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 media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Monday, November 30, 2009
TRUST
Do any of us really trust anyone else, professionally, anymore?
I’m not really sure we understand the meaning of the word “trust” anymore…and that includes me. I don’t really trust a staffer or a contractor to put the same effort into a project that I would. I don’t trust what I read in the papers or hear on TV anymore…because so much of what I read or hear is being distilled through the often-partisan lens of the person saying it. I don’t trust celebrity spokespeople, for obvious reasons.
I don’t trust politicians (putting me - I trust - in the great majority). I don’t trust advertising. I don’t trust many PR campaigns.
We’ve become so used to not trusting that we’ve become almost deaf to how much a part of our daily lives – and our professional lives – it is.
It wasn’t always that way, of course. (And let’s face it…these days, a little healthy skepticism can’t hurt!) Have we all become hired mercenaries, paid pitchmen (and women) for messages we don’t really believe?
I work with a client who exemplifies “trust” – because she couldn’t do her life’s work without it.
Lisa Kristine is a San Francisco photographer whose stunning portraits of native people around the world have won her a slew of honors. She roams the world with a backpack and a camera. And with her simple, unadorned portraits of native people who live in “off-the-map” places, she’s able to touch people all over the world.
But, to photograph these people – many of whom have never before seen a camera – she needs to establish trust. She meets them on their terms, not hers. She takes as much time as they need to feel comfortable with this white woman with blonde hair and a strange-looking contraption that she points at them. She gets them to trust her…to trust her motives, to trust her work.
Her photographs go straight into the souls of her subjects, portraying them in an incredible human dignity. And it’s not only her photographs that are stunning in their beauty and in their simplicity and in their integrity – it’s the subjects in them, as well.
How wonderful that must be…to trust the human beings with whom you work. And to gain their trust.
I can’t help thinking that somehow, somewhere, there must be some kind of lesson in this for us.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
I’m not really sure we understand the meaning of the word “trust” anymore…and that includes me. I don’t really trust a staffer or a contractor to put the same effort into a project that I would. I don’t trust what I read in the papers or hear on TV anymore…because so much of what I read or hear is being distilled through the often-partisan lens of the person saying it. I don’t trust celebrity spokespeople, for obvious reasons.
I don’t trust politicians (putting me - I trust - in the great majority). I don’t trust advertising. I don’t trust many PR campaigns.
We’ve become so used to not trusting that we’ve become almost deaf to how much a part of our daily lives – and our professional lives – it is.
It wasn’t always that way, of course. (And let’s face it…these days, a little healthy skepticism can’t hurt!) Have we all become hired mercenaries, paid pitchmen (and women) for messages we don’t really believe?
I work with a client who exemplifies “trust” – because she couldn’t do her life’s work without it.
Lisa Kristine is a San Francisco photographer whose stunning portraits of native people around the world have won her a slew of honors. She roams the world with a backpack and a camera. And with her simple, unadorned portraits of native people who live in “off-the-map” places, she’s able to touch people all over the world.
But, to photograph these people – many of whom have never before seen a camera – she needs to establish trust. She meets them on their terms, not hers. She takes as much time as they need to feel comfortable with this white woman with blonde hair and a strange-looking contraption that she points at them. She gets them to trust her…to trust her motives, to trust her work.
Her photographs go straight into the souls of her subjects, portraying them in an incredible human dignity. And it’s not only her photographs that are stunning in their beauty and in their simplicity and in their integrity – it’s the subjects in them, as well.
How wonderful that must be…to trust the human beings with whom you work. And to gain their trust.
I can’t help thinking that somehow, somewhere, there must be some kind of lesson in this for us.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.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
Friday, October 9, 2009
THE DEATH OF SERIOUS JOURNALISM
In a democracy, the media are – ideally – supposed to be reporters of the news – not creators of it.
There doesn’t seem to be much genuine (and unbiased) reporting of “news” anymore – because, these days, “news” seems to be defined by the political stance of the organization that’s reporting it. Broadcast “journalism” – especially on cable - is becoming just another forum in which self-righteous “reporters” create their own news from their own viewpoints, and then push it on their audiences…who are tuning in precisely because that particular station is reporting only the “news” they want to hear.
