Here we go again.
Last week it was basketball’s Gilbert Arenas brandishing his six-shooter in the locker room. The week before it was football’s Plaxico Burress, receiving a prison sentence for his own private little shoot-out (with himself). The week before that it was golf’s Tiger Woods for his extra-marital escapades. The week before that…who the hell can remember?
Now, of course, baseball’s back in the news, with former home-run “King” Mark McGwire (at least, until his title was taken away by another reputed steroid-user) making the media rounds to “come clean” about his own steroid-use…and his years of denying it. (Of course, it’s just mere coincidence that McGwire’s about to start a new job as a coach for his old team, the St. Louis Cardinals, and could have expected a white-hot media grilling had he not “come clean” before then.)
McGwire’s been crying on TV. He’s apologized to pretty much everybody in America…his family, his fans, his friends, the city of St. Louis, his old teammates, Major League Baseball, the Commissioner of Baseball, etc.
It’s fitting, in a way, that Mark McGwire’s becoming a coach. Because he’s got one of the best PR coaches in the business – former Bush White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and his crisis communications firm – coaching him through all this.
I saw Mark McGwire cry yesterday on ESPN. But I’m not sure these are not crocodile tears; the man’s been guilty of – at the very least – evasion, for years. I heard him say today that he had good years without taking steroids, and bad years while taking steroids. Again, hard to believe, since his greatest years – 1997-1999 – were apparently at the peak of his steroid use. And that brings to mind another question: If he did, indeed, have some bad years while using steroids…why did he continue using them?
To me, the whole thing has been scripted better than any Broadway play. It's the same old story. Everybody's sorry afterward...when it's easy to be sorry, and easy to apologize. As for McGwire, he's already evaded the truth for years. So why would I believe he's sincere now?
Actually, I think the one-week-blitz media confessional may indeed be an idea that's here to stay...but not because it's a good model. The way things are today with sports stars, it's a pretty good bet another one will be caught cheating on his wife, or doing drugs, or brandishing guns (or pulling a Plaxico Burress and shooting himself) in the next week or so...to be followed by another scripted "apology."
And then McGwire's dog-and-pony show will instantly become old news.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
www.winstoncommunications.com
steve@winstoncommunications.com
Showing posts with label PR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PR. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
COULD PR HAVE SAVED SAAB?
As I drove home from the dealer that day, some years back, I couldn’t believe the magnificent machine at whose controls I was sitting was really mine.
I had dreamed about owning a Saab since I was in my late-teens. While my buddies at the 7-11 would fantasize about Camaros and Chevelle Super Sports (both of which I actually ended up owning), I was somehow taken by the quirky lines and strange shape of this mysterious import from Sweden. It turned out that you either hated the Saab (my buddies) or loved it (me).
Yes, its unusual lines were antithetical to the sleek lines of the American muscle cars of those days. And, yes, the people sitting behind the wheels of Saabs were – let’s face it – sort of dorky, often with horn-rimmed glasses and tousled hair (whether male or female) and, perhaps, somewhat “intellectual” and a bit strange. But I didn’t care.
I loved that car from the first time I saw it. To me, those weird, curvy slopes and angles were cool. I thought the Saab was “funky” before anyone I knew had even muttered the word. And I was thrilled as, during the late-nineties and early part of this decade, the car took on some sleeker, racier lines, while still (I thought) managing to preserve everything that was quirky and wonderful about it.
As it turned out, however, not a lot of other people ever loved the car. And eventually, during the past few years, hardly anyone loved it. At one point last year, American car dealers were selling less than a thousand Saabs a month.
Now Saab is closing up shop, orphaned by the Swedish government, a potential suitor from Holland, and its Ford corporate parent. And I’m very sad. Because the jet-black Saab I owned until seven years ago was the best car I’ve ever had.
When I turned the key and the engine emitted that low, throaty roar, I was in paradise. When I cruised at unbelievable speeds along the highways (only on very long drives!), I was thrilled. When I rubbed my hands on the wood along the dashboard and near the seat handles, I was thrilled. When I raced around country roads as if the car was attached to them, I was thrilled. And when I looked at (and fooled around with) the dashboard – which was the closest thing to a jet cockpit I had ever seen – I was thrilled. (Saab, after all, started out as an aircraft company. And the company still makes planes for the Swedish air force, as well as commercial jets that see service in many countries, including ours.)
In what other car, for instance, did your radio automatically reset to the stations in a distant city to which you had driven? In what other car could you have a station pre-set to the local National Weather Service station, so that you could be warned of natural disasters that might be occurring ahead of you? And in what other car was the ignition key located on the console, instead of the steering wheel?
Now it’s gone. But, as a public relations professional, I always wondered a bit about Saab’s PR approaches. I always wondered why, for instance, they constantly seemed to be appealing to a “hip” audience that loved racy-looking cars, rather than the core audience that had loved the car for so long. I always wondered why they didn’t make their perceived weaknesses into strengths.
I always wondered why, for instance, they didn’t publicize the car’s classically-funky lines, instead of making those lines “sleeker,” like everyone else. I always wondered why they didn’t promote the car’s “funky” factor, instead of using the same promo lines everyone else was using. Why weren’t Saab’s marketing campaigns aimed at the people who had loved the car in the first place?
Why wasn’t the car promoted for the things it did well, instead of pushed with sleek ads as if it were like every other car? For example, why didn’t the company run ads noting that the police department in Vail, Colorado – one of the wealthiest towns in America – used Saabs? (As one officer told me, “That thing takes a mountain like it was born to run. Incredible speed. And it hugs those curves. On these roads, nobody can outrun us.”)
Would these strategies – pitching to the choir, instead of commoditizing the product – have ultimately saved Saab? I doubt it. Increasingly, in today’s world, “mass appeal” survives, while niche products often don’t. But at least the car would have stayed true to its principles.
I must really like Swedish cars…because I now own another one. But there’ll never be another Saab.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
www.winstoncommunications.com
steve@winstoncommunications.com
(954) 575-4089
I had dreamed about owning a Saab since I was in my late-teens. While my buddies at the 7-11 would fantasize about Camaros and Chevelle Super Sports (both of which I actually ended up owning), I was somehow taken by the quirky lines and strange shape of this mysterious import from Sweden. It turned out that you either hated the Saab (my buddies) or loved it (me).
Yes, its unusual lines were antithetical to the sleek lines of the American muscle cars of those days. And, yes, the people sitting behind the wheels of Saabs were – let’s face it – sort of dorky, often with horn-rimmed glasses and tousled hair (whether male or female) and, perhaps, somewhat “intellectual” and a bit strange. But I didn’t care.
I loved that car from the first time I saw it. To me, those weird, curvy slopes and angles were cool. I thought the Saab was “funky” before anyone I knew had even muttered the word. And I was thrilled as, during the late-nineties and early part of this decade, the car took on some sleeker, racier lines, while still (I thought) managing to preserve everything that was quirky and wonderful about it.
As it turned out, however, not a lot of other people ever loved the car. And eventually, during the past few years, hardly anyone loved it. At one point last year, American car dealers were selling less than a thousand Saabs a month.
Now Saab is closing up shop, orphaned by the Swedish government, a potential suitor from Holland, and its Ford corporate parent. And I’m very sad. Because the jet-black Saab I owned until seven years ago was the best car I’ve ever had.
When I turned the key and the engine emitted that low, throaty roar, I was in paradise. When I cruised at unbelievable speeds along the highways (only on very long drives!), I was thrilled. When I rubbed my hands on the wood along the dashboard and near the seat handles, I was thrilled. When I raced around country roads as if the car was attached to them, I was thrilled. And when I looked at (and fooled around with) the dashboard – which was the closest thing to a jet cockpit I had ever seen – I was thrilled. (Saab, after all, started out as an aircraft company. And the company still makes planes for the Swedish air force, as well as commercial jets that see service in many countries, including ours.)
In what other car, for instance, did your radio automatically reset to the stations in a distant city to which you had driven? In what other car could you have a station pre-set to the local National Weather Service station, so that you could be warned of natural disasters that might be occurring ahead of you? And in what other car was the ignition key located on the console, instead of the steering wheel?
Now it’s gone. But, as a public relations professional, I always wondered a bit about Saab’s PR approaches. I always wondered why, for instance, they constantly seemed to be appealing to a “hip” audience that loved racy-looking cars, rather than the core audience that had loved the car for so long. I always wondered why they didn’t make their perceived weaknesses into strengths.
I always wondered why, for instance, they didn’t publicize the car’s classically-funky lines, instead of making those lines “sleeker,” like everyone else. I always wondered why they didn’t promote the car’s “funky” factor, instead of using the same promo lines everyone else was using. Why weren’t Saab’s marketing campaigns aimed at the people who had loved the car in the first place?
Why wasn’t the car promoted for the things it did well, instead of pushed with sleek ads as if it were like every other car? For example, why didn’t the company run ads noting that the police department in Vail, Colorado – one of the wealthiest towns in America – used Saabs? (As one officer told me, “That thing takes a mountain like it was born to run. Incredible speed. And it hugs those curves. On these roads, nobody can outrun us.”)
Would these strategies – pitching to the choir, instead of commoditizing the product – have ultimately saved Saab? I doubt it. Increasingly, in today’s world, “mass appeal” survives, while niche products often don’t. But at least the car would have stayed true to its principles.
I must really like Swedish cars…because I now own another one. But there’ll never be another Saab.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
www.winstoncommunications.com
steve@winstoncommunications.com
(954) 575-4089
Monday, December 7, 2009
I'M TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT TIGER!
Is anyone else sick of all this?
Is anyone else sick of our perverse – morose! – fascination with the rich and famous? Is anyone else – in a world of hunger and war and poverty and climate change and recession and failing schools – sick of seeing the same name in the headlines for two weeks (until another rich and famous person gets caught in the act)?
Is anyone else sick of wondering whether the media frenzy is fed by the public’s fascination, or whether the public’s fascination is fed by the media frenzy?
And is anyone else in our industry sick of hearing how Tiger Woods can use PR to rehabilitate himself?
That same night that Woods crashed his car, and Elin decided to play golf at 2:45 a.m., thousands of other cheating husbands (and wives) were discovered by their spouses, all across America. That same night, thousands of other couples across America were involved in domestic violence. Thousands of other families were broken apart by the revelations of outsiders. And thousands of other children saw the patterns of their family life snap, but didn’t understand how or why.
