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
Showing posts with label public relations professionals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public relations professionals. Show all posts
Thursday, November 12, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