I see television stations becoming shills for whatever political party - and political positions - their corporate owners favor. (I mean, really, folks, no matter what your political leanings, should the word "News" really be used after the word "Fox"???) I see local TV anchors and reporters becoming "personalities" rather than serious journalists. And I see an unending procession of beautiful people - who are not necessarily serious journalists - parading across my screen during just about any news program I watch. And self-proclaimed journalists – actually shills for one party or another – have actually become media stars.
Popular tastes being what they are in this country, the few broadcast media that are still objective – such as CNN - are experiencing pressure to become more opinionated, more “showtime,” more hip.
As for the print media, I see more and more reporters becoming, basically, "local" reporters, or "consumer" reporters...as "local" and "consumer" have become a mantra that's repeated ad nauseum by newspapers trying clumsily to adapt to a new world. I see journalists, who may have been correspondents or investigative reporters previously, now going "local"...or, often, becoming social network stars with huge online followings.
I'm one of those people who believes that a dearth of serious journalism - and journalists - is a grave threat to democracy. I just want to hear the news. I just want straight, objective, unbiased reporting of the news. Then I’ll make up my own mind as to where I stand on an issue. I don’t need to be shouted at.
Obviously, many of the news “models” in our country are changing; and based on the fact that many of their structures are unsustainable in this new world, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But I just hope that we don’t change into news models that are based purely on political agendas. Because that is the antithesis of those in a democracy.
There doesn’t seem to be much genuine (and unbiased) reporting of “news” anymore – because, these days, “news” seems to be defined by the political stance of the organization that’s reporting it. Broadcast “journalism” – especially on cable - is becoming just another forum in which self-righteous “reporters” create their own news from their own viewpoints, and then push it on their audiences…who are tuning in precisely because that particular station is reporting only the “news” they want to hear.
I see television stations becoming shills for whatever political party - and political positions - their corporate owners favor. (I mean, really, folks, no matter what your political leanings, should the word "News" really be used after the word "Fox"???) I see local TV anchors and reporters becoming "personalities" rather than serious journalists. And I see an unending procession of beautiful people - who are not necessarily serious journalists - parading across my screen during just about any news program I watch. And self-proclaimed journalists – actually shills for one party or another – have actually become media stars.
Popular tastes being what they are in this country, the few broadcast media that are still objective – such as CNN - are experiencing pressure to become more opinionated, more “showtime,” more hip.
As for the print media, I see more and more reporters becoming, basically, "local" reporters, or "consumer" reporters...as "local" and "consumer" have become a mantra that's repeated ad nauseum by newspapers trying clumsily to adapt to a new world. I see journalists, who may have been correspondents or investigative reporters previously, now going "local"...or, often, becoming social network stars with huge online followings.
I'm one of those people who believes that a dearth of serious journalism - and journalists - is a grave threat to democracy. I just want to hear the news. I just want straight, objective, unbiased reporting of the news. Then I’ll make up my own mind as to where I stand on an issue. I don’t need to be shouted at.
Obviously, many of the news “models” in our country are changing; and based on the fact that many of their structures are unsustainable in this new world, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But I just hope that we don’t change into news models that are based purely on political agendas. Because that is the antithesis of those in a democracy.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
THE UNDYING ART OF STORY-TELLING
Traditional mediums of communication are dying – or, at the very least, on the critical list - all around us. But there’s one form of communication that must be preserved at all costs – the art of telling a story. After all, isn’t that, in a very real sense, what we do for our clients, or for our companies? We’re communicators…and the essence of good communication is knowing how to tell a good story.
The best communicators know that this is still essential to the practice of public relations. And they’re constantly honing their ability to tell stories. Compelling stories. Provocative stories. Stories that move us emotionally. Stories that spark a need (or a want). And stories that can make us act on this need or want.