Why, then, this morbid fascination with the rich and famous in our society – especially when they screw up? Is it because, as some say, the common man (or woman) takes a secret thrill in seeing famous people brought down? Is it a class-hatred thing? Are we all just voyeurs? Or are we interested out of some sense of justice…because the Tiger Woods’ and the Eliot Spitzers and the A-Rods and the Mark Sanfords and the John Edwards’ of the world bit off more than they could (or should) chew? Or is it because the media doesn’t tell us about those thousands of other people caught cheating by their spouses every day?
I’ve seen Tiger’s house (the one in South Florida, anyway). His wife is beautiful. His daughter is precious. Why, when someone reaches his status in life, does it never seem to be enough? And why do we obsess over it?
Right now, his life is ruined. And he may never be able to put the private side of it back together.
But he needn’t worry all that much about the public side. He needn’t worry about whether effective public relations can rehabilitate his image. He needn’t worry about whether people will buy the products he’ll still be endorsing after the smoke clears. He needn’t worry that people will no longer want to see him play golf.
Because, as sure as I’m writing this and you’re reading it, within a couple of weeks, another celebrity will get caught…at something. Then we’ll obsess over that person. And Tiger will eventually become a distant memory.
I’m sick of hearing about Tiger!!
Is anyone else sick of our perverse – morose! – fascination with the rich and famous? Is anyone else – in a world of hunger and war and poverty and climate change and recession and failing schools – sick of seeing the same name in the headlines for two weeks (until another rich and famous person gets caught in the act)?
Is anyone else sick of wondering whether the media frenzy is fed by the public’s fascination, or whether the public’s fascination is fed by the media frenzy?
And is anyone else in our industry sick of hearing how Tiger Woods can use PR to rehabilitate himself?
That same night that Woods crashed his car, and Elin decided to play golf at 2:45 a.m., thousands of other cheating husbands (and wives) were discovered by their spouses, all across America. That same night, thousands of other couples across America were involved in domestic violence. Thousands of other families were broken apart by the revelations of outsiders. And thousands of other children saw the patterns of their family life snap, but didn’t understand how or why.
Why, then, this morbid fascination with the rich and famous in our society – especially when they screw up? Is it because, as some say, the common man (or woman) takes a secret thrill in seeing famous people brought down? Is it a class-hatred thing? Are we all just voyeurs? Or are we interested out of some sense of justice…because the Tiger Woods’ and the Eliot Spitzers and the A-Rods and the Mark Sanfords and the John Edwards’ of the world bit off more than they could (or should) chew? Or is it because the media doesn’t tell us about those thousands of other people caught cheating by their spouses every day?
I’ve seen Tiger’s house (the one in South Florida, anyway). His wife is beautiful. His daughter is precious. Why, when someone reaches his status in life, does it never seem to be enough? And why do we obsess over it?
Right now, his life is ruined. And he may never be able to put the private side of it back together.
But he needn’t worry all that much about the public side. He needn’t worry about whether effective public relations can rehabilitate his image. He needn’t worry about whether people will buy the products he’ll still be endorsing after the smoke clears. He needn’t worry that people will no longer want to see him play golf.
Because, as sure as I’m writing this and you’re reading it, within a couple of weeks, another celebrity will get caught…at something. Then we’ll obsess over that person. And Tiger will eventually become a distant memory.
I’m sick of hearing about Tiger!!
Thursday, November 19, 2009
"WHY AREN'T WE DOING THIS?"
Some years back, I had a client who would always have a folder for me – stuffed with papers – each time I came to his office.
Invariably, the papers were marketing or PR campaigns done by other companies. And on every one of them were the scribbled words: “Why aren’t we doing this?”
Several times, I tried to explain to him that there were numerous reasons we weren’t doing this…among them:
* Just because that particular medium or campaign was appropriate for some other companies, didn’t necessarily mean it was appropriate for his company.
* Because the way you distinguish yourself – in both PR and marketing – is not to do what everyone else is doing. Quite often, I’ve found, it’s to do the opposite of what everyone else is doing.
* Because if you echo the same line as everyone else, your own voice will get lost in the crowd.
* Because you have to develop – and continually reinforce – your own specific message, and your own USP.
* And, lastly, because I – the expert whom you hired as your PR counsel – didn’t believe those particular media or strategies were best for your company.
I found it offensive to be asked, “Why aren’t we doing this?”
I tried explaining it to him on two or three different occasions. And then, rather than explain any more, I fired him. My explanation was simple: I only worked with clients who wanted original thinking, rather than just to follow the crowd.
That was about eleven years ago. And, recently, I fired another client who asked the same question. My reasoning was a bit different this time, though.
He would send me e-mails almost every day – sometimes several a day – with info about some company or campaign, and then the question: “Why aren’t we doing this?”
So – in the spirit of experimentation, and keeping an open mind – I started doing this, in addition to implementing the strategies that I had first proposed (and that he had agreed on).
Lo and behold, after about a month, he asked why his invoices were so high. I explained to him that, in addition to the strategies he and I had originally agreed upon, he was always asking me to pursue this. And that, as a professional with over twenty years of successful public relations experience…I actually expected to be paid for the work I did.
He grumbled a sort-of acceptance. Then, a week later, he e-mailed me that, unless we could lower his costs, he might not be able to afford PR counsel any more. So I e-mailed him back – “You’re fired!”
Simply put, the money wasn’t worth the aggravation.
My moral of the story(ies)?
Beware any client who says “Why aren’t we doing this?”
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
www.winstoncommunications.com
steve@winstoncommunications.com
Invariably, the papers were marketing or PR campaigns done by other companies. And on every one of them were the scribbled words: “Why aren’t we doing this?”
Several times, I tried to explain to him that there were numerous reasons we weren’t doing this…among them:
* Just because that particular medium or campaign was appropriate for some other companies, didn’t necessarily mean it was appropriate for his company.
* Because the way you distinguish yourself – in both PR and marketing – is not to do what everyone else is doing. Quite often, I’ve found, it’s to do the opposite of what everyone else is doing.
* Because if you echo the same line as everyone else, your own voice will get lost in the crowd.
* Because you have to develop – and continually reinforce – your own specific message, and your own USP.
* And, lastly, because I – the expert whom you hired as your PR counsel – didn’t believe those particular media or strategies were best for your company.
I found it offensive to be asked, “Why aren’t we doing this?”
I tried explaining it to him on two or three different occasions. And then, rather than explain any more, I fired him. My explanation was simple: I only worked with clients who wanted original thinking, rather than just to follow the crowd.
That was about eleven years ago. And, recently, I fired another client who asked the same question. My reasoning was a bit different this time, though.
He would send me e-mails almost every day – sometimes several a day – with info about some company or campaign, and then the question: “Why aren’t we doing this?”
So – in the spirit of experimentation, and keeping an open mind – I started doing this, in addition to implementing the strategies that I had first proposed (and that he had agreed on).
Lo and behold, after about a month, he asked why his invoices were so high. I explained to him that, in addition to the strategies he and I had originally agreed upon, he was always asking me to pursue this. And that, as a professional with over twenty years of successful public relations experience…I actually expected to be paid for the work I did.
He grumbled a sort-of acceptance. Then, a week later, he e-mailed me that, unless we could lower his costs, he might not be able to afford PR counsel any more. So I e-mailed him back – “You’re fired!”
Simply put, the money wasn’t worth the aggravation.
My moral of the story(ies)?
Beware any client who says “Why aren’t we doing this?”
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
www.winstoncommunications.com
steve@winstoncommunications.com
Thursday, November 12, 2009
THE NEWEST THREAT TO PR
Last night, I was researching various newspapers, in preparation for a release I was about to issue for one of my clients.
For one thing, I was researching who’s still there. I was researching who writes what (very important after the constant layoffs at newspapers). I was also looking at what they’ve written recently, so I could sound educated when I contacted them. I was looking at their bosses…Editors, Managing Editors, and so on. And I was also studying the general tone of the papers’ recent coverage, to discern their priorities, and those of their readers.
And then it hit me. Are we going to be able to do that next year? Next month?
What happens if newspapers – and magazines – actually do start charging for online content, instead of just talking about charging for online content? I haven’t read anything, yet, about how this will affect public relations practitioners. But it seems to me the effect could be like a tsunami.
I’m particularly concerned with independent practitioners, who are becoming an ever-more vital part of the PR workforce. These people may not have the resources to subscribe to comprehensive media databases (which may or may not provide all the information I’m able to gather by simply going to a paper’s website). And they may not have the resources to pay for online subscriptions to hundreds of newspapers and magazines.
On a larger scale, however, all the talk about (and possible movement toward) pay-for-content models affects all of us in this industry, from the solo practitioner to the large agency, as well as corporate PR departments. It’s already tough enough to connect with many journalists, because they’re now doing the jobs of two – and sometimes three – people. Putting another wall between us will only make the job harder.
Let’s remember, too, that this is hardly a one-way street. Many journalists – often, because they are doing the jobs of two people – depend on PR pros for a lot of their ideas. By inserting a barrier between PR pros and journalists, pay-for-content will only make the journalist’s job even harder than it’s already become – because it may shut them off from some good sources of ideas.
Look, no one’s saying that the current media models shouldn’t change. They must change, because they’re obviously unsustainable the way they are now. What I am saying, however, is that those of us in this industry had better start tossing around some ideas as to how this is all going to play out. And how we’re going to be able to perform some aspects of our jobs when it does change.
I’ve been reading a lot of talk about whether people will be able to – or want to – pay to subscribe to their newspapers or magazines online. But I haven’t read anything about how PR people are going to afford to pay if pay-for-content becomes standard.
And it’s something I think we should be talking about - before it happens.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
For one thing, I was researching who’s still there. I was researching who writes what (very important after the constant layoffs at newspapers). I was also looking at what they’ve written recently, so I could sound educated when I contacted them. I was looking at their bosses…Editors, Managing Editors, and so on. And I was also studying the general tone of the papers’ recent coverage, to discern their priorities, and those of their readers.
And then it hit me. Are we going to be able to do that next year? Next month?
What happens if newspapers – and magazines – actually do start charging for online content, instead of just talking about charging for online content? I haven’t read anything, yet, about how this will affect public relations practitioners. But it seems to me the effect could be like a tsunami.
I’m particularly concerned with independent practitioners, who are becoming an ever-more vital part of the PR workforce. These people may not have the resources to subscribe to comprehensive media databases (which may or may not provide all the information I’m able to gather by simply going to a paper’s website). And they may not have the resources to pay for online subscriptions to hundreds of newspapers and magazines.
On a larger scale, however, all the talk about (and possible movement toward) pay-for-content models affects all of us in this industry, from the solo practitioner to the large agency, as well as corporate PR departments. It’s already tough enough to connect with many journalists, because they’re now doing the jobs of two – and sometimes three – people. Putting another wall between us will only make the job harder.
