 |
© Newswise.
All Rights Reserved.
|
|
 |
 |
| Issue No. 200404
| April 2004
|
|
 Printer-friendly version |
The PIOnet Newsletter is sponsored by Newswise and Dick Jones Communications
Feature Editor: Dick Jones Editor/Publisher: Roger Johnson
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
PIOnet Newsletter is produced monthly to support media relations' vital role in integrated marketing for your institution. This role is not always adequately recognized, understood, or acknowledged. Our goal is to give you data, arguments, evidence, and ideas to enhance the understanding of and appreciation for media relations at your institution.
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
The "Us Against the World" Scoring System
by Dick Jones
Dick Jones Communications
Does this sound familiar? A college across town -- Old Siwash -- scores a positive story in the local newspaper about something going on over there. The president mentions it to you in the hallway that morning. So does the director of the alumni association. The message is clear. The score is now Old Siwash, one -- your school, zero.
But you have a nice story in the local paper the next day. So now the score is tied one to one.
The day after, however, Old Ivy -- another school in town -- gets a story in. The president mentions it to you in the hallway. So does the director of the alumni association.
What's the score now? Old Siwash, one, Old Ivy, one, and your school, one? In a better world, perhaps. In the world in which you live, however, the score is two to one. And when Enormous State University (ESU) has a story in the paper the next day, you find yourself down three to one.
|
|
|
|
I've seen it many times. College and university media relations professionals face the "us against the world" scorekeeping system. It's a destructive mindset because it sets up a meaningless competition that you can't win. It's a mindset that fundamentally misunderstands the role of media relations in the marketing mix.
I try to tell presidents, vice presidents for development, and others who supervise media relations pros that media visibility is not a zero-sum game. A score for Old Siwash is not a loss for your school. A news media placement by you is not a stunning defeat for Old Siwash. No one on the "outside" is keeping score this way. And no one on the inside should either.
Media relations is one arrow in the marketing quiver. Positive news placements -- especially about your reputation-defining stories -- are extremely useful in providing the third-party endorsement of quality that can impact admissions and fund raising, and help to cement constituent relations.
Much depends, however, on how such placements are used. Increasingly, colleges and universities are finding creative ways to call the "third-party endorsements" to the attention of key publics and markets.
In such shops, the old clips count, and the "us against the world" mindset are discarded in favor of the real question: how can we make maximum use of positive media visibility in relations with our publics and markets? (And to heck with worrying about Old Siwash's media attention -- that's their affair.)
How is your institution using the positive news media visibility that it gets? We'd like to hear from you about that.
We invite your discussion of this topic on PIOnet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intranets an Effective Method of Communicating with Stakeholders
by Zoltan Bedy, Ph.D
Oswego State University of New York
Public relations, public information, and corporate communications officers have to concern themselves not only with disseminating information to a variety of external publics, but also with facilitating communications between their organization and their stakeholders.
One method of communication is through hard copy. However, the production, distribution, and mailing of hard copy can be rather costly, and the information contained therein can be outdated by the time it reaches its intended audiences.
Another method of communicating with stakeholders is via intranets -- institution-wide software and information distribution systems that use Internet tools and technology, accessible only by the institution's members, employees, or others with authorization. Though by no means inexpensive to develop and maintain, intranets have been shown to facilitate communication and collaboration among users.
While there has been a fair amount of discussion about the effectiveness of intranets, "Corporate intelligence dissemination as a consequence of intranet effectiveness," a recent study by Murgolo-Poore, et al. (Public Relations Review, Volume 29, Issue 2, pages 171-184), shows that "an effective intranet significantly enhances information dissemination within organizations." The researchers used a previously developed 15-item intranet effectiveness checklist for public relations practitioners, in which intranet effectiveness was defined as "the extent to which an organization's intranet contributes to the successful management of and communication and collaboration between that organization's employees."
The researchers' hypothesis was that "the effectiveness of the firm's intranet will have a positive effect on intelligence dissemination within the firm." This study not only confirmed the reliability of the intranet effectiveness checklist, but also showed that "an effective intranet impacts significantly on the dissemination of information within organizations." Intranet effectiveness is not only important in and of itself, according to the authors, but also because of the effect it can have on other important variables, such as the organization's ability to be proactive and to implement strategy.