The media platforms upon which we tell our stories may be morphing even as we speak. But stories - well-told, engaging stories - are still the best means of generating action (or satisfaction) by our publics, or by our customers. And companies that are unsuccessful at telling their stories eventually end up in that proverbial “dusts-bin of history.”
People will always want to hear about other people, and what makes them act the ways in which they do. It stands to reason, then, that the best way to sell products or services - or ideas - is to tell stories, often about people. It may be about how people can benefit from a certain product. How they can join a certain cause. How they can find out more about a certain idea. Or, simply, how they overcame an obstacle in life (and, truth be told, it wouldn’t hurt if they overcame this obstacle with the aid of your company’s or your client’s product or service!). But, whatever the goal, if you use good stories, you've got a better chance to achieve it.
Marketers and PR people (all the emerging technologies notwithstanding) should take note. Stories - stories with which the target audience can identify and benefit from - are the best way to generate trust on the part of that audience. And trust is the best way to generate action. Period!!
And we ignore that fact at our peril.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
The best communicators know that this is still essential to the practice of public relations. And they’re constantly honing their ability to tell stories. Compelling stories. Provocative stories. Stories that move us emotionally. Stories that spark a need (or a want). And stories that can make us act on this need or want.
The media platforms upon which we tell our stories may be morphing even as we speak. But stories - well-told, engaging stories - are still the best means of generating action (or satisfaction) by our publics, or by our customers. And companies that are unsuccessful at telling their stories eventually end up in that proverbial “dusts-bin of history.”
People will always want to hear about other people, and what makes them act the ways in which they do. It stands to reason, then, that the best way to sell products or services - or ideas - is to tell stories, often about people. It may be about how people can benefit from a certain product. How they can join a certain cause. How they can find out more about a certain idea. Or, simply, how they overcame an obstacle in life (and, truth be told, it wouldn’t hurt if they overcame this obstacle with the aid of your company’s or your client’s product or service!). But, whatever the goal, if you use good stories, you've got a better chance to achieve it.
Marketers and PR people (all the emerging technologies notwithstanding) should take note. Stories - stories with which the target audience can identify and benefit from - are the best way to generate trust on the part of that audience. And trust is the best way to generate action. Period!!
And we ignore that fact at our peril.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
Saturday, September 19, 2009
HOW TO SEND SPAM
If you haven’t yet read “The New Rules of Marketing & PR, by David Meerman Scott, you should. One of his chapter-headings is “Non-Targeted, Broadcast Pitches are Spam.”
A pretty wide definition. But I couldn’t agree more. Very few things about this industry make me as mad as these so-called “pitches.” They show absolutely no respect for the writers/editors at which they’re aimed. Think about it: In how many other industries can you expect to “make the sale” after blatantly disrespecting the person to whom you’re selling? This practice is the biggest reason why so many journalists don’t respect us (to put it mildly!).
I started out as a journalist. I grew up in a newsroom. I was a newspaper reporter. And then a magazine editor. And I can’t even begin to estimate the thousands of releases I’ve tossed or deleted because I could see instantly that they had been sent to a thousand other journalists, as well. I could see without even opening them that they were not targeted specifically to my demographics or my beat or my magazines. They were just tossed blindly against as many walls as the tosser could think of, in the hope that maybe a few of them might – just possibly – stick.
I can tell you, though, that, with most journalists who receive these blind pitches, the only thing that sticks is a lifelong distain for public relations people.
I'm forever trying to educate clients that their "great" story is great only if it offers the readers (who are, after all, the end-users) actionable advice that can help make their lives or their businesses 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.
More than ever, coverage in the appropriate niche is worth much more than coverage in scattered media that are of no value to your clients' businesses. Ideally, clients would be more open to understanding this. But it's not their fault.
The real fault, actually, lies with the agencies and the corporate PR practitioners who have a golden opportunity to educate their clients (or senior management), and don't do it. As long as PR people are willing to practice this approach, some clients will think it's best.
I'm still waiting for the day when the quantity of pitches matters less than the quality of the resulting media coverage.
