ABCs of PR

 

ABCs of PR

by

Marc Brailov

                                        

Successful public relations (PR) that generates positive media for an organization not only provides the equivalent of free advertising, but, more critically, can offer an independent, comparatively objective, validation of the organization’s marketing and branding claims. 

Here are the basic prerequisites, the “ABCs,” for PR success:

A. Comprehensive Approach

A successful PR strategy must be comprehensive in nature, addressing, in clearly delineated written detail, both the short- and long-term challenges and opportunities of an organization.  The best route to sustained PR success is one illuminated by clarity of purpose not one shrouded by hedged bets and uncertainty. 

The PR strategy should also, ideally, offer creative new initiatives that can build on the basic, day-to-day PR activity and help meet or exceed the organization’s long-term goals.  A PR strategy must feature, in short, a running game and a passing game.  As in football, both are the necessary components of a winning strategy.

B. Understanding of Media

Understanding how reporters/editors tend to think is essential to PR success.  PR professionals should always be sensitive to what journalists perceive to be proper PR etiquette, and to recognize that journalists’ primary concern is not your organization, but their readers, viewers, listeners. 

Most fundamentally, one must understand and respect the concept of newsworthiness.  Too often, developments that an organization may trumpet loudly as newsworthy may be dismissed as nothing more than annoying noise by reporters.  This is particularly true in today’s world of the 24-hour news cycle, where in mere seconds anyone can be a journalist anywhere, through a spectrum of media.  These days, when seeking stories, reporters have to work overtime to separate the proverbial wheat from the chaff.

Many journalists also dislike being treated as “marketing surrogates” by businesses and other organizations.  While most organizations must and should use PR to advance marketing goals, it should be done in a way that identifies, translates and highlights the elements of a marketing message that will likely be viewed as most newsworthy by reporters. 

That not only demonstrates sensitivity to the reporter’s agenda, rather than just your own, but, more significantly, may also increase the chances of an outcome that’s most desired – a positive news story.  At most, good PR can somewhat influence reporters’ hearts and minds, but it can never control them nor seen to be trying through heavy-handed tactics. 

C. Well-Honed Messaging

Effective PR messaging strives for the three “Cs”: concise, clear and compelling language.  The strongest public messaging is akin to a multivitamin pill — containing all the right nutrients but quite easy to swallow.  Remember, Lincoln’s iconic Gettysburg Address contained just 272 words.  The now-forgotten speech that preceded it clocked in at a tedious two hours!

 

Marc Brailov has over 20 years of experience in public relations, corporate communications, marketing, and public policy and legislative advocacy.

The Lost Art of the Apology

by Nancy Carr

“Love means never having to say you’re sorry.” It seems an entire generation internalized the iconic line from the 70’s classic, Love Story. But, if you remember, the girl dies at the end. And so will your relationships if you don’t start learning to say you are sorry. Not “I’m sorry, but …” (and then blame the victim). Just “I’m sorry.”

This may seem an unusual topic for a blog post, but it has been on my mind lately. As an avid viewer of the 24/7 news, I am continually amazed by the trouble that organizations, politicians and celebrities bring upon themselves because they are too darn proud, stubborn, or lawsuit-phobic to admit they were wrong.

It is not just corporations. In my own family, a similar blowup is occurring this week. A relative posted a photo to Facebook showing an insensitive work of “folk art.” Several relatives took offense and said they did not care to visit with her for a while. Rather than offer a heartfelt, “I had no idea this was offensive. I meant no harm. I am very sorry,” the offending relative went into defensive mode and attacked those who were offended by her offense as being the true offenders. And so a potential learning moment (“Can you tell me the context so I can better understand?”) has now exploded into World War III.

The sad part is that the relative was blindsided by the hostility she ignited. But, like so many of us, she refuses to practice self-awareness. In her mind the fact that no harm was intended means that no one was harmed. She is apparently more interested in being right than in turning this into a learning moment. Eventually, of course, all will be forgiven. But it could have been handled immediately and the tensions diffused, and we’d all be spending the holiday together if she simply said “I’m sorry.”

They understand this in restaurant industry, when a manager will often comp the meal or offer a free dessert along with an apology for the cold meal or bad service. The gesture smooths over a bad situation and signals good intentions. But you do not have to go that far. The simple fact is that most people are not looking for a freebie. They want their discomfort to be validated. They want the offender to acknowledge the wrong that was done. They want the bad behavior, whether it is a sexist joke, an insulting Tweet, or cheaply made product, to stop.

A local hospital learned this in recent years after a terrible birth outcome. The family filed a malpractice suit and they won. But rather than monetary damages, they insisted that the hospital initiate a program to handle such issues with compassion and sensitivity. Indeed, surveys have shown that a good portion of malpractice lawsuits can be settled or avoided all together if the doctor or hospital says, “I’m sorry. I made a mistake.” For this hospital, the program has had amazing results in improved patient relations and morale.