Let’s remember, too, that this is hardly a one-way street. Many journalists – often, because they are doing the jobs of two people – depend on PR pros for a lot of their ideas. By inserting a barrier between PR pros and journalists, pay-for-content will only make the journalist’s job even harder than it’s already become – because it may shut them off from some good sources of ideas.
Look, no one’s saying that the current media models shouldn’t change. They must change, because they’re obviously unsustainable the way they are now. What I am saying, however, is that those of us in this industry had better start tossing around some ideas as to how this is all going to play out. And how we’re going to be able to perform some aspects of our jobs when it does change.
I’ve been reading a lot of talk about whether people will be able to – or want to – pay to subscribe to their newspapers or magazines online. But I haven’t read anything about how PR people are going to afford to pay if pay-for-content becomes standard.
And it’s something I think we should be talking about - before it happens.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
Monday, November 2, 2009
WHO'S MINDING THE STORE?
We all know who the villains are in the economic meltdown of the past few years, right? In most peoples’ eyes, banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions. (Forget, for a minute, the inability of many American corporations to think long-term, their desire to “cut overhead” at any cost, their often-false claims, etc.)
Right or wrong, most of us pretty much agree that, to a large extent, financial institutions are the villains. You’d think that these institutions, excoriated in the media and in the public discourse, would be very carefully resurrecting their reputations now, wouldn’t you? And after the public relations fiasco these institutions have faced, you’d think that they’d solicit – and heed - the counsel of their best public relations and reputation-management folks, right?
Maybe at some financial companies. But not, apparently, at Bank of America. Because – surprise! surprise! – here’s a financial company that’s burning its reputation bridges again.
Here in Florida, 452 people have lodged complaints with the State Attorney General’s office about Bank of America, relating to mis-information, stalled promises, or revocations of home-loan modifications that had been promised by the bank. Some of the complaints say that the homeowners have been trying for months to get through to B of A, in an attempt to hold onto their homes (which would also, of course, spare the bank the task of foreclosing on them, and then having to become a home-seller itself). Others are complaining that they came to a deal with the bank for a loan modification – not only verbally, but on paper – but that now the bank refuses to honor it.
The mess is receiving a lot of media coverage in Florida…a state that has been devastated by the housing meltdown. (Last year, I sold my home in South Florida. After a full year on the market, I felt lucky to have gotten half of what it had been worth just two years earlier.)
Other lenders have received complaints, as well, of course. But none of the volume of complaints against any of them comes close to the number, proportionally, against Bank of America.
I’m not taking sides here; I’m sure, in the minds of B of A executives, they have good reasons for the things that have happened. But, in an age when news spreads like a wildfire virally – and when the financial sector takes the blame for what has happened in our country – how could they have let this happen? Why haven’t they responded to these complaints in a timely manner? Why, if indeed it is true, are they changing the terms of the modifications after they have already been agreed upon? And why aren’t they bending over backwards to satisfy this relatively small group of customers (B of A has 82,000 home loans in Florida)?
Who’s minding the PR store?
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
Right or wrong, most of us pretty much agree that, to a large extent, financial institutions are the villains. You’d think that these institutions, excoriated in the media and in the public discourse, would be very carefully resurrecting their reputations now, wouldn’t you? And after the public relations fiasco these institutions have faced, you’d think that they’d solicit – and heed - the counsel of their best public relations and reputation-management folks, right?
Maybe at some financial companies. But not, apparently, at Bank of America. Because – surprise! surprise! – here’s a financial company that’s burning its reputation bridges again.
Here in Florida, 452 people have lodged complaints with the State Attorney General’s office about Bank of America, relating to mis-information, stalled promises, or revocations of home-loan modifications that had been promised by the bank. Some of the complaints say that the homeowners have been trying for months to get through to B of A, in an attempt to hold onto their homes (which would also, of course, spare the bank the task of foreclosing on them, and then having to become a home-seller itself). Others are complaining that they came to a deal with the bank for a loan modification – not only verbally, but on paper – but that now the bank refuses to honor it.
The mess is receiving a lot of media coverage in Florida…a state that has been devastated by the housing meltdown. (Last year, I sold my home in South Florida. After a full year on the market, I felt lucky to have gotten half of what it had been worth just two years earlier.)
Other lenders have received complaints, as well, of course. But none of the volume of complaints against any of them comes close to the number, proportionally, against Bank of America.
I’m not taking sides here; I’m sure, in the minds of B of A executives, they have good reasons for the things that have happened. But, in an age when news spreads like a wildfire virally – and when the financial sector takes the blame for what has happened in our country – how could they have let this happen? Why haven’t they responded to these complaints in a timely manner? Why, if indeed it is true, are they changing the terms of the modifications after they have already been agreed upon? And why aren’t they bending over backwards to satisfy this relatively small group of customers (B of A has 82,000 home loans in Florida)?
Who’s minding the PR store?
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
Sunday, October 25, 2009
WHAT IF...?
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
What if every company used Tylenol’s wonderful 1980’s response to the tainting of its products as a model for modern crisis communications?
What if someone in the PR Department at AIG had said, “Wait a minute! Do we really think it’s appropriate to reward the people who drove us into the ditch, and who destroyed the life savings of so many millions of people?”
What is someone in the PR Department at Wells Fargo had said, “Wait a minute! Do we really think it’s appropriate to be planning lavish parties when so many of the people who hold mortgages with us are going under?”
What if more companies didn’t try to be everything to everyone, but just focused on doing the best they could within their niche?
What if most company presidents who did TV commercials – or mea culpas – didn’t come off as stiff, over-rehearsed, under-genuine windbags who could never really empathize with the millions who feel betrayed by them?
What if the insurance and banking executives whose boundless greed helped create the financial crisis…actually had to experience the pain that other folks have experienced because of their folly?
What if companies stopped making claims about their products that they know – full well – aren’t true? (Or, conversely, what if they started making products that actually do live up to their claims?)
What if companies, in their advertising and marketing approaches, started talking more about us – and our needs – rather than themselves?
What if more PR and marketing executives believed that the way for their companies or clients to generate attention was not to should louder than the other guy…but to speak with more substance?
What if they banned celebrity spokespeople from the media…and products had to be hawked only on their actual merits?
What if Super Bowl ads actually spoke about the benefits of their products and services…rather than turn the nation’s most-watched television event into a competition for the most technologically-wizardrous ad?
What if we actually spoke with our publics…instead of to them?
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
What if every company used Tylenol’s wonderful 1980’s response to the tainting of its products as a model for modern crisis communications?
What if someone in the PR Department at AIG had said, “Wait a minute! Do we really think it’s appropriate to reward the people who drove us into the ditch, and who destroyed the life savings of so many millions of people?”
What is someone in the PR Department at Wells Fargo had said, “Wait a minute! Do we really think it’s appropriate to be planning lavish parties when so many of the people who hold mortgages with us are going under?”
What if more companies didn’t try to be everything to everyone, but just focused on doing the best they could within their niche?
What if most company presidents who did TV commercials – or mea culpas – didn’t come off as stiff, over-rehearsed, under-genuine windbags who could never really empathize with the millions who feel betrayed by them?
What if the insurance and banking executives whose boundless greed helped create the financial crisis…actually had to experience the pain that other folks have experienced because of their folly?
What if companies stopped making claims about their products that they know – full well – aren’t true? (Or, conversely, what if they started making products that actually do live up to their claims?)
What if companies, in their advertising and marketing approaches, started talking more about us – and our needs – rather than themselves?
What if more PR and marketing executives believed that the way for their companies or clients to generate attention was not to should louder than the other guy…but to speak with more substance?
What if they banned celebrity spokespeople from the media…and products had to be hawked only on their actual merits?
What if Super Bowl ads actually spoke about the benefits of their products and services…rather than turn the nation’s most-watched television event into a competition for the most technologically-wizardrous ad?
What if we actually spoke with our publics…instead of to them?
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
Saturday, October 3, 2009
CAR PR
One of the reasons for the collapse of the American auto industry is its PR people.
Why? Very simple. Public relations professionals for the various auto companies are in a prime position to impress upon the bigwigs that lackluster design leads to lackluster sales. But they haven’t done so. They haven’t used their influence and their strength as communicators to impress upon their superiors that more of the same is not enough. They’ve abdicated their responsibility to tell their superiors that re-designing inferior products doesn’t make them better – it only foments the inferiority.
I’ve thought about it for years. And, finally, this week – in an airplane over the Gulf of Mexico – it hit me. The key is body design.
Apparently, PR people – who understand the consumer far better than the old guys in the corner offices or the nerds in Engineering - are not asked (enough) for their opinions about what the consumer might want. Why haven’t the American auto companies allowed them an opinion before the cars are produced? And why haven’t these PR people demanded it?
European cars – like the ones I’ve driven – seem to maintain classic body styles over the years. To me, it seems that most of the changes they make are only meant to enhance the profile of the car, rather than to change it. I drive a Swedish car (a Volvo). Before that, I drove a German car. And before that I drove another Swedish car.
The basic body styles of these cars don’t seem to change that radically; for example, the distinctive shape of the Saab, which I drove seven years ago, is still pretty much the same distinctive shape. (Most American consumers – besides me - don’t seem to like the Saab’s distinctive shape, either; but that’s another story.)
Yes, every few years these European cars get updated lights or front grills or touches here and there. But the basic (and often classic) profile stays the same. And that helps create – and nourish – the brand.
American cars, it seems to me, are built to be sleek; European cars, on the other hand, are built to be stylish. And, in case the American car companies – whose survival is still in question – haven’t noticed, American consumers (particularly those on either coast) obviously prefer stylish over sleek.
Chrysler, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to be concerned with sleek or stylish; they have virtually no new models coming out over the next year or so (despite the billions in bailout money they took). Why aren’t the company’s public relations people pushing for a more energetic response to this crisis? They’re probably going to lose their jobs soon, anyway.
NEWS FLASH TO AMERICAN AUTO COMPANIES: The American people have spoken - loud and clear - for the past decade. They prefer classic auto design and a profile that helps create a “brand” over a lot of constant re-designs of mediocre products.
And, because of the current crisis faced by American car companies, PR people will never be better positioned to drive this point home.
Why? Very simple. Public relations professionals for the various auto companies are in a prime position to impress upon the bigwigs that lackluster design leads to lackluster sales. But they haven’t done so. They haven’t used their influence and their strength as communicators to impress upon their superiors that more of the same is not enough. They’ve abdicated their responsibility to tell their superiors that re-designing inferior products doesn’t make them better – it only foments the inferiority.