In other words...when output matters less than results.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
A pretty wide definition. But I couldn’t agree more. Very few things about this industry make me as mad as these so-called “pitches.” They show absolutely no respect for the writers/editors at which they’re aimed. Think about it: In how many other industries can you expect to “make the sale” after blatantly disrespecting the person to whom you’re selling? This practice is the biggest reason why so many journalists don’t respect us (to put it mildly!).
I started out as a journalist. I grew up in a newsroom. I was a newspaper reporter. And then a magazine editor. And I can’t even begin to estimate the thousands of releases I’ve tossed or deleted because I could see instantly that they had been sent to a thousand other journalists, as well. I could see without even opening them that they were not targeted specifically to my demographics or my beat or my magazines. They were just tossed blindly against as many walls as the tosser could think of, in the hope that maybe a few of them might – just possibly – stick.
I can tell you, though, that, with most journalists who receive these blind pitches, the only thing that sticks is a lifelong distain for public relations people.
I'm forever trying to educate clients that their "great" story is great only if it offers the readers (who are, after all, the end-users) actionable advice that can help make their lives or their businesses 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.
More than ever, coverage in the appropriate niche is worth much more than coverage in scattered media that are of no value to your clients' businesses. Ideally, clients would be more open to understanding this. But it's not their fault.
The real fault, actually, lies with the agencies and the corporate PR practitioners who have a golden opportunity to educate their clients (or senior management), and don't do it. As long as PR people are willing to practice this approach, some clients will think it's best.
I'm still waiting for the day when the quantity of pitches matters less than the quality of the resulting media coverage.
In other words...when output matters less than results.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
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
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
THE DEATH THROES OF PRINT MEDIA
THE DEATH THROES OF PRINT MEDIA
Steve Winston
I'm on the Web all day long...from 6:15 a.m., when I first sit down to check the e-mail before my morning run, until midnight. And I do get most of my information - both professional and personal - from the Web.
Yet, nonetheless, I'm one of those people who have been mourning the apparent death of the print magazine (and newspaper, and book). And I’ll tell you why…
For one thing, I have serious doubts as to whether the Web will ever be able to apply the same rigorous standards of journalism and objective analysis at which print media (for the most part) have excelled. And I have doubts, as well, that the Web – around which people move with incredible frequency - will ever be able to provide the longer "think-pieces" at which so many newspapers and magazines have excelled.
For me, reading has always been a sensory experience. I still really love reading the paper while I (gulp down) my breakfast (especially if the Florida Marlins have won the night before!). I really get excited when one of the magazines to which I subscribe arrives in the mail; and I really enjoy the feel of the pages on my fingers when I read it. Also, I have an appreciation for great photography as an art-form…and I’m more prone to really explore a magnificent photo in print form that I am on the Web. I really enjoy, as well, the fact that a print piece offers me a medium with no distractions...it doesn't ring, or blink on the screen, every time I get an e-mail (tempting me to leave what I'm reading).
Newspapers have also been a physical chronicler of history in ways that electronic media cannot. For example, I was still a boy when Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated, and when men first walked on the moon. But I can still recall the giant headlines in Newsday the next morning(s). In fact, I remember actually saving the front page after momentous events that I thought would be of historical significance. Sometimes I wish I still had that old scrapbook. What incredible memories of time and place and emotion it would strike!
I think of myself as an early-adapter. Yet, I don’t really know how easy it will be for me to adapt to books on the Web. To me, there's nothing that says "this is my time to relax and escape" like settling down on a thick couch with a good book - in my hands, rather than on a screen.
So, although I spend most of my life online – and couldn’t make a living as a public relations practitioner without the ease (and instantaneous nature) of electronic information and communication - I'm still somewhat emotional about the place of print media in American democracy. I'm hopeful that at least some of the more “important” newspapers and magazines of our day will survive the shakeout.
And I’m hopeful, as well, that at least some print publications that had been written off as dead may not need obituaries, after all.