How do you know if you made a mistake? Despite the best of intentions, if the outcome is not what you want (e.g. customer complaints, falling stock prices, injury, family tensions), then you made a mistake.

Of course, sometimes it doesn’t matter. The NRA does not mind offending gun control advocates. And PETA does not mind offending the whaling industry. Their messages are not mistakes, but carefully crafted to appeal to a certain base audience. On the other hand, did Dove really think that rehashing an old New Jersey joke would attract new business? Not only was the ad lame. But it was also a bit vulgar. You did not need to be from New Jersey to be offended. Dove immediately retracted the ad and issued an apology. But it fell short, in my opinion.

Here are some tips for offering a mea culpa that is sincere:

Acknowledge the offense.

TRY: “We said or did something that offended you.”

NOT: “Some people may have been offended,” or “If you were  offended.”

Own up to it.

TRY: “I’m sorry that I did it.”

NOT: “I’m sorry that you were offended.”

Offer to make it right. Accept the consequences.

TRY: “I value our relationship. What can I do to fix this?”

NOT: “I said I was sorry. Now move on.”

Families forgive. Families move on. But what about your customers? Don’t be afraid. The public loves a good redemption story. How many lawsuits, scandals, and lost business can be avoided by a sincere apology? When we are wrong, we are wrong. When we make a mistake, we need to own it. And fix it.

Nancy Carr is a communications strategist and co-owner of Carr Creative. She loves everything about living in Baltimore, including her family, her rescue dog who refuses to behave, and her blind cat.

 

Is Putin’s handling of Ukraine a portent of the future?

by Dan Larson

From the ouster of the Ukrainian president to the invasion of Crimea to the most severe level of tension in post-war Europe since the height of the Soviet Union, there is one single person central to it all: Vladimir Putin.

How he construes the world and the positions of other countries, whatever slights he may feel Mother Russia has endured, however critical he may believe are demonstrations of strength, his personal views can be directly translated into powerful political and military actions like arguably no one else on the globe. His power is real and vast.

Clearly he has a problem keeping his testosterone under control. That is ironic because control is what he is all about; that and the resurrection of the Russian empire.

He was opportunistic with the uprisings early this year in Kiev, using them as an excuse to invade Crimea, saying that Russian citizens were being threatened. Given the marauding gangs of Russian thugs and the Russian soldiers in unidentified uniforms, it is more likely that everyone except Russians were under threat.

Consider the Tartars, the actual natives of Crimea, who were uprooted by Stalin and redistributed all across Russia in the 1930s, causing a great tragedy with enormous loss of life. In recent years, Tartar families who are ethnically Muslim have trickled back and reestablished themselves in their homeland. Now they are under threat once more. Fearing for their lives, many Ukrainians living in Crimea have left, tearing a social fabric years in the building.

Did Ukraine do the right thing in not fighting the Russians as they took control of Crimea, overpowering Ukrainian military installations and appropriating weapons and ships? Probably.  They were vastly outnumbered and outgunned. A military confrontation between Ukraine and Russia would likely not have stopped at the Crimean border.

Still, it is a nagging question. What if Ukraine had responded forcefully early in the conflict?  Would this have stopped Russia’s advance? Or could it have triggered another European war?

There’s no question about who’s calling the shots in Russia. As a former KGB officer, Putin’s formative thinking about geopolitics was undoubtedly dark and dangerously xenophobic. Much of the rationale for the Warsaw Pact nations during the Cold War was to protect Russia’s borders. But this time around, no one invaded Russia. They are proudly the occupying power.

There is good reason why the Russian action has been compared to Hitler’s invasion of the Sudetenland, once a part of Czechoslovakia with many German-speakers, whose interests the Nazis claimed they were protecting as they marched into that small country.

Europe is understandably anxious about overreacting to the Crimea annexation. Many countries are heavily dependent on Russian oil and gas. If Putin believed it would promote his objectives, he would not hesitate to cut them off. This is high stakes poker. There should be no question of that, given Russia’s April 1 action to raise its gas prices to Ukraine by 40%.

Europeans are painfully aware that the path taken by Neville Chamberlain in the 1930s is not the way to contain a bully. An ambiguous and muddled response from the West only emboldens Putin. In fact, Russian troops are provocatively massed on the Ukrainian border, further cranking up regional tensions. As Latvia’s former president commented, those soldiers are not there for a Sunday afternoon time-off.

Putin is watching our actions and waiting for his next opportunity. The response of the Allies should be measured and strategic. Yes, he is a bully and like bullies, his stock-in-trade is intimidation. However, Putin must come to understand that it is in his interests to not provoke further retaliation. Finesse, not testosterone, will best resolve this issue.

If Putin is not persuaded, his actions in Crimea may just be the beginning of another Cold War. Or worse.