These issues are especially important in and of themselves to public relations and communications managers because of their organization's "ability to be proactive and implement strategy." Also important, because communications managers often have to maintain or develop websites using established and often limited resources, is the ability to demonstrate positive results regarding information dissemination, such as the ones obtained in the research discussed here, in order to command the resources necessary for continuing such results.
Helpful to an organization assessing the value and effectiveness of its intranet, or planning to set up an intranet, would be the Murgolo-Poore 15-point checklist (Public Relations Review, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 113-123), as well as reviewing Daintry Duffy's "Why do intranets fail?".
We invite your discussion of this topic on PIOnet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Book Review: Full Frontal PR: Getting People Talking about You, Your Business or Your Project
by Sean J. Kearns
Humboldt State University/National Science Foundation
What? You haven't heard of Full Frontal PR?! Where have you been? Whom do you hang with? When are you going to get with it? Why am I writing like this!!??
Partly it's classic 5-Ws training. Mostly it's because I just read Full Frontal PR, a breezy, oft-times blustery book by Richard Laermer (with Michael Prichinello) that reads like a hip -- and, with a long "i," hype -- primer for, as its subtitle puts it, Getting People Talking about You, Your Business, or Your Product.
Its tone took me back to a grease-eared classic: How To Keep Your Volkswagen Alive: A Manual of Step-By-Step Procedures for the Compleat Idiot by John Muir. Rather than explain how to get your bug back on the boulevard, Laermer's book tells "how to become the word on the street." Compared to rebuilding VW engines, PR is more art and "getting out there," and less science and machining.
The Full Frontal perspectives and case studies come primarily from New York City, and they focus most intently on placing gizmos in the minds of business, industry and pop culture. The intended audience seems to be media-relations neophytes unclear on terms such as "above-the-fold," "beats," and "embargoes." Though it briefly suggests deeper thoughts, it wades at length in the holy waters of hype, splashing about "buzz." It could use a chapter on what to do if prayers of media saturation come true, on how to focus on the higher goals of PR. In a future edition it might be called, "Why do you want to expose yourself to everybody?"
With chapters on "Power Tools for Building Buzz," "Winding Up for the Pitch," "That Internet Chapter" and the like, the first edition is still worth reading for PR professionals from universities and other institutions. Parallels can be found between selling scooters, attracting students, and mobilizing members; and passages promoting frankness are always refreshing. For example, the authors write, "to be a good PR person and a great pitcher....You simply need to be the one person who levels with the media and tells journalists the way it is, honestly and clearly." Of course, it's not always that simple, which the authors acknowledge with many bits of advice, often miscast as rules. I consider some solid, some mushy, and some highly arguable.
But it gives a good shake without shattering. Right up front, it says be up front. Start off thinking big, then pare down to a manageable size. And loosen the tie. If it's special, treat it special. "Remember...make sure it (the buzz) shakes things up and that it's completely -- versus slightly -- beyond what's expected."
However, suggestions for using gossip columns and leaks to enhance a client's position may seem unseemly, particularly within academia. But the authors' short essay on "vapor news" -- the inconsequential, vanity-feeding fluff that gives news releases a bad name -- could be shared with administrators and others who don't understand the negative impact on media relations of passing along such gas.
Indeed, one of the best uses for this book in university media relations could be to educate the uninitiated and generate discussion about directions and tactics. It may help if your boss has read the rules "Don't bribe journalists," "Don't let your boss or colleagues tell you that they'll handle getting the media coverage if you're the one with the connections," and other commandments. An excerpt is here.
But the book is no Bible. It also suggests, "Never say that you don't know, or that you can't answer a question." Certainly, "No comment" is an ill-advised flag to fly, but "I don't know...but I'll try to find out" and "I can't answer that...because it may jeopardize an active criminal investigation" are, at times, certainly appropriate. Again, there's a vast difference in complexity between handling PR for widgets, no matter how high-tech, and for universities, no matter how ivy-laden.
On crisis communications, it advises trying to anticipate and prepare for a range of worst-case scenarios -- a good thing. It also advises, "It's best to use a less-senior executive, such as a vice president, to deliver the message. In a crisis, it isn't so much who says it, but what's said." That can be very bad. Often the best way to show constituents that a crisis is being taken seriously by the top brass is for the top brass to step out and say so, an appearance that can also promote calm, cooperation, and confidence.