Otherwise, I’m afraid we’ll find out - too late - that a valuable piece of who we are has been lost.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
Steve Winston
I'm on the Web all day long...from 6:15 a.m., when I first sit down to check the e-mail before my morning run, until midnight. And I do get most of my information - both professional and personal - from the Web.
Yet, nonetheless, I'm one of those people who have been mourning the apparent death of the print magazine (and newspaper, and book). And I’ll tell you why…
For one thing, I have serious doubts as to whether the Web will ever be able to apply the same rigorous standards of journalism and objective analysis at which print media (for the most part) have excelled. And I have doubts, as well, that the Web – around which people move with incredible frequency - will ever be able to provide the longer "think-pieces" at which so many newspapers and magazines have excelled.
For me, reading has always been a sensory experience. I still really love reading the paper while I (gulp down) my breakfast (especially if the Florida Marlins have won the night before!). I really get excited when one of the magazines to which I subscribe arrives in the mail; and I really enjoy the feel of the pages on my fingers when I read it. Also, I have an appreciation for great photography as an art-form…and I’m more prone to really explore a magnificent photo in print form that I am on the Web. I really enjoy, as well, the fact that a print piece offers me a medium with no distractions...it doesn't ring, or blink on the screen, every time I get an e-mail (tempting me to leave what I'm reading).
Newspapers have also been a physical chronicler of history in ways that electronic media cannot. For example, I was still a boy when Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated, and when men first walked on the moon. But I can still recall the giant headlines in Newsday the next morning(s). In fact, I remember actually saving the front page after momentous events that I thought would be of historical significance. Sometimes I wish I still had that old scrapbook. What incredible memories of time and place and emotion it would strike!
I think of myself as an early-adapter. Yet, I don’t really know how easy it will be for me to adapt to books on the Web. To me, there's nothing that says "this is my time to relax and escape" like settling down on a thick couch with a good book - in my hands, rather than on a screen.
So, although I spend most of my life online – and couldn’t make a living as a public relations practitioner without the ease (and instantaneous nature) of electronic information and communication - I'm still somewhat emotional about the place of print media in American democracy. I'm hopeful that at least some of the more “important” newspapers and magazines of our day will survive the shakeout.
And I’m hopeful, as well, that at least some print publications that had been written off as dead may not need obituaries, after all.
Otherwise, I’m afraid we’ll find out - too late - that a valuable piece of who we are has been lost.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
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
Saturday, July 11, 2009
DON'T CALL ME A PUBLICIST!
As a PR practitioner for many years in the corporate world, and now as the owner of an award-winning PR/Marketing practice, I'm very uncomfortable when someone refers to me as a "publicist."
I consider myself a "Public Relations Professional" - someone who helps people or companies tell their stories; someone who creates effective communications strategies and objectives; and someone who works very hard at establishing "relations" with the media. To me, a publicist has always had a somewhat-glitzy connotation...a pushy, in-your-face Hollywood-type who represents other Hollywood-types, and who will do just about anything to achieve "publicity" for that Hollywood-type (or for themselves).
Our profession seems to have - and probably always will have - an image problem. I can't tell you how many times, when I've told people that I'm a "Public Relations Professional," I get a knowing wink, along with "Wow, that must be great! Going to all those parties, on yachts..." I've given up trying to explain to those people what I do, because they're never going to get it, anyway.
It's for those reasons, among others, that I have a problem with being called a "publicist." That name implies, to me, a release-flinger and a contact-list and cell-phone junkie who may not have any real communications skills.
I don't "get publicity" for my clients. I create strategies to position and explain their stories - if I think they have worthwhile stories to explain - to their various publics. In so doing, I help them achieve higher visibility, enhanced reputation, and increased business. And that's being a "Public Relations Professional."
Don't get me wrong; there's probably a real need for "publicists" in this world, especially for movie stars, entertainers, and writers on book-tours. Just don't call me one.
I've been doing this for twenty years; generally six, and often seven, days a week; for 10-14 hours a day. And I just don't like being labeled a "publicist."
