October 2007

Measuring PR: Clients like it, PR people ought to love it

I recently attended a conference on PR measurement put on by the Institute for Public Relations. Hearing what’s working for other PR people is always interesting, but this conference was particularly welcome because it brought together people who are doing the deep thinking on probably the hottest topic in PR: evaluating PR’s impact.

Measuring PR is rough for a number of reasons. Just a few include the difficulty of tracking changes in perception of a company or product to editorial coverage (as opposed to advertising, opinions articulated by colleagues, etc.), the sometimes prohibitively high cost associated with measurement itself and, not least, the desire PR people have to defend their budgets.

Conference presenters included a senior director at Microsoft who’s working to represent the effectiveness of PR for that company’s product lines and executives with a single number. There’s an appeal to the simplicity of a single-number score. But I didn’t understand why obliterating the nuance associated with, for example, media reports on Vista, was a good idea. Nevertheless, good to know that Microsoft is playing with the idea of measuring PR with one number.

At Schwartz, we work with entrepreneurial companies that are looking to grow very quickly. In the past, many of them “just knew” when PR was working. They’d report more in-bound calls, greater willingness of potential customers and partners to take meetings, and so on. We liked to hear anecdotal evidence that our programs were working, but it was only partially satisfying.

A few companies found it meaningful (some still do) to look at advertising equivalents. This is okay—if nothing else, it makes the case that PR is cheaper than advertising—but ultimately not that useful.

Common Sense: Yes, You Have a Permanent Record

In school, my mother always cautioned me to be responsible and study hard or any infractions would go on my "permanent record." I had visions of a metal vault in a big building where files on everything I did, from getting in a fight with my best friend to my less than stellar performance in Mr. Corr's Spanish class, would dog me through college, my job search and the rest of my life.

The truth is, there now really is a permanent record, and every company and individual has one. What's worse, these records aren't written on paper and stored in a musty vault--they're graven in digital bits and available for everyone to see.

We talked about this at PodCamp 2 - Boston this past weekend. It was a gathering of hundreds of social media experts, public relations practitioners, bloggers, podcasters and videographers to discuss the future of communications and marketing.

The term that was used was a person's (or company's) "digital footprint." It's important to remember that everything we do is recorded, tracked and accessible. Everything anyone says about your company--be it an employee, a competitor, a happy customer or a disgruntled customer--becomes part of the footprint. And unlike footprints in the sand, these digital footprints will not be washed away. They may become fainter, but they are always there for people to see.

I am writing to remind people about this and provide a few steps they can take.

1)     Keep track of your footprint. Just like you monitor your bank account and credit report, monitor what is being said about you and your competitors. If you do not have Google Alerts set up for every term of interest to you, set them up today. They are easy to use and free. Don't let others define you.

2)     Provide employees with blogging and commenting guidelines. You do not want employees saying something on behalf of the company, or that gets associated with the company, that will dog you for years.

3)     Think before you post. The line between personal life and professional is more blurred than ever before and will get even blurrier. Eventually Google Image search will get Facebook photos. Everything you write and post online impacts your personal brand. Be smart.

4)     Make your digital footprint work for you. Just like the first day of college, you have a chance to remake yourself in whatever image you want. If you want to be an expert on a topic, start commenting on it. You can build and shape your footprint.

In conclusion, your mother was right. There really is a permanent record on you and your company. Take control of it.

Posted by Mark McClennan on October 29, 2007 at 8:49 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Say what you mean - and keep it simple

About a year and a half ago, Tom Foremski (former Financial Times writer, now publishing the Silicon Valley Watcher blog) put out a call to trash the traditional press release and replace it with "new media communications releases." Essentially, releases would be deconstructed into special sections in order to make it easier for journalists to get the info they need - the news itself, quotes, financials etc. Since Tom's call to arms, there has been plenty of chatter in new media and PR circles about these new announcements. The current ruckus has to do with sneaky PR firms trying to have their new media releases picked up as items that appear to have been written by a reporter. This may be fascinating stuff for those in our business (actually, it isn't), but it's going to be awhile before we see any dramatic change in the lion's share of press releases.

What can be done to improve everyone's lot? A few suggestions...

Organizations issuing press releases:

* Listen to what journalists and good PR people are saying - stop stuffing every empty cliche, buzzword and acronym into your announcement.

* Tight, clear headlines - assume the reader only sees your headline and sub-headline, will they know who you are and what's newsworthy?