I’ve thought about it for years. And, finally, this week – in an airplane over the Gulf of Mexico – it hit me. The key is body design.
Apparently, PR people – who understand the consumer far better than the old guys in the corner offices or the nerds in Engineering - are not asked (enough) for their opinions about what the consumer might want. Why haven’t the American auto companies allowed them an opinion before the cars are produced? And why haven’t these PR people demanded it?
European cars – like the ones I’ve driven – seem to maintain classic body styles over the years. To me, it seems that most of the changes they make are only meant to enhance the profile of the car, rather than to change it. I drive a Swedish car (a Volvo). Before that, I drove a German car. And before that I drove another Swedish car.
The basic body styles of these cars don’t seem to change that radically; for example, the distinctive shape of the Saab, which I drove seven years ago, is still pretty much the same distinctive shape. (Most American consumers – besides me - don’t seem to like the Saab’s distinctive shape, either; but that’s another story.)
Yes, every few years these European cars get updated lights or front grills or touches here and there. But the basic (and often classic) profile stays the same. And that helps create – and nourish – the brand.
American cars, it seems to me, are built to be sleek; European cars, on the other hand, are built to be stylish. And, in case the American car companies – whose survival is still in question – haven’t noticed, American consumers (particularly those on either coast) obviously prefer stylish over sleek.
Chrysler, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to be concerned with sleek or stylish; they have virtually no new models coming out over the next year or so (despite the billions in bailout money they took). Why aren’t the company’s public relations people pushing for a more energetic response to this crisis? They’re probably going to lose their jobs soon, anyway.
NEWS FLASH TO AMERICAN AUTO COMPANIES: The American people have spoken - loud and clear - for the past decade. They prefer classic auto design and a profile that helps create a “brand” over a lot of constant re-designs of mediocre products.
And, because of the current crisis faced by American car companies, PR people will never be better positioned to drive this point home.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
HAVE A SAFE TRIP
“Have a safe trip,” my daughter said.
We had been talking on the phone for about fifteen minutes. I had mentioned to my daughter, a senior at the University of Florida, that I was leaving in the morning on a business trip to Texas. And, as we ended the conversation, she said, “Have a safe trip.”
And I realized that it was about the twentieth time I had heard that phrase in the previous few days…basically, whenever I had mentioned to a client or an associate or a friend that I had to go to Texas on business. It’s not like I’m not familiar with the inside of an airplane. I was just in North Carolina a few weeks prior to this trip. I have to go to New York next week. And then, a few weeks later, back to Texas.
But, for some reason, this time, whenever anyone said, “Have a safe trip,” it really hit me. Of course, we never said that to each other prior to 9/11. My Dad spent the better part of his life on planes – he was a member of the million-mile club way back in the sixties, when that really meant something. But I don’t remember ever telling him, “Have a safe trip.” I think we probably just assumed he would.
Last week, every time I e-mailed someone that I’d be out of the office for a few days, a short reply would come back: “Have a safe trip.” One guy even responded, “Have a safe trip. After all, you know those Texans…”
Of course, there are other ways to die on a plane without being hijacked by terrorists. A few years ago, a co-pilot for a Middle Eastern airline decided to commit suicide by crashing the plane – and its few hundred passengers - into the Atlantic Ocean. And right after 9/11 – if the speculation is correct – the crash of another airliner was caused by a rocket fired by our own jittery military.
At heart, I appreciated the good wishes, of course. But – every time they said those four words - they made me think about something I really didn’t want to think about. And what did that guy mean, anyway, when he referred to “those Texans?”
For those of us in this profession, our “trip,” recently, has often been somewhat turbulent. The “vehicles” that take us on these trips seem to be changing right before our eyes, and at warp-speed. Sometimes things even seem somewhat out of control. And I believe that this has become a permanent feature of our (and many others’) profession. Nothing will ever be the same. And nothing will ever stay the same.
All we can do, I suppose, is just hope for a safe trip.
We had been talking on the phone for about fifteen minutes. I had mentioned to my daughter, a senior at the University of Florida, that I was leaving in the morning on a business trip to Texas. And, as we ended the conversation, she said, “Have a safe trip.”
And I realized that it was about the twentieth time I had heard that phrase in the previous few days…basically, whenever I had mentioned to a client or an associate or a friend that I had to go to Texas on business. It’s not like I’m not familiar with the inside of an airplane. I was just in North Carolina a few weeks prior to this trip. I have to go to New York next week. And then, a few weeks later, back to Texas.
But, for some reason, this time, whenever anyone said, “Have a safe trip,” it really hit me. Of course, we never said that to each other prior to 9/11. My Dad spent the better part of his life on planes – he was a member of the million-mile club way back in the sixties, when that really meant something. But I don’t remember ever telling him, “Have a safe trip.” I think we probably just assumed he would.
Last week, every time I e-mailed someone that I’d be out of the office for a few days, a short reply would come back: “Have a safe trip.” One guy even responded, “Have a safe trip. After all, you know those Texans…”
Of course, there are other ways to die on a plane without being hijacked by terrorists. A few years ago, a co-pilot for a Middle Eastern airline decided to commit suicide by crashing the plane – and its few hundred passengers - into the Atlantic Ocean. And right after 9/11 – if the speculation is correct – the crash of another airliner was caused by a rocket fired by our own jittery military.
At heart, I appreciated the good wishes, of course. But – every time they said those four words - they made me think about something I really didn’t want to think about. And what did that guy mean, anyway, when he referred to “those Texans?”
For those of us in this profession, our “trip,” recently, has often been somewhat turbulent. The “vehicles” that take us on these trips seem to be changing right before our eyes, and at warp-speed. Sometimes things even seem somewhat out of control. And I believe that this has become a permanent feature of our (and many others’) profession. Nothing will ever be the same. And nothing will ever stay the same.
All we can do, I suppose, is just hope for a safe trip.
Friday, September 4, 2009
CAN PR SAVE THE MEETINGS INDUSTRY?
CAN PR SAVE THE MEETINGS INDUSTRY?
Perhaps nowhere has the “AIG Effect” been as pronounced – or as toxic – as in the corporate-meetings industry.
Consider, for a moment, the devastation caused by the cancellations of thousands of meetings across the country, by companies afraid their meetings would be perceived as “excessive,” even if all they were doing was…meeting. The effects on the travel, tourism, convention, hotel, rental car, airline, attractions, advertising, and restaurant industries have been crushing.
The drip-down effect is more immense than we can even imagine. It’s affected part-time dishwashers as well as airline pilots, convention-center janitorial staff as well as presidents of convention & visitors bureaus, rental-car ticket agents as well as busboys, taxi drivers as well as catering companies. It has caused hundreds of thousands – perhaps even millions – of people to lose their jobs. It has resulted in extraordinary strains on state budgets, because of unemployment claims. It has resulted in crises for city and local budgets, because of the diminished “bed” and “hotel” taxes.
For companies and organizations, bringing your people together to discuss ideas, network, address company-wide issues, or just reward good work, is essential – especially if they want to encourage information-exchange and best-practices. As a person who spent most of his life in the corporate world, I can tell you that I always emerged from those events with a new sense of energy and purpose, with new connections (and advocates) throughout the company, with a new understanding of what other people in the company did, and with a sense that I was not “alone”…that I was part of a real team.
So what can we do to help? We specialize in shaping – and changing – perceptions of value. Is there anything we can do to help the meetings industry? (And, in the process, our own business?)
Ben Stein, for one, says yes. You know Ben Stein. He’s played the middle-aged, personality-challenged professor or insurance agent or psychologist in a number of movies, with his thick glasses and his droning monotone. He’s also, however, a respected economist, speaker, and author.
“Are the meetings of Congress a waste?” he writes in his blog in “The American Spectator.” “They are business meetings. Are the meetings of the Supreme Court wasteful? They are business meetings.”
Addressing the misperceptions about meetings in “resorts” such as Las Vegas, he writes, “As to meetings in resorts, the reason to have them is that there are a lot of rooms close to each other with good ways to get together. Often, as in Las Vegas, rooms are inexpensive. Traffic jams and people getting lost do not happen because everyone is under the same roof."
I’ve spoken with a couple of “expert witnesses” over the past few days. And they both agree that this is one area in which public relations can really show off its ability to use facts to change harmful misperceptions.
Jaki Baskow is Owner/CEO of Baskow &Associates, a well-known destination management company in Las Vegas (destination management companies help meeting planners with arrangements for every aspect of their meetings). And because of where she’s located, she’s had a front-row seat on the meltdown of the corporate meeting.
“PR can definitely help save the meetings industry,” Baskow says. “In fact, we need it to help save the meetings industry. There’s just so much at stake. PR can help spearhead the positive message to America. It can keep reminding corporate America that cancelling meetings can cost them profits in the long run. And it can keep reminding the rest of America that meetings help make people more motivated and more productive.”
In actuality, the meetings infrastructure has begun taking some steps to prove its value. On websites such as www.keepamericameeting.com and www.meetingsmeanbusiness.com, people can read about how important meetings are to the American economy. In addition, many cities (and many resorts) now have their own websites dedicated to meetings, with practical information countering the popular misperceptions.
Roberta Guise, President of Guise Marketing & Public Relations, is also located in a popular meeting destination – San Francisco. She’s seen first-hand the devastation caused by innuendo and misperception. And she agrees that PR should be an active agent of change in addressing those misperceptions.
“There are some very practical steps that PR professionals can take,” Guise says. “You can try to get meetings-related stories in your local media, with information about how such meetings help the local economy. You can write letters to the Editors – or Op-Eds – about how meetings are vital to the local economy. You can sign the petition at www.keepamericameeting.com or at www.meetingsmeanbusiness.com. to send the same message to legislators.
“And we can always keep in mind, ourselves, the new rules - that our emphasis on the meetings we publicize should be on value and learning, rather than on flash and hype.”
In my own experience with clients in this industry, I’ve come to see that the “value” meetings bring to a local community is often more than economic. Many companies, for example, donate unused food to local food banks and homeless shelters. Many donate floral arrangements to local senior centers. And I know of one company that always joins Habitat For Humanity to build houses in the cities where it meets.
Jaki Baskow says that companies are finally starting to be more proactive themselves abut their meetings.
“They’re starting to use PR to let the world know they’re still doing business as usual. I’ve spoken to many companies around the country that are still booking great venues, still holding their meetings. And they’re still doing incentive meetings to reward productivity…but they’re doing them in a smaller way.”
Think locally for a moment. Think about a corporate meeting of, say, five-hundred or a thousand people in your community. Translate the economic benefits of that one meeting. And then multiply that figure by a hundred…or, if you’re in a big meetings-destination city, by a thousand. The figures are staggering, aren’t they?
