it can -- and can't -- do would be good for everyone in marketing.

2)  Training.   Writing is a basic skill for public relations.  A decent p.r. person should be able to write a news release, a pitch letter, client reports, etc.  Much of what passes for news release copy today -- especially in product p.r. -- reads more like ad or brochure copy.  It makes the job of the journalists we target more difficult and frustrating, and it causes many of them to ignore us or look at us with disdain.

Training should also include how to pitch a story -- who to target, how and when to approach a reporter (or blogger), how not to exaggerate or lie, how to understand the word "no."   Also, learning how media work and what they are looking for. 

At too many agencies, especially many of the mid-size and larger ones, the extent of training seems to be... pressure.  Sell that story at any cost.  Badger reporters until they use your material (or hang up on you.)  Hype, hype, hype.  Your new gadget is the best, the biggest, the fanciest... blah blah blah.

That is the training too many young people get at agencies.

3  Courtesy and Ethics.  You need training and regulations for that? Don't people learn those things growing up?

Sorry to sound so cynical here, but really.  Yes, the public relations industry can use some cleaning up.  But getting the government or PRSA involved will just muck it up.  And like I said, the government needs to spend its time regulating things like product and food imports, healthcare and insurance, gas-guzzling cars, and international policy. 

Get a handle on those minor issues and then feel free to look at regulating the public relations or advertising industries.  I'll wait. 

(I think Strumpette was serious with this post, and I assume Toni Falconi is a real person.  But I know she has a playful side. If it's a gag, she got me.  But I stand by all the above nonetheless.)

Bad Idea

Prompted by a story in this week's Advertising Age, I'm starting a periodic feature I'm calling simply "Bad Idea."

The first Bad Idea is something called FlexPetz.  Originating -- where else? -- in California, it takes the idea of disposables to a new and troubling level.  For an annual fee of $99.95 and monthly fees of $49.95, you can rent a dog for $40/day.

How cute.

You rent Fido for a couple of days and then, when you're tired of walking him and picking up after him, you just give him back.  Looking for some fun for the weekend?  Rent a pooch and return him Monday morning on your way to work.

The FlexPetz founder says members are screened before they're allowed to rent a dog.  She says it's a way for people to try life with a dog before making the decision to buy one.  They target people who travel a lot and can't care for a dog full time.

There are plenty of shelters that will gladly let you adopt a dog and return it if the fit isn't right.

FlexPetz has 10 dogs in its fleet in Los Angeles, according to their website, with other locations in California and elsewhere.  From their site, describing an Afghan named Tango who is for rent -- "And just try and walk a block with Tango.  You'll be stopped a dozen times by people asking you about this great dog."   Oh yeah, that's why we get dogs -- to get the admiration of strangers on the street.  And when people stop oohing and ahhing, just bring Tango back and get a newer, sleeker model.

I think it's a great business model, but a horrible thing to do to dogs.  Dogs are not just things, to be rented and moved from place to place and family to family.  Dogs form attachments, and the constant change can make them confused and unhappy pups.

ModernPooch.com, a dog-lovers' website, called it "a great idea on one hand, and a terrible, sad, irresponsible idea on the other."

FlexPetz was mentioned on a site called ParentDish.com and most comments were unfavorable.  One reader said, "It cannot do these dogs any good at all to have no sense of stability or permanence in their lives. I've worked in pet rescue for several years and I've seen firsthand how being returned can affect a pet's behavior and personality.  It's not a good thing."

Another reader offered a great alternative.

"Maybe we can get rent-a-hubby.  $39.95 a day and he does the lawn and washes the car.  Drinks all the beer and hides all the remotes.  Wow, what an idea!"

Indeed.

Marketers: Give them More

A new report from JupiterResearch suggests that marketers reach out to consumers who like their brand or products and give them something extra, in the hope they'll spread the word offline.

As reported in today's Marketing Daily, the report suggests marketers give brand advocates -- consumers who spend time online researching about products -- exclusive information like product previews and entree into special online groups.  It makes sense, as long as you don't just give them a sales pitch, but instead give them something extra that they can use or that makes them feel special and in the know.