* Less is often more - trophies are not awarded for the most words used in a release. You will, however, pay higher distribution fees and put your intended audience to sleep.

* Embed links in your press releases - it's a great way to bring interested parties to your web site where they can obtain more information.

PR agencies:

* Stop writing to impress the client - it's not important that the VP of Marketing knows you can speak their jargon. It is important that you tell their story in a clear and compelling fashion to the outside world.

* Push back - if the VP of Marketing scoffs at your draft and insists on more jargon, you have a responsibility to explain why the campaign will benefit from news that is written in English.

* But they're demanding we issue junk - if they ignore your counsel, move on. Let's face it, you're going to pitch the story the way you think is going to maximize coverage. If the release is a stinker, don't include it in your pitches. Which brings us to our final point -

* Use some of the tactics Foremski advocates - after the conventional release crosses the wire, send the reporter what they need to write the story. If all it takes is a quick pitch and the release, fine. But for most reporters, it's better to send a quick pitch with a variety of pre-packaged components (quotes, financials, graphics etc.).

Press releases are an organization's official announcement of news. They are not designed solely for journalists. The audience also includes investors, customers, prospects, employees, communities and analysts. Companies should issue news that is concise, compelling and easy to understand - and PR professionals should promote it accordingly.

Posted by John Moran on October 25, 2007 at 7:21 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tech Blogging Event

I'm tired of going to events in which someone stands up and says "So, can you tell me what exactly defines a blog?"

Yes, this is an important question for someone just coming to the table, but many of us are well beyond that and the discussion is now about more high-level topics, such as "how are the current crop of blogs affecting coverage?" and "how can bloggers, reporters and PR people work together?"

That's what last night's great event at the Cambridge Innovation Center was all about. Scott Kirsner put together a great group of panelists, including Bijan Sabet, venture capitalist at Spark Capital; Barbara Heffner of CHEN PR; Don Dodge, director of business development at Microsoft;  Jimmy Guterman, editor of Release 2.0 and blogger at O'Reilly Radar; Scott Kirsner, who writes the Boston Globe "Innovation Economy" column; and Nabeel Hyatt, CEO of Conduit Labs. Both Schwartz Communications and CHEN PR sponsored the event, as well as Morse Barnes-Brown & Pendleton and the Cambridge Innovation Center.

The panel was just a start, as I was charged with running around the room to bring in discussion from others attending the event. Dan Bricklin has a few pictures as well as the full podcast up, so rather than me running through the whole thing, go and have a listen.

Discussion items included:

• Why do you blog?
• What is your most popular post?
• How addicted are you to statistics?
• Where do journalistic ethics come into play?
• What does blogging do for your business?
• How do you maintain an authentic voice?
• How do people who cannot write well engage in this environment?
• What role do edited blogs (like this one) have both in the corporation and in the blogosphere in general?
• Can you do a "news" announcement only through social media?

Don Dodge shared great pieces of advice--both of which I violated on my various blogs--that he received from Robert Scoble.

First: include your own name in the name of the blog. Of my personal blogs only two have any part of my name involved, the Tanoblog and Tanophoto. And second: include your picture. While my picture is on my Schwartz bio, it is not on my Media Metamorphosis page, which may be why Paul Gillin didn't include my name in his roundup of the event.

I also enjoyed the discussion on edited blogs, in which Nabeel noted how the corporate blog at Conduit is, in fact, edited. The point is to have a common voice and to acknowledge that the company must come first, in this context. But also it's because there are people within the organization who have great thoughts when they're standing at the whiteboard, but do not have the ability to express themselves in writing. In this case the editing process is not about sanitizing the content, but about saying to those who are more self-conscious, "hey, we've got your back."

I found the ethics discussion to be among the most interesting and will be writing more on that later. But let me just share this from Don Dodge on conflict of interest: "No conflict, no interest."

On a personal note, I got a chance to meet David Laubner, who writes the excellent 93South blog, one I've been reading for some time.

In all, a great discussion of some of the primary issues facing modern tech journalism. I'm sure there will be more discussion on the various Boston-based tech blogs, but the podcast is probably the most complete recounting of the event. Though, not everyone identified themselves before speaking, so it sometimes be tough to follow.  

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on October 24, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The new BusinessWeek

BusinessWeek has just done a big re-design. Here's the new logo:

It's still red. They kept the big "W" in the middle of the name. But is it any good?

Well, it's not bad. Certainly bold. Perhaps The New York Times should take a poll of designers like they did for the New York City taxi logo. 