On that last word, in the context of a sales pitch, comes this Full Frontal axiom: "The importance of confidence and swagger can't be stressed enough." It goes to the heart of why I found the book alternately likable and mildly disturbing. Certainly, belief in your mission and a willingness to forge ahead
repeatedly, even cheerfully in the face of likely rejection are key
characteristics of successful PR. A successful friend of mine used to pound the streets of San Francisco as a PR freelancer. He began his day with a piece of toast, two cups of Turkish coffee, and a pep talk to himself, punctuated by popping his right fist into his left palm, rapid-fire, three times. He went out the door to face journalists and prospective clients with resilience and pride, not to mention a good buzz.
It never hurts to refuel the spirit with some self-respect before pounding the PR pavement; but be careful out there. On the streets, often in an area as gray as a good-looking suit, lies a line that should not be crossed. On its other side is a neighborhood where VNRs present actors as reporters, agencies plan bait-and-switch news conferences with assurance, and "confidence" is simply long for "con." While Full Frontal PR doesn't cross the line, sometimes, by lauding case studies designed to leave inflated impressions, it seems headed in that direction.
But the book is worth the stroll. It describes valuable Internet tools, and, depending on one's experience, refreshes or builds vocabulary. For example, it never hurts to review how to "bridge" and "flag." Along the way, I even found a shiny new word I can't wait to use: suss.
Next time a reporter asks you something beyond your reach, just say, "Give me some time. I need to suss this out."
---
Full Frontal PR: Getting People Talking about You, Your Business, or Your Product, by Richard Laermer (with Michael Prichinello), Bloomberg Press, 2003.
---
Links:
- Suss out
- For a worthy related discussion:
The Anatomy of Buzz: How to Create Word of Mouth Marketing, by Emanuel Rosen
- Exclusive Interview with Emanuel Rosen, Author, The Anatomy of Buzz
- For help with your VW:
How to Keep Your Volkswagen Alive: A Manual of Step-by-Step Procedures for the Compleat Idiot
We invite your discussion of this topic on PIOnet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
International Media Relations
by Tom Miller
Imperial College London
How do people form opinions from news stories? According to an English professor of communication, people attempt to understand the world and form their own judgements based on very simple associations.
At a recent London School of Economics seminar, Justin Lewis from Cardiff University likened watching TV news to viewing a Cubist painting. Chop it up and piece it back together, the structure of a news item doesn't really matter. The result is still a "staggeringly ineffective" form of communication. When it comes to measures of recall, studies show that the previous night's news is very poorly remembered, while people can readily recount details from the drama they watched days ago. Why? Because dramas and soaps, documentaries and game shows -- in fact almost everything but news -- has a narrative, or story, running through it.
However, the things that tend to get through and are remembered from a TV news report deserve special attention:
- news that is manifestly relevant to everyday life, e.g. health, weather
- items that slot in to or reinforce our 'common sense' narrative about the world
- simple repeated associations
Making these latter associations is as easy and subtle as talking about concepts in the same sentence. Juxtaposing A and B, and repeating the connection often enough, eventually leads to a causal relationship of A and B. This language of association increasingly reflects how the news media work, says Lewis.
How do journalists decide what to report -- who sets their agenda? Well, they certainly don't take their cues from the public. Study after study shows that reporters have a very poor understanding of public opinion, and they work instead on assumptions, hunches, and their own common sense views. The idea that they look at the public and reflect what it sees simply doesn't figure, says Lewis, "They don't do opinion surveys before writing an editorial."
He similarly challenges the view that there are some papers or outlets, particularly those with known biases, that must be taken seriously "because the people who buy it agree with their paper." The majority of readers seek impartiality and fairness in their newspaper, and say they buy it because they prefer a particular format and size.
Through his research for a report into the interplay among science, media reporting, and public opinion (*1), Professor Lewis draws on a number of examples from issues such as public attitudes to climate change, biotechnology and stem cells, and the combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. Because public knowledge on these subjects is pretty sketchy, the associations take on more importance, and yet we rely on them to make many of our decisions.
If they want to change public opinion good communicators should start by recognising that their efforts won't be successful if they adopt an educator's stance -- plugging the gap with education doesn't work. We should instead expend creative energy in coming up with other compelling associations and stories (narratives) that better reflect what's really going on.
Links:
*1 Read the report for the Economic and Social Research Council,
"Towards a better map: Science, the public and the media" (Authors
Justin Lewis, Ian Hargreaves and Tammy Speers).
We invite your discussion of this topic on PIOnet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