“We can play an active part in getting a vital segment of the American economy back on its feet again,” Roberta Guise says.
And, in so doing, I might add, helping to address misperceptions about our own value.
Perhaps nowhere has the “AIG Effect” been as pronounced – or as toxic – as in the corporate-meetings industry.
Consider, for a moment, the devastation caused by the cancellations of thousands of meetings across the country, by companies afraid their meetings would be perceived as “excessive,” even if all they were doing was…meeting. The effects on the travel, tourism, convention, hotel, rental car, airline, attractions, advertising, and restaurant industries have been crushing.
The drip-down effect is more immense than we can even imagine. It’s affected part-time dishwashers as well as airline pilots, convention-center janitorial staff as well as presidents of convention & visitors bureaus, rental-car ticket agents as well as busboys, taxi drivers as well as catering companies. It has caused hundreds of thousands – perhaps even millions – of people to lose their jobs. It has resulted in extraordinary strains on state budgets, because of unemployment claims. It has resulted in crises for city and local budgets, because of the diminished “bed” and “hotel” taxes.
For companies and organizations, bringing your people together to discuss ideas, network, address company-wide issues, or just reward good work, is essential – especially if they want to encourage information-exchange and best-practices. As a person who spent most of his life in the corporate world, I can tell you that I always emerged from those events with a new sense of energy and purpose, with new connections (and advocates) throughout the company, with a new understanding of what other people in the company did, and with a sense that I was not “alone”…that I was part of a real team.
So what can we do to help? We specialize in shaping – and changing – perceptions of value. Is there anything we can do to help the meetings industry? (And, in the process, our own business?)
Ben Stein, for one, says yes. You know Ben Stein. He’s played the middle-aged, personality-challenged professor or insurance agent or psychologist in a number of movies, with his thick glasses and his droning monotone. He’s also, however, a respected economist, speaker, and author.
“Are the meetings of Congress a waste?” he writes in his blog in “The American Spectator.” “They are business meetings. Are the meetings of the Supreme Court wasteful? They are business meetings.”
Addressing the misperceptions about meetings in “resorts” such as Las Vegas, he writes, “As to meetings in resorts, the reason to have them is that there are a lot of rooms close to each other with good ways to get together. Often, as in Las Vegas, rooms are inexpensive. Traffic jams and people getting lost do not happen because everyone is under the same roof."
I’ve spoken with a couple of “expert witnesses” over the past few days. And they both agree that this is one area in which public relations can really show off its ability to use facts to change harmful misperceptions.
Jaki Baskow is Owner/CEO of Baskow &Associates, a well-known destination management company in Las Vegas (destination management companies help meeting planners with arrangements for every aspect of their meetings). And because of where she’s located, she’s had a front-row seat on the meltdown of the corporate meeting.
“PR can definitely help save the meetings industry,” Baskow says. “In fact, we need it to help save the meetings industry. There’s just so much at stake. PR can help spearhead the positive message to America. It can keep reminding corporate America that cancelling meetings can cost them profits in the long run. And it can keep reminding the rest of America that meetings help make people more motivated and more productive.”
In actuality, the meetings infrastructure has begun taking some steps to prove its value. On websites such as www.keepamericameeting.com and www.meetingsmeanbusiness.com, people can read about how important meetings are to the American economy. In addition, many cities (and many resorts) now have their own websites dedicated to meetings, with practical information countering the popular misperceptions.
Roberta Guise, President of Guise Marketing & Public Relations, is also located in a popular meeting destination – San Francisco. She’s seen first-hand the devastation caused by innuendo and misperception. And she agrees that PR should be an active agent of change in addressing those misperceptions.
“There are some very practical steps that PR professionals can take,” Guise says. “You can try to get meetings-related stories in your local media, with information about how such meetings help the local economy. You can write letters to the Editors – or Op-Eds – about how meetings are vital to the local economy. You can sign the petition at www.keepamericameeting.com or at www.meetingsmeanbusiness.com. to send the same message to legislators.
“And we can always keep in mind, ourselves, the new rules - that our emphasis on the meetings we publicize should be on value and learning, rather than on flash and hype.”
In my own experience with clients in this industry, I’ve come to see that the “value” meetings bring to a local community is often more than economic. Many companies, for example, donate unused food to local food banks and homeless shelters. Many donate floral arrangements to local senior centers. And I know of one company that always joins Habitat For Humanity to build houses in the cities where it meets.
Jaki Baskow says that companies are finally starting to be more proactive themselves abut their meetings.
“They’re starting to use PR to let the world know they’re still doing business as usual. I’ve spoken to many companies around the country that are still booking great venues, still holding their meetings. And they’re still doing incentive meetings to reward productivity…but they’re doing them in a smaller way.”
Think locally for a moment. Think about a corporate meeting of, say, five-hundred or a thousand people in your community. Translate the economic benefits of that one meeting. And then multiply that figure by a hundred…or, if you’re in a big meetings-destination city, by a thousand. The figures are staggering, aren’t they?
“We can play an active part in getting a vital segment of the American economy back on its feet again,” Roberta Guise says.
And, in so doing, I might add, helping to address misperceptions about our own value.
CAN PR SAVE THE MEETINGS INDUSTRY?
CAN PR SAVE THE MEETINGS INDUSTRY?
Perhaps nowhere has the “AIG Effect” been as pronounced – or as toxic – as in the corporate-meetings industry.
Consider, for a moment, the devastation caused by the cancellations of thousands of meetings across the country, by companies afraid their meetings would be perceived as “excessive,” even if all they were doing was…meeting. The effects on the travel, tourism, convention, hotel, rental car, airline, attractions, advertising, and restaurant industries have been crushing.
The drip-down effect is more immense than we can even imagine. It’s affected part-time dishwashers as well as airline pilots, convention-center janitorial staff as well as presidents of convention & visitors bureaus, rental-car ticket agents as well as busboys, taxi drivers as well as catering companies. It has caused hundreds of thousands – perhaps even millions – of people to lose their jobs. It has resulted in extraordinary strains on state budgets, because of unemployment claims. It has resulted in crises for city and local budgets, because of the diminished “bed” and “hotel” taxes.
For companies and organizations, bringing your people together to discuss ideas, network, address company-wide issues, or just reward good work, is essential – especially if they want to encourage information-exchange and best-practices. As a person who spent most of his life in the corporate world, I can tell you that I always emerged from those events with a new sense of energy and purpose, with new connections (and advocates) throughout the company, with a new understanding of what other people in the company did, and with a sense that I was not “alone”…that I was part of a real team.
So what can we do to help? We specialize in shaping – and changing – perceptions of value. Is there anything we can do to help the meetings industry? (And, in the process, our own business?)
Ben Stein, for one, says yes. You know Ben Stein. He’s played the middle-aged, personality-challenged professor or insurance agent or psychologist in a number of movies, with his thick glasses and his droning monotone. He’s also, however, a respected economist, speaker, and author.
“Are the meetings of Congress a waste?” he writes in his blog in “The American Spectator.” “They are business meetings. Are the meetings of the Supreme Court wasteful? They are business meetings.”
Addressing the misperceptions about meetings in “resorts” such as Las Vegas, he writes, “As to meetings in resorts, the reason to have them is that there are a lot of rooms close to each other with good ways to get together. Often, as in Las Vegas, rooms are inexpensive. Traffic jams and people getting lost do not happen because everyone is under the same roof."
I’ve spoken with a couple of “expert witnesses” over the past few days. And they both agree that this is one area in which public relations can really show off its ability to use facts to change harmful misperceptions.
Jaki Baskow is Owner/CEO of Baskow &Associates, a well-known destination management company in Las Vegas (destination management companies help meeting planners with arrangements for every aspect of their meetings). And because of where she’s located, she’s had a front-row seat on the meltdown of the corporate meeting.
“PR can definitely help save the meetings industry,” Baskow says. “In fact, we need it to help save the meetings industry. There’s just so much at stake. PR can help spearhead the positive message to America. It can keep reminding corporate America that cancelling meetings can cost them profits in the long run. And it can keep reminding the rest of America that meetings help make people more motivated and more productive.”
In actuality, the meetings infrastructure has begun taking some steps to prove its value. On websites such as www.keepamericameeting.com and www.meetingsmeanbusiness.com, people can read about how important meetings are to the American economy. In addition, many cities (and many resorts) now have their own websites dedicated to meetings, with practical information countering the popular misperceptions.
Roberta Guise, President of Guide Marketing & Public Relations, is also located in a popular meeting destination – San Francisco. She’s seen first-hand the devastation caused by innuendo and misperception. And she agrees that PR should be an active agent of change in addressing those misperceptions.
“There are some very practical steps that PR professionals can take,” Guise says. “You can try to get meetings-related stories in your local media, with information about how such meetings help the local economy. You can write letters to the Editors – or Op-Eds – about how meetings are vital to the local economy. You can sign the petition at www.keepamericameeting.com or at www.meetingsmeanbusiness.com. to send the same message to legislators.
“And we can always keep in mind, ourselves, the new rules - that our emphasis on the meetings we publicize should be on value and learning, rather than on flash and hype.”
In my own experience with clients in this industry, I’ve come to see that the “value” meetings bring to a local community is often more than economic. Many companies, for example, donate unused food to local food banks and homeless shelters. Many donate floral arrangements to local senior centers. And I know of one company that always joins Habitat For Humanity to build houses in the cities where it meets.
Jaki Baskow says that companies are finally starting to be more proactive themselves abut their meetings.
“They’re starting to use PR to let the world know they’re still doing business as usual. I’ve spoken to many companies around the country that are still booking great venues, still holding their meetings. And they’re still doing incentive meetings to reward productivity…but they’re doing them in a smaller way.”
Think locally for a moment. Think about a corporate meeting of, say, five-hundred or a thousand people in your community. Translate the economic benefits of that one meeting. And then multiply that figure by a hundred…or, if you’re in a big meetings-destination city, by a thousand. The figures are staggering, aren’t they?
“We can play an active part in getting a vital segment of the American economy back on its feet again,” Roberta Guise says.
And, in so doing, I might add, helping to address misperceptions about our own value.
Perhaps nowhere has the “AIG Effect” been as pronounced – or as toxic – as in the corporate-meetings industry.
Consider, for a moment, the devastation caused by the cancellations of thousands of meetings across the country, by companies afraid their meetings would be perceived as “excessive,” even if all they were doing was…meeting. The effects on the travel, tourism, convention, hotel, rental car, airline, attractions, advertising, and restaurant industries have been crushing.