Here's what I find interesting. Buried in Stephen Adler's Editor's Memo it says, "We'll be opening our doors to an Internet-type model of aggregation--that is, offering other smart perspectives from around the world alongside stories that we develop. In this way, we'll share ideas that we have found worthwhile, even if they weren't invented here."

Now that's quite a statement for arguably the world's top business publication to make. In essence, BusinessWeek is recognizing that a huge part of their value is to be one of the few "must read" resources for busy professionals. If that means cherry picking enough good tidbits from competing publications to assure their readers that they're not missing much, then so be it.

Fits my theory on how the big "traditional" media outlets that figure out how to best integrate "new" media techniques and tools will wind up even more influential than before.

Posted by Mike Farber on October 23, 2007 at 8:10 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Millions of Tweets and not a bird in sight

Peter Kim of Forrester recently reported that Forrester "data shows that 6% of US online adults use Twitter regularly." There has been some debate on the accuracy of the numbers, and it makes interesting reading.

As Schwartz's first (and heaviest) Twitter, I wanted to post briefly on the numbers and what they mean to companies.

To be honest, for the sake of this discussion, it doesn't matter if the numbers are accurate. What matters is there are vibrant and growing networks that are providing new and easy way for the average person to communicate with others.

Twitter is a great tool for PR pros. Using Twitter I have found out

• About stories reporters are planning to write
• What matters to reporters so I give them the information that really care about
• New reporters and mavens
• What is being said about my clients by consumers

This is powerful stuff, particularly the last point. This technology directly impacts the consumer and changes the way we interact. With Twitter's search functionality it is easy for people to find and join all kinds of conversations

As a PR practitioner or company, should you tweet on Twitter? Perhaps. You need to make the call yourself (although I am happy to share my opinions). But you must monitor Twitter and the other applications like it (Jaiku, etc).

You don't need to become a power user and active on every social network and communications tool out there.  But you should be engaged and you need to monitor them.

It is relatively painless, requires minimal investment (The tools are free, it just takes time) and provides you with potentially valuable insight. These conversations have always been going on. Now there are just more of them and they can have quicker impact.

We need to use every appropriate tool in your repertoire. Your competitors are.

Posted by Mark McClennan on October 19, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Judging Social Media: Listen to CAIT

Whenever someone comes to me asking about blogs and other social media sites, I get the same question: what are the top ranked blogs? I try to point out that there are several ways to cut this, but people still want numbers.

The short answer? Size doesn't (always) matter.

I've long been critical of the idea that links determine much of anything, partially because they don't measure number of readers, but also because they assume that readership equals active participation from other blogs.

Shel Israel has made the point that if you have a blog with no links and three readers, it comes up as unimportant in the blogging world, but if those three readers include President Bush and his Chief of Staff, then it's influential.

Still, in the PR field we have a problem. Clients pay us to get them the best possible coverage in a defined period of time. So here at Schwartz, we've focused on what we call CAIT. That is, Community, Author, Intelligence and Topic. For each we ask a series of questions:

• Community--Does this blog have an active comment community? Are they gaining links from other bloggers and reporters? Do reporters/influencers/analysts read them?
• Author--Does this person put up their name? Do they work in the industry? Are they an analyst? A competitor? Interested party?
• Intelligence--As you are reading the posts, do they make sense? Are they in line with what you know about the industry? How do those commenting react?
• Topic--What is this blog truly about? Did the author write a piece about a client's area just once or is it a regular topic?

We look for a balance of all four elements. The reason is pretty simple: social media relations isn't about the big audience, it's about the right audience. So if a blogger, podcaster, vlogger, Twitter user or anyone else influences a community in an intelligent way that speaks to the topic of our clients, then that's someone with which we want to talk.

The fact is, these same concepts can be applied to just about any media and will work properly, but in the traditional media world we tend to know understand this concept inherently. When dealing with social media we need to be taught.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on at 7:30 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Take a lesson from Al

OK, maybe Al Gore didn't actually invent the Internet, but he has certainly demonstrated the effectiveness of combining traditional media with new Internet media. Gore's crusade to combat global warming was recognized last week with the announcement that the former Vice President will share the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the International Panel on Climate Change. Author David Rothkopf told Thomas Friedman, "Gore, even without the presidency, used all the modern tools of communication, the Internet, video and globalization to reach out and galvanize a global movement."