By the way, the last yacht party I've been to was about six years ago. And the time before that...I can't even remember.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
I consider myself a "Public Relations Professional" - someone who helps people or companies tell their stories; someone who creates effective communications strategies and objectives; and someone who works very hard at establishing "relations" with the media. To me, a publicist has always had a somewhat-glitzy connotation...a pushy, in-your-face Hollywood-type who represents other Hollywood-types, and who will do just about anything to achieve "publicity" for that Hollywood-type (or for themselves).
Our profession seems to have - and probably always will have - an image problem. I can't tell you how many times, when I've told people that I'm a "Public Relations Professional," I get a knowing wink, along with "Wow, that must be great! Going to all those parties, on yachts..." I've given up trying to explain to those people what I do, because they're never going to get it, anyway.
It's for those reasons, among others, that I have a problem with being called a "publicist." That name implies, to me, a release-flinger and a contact-list and cell-phone junkie who may not have any real communications skills.
I don't "get publicity" for my clients. I create strategies to position and explain their stories - if I think they have worthwhile stories to explain - to their various publics. In so doing, I help them achieve higher visibility, enhanced reputation, and increased business. And that's being a "Public Relations Professional."
Don't get me wrong; there's probably a real need for "publicists" in this world, especially for movie stars, entertainers, and writers on book-tours. Just don't call me one.
I've been doing this for twenty years; generally six, and often seven, days a week; for 10-14 hours a day. And I just don't like being labeled a "publicist."
By the way, the last yacht party I've been to was about six years ago. And the time before that...I can't even remember.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
Thursday, July 2, 2009
THE NEW RULES OF THE GAME
The rules for media relations success - even in this economy, and even with a rapidly-shrinking media base - are so simple that they bear repeating:
TARGET your media.
TARGET your journalist.
TARGET your pitch.
TARGET how you can become an ongoing resource for the media, rather than a pain-in-the-ass shill for your client or company.
People...the rules have changed! "Pitchmen" (or women) who specialize in pushing a button and sending out the same release to hundreds of media (no matter what their demographics, their slant, etc.) have gone the way of the dinosaur. "Output" artists who just throw a bunch of mud (hundreds - or thousands - of releases) against the wall and hope that some of it sticks are no longer welcome in journalists' inboxes.
There aren't many journalists left to "pitch" these days, of course. Recently, a good friend of mine was laid off after 22 years as an Editor at a major daily. A few months earlier, he had mentioned to me that there were so few people left in the newsroom that you could roll a bowling ball across it and not hit anyone. And that you practically had to shout across the room to converse with any other journalists.
In this new world, if we don't help journalists do their job, they're not going to help us do ours (generate coverage)! And if that becomes the case, our own offices are going to look like newsrooms do today - empty.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
TARGET your media.
TARGET your journalist.
TARGET your pitch.
TARGET how you can become an ongoing resource for the media, rather than a pain-in-the-ass shill for your client or company.
People...the rules have changed! "Pitchmen" (or women) who specialize in pushing a button and sending out the same release to hundreds of media (no matter what their demographics, their slant, etc.) have gone the way of the dinosaur. "Output" artists who just throw a bunch of mud (hundreds - or thousands - of releases) against the wall and hope that some of it sticks are no longer welcome in journalists' inboxes.
There aren't many journalists left to "pitch" these days, of course. Recently, a good friend of mine was laid off after 22 years as an Editor at a major daily. A few months earlier, he had mentioned to me that there were so few people left in the newsroom that you could roll a bowling ball across it and not hit anyone. And that you practically had to shout across the room to converse with any other journalists.
In this new world, if we don't help journalists do their job, they're not going to help us do ours (generate coverage)! And if that becomes the case, our own offices are going to look like newsrooms do today - empty.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
THE REBIRTH OF PUBLIC RELATIONS!
We in the public relations profession have the chance to change the world…at least, the world of public relations.
There are some - from our profession and others - who post online about the "death of PR." Or, "the death of PR as we know it."