The drip-down effect is more immense than we can even imagine. It’s affected part-time dishwashers as well as airline pilots, convention-center janitorial staff as well as presidents of convention & visitors bureaus, rental-car ticket agents as well as busboys, taxi drivers as well as catering companies. It has caused hundreds of thousands – perhaps even millions – of people to lose their jobs. It has resulted in extraordinary strains on state budgets, because of unemployment claims. It has resulted in crises for city and local budgets, because of the diminished “bed” and “hotel” taxes.
For companies and organizations, bringing your people together to discuss ideas, network, address company-wide issues, or just reward good work, is essential – especially if they want to encourage information-exchange and best-practices. As a person who spent most of his life in the corporate world, I can tell you that I always emerged from those events with a new sense of energy and purpose, with new connections (and advocates) throughout the company, with a new understanding of what other people in the company did, and with a sense that I was not “alone”…that I was part of a real team.
So what can we do to help? We specialize in shaping – and changing – perceptions of value. Is there anything we can do to help the meetings industry? (And, in the process, our own business?)
Ben Stein, for one, says yes. You know Ben Stein. He’s played the middle-aged, personality-challenged professor or insurance agent or psychologist in a number of movies, with his thick glasses and his droning monotone. He’s also, however, a respected economist, speaker, and author.
“Are the meetings of Congress a waste?” he writes in his blog in “The American Spectator.” “They are business meetings. Are the meetings of the Supreme Court wasteful? They are business meetings.”
Addressing the misperceptions about meetings in “resorts” such as Las Vegas, he writes, “As to meetings in resorts, the reason to have them is that there are a lot of rooms close to each other with good ways to get together. Often, as in Las Vegas, rooms are inexpensive. Traffic jams and people getting lost do not happen because everyone is under the same roof."
I’ve spoken with a couple of “expert witnesses” over the past few days. And they both agree that this is one area in which public relations can really show off its ability to use facts to change harmful misperceptions.
Jaki Baskow is Owner/CEO of Baskow &Associates, a well-known destination management company in Las Vegas (destination management companies help meeting planners with arrangements for every aspect of their meetings). And because of where she’s located, she’s had a front-row seat on the meltdown of the corporate meeting.
“PR can definitely help save the meetings industry,” Baskow says. “In fact, we need it to help save the meetings industry. There’s just so much at stake. PR can help spearhead the positive message to America. It can keep reminding corporate America that cancelling meetings can cost them profits in the long run. And it can keep reminding the rest of America that meetings help make people more motivated and more productive.”
In actuality, the meetings infrastructure has begun taking some steps to prove its value. On websites such as www.keepamericameeting.com and www.meetingsmeanbusiness.com, people can read about how important meetings are to the American economy. In addition, many cities (and many resorts) now have their own websites dedicated to meetings, with practical information countering the popular misperceptions.
Roberta Guise, President of Guide Marketing & Public Relations, is also located in a popular meeting destination – San Francisco. She’s seen first-hand the devastation caused by innuendo and misperception. And she agrees that PR should be an active agent of change in addressing those misperceptions.
“There are some very practical steps that PR professionals can take,” Guise says. “You can try to get meetings-related stories in your local media, with information about how such meetings help the local economy. You can write letters to the Editors – or Op-Eds – about how meetings are vital to the local economy. You can sign the petition at www.keepamericameeting.com or at www.meetingsmeanbusiness.com. to send the same message to legislators.
“And we can always keep in mind, ourselves, the new rules - that our emphasis on the meetings we publicize should be on value and learning, rather than on flash and hype.”
In my own experience with clients in this industry, I’ve come to see that the “value” meetings bring to a local community is often more than economic. Many companies, for example, donate unused food to local food banks and homeless shelters. Many donate floral arrangements to local senior centers. And I know of one company that always joins Habitat For Humanity to build houses in the cities where it meets.
Jaki Baskow says that companies are finally starting to be more proactive themselves abut their meetings.
“They’re starting to use PR to let the world know they’re still doing business as usual. I’ve spoken to many companies around the country that are still booking great venues, still holding their meetings. And they’re still doing incentive meetings to reward productivity…but they’re doing them in a smaller way.”
Think locally for a moment. Think about a corporate meeting of, say, five-hundred or a thousand people in your community. Translate the economic benefits of that one meeting. And then multiply that figure by a hundred…or, if you’re in a big meetings-destination city, by a thousand. The figures are staggering, aren’t they?
“We can play an active part in getting a vital segment of the American economy back on its feet again,” Roberta Guise says.
And, in so doing, I might add, helping to address misperceptions about our own value.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
RIDING SHOTGUN
RIDING SHOTGUN
In the Old West, if you were a passenger on a stagecoach, your chances of reaching your destination alive (or, at least, still in possession of your money) often depended on the rifleman sitting up front next to the driver – the man “riding shotgun.”
In the New Millenium, however, if you’re a public relations practitioner, you should know that the shotgun-approach so prevalent in our industry today is one of the primary reasons that “PR” has such a tarnished reputation.
Just throwing mud - boring, inappropriate, or lacking-news-value pitches - at the media, and hoping some of it sticks, is not a prescription for effective communication. Actually, it hasn’t been considered an effective means of public relations for some time – by evolved practitioners, anyway. And that's especially true these days, when each of us devotes only 3-5 seconds to deciding whether we’re going to continue to read or watch what we’ve started reading or watching.
I'm forever trying to educate clients that their "great" story is great only if it offers the readers or viewers (not the media itself…but the readers or viewers of the media!) actionable advice that can help make their personal or professional lives better. If there's not a real "news" value to what I'm asked to pitch...I won't pitch it. It's cost me a client here or there. But it's damned worth it.
We live (and work) in an era of fly-by attention spans, when we are bombarded with thousands of messages in a day. We are bombarded with so many messages, in fact, that most of us couldn’t name messages we heard or saw less than a minute ago. And - in the name of preserving our sanity - we end up tuning out most of these messages.
Doesn’t it occur to us that the people we’re trying to reach with our own messages are the same way? Doesn’t it occur to us that if we hit them anywhere but where it really counts – in their hearts – we’re wasting our time?
More than ever, coverage in the appropriate niche is worth much more than coverage in scattered media that are of no genuine value to your clients' businesses. You'd think clients, of all people, would be more open to understanding this. But it's not their fault.
The real fault lies with the agencies and the corporate PR practitioners who have a golden opportunity to educate their clients (or in-house clients), and don't do it. And as long as PR people practice the shotgun approach – generally in the hopes of achieving short-term “results” - clients will continue to think it's best.
I'm a twenty-year veteran in this business. And I'm still waiting for the day when the volume and width of media “pitches” matters less than the quality of the resulting media coverage...when the number of “hits’ matters less than the number of relevant hits.
What I’m waiting for, essentially, is the day when output matters less than results.
And when the “shotgun” approach is seen only on old westerns...and not in new public relations campaigns.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
In the Old West, if you were a passenger on a stagecoach, your chances of reaching your destination alive (or, at least, still in possession of your money) often depended on the rifleman sitting up front next to the driver – the man “riding shotgun.”
In the New Millenium, however, if you’re a public relations practitioner, you should know that the shotgun-approach so prevalent in our industry today is one of the primary reasons that “PR” has such a tarnished reputation.
Just throwing mud - boring, inappropriate, or lacking-news-value pitches - at the media, and hoping some of it sticks, is not a prescription for effective communication. Actually, it hasn’t been considered an effective means of public relations for some time – by evolved practitioners, anyway. And that's especially true these days, when each of us devotes only 3-5 seconds to deciding whether we’re going to continue to read or watch what we’ve started reading or watching.
I'm forever trying to educate clients that their "great" story is great only if it offers the readers or viewers (not the media itself…but the readers or viewers of the media!) actionable advice that can help make their personal or professional lives better. If there's not a real "news" value to what I'm asked to pitch...I won't pitch it. It's cost me a client here or there. But it's damned worth it.
We live (and work) in an era of fly-by attention spans, when we are bombarded with thousands of messages in a day. We are bombarded with so many messages, in fact, that most of us couldn’t name messages we heard or saw less than a minute ago. And - in the name of preserving our sanity - we end up tuning out most of these messages.
Doesn’t it occur to us that the people we’re trying to reach with our own messages are the same way? Doesn’t it occur to us that if we hit them anywhere but where it really counts – in their hearts – we’re wasting our time?
More than ever, coverage in the appropriate niche is worth much more than coverage in scattered media that are of no genuine value to your clients' businesses. You'd think clients, of all people, would be more open to understanding this. But it's not their fault.
The real fault lies with the agencies and the corporate PR practitioners who have a golden opportunity to educate their clients (or in-house clients), and don't do it. And as long as PR people practice the shotgun approach – generally in the hopes of achieving short-term “results” - clients will continue to think it's best.
I'm a twenty-year veteran in this business. And I'm still waiting for the day when the volume and width of media “pitches” matters less than the quality of the resulting media coverage...when the number of “hits’ matters less than the number of relevant hits.
What I’m waiting for, essentially, is the day when output matters less than results.
And when the “shotgun” approach is seen only on old westerns...and not in new public relations campaigns.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
Monday, August 17, 2009
RACING TO NOWHERE
I was once asked by a new client why, after a week, I had not received any major national media commitments. I thought about the answer for a minute. And then I fired the client.
That’s the conundrum facing so many PR practitioners today. Every client wants results now. But many of them just don’t understand the importance of focusing on a strategy that generates results over the long term – and generates them consistently.
I’ve learned to always ask new prospects one important question. Are you looking for a quick, short-term “bump” now? Or a long-term strategy that brings you into the future? If the answer is the former, I often suggest to them that they might feel more comfortable with a different PR firm.
Some prospects can relate to what I call my “snowflake analogy.” (It may seem like a bit of a stretch, people, but bear with me for a minute.) You might be able to see a snowflake; but, in actuality, it really doesn’t have much of an impact. But what if that snowflake turned into flurries? And what if those flurries turned into a snowball that starts rolling downhill? What if that snowball grew in size and momentum, into the size of a boulder. What if that boulder grew into a snowdrift? And what if that snowdrift grew into an avalanche?
What the hell is the rush???
Which is more important, for example, in media relations…an immediate “hit” that generates good feelings (and, often, little else), or a series of hits that builds in momentum over the longer-term? Which is more important…seeing the client’s name in the media, or actually generating new business? Which is more important…tossing out release after release, and hoping that one or two of them generate a bit of coverage; or focusing on a structured strategy that results in coverage that increases over time, in both frequency and size?