The key phrase is "modern tools of communication." Gore wisely used all the tools at his disposal. Inexplicably, many organizations today are still sitting on the sidelines when it comes to utilizing new forms of digital communication. There are tremendous advantages to be gained by combining traditional and new Internet communication tools. You may not need to spark a global movement, but I'm sure a movement within your market space will do just fine.

Posted by John Moran on October 17, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Comparing East vs. West, Based on Interview Questions

Add this to your file on the long-discussed difference between the entrepreneurial climates on the two U.S. coasts. Recently, I traveled on a press tour with a client to meet with business press---reporters and bloggers---in Boston, New York and Washington. My client also went to San Francisco, and we compared notes on all the meetings.

The reporters in San Francisco did not ask any questions related to the client's business model. They were impressed with the technology demonstration. They like gadgets.

The reporters on the east coast generally asked about revenue models in the first five minutes. The common question: "How do you make money?"

Questions about west coast versus east coast have permeated my entire career in PR. My first-hand experience provides clear on-the-ground evidence of the split.

Extra Credit: If you have not seen it yet, you should read an account by Scott Kirsner, who freelances for the Boston Globe, on why Boston lost Facebook. It describes how an idea hatched on the east coast ultimately earned financing out west.

Posted by Ross Levanto on October 16, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Theory: Expensive Tchotchkes = Hot Market

I propose a new theory: You can tell whether a specific market is hot based on the value of the give-aways at that market's tradeshows.

Tradeshows are part of the foundation of any good PR program. Perhaps most importantly, a trade show offers a chance for key players and influencers (including reporters, partners, analysts and end users) to congregate at the same location. The concept of a press tour today is somewhat hard to grasp--reporters, analysts and bloggers tend to live and work all over the place. But they all come to a tradeshow if it represents a market they follow.

So can one base the "hottness" of a technology market by its trade show? Sure. Look at the number of attendees, number of exhibitors, and number of reporters and analysts attending. See if large recognizable vendors are sponsors. And, perhaps, per my theory, take a look at what exhibitors are giving away.

Joan Geoghegan, a senior vice president at Schwartz, recently attended VMworld, the trade show run by VMware, a leader in the virtualization market. Anyone will tell you virtualization is hot. So given that, let's take a look at what certain vendors were calling tchotchkes at the event:

-- EqualLogic: A $40K Harley

-- Wyse: A Mercedes Smart Car

-- Dunes: A hardened PC fully loaded with their software (one a day)

-- Microsoft: A 42-inch flat TV screen (one a day)

There were too many iPods, Nintendo Wii consoles and other "basic" give-aways to count, she notes.

I don't know about you, but if giving away a Wii at a specific show is blase, that show must be very hot.

Posted by Ross Levanto on October 15, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Nightly News Goes Online

Today's New York Times has an interesting story on ABC-TV's attempt to bring the Nightly News to the millions of people who now get their news online and rarely, if ever, watch the traditional evenings news broadcasts.

While CBS and NBC mainly use the Web to repackage their regular nightly news shows, ABC's "Webcast is an entirely different animal, sometimes resembling a younger, more technologically advanced version of the traditional 6:30 p.m. report. It is intended in part for people who view Web pages on iPods and cellphones, and ABC executives say they are deliberately aiming to please the 25- to 54-year-olds whom every news organization covets."

ABC acknowledges this "a first step toward a future that looks increasingly digital and multimedia." They're right, and it's only a matter of time before the other networks do the same thing.

PR agencies, and our clients, should also be making this transition to a new digital world. There are exciting opportunities for those that do it well.

Posted by John Moran on October 12, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Here we go

The public relations business is at a real crossroads. The advent of social media means it's now impossible to control messages perfectly. Communications is becoming more real. Raw. Genuine.

This is a very good thing.

Social media is here to stay. But so is traditional media. In fact, the traditional media that makes it through this crossroads will be even more powerful than before. They'll have cracked the code on integrating both types of media with the kind of rich, full content that develops and grows audiences.

This blog explores what's happening in the ever-evolving communications world. We'll talk about how companies can benefit from these changes. We're also tackling trends we see in the media and the industry practice groups we cover. Opinions, best practices and interesting tools are all fodder for discussion.

Our job, as PR professionals, is to help guide our clients through this new and ever-changing environment. It's going to be fun. As I mentioned in a recent panel sponsored by PR News, "Ten years from now, we're going to have great jobs, just very different jobs."

Hope you enjoy our thoughts.

Posted by Mike Farber on October 2, 2007 at 9:56 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)