But I believe differently. Yes...PR is changing. And we have to change with it. But, really, the way I think about our profession is that...it's the re-birth of PR! We have a golden opportunity. We have the opportunity to dispel the old myths - and the old ways of practicing PR. We have the opportunity to ease the release-tossers (throw mud against the wall, and see how much of it sticks) and the "shills" out of our industry, once and for all. The way we can do this is simple: Practice public relations the way it's supposed to be practiced. With honesty. Ethics. Candor to our clients - and our potential clients - about what works and what doesn't, and about whether we actually have a snowball's chance in hell, or not, to really generate positive buzz about their products or services.
We have a chance to dispel all the old myths...I still occasionally meet people who think that my job entails attending a lot of cocktail parties on fancy yachts.
We have a chance to take our profession to new levels...by approaching journalists as of they are real, thinking, human beings. We have a chance to understand that, no matter how wonderful our client thinks his product is, unless it can actually help the journalist's readers improve their professional or personal lives, it's not going to generate publicity. We have a chance to talk about the BENEFITS (to real human beings) about our client's products or services, rather than just the features.
We have the opportunity to "take our case to the people," by learning and engaging in new ways to communicate, whether it be by social media, video, etc.
We have the opportunity, because of the multiple avenues available to us, to learn more about the art of effective communication than ever before. We have the opportunity to learn more than ever before about "win/win" situations, with our clients, the media, and lour clients' stakeholders. We have the opportunity to really learn from people who "get it"...now, more than ever, in online forums and webinars. And we have the opportunity - if we choose it - to learn more about the craft of effective writing, which, I believe, is still one of the core competencies required of an effective PR practitioner.
I could go on and on. But my bottom line is this: for those of us who are honest, who are persistent, who are good writers and good relationship-builders, who are open to new forms of communication, and who are dedicated to constantly improving at their craft - this can be THE RE-BIRTH OF PUBLIC RELATIONS!
And hopefully this group can serve as a catalyst to usher in this new era.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
There are some - from our profession and others - who post online about the "death of PR." Or, "the death of PR as we know it."
But I believe differently. Yes...PR is changing. And we have to change with it. But, really, the way I think about our profession is that...it's the re-birth of PR! We have a golden opportunity. We have the opportunity to dispel the old myths - and the old ways of practicing PR. We have the opportunity to ease the release-tossers (throw mud against the wall, and see how much of it sticks) and the "shills" out of our industry, once and for all. The way we can do this is simple: Practice public relations the way it's supposed to be practiced. With honesty. Ethics. Candor to our clients - and our potential clients - about what works and what doesn't, and about whether we actually have a snowball's chance in hell, or not, to really generate positive buzz about their products or services.
We have a chance to dispel all the old myths...I still occasionally meet people who think that my job entails attending a lot of cocktail parties on fancy yachts.
We have a chance to take our profession to new levels...by approaching journalists as of they are real, thinking, human beings. We have a chance to understand that, no matter how wonderful our client thinks his product is, unless it can actually help the journalist's readers improve their professional or personal lives, it's not going to generate publicity. We have a chance to talk about the BENEFITS (to real human beings) about our client's products or services, rather than just the features.
We have the opportunity to "take our case to the people," by learning and engaging in new ways to communicate, whether it be by social media, video, etc.
We have the opportunity, because of the multiple avenues available to us, to learn more about the art of effective communication than ever before. We have the opportunity to learn more than ever before about "win/win" situations, with our clients, the media, and lour clients' stakeholders. We have the opportunity to really learn from people who "get it"...now, more than ever, in online forums and webinars. And we have the opportunity - if we choose it - to learn more about the craft of effective writing, which, I believe, is still one of the core competencies required of an effective PR practitioner.
I could go on and on. But my bottom line is this: for those of us who are honest, who are persistent, who are good writers and good relationship-builders, who are open to new forms of communication, and who are dedicated to constantly improving at their craft - this can be THE RE-BIRTH OF PUBLIC RELATIONS!
And hopefully this group can serve as a catalyst to usher in this new era.
Steve Winston
President, WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS
(954) 575-4089
steve@winstoncommunications.com
www.winstoncommunications.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