If we can’t – or won’t – ask those questions of ourselves as well as our clients, we’re actually guilty of aiding and abetting the unrealistic expectations that many clients have. And, in doing so, we’re guaranteeing that these wasteful, short-term, band-aid approaches will continue to characterize our industry – and our image.
It’s time that all of us who consider ourselves Public Relations “professionals” realize that our discipline is generally most effective if it’s strategic. And the strategic approach is usually not a sprint. It’s, most often, a marathon.
Otherwise, it often turns out to be a Race to Nowhere.
That’s the conundrum facing so many PR practitioners today. Every client wants results now. But many of them just don’t understand the importance of focusing on a strategy that generates results over the long term – and generates them consistently.
I’ve learned to always ask new prospects one important question. Are you looking for a quick, short-term “bump” now? Or a long-term strategy that brings you into the future? If the answer is the former, I often suggest to them that they might feel more comfortable with a different PR firm.
Some prospects can relate to what I call my “snowflake analogy.” (It may seem like a bit of a stretch, people, but bear with me for a minute.) You might be able to see a snowflake; but, in actuality, it really doesn’t have much of an impact. But what if that snowflake turned into flurries? And what if those flurries turned into a snowball that starts rolling downhill? What if that snowball grew in size and momentum, into the size of a boulder. What if that boulder grew into a snowdrift? And what if that snowdrift grew into an avalanche?
What the hell is the rush???
Which is more important, for example, in media relations…an immediate “hit” that generates good feelings (and, often, little else), or a series of hits that builds in momentum over the longer-term? Which is more important…seeing the client’s name in the media, or actually generating new business? Which is more important…tossing out release after release, and hoping that one or two of them generate a bit of coverage; or focusing on a structured strategy that results in coverage that increases over time, in both frequency and size?
If we can’t – or won’t – ask those questions of ourselves as well as our clients, we’re actually guilty of aiding and abetting the unrealistic expectations that many clients have. And, in doing so, we’re guaranteeing that these wasteful, short-term, band-aid approaches will continue to characterize our industry – and our image.
It’s time that all of us who consider ourselves Public Relations “professionals” realize that our discipline is generally most effective if it’s strategic. And the strategic approach is usually not a sprint. It’s, most often, a marathon.
Otherwise, it often turns out to be a Race to Nowhere.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE WORD "PITCHING"
I DON'T LIKE THE WORD “PITCHING!”
By Steve Winston
www.winstoncommunications.com
Sometimes I think we demean our profession – and ourselves – when we use the word “pitching.” And I think that's particularly true these days, when there are more self-centered voices than ever screaming for attention from the precious few journalists who still have jobs.
Maybe it’s because I started out as a reporter…and I still vividly recall those 3 a.m. calls from the City Desk to run out to the scene of a murder or a fire or a tornado or an alligator attack (I live in South Florida). And maybe it’s because I still recall being pretty much the only one driving on the dark roads at that hour of the morning…and the awesome responsibility I felt about providing accurate and insightful coverage for my readers.
I’ve now been in PR and marketing for twenty years. And – although I, too, am sometimes guilty of using the term “pitching” – I’m very uncomfortable with it. That’s because - probably due to my background – I tend to view journalists as partners. I respect the work they do. I respect their needs. I respect that “awesome responsibility” that most of them, believe it or not, still feel. And I don’t see them as faceless enablers whom I should try to manipulate into publishing something about how wonderful my clients are.
I see myself as being in symbiotic relationships with them; relationships in which the back-scratching doesn’t only go one way. I believe that if I help them, they’ll help me. And it’s worked.
I’ve been telling clients for years: When pitching the media, it's not about how great you are...it's about how we can address our own needs by addressing the journalist’s. How we can serve as a resource for them, and for their readers. How we can provide their readers - after all, it's the readers who are the end-users - with actionable or interesting information they can apply to their daily lives.
Every so often, if you're lucky, you get a client who understands. Unfortunately, though, one of the curses of our industry is that many clients seem to think that the media is simply dying to write about their company...and that it will happen if you keep "pitching" them enough. And many clients, no matter how hard you try to educate them, still believe in the old-fashioned "pitch" - where you just keep throwing mud against the wall and hope some of it sticks.
Wake up, PR people!! Now that there are fewer journalists than ever before - and now that most of them are doing the work of two or three people - we need to help them if we want coverage for our clients!
We need to think strategically. We need to educate our clients as to what's now going on in the real world, and as to reasonable expectations. We need to think of ourselves as a resource for the media...not as shills for clients who simply don't get it (and probably never will).
And, certainly, once this recession is over and we’re all less desperate, we need to start seeking out clients who "get it." And we need to get it, as well…if we do business with toxic clients who view us only as pitching-machines, our own reputations can be poisoned.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
By Steve Winston
www.winstoncommunications.com
Sometimes I think we demean our profession – and ourselves – when we use the word “pitching.” And I think that's particularly true these days, when there are more self-centered voices than ever screaming for attention from the precious few journalists who still have jobs.
Maybe it’s because I started out as a reporter…and I still vividly recall those 3 a.m. calls from the City Desk to run out to the scene of a murder or a fire or a tornado or an alligator attack (I live in South Florida). And maybe it’s because I still recall being pretty much the only one driving on the dark roads at that hour of the morning…and the awesome responsibility I felt about providing accurate and insightful coverage for my readers.
I’ve now been in PR and marketing for twenty years. And – although I, too, am sometimes guilty of using the term “pitching” – I’m very uncomfortable with it. That’s because - probably due to my background – I tend to view journalists as partners. I respect the work they do. I respect their needs. I respect that “awesome responsibility” that most of them, believe it or not, still feel. And I don’t see them as faceless enablers whom I should try to manipulate into publishing something about how wonderful my clients are.
I see myself as being in symbiotic relationships with them; relationships in which the back-scratching doesn’t only go one way. I believe that if I help them, they’ll help me. And it’s worked.
I’ve been telling clients for years: When pitching the media, it's not about how great you are...it's about how we can address our own needs by addressing the journalist’s. How we can serve as a resource for them, and for their readers. How we can provide their readers - after all, it's the readers who are the end-users - with actionable or interesting information they can apply to their daily lives.
Every so often, if you're lucky, you get a client who understands. Unfortunately, though, one of the curses of our industry is that many clients seem to think that the media is simply dying to write about their company...and that it will happen if you keep "pitching" them enough. And many clients, no matter how hard you try to educate them, still believe in the old-fashioned "pitch" - where you just keep throwing mud against the wall and hope some of it sticks.
Wake up, PR people!! Now that there are fewer journalists than ever before - and now that most of them are doing the work of two or three people - we need to help them if we want coverage for our clients!
We need to think strategically. We need to educate our clients as to what's now going on in the real world, and as to reasonable expectations. We need to think of ourselves as a resource for the media...not as shills for clients who simply don't get it (and probably never will).
And, certainly, once this recession is over and we’re all less desperate, we need to start seeking out clients who "get it." And we need to get it, as well…if we do business with toxic clients who view us only as pitching-machines, our own reputations can be poisoned.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
Thursday, July 16, 2009
IS THE BIG-AGENCY MODEL BROKEN?
There's a major - perhaps fatal - flaw in the big-PR-agency model. The flaw is the model itself. It really hasn't changed all that much, while the rest of the world has.
In my experience, big agencies often get caught up in bells and whistles, rather than substantive strategies. And this is true even in the pitching stage, before they even have the account.
As former Director of Public Relations for a substantial public company, I've sat through a lot of big-agency presentations over the years. And to say they were long on style and short on substance is a dramatic understatement.
True, they each trotted out their home-run hitters for the presentation...but we knew that, if we hired them, that would probably be the last time we'd see the big stars. The actual work would be done by minor-leaguers.
These presentations were invariably masterpieces of technical wizardry, meant to prove that this particular agency was on the cutting-edge of technology. And they piled on layer after layer of reasons why we should hire them...how wonderful they were, how talented, how "proprietary" their "advanced" systems were, how thrilled their clients were, their company's history, etc. (Suffice it to say that, after a half-hour or so of this, my eyeballs were not the only ones in the room that were rolling.)
What they didn't do, however, was to ask us about our needs. To ask us about our internal structures. To ask us about our goals and objectives. To ask us how we would measure results. To show us that they had any understanding at all of our company's history, or our company's clients, or our company's areas of pain.
They didn't ask questions. They didn't probe. They didn't show any interest at all in getting to know our company or our markets. They didn't show any interest at all in learning what we expected from an agency relationship.
And they didn't get our business, either. After sitting through a number of dog-and-pony shows, we decided to keep the work in-house.
It's dangerous to generalize, of course. But it just may be that, in this day and age, when swiftness and flexibility and real-time responses and fewer layers of management/accountability and increased personal initiative are required, that many larger agencies can't keep up. Or haven't learned how to keep up.
It just may be that many haven't yet learned that technology is - still - not as important as talent. That bells and whistles are - still, and hopefully never - as important as substance. That stifling corporate structure is not as effective - especially when a quick response/action is called for - as individual initiative. That top-down management is not as nimble as employee-empowered management. That bloated "org charts" and command-structures serve only to inhibit timely response. And that one pro who knows what he's doing is worth more than ten juniors who just push "send" buttons without having a clue as to the real principles of effective public relations practice.
No one should be saying that the era of the big agency is over. What I'm saying, however, is that these agencies need to do what the rest of us have been working on for a while now - change your structure, your management philosophies, and your operating systems to reflect the fact that we're in a new age. That things are changing - daily - and we must change with them. That what worked in the past will not work today.
That most clients, or potential clients, don't give a damn about what you did for others in the past...they only care about what you can do for them today. And that the best way to prove what you can do for them is by asking questions about them...not bragging about yourself.
If big agencies have the foresight and the strength - and the courage - to adapt to this new world, there's no reason they can't flourish.
But right now, in some cases, the big-agency model may be in need of some real structural overhaul.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
In my experience, big agencies often get caught up in bells and whistles, rather than substantive strategies. And this is true even in the pitching stage, before they even have the account.
As former Director of Public Relations for a substantial public company, I've sat through a lot of big-agency presentations over the years. And to say they were long on style and short on substance is a dramatic understatement.
True, they each trotted out their home-run hitters for the presentation...but we knew that, if we hired them, that would probably be the last time we'd see the big stars. The actual work would be done by minor-leaguers.
These presentations were invariably masterpieces of technical wizardry, meant to prove that this particular agency was on the cutting-edge of technology. And they piled on layer after layer of reasons why we should hire them...how wonderful they were, how talented, how "proprietary" their "advanced" systems were, how thrilled their clients were, their company's history, etc. (Suffice it to say that, after a half-hour or so of this, my eyeballs were not the only ones in the room that were rolling.)