Win them over and, the report says, when a friend or co-worker asks their opinion, they may spread news of your product.  And as we know, word of mouth is the most powerful sales tool.

Influential brand advocates may not be blogging, the report says. They're more likely to consume content than generate it.  The recipe website for Kraft Foods is cited as a successful example, where visitors can save recipes.  A Jupiter spokesperson says it's a richer experience than just putting a coupon in someone's hand.

I'm not sure this report really offers much that's new, but it seems to be advising marketers not to "waste time" chatting in the social media masses, but instead to use social media to reach out to and further engage so-called brand advocates.  Find those brand advocates and pull them into small groups online, via a blog or other forums.  They can get to know and trust each other, as well as the moderator who represents your company or brand.  It can strengthen relationships between the brand and consumers, and you just might learn something valuable along the way.

Building blog credibility

For a long time I've been cautioning people that you can't believe everything you see on the web.  Whether it's news of the latest virus that'll wipe out your hard drive, a photo proving that Saddam is still alive and dining with Jimmy Hoffa, or a get rich quick scheme from a stranger in Nigeria, you've got to be just a bit skeptical.

But I was caught by surprise when I read about a recent poll showing only six percent of communications pros place any faith in the reliability of what they read in blogs.

The survey was conducted by Dow Jones and the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) and reported in a PR newsletter, The Bulldog Reporter's Daily Dog.  It polled public relations and marketing pros and students.

Only six percent?  (Actually, among students, it jumped to a whopping seven percent.)  Why so low?

My limited experience in the 'sphere has been primarily in the marketing community, and I'd give ourselves much higher than a six percent credibility rating.  But what can we be doing to improve our credibility?

A few ideas, for starters:

*  Whenever possible, cite sources of information.  It's so easy for the reader to click through links to get to original material, but we've got to put the links there in the first place.  It's one of the great things about the web.

*  Label opinion clearly. Parading opinion as fact may get past some, but if you get caught, there goes your credibility, and possibly the credibility of other bloggers.

*  Be transparent regarding sponsorships.

*  Avoid letting sponsorships, freebies and samples cloud objectivity.  Become too much of a shill for someone who's giving you money or stuff and you risk being seen as a sell-out.  Blown credibility results.

*  Any other things to add to this list?  Post a comment below.

As bloggers, we are, in a sense, citizen journalists.  (I'll save further discussion on risks of citizen journalism for another post.)  But we are under no obligation, other than an ethical one, to do the things a legitimate news organization would do -- fact-checking, maintaining objectivity, keeping a wall that separates ad and editorial content.   

Perhaps if we try to follow rules of journalism, our credibility as a reliable souce of information might rise a bit.  We can't account for what goes on elsewhere in the blogosphere, but we can impact our own little corner of it.

Hitting a milestone

The advertising business in the U.S. is expected to hit a major milestone next year, exceeding $1 trillion for the first time.  This according to Veronis Suhler, the equity firm that tracks the media and the ad industry, as reported in today's MediaLife.

The internet continues to draw more advertising, even as marketers are trying to figure how to best use it.  The web is predicted to overtake newspapers as the biggest ad medium in four years. 

But it's not all bad news for newspapers, as another report from Nielsen finds traffic to newspaper web sites is growing at a fast clip.  Readership of newspaper web sites rose 7.7 percent last quarter, to 59 million people.  The study shows more than 37 percent of all internet users visited a newspaper web site during the quarter, and the Newspaper Association of America says the average visit to a newspaper site in May was more than 40 minutes.  (That's probably longer than many people spend reading their local paper in print.)

At the same time, network TV continues to bleed viewers. 

And yet another report from Veronis Suhler shows people are spending less time with media -- only a .5 percent drop in 2006 from 2005 -- but a decline nonetheless.  The report says it could be partly due to the efficiency of using digital media.  That could mean finding desired content more quickly, and it can also mean avoiding unwanted content, such as zipping past ads on TiVo'd or DVR'd programming.

I wonder how much of the projected increase in ad spending is going to ads on blogs?  Have you put together your rate card yet?  Hmm.