What they didn't do, however, was to ask us about our needs. To ask us about our internal structures. To ask us about our goals and objectives. To ask us how we would measure results. To show us that they had any understanding at all of our company's history, or our company's clients, or our company's areas of pain.
They didn't ask questions. They didn't probe. They didn't show any interest at all in getting to know our company or our markets. They didn't show any interest at all in learning what we expected from an agency relationship.
And they didn't get our business, either. After sitting through a number of dog-and-pony shows, we decided to keep the work in-house.
It's dangerous to generalize, of course. But it just may be that, in this day and age, when swiftness and flexibility and real-time responses and fewer layers of management/accountability and increased personal initiative are required, that many larger agencies can't keep up. Or haven't learned how to keep up.
It just may be that many haven't yet learned that technology is - still - not as important as talent. That bells and whistles are - still, and hopefully never - as important as substance. That stifling corporate structure is not as effective - especially when a quick response/action is called for - as individual initiative. That top-down management is not as nimble as employee-empowered management. That bloated "org charts" and command-structures serve only to inhibit timely response. And that one pro who knows what he's doing is worth more than ten juniors who just push "send" buttons without having a clue as to the real principles of effective public relations practice.
No one should be saying that the era of the big agency is over. What I'm saying, however, is that these agencies need to do what the rest of us have been working on for a while now - change your structure, your management philosophies, and your operating systems to reflect the fact that we're in a new age. That things are changing - daily - and we must change with them. That what worked in the past will not work today.
That most clients, or potential clients, don't give a damn about what you did for others in the past...they only care about what you can do for them today. And that the best way to prove what you can do for them is by asking questions about them...not bragging about yourself.
If big agencies have the foresight and the strength - and the courage - to adapt to this new world, there's no reason they can't flourish.
But right now, in some cases, the big-agency model may be in need of some real structural overhaul.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
ETHICAL PR: LET'S LEAD BY EXAMPLE
When we become shills for clients whose business objectives don't go beyond glitz or hype, who wouldn't know a true Business Plan if they tripped over it, and whose horizons extend no further than their own greed, we become no better than them. And we become what real PR professionals spend their whole careers fighting against. We become the sleazy, old-fashioned "publicist"-type...who'll take anyone as a client, who'll do anything to "promote" that client, and who'll use any methodology to prove "results."
Like this type of client, we become interested only in short-term results, rather than long-term strategy. We become interested in the quick hit, rather than in building long-term momentum. And - because we often know, in our hearts, that this client may not be around forever - we become interested only in the quick buck.
Just as so many of the business and financial institutions we once trusted have betrayed our trust for a quick buck, it's sometimes tempting - particularly in a recession - to think about the shortest route to the money.
However, like the companies who've fallen victim to this philosophy over the past few years, our own firms may not be around for long, either, if we compromise our core values. As hundreds of companies around our country can testify, once you lose your reputation, it's awfully hard - or impossible - to reclaim it.
Our mantra, as public relations professionals, should be no different than those of corporations that utilize ethical business and marketing practices...
1) Determine your core values.
2) Make sure your people understand - and practice on a daily basis – your core values.
3) Educate your clients as to your core values.
4) Be willing to pass on a potential client who you believe does not share those values.
5) Be willing to walk away - yes, walk away - from an existing client who violates what you believe to be ethical core practices. (It's a lot cheaper in the long run, both for your finances and for your reputation.)
6) Hold on tightly to your moral compass. The business graveyard is filled with PR firms that didn’t.
7) DON'T JUST PREACH YOUR CORE VALUES...PRACTICE THEM! EVERY DAY!
This could be a golden opportunity for PR. Let's take the lead. Let's set an example for our clients with our own behavior, before we’re put in the uncomfortable position of having to publicly defend theirs.
I believe that, if we're going to be put in the position of defending corporate agendas…we should be helping to set them.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
Like this type of client, we become interested only in short-term results, rather than long-term strategy. We become interested in the quick hit, rather than in building long-term momentum. And - because we often know, in our hearts, that this client may not be around forever - we become interested only in the quick buck.
Just as so many of the business and financial institutions we once trusted have betrayed our trust for a quick buck, it's sometimes tempting - particularly in a recession - to think about the shortest route to the money.
However, like the companies who've fallen victim to this philosophy over the past few years, our own firms may not be around for long, either, if we compromise our core values. As hundreds of companies around our country can testify, once you lose your reputation, it's awfully hard - or impossible - to reclaim it.
Our mantra, as public relations professionals, should be no different than those of corporations that utilize ethical business and marketing practices...
1) Determine your core values.
2) Make sure your people understand - and practice on a daily basis – your core values.
3) Educate your clients as to your core values.
4) Be willing to pass on a potential client who you believe does not share those values.
5) Be willing to walk away - yes, walk away - from an existing client who violates what you believe to be ethical core practices. (It's a lot cheaper in the long run, both for your finances and for your reputation.)
6) Hold on tightly to your moral compass. The business graveyard is filled with PR firms that didn’t.
7) DON'T JUST PREACH YOUR CORE VALUES...PRACTICE THEM! EVERY DAY!
This could be a golden opportunity for PR. Let's take the lead. Let's set an example for our clients with our own behavior, before we’re put in the uncomfortable position of having to publicly defend theirs.
I believe that, if we're going to be put in the position of defending corporate agendas…we should be helping to set them.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
Friday, July 3, 2009
PUBLIC RELATIONS AND MOUNTAIN CLIMBING
I've been climbing mountains since my early-twenties. In the Alps, in the Rockies, in the Smokies. And I've learned some great business lessons from my passion for mountain-climbing. These lessons have served me well, both as a senior executive for large corporations, and, now, as owner of my own PR/Marketing practice.
A few of the lessons I've learned...
1) Even the longest of journeys starts with a single step. And you have no chance of achieving your goal unless you have the courage to take that first step.
2) A lot of small steps add up to a big distance.
3) You must always keep your eye on the summit of the mountain (your goal). But you must also keep concentrating on your next step, as well; accidents can happen otherwise.
4) When an obstacle appears insurmountable, you must figure out a way around it. Or you won't reach your goal.
5) The climb ahead is not always what it seems. The most ominous-looking route up a mountain may turn out to be the best. And the most innocuous-looking route may turn out to be the one loaded with traps. You have to THINK, and to ANTICIPATE.
6) Beware of "false summits"...places that, when viewed from below during your ascent, appear to be the summit of the mountain, but actually aren't. The real summit could be obscured by weather, by rock, etc.
7) Mountains are filled with bears. With mountain lions. With snakes. With rock that appears sturdy but can give way. And with sudden, violent weather outbursts. So, too, business is filled with often-unseen traps. Have a crisis plan in place. And go over it beforehand...so that when the unexpected crisis does hit (as it most assuredly will), you'll know how to react.
8) Always be aware of your environment. There could be a lot of threats that you may not be able to see.
9) You're capable of more than you think. When you think you can't breathe anymore, when your muscles are screaming with pain, when you think you can't take another step...guess what? You can!
10) When you finally reach the summit of a high peak, don’t celebrate for too long. Experienced climbers know that, at those altitudes, the weather can change very quickly - generally for the worst. And they know, too, that the journey's actually only half over - you've still got to make your descent. The same is true of achieving your business goal. Don't celebrate for too long...because there's always another mountain to climb.
11) From 16,000 feet, you can see everything. If you look.
Wow…now I'm even more excited about my upcoming climbing trip to the Great Smokies!
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
A few of the lessons I've learned...
1) Even the longest of journeys starts with a single step. And you have no chance of achieving your goal unless you have the courage to take that first step.
2) A lot of small steps add up to a big distance.
3) You must always keep your eye on the summit of the mountain (your goal). But you must also keep concentrating on your next step, as well; accidents can happen otherwise.
4) When an obstacle appears insurmountable, you must figure out a way around it. Or you won't reach your goal.
5) The climb ahead is not always what it seems. The most ominous-looking route up a mountain may turn out to be the best. And the most innocuous-looking route may turn out to be the one loaded with traps. You have to THINK, and to ANTICIPATE.
6) Beware of "false summits"...places that, when viewed from below during your ascent, appear to be the summit of the mountain, but actually aren't. The real summit could be obscured by weather, by rock, etc.
7) Mountains are filled with bears. With mountain lions. With snakes. With rock that appears sturdy but can give way. And with sudden, violent weather outbursts. So, too, business is filled with often-unseen traps. Have a crisis plan in place. And go over it beforehand...so that when the unexpected crisis does hit (as it most assuredly will), you'll know how to react.
8) Always be aware of your environment. There could be a lot of threats that you may not be able to see.
9) You're capable of more than you think. When you think you can't breathe anymore, when your muscles are screaming with pain, when you think you can't take another step...guess what? You can!
10) When you finally reach the summit of a high peak, don’t celebrate for too long. Experienced climbers know that, at those altitudes, the weather can change very quickly - generally for the worst. And they know, too, that the journey's actually only half over - you've still got to make your descent. The same is true of achieving your business goal. Don't celebrate for too long...because there's always another mountain to climb.
11) From 16,000 feet, you can see everything. If you look.
Wow…now I'm even more excited about my upcoming climbing trip to the Great Smokies!
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
Monday, June 15, 2009
BEWARE "RECESSION-FRIENDLY" PR AGENCIES!
During my years in the corporate world, before opening my own practice, I witnessed many an agency pitching for our business. There was often a procession of 60-90-minute dog-and-pony shows, during which the agencies trotted out technologically-advanced presentations showing how great they were. Hardly any of them, however, actually thought to ask what our needs were, and what we were really looking for in an agency. And, now, of course, marketing budgets have tightened...and more agencies are positioning themselves as "affordable" and "recession-friendly." So the cynic in me can't help wondering - just a little - if these newly "affordable," "recession-friendly" programs are meant to generate more business for the agency, rather than for the client.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
PR IS POWERFUL!
These challenging times, as I see it, present a great opportunity to spread the word that effective public relations is about the best marketing tool you can have. Not only that, but it's much more cost-effective (more so now than ever, because most electronic media's free!) than more traditional marketing approaches.
Old marketing approaches - just like old advertising concepts - aren't working anymore in this new age. But PR - when done right - has the ability to completely change the marketing paradigm.
And it has the potential to emerge, after all the economic smoke clears, as the most powerful "wrench" in a company's marketing toolbox.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
Old marketing approaches - just like old advertising concepts - aren't working anymore in this new age. But PR - when done right - has the ability to completely change the marketing paradigm.
And it has the potential to emerge, after all the economic smoke clears, as the most powerful "wrench" in a company's marketing toolbox.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
