Archive for May, 2007

RF Israel had the distinct honor of hosting an editor from a major Israeli daily newspaper this morning.  Of course, anytime someone in our industry has an opportunity to interact with a member of the media in a "non-pitching" situation, there is significant benefit.  After all, relationships-building is always good.  But this was particularly interesting for us because this editor was willing to share an editor’s candid view of what the Israeli PR world is all about.

And it wasn’t pretty …

In a nutshell, this editor described us as being in the business of shooting as many arrows as we can and hoping a few of them hit their mark.  There was mention of our clear lack of understanding about what is required for a story we are pitching to make it into the newspaper.  There was discussion of the "did you get the release I sent" phenomenon, which has somehow become the #1 key message point of Israeli media relations professionals.

But there was another overall theme that was most scary to me.  It is clear to this editor that Israeli PR folks aren’t interested in building relationships with the media.  Now, I assure you that this is not what Edward L. Bernays had in mind when founded this industry.  He was a big believer in psychology (By the way, I believe that a psychology degree is just as useful – or maybe moreso – than a degree in journalism for a career in public relations) as the driver for people’s decision-making.  And I think we need to remember that when we work with journalists.  

This editor made it clear that the most effective way to get a story about a client in his/her newspaper is to earn credibility, and added that unfortunately, such credibility isn’t earned very often by PR practitioners here in Israel.  

So I ask you … How can we be considered experts on enhancing/maintaining the reputations of our clients when we are struggling with our own reputation among our most important audience?

I will tell you that for Ruder Finn Israel, we made significant strides toward answering that question today …

I had a client meeting yesterday where we spent significant time listening to one of the principles complaining to no end that a recent article (which resulted in a tenfold increase in his business’s website traffic) did not include 100% positive information.  Not only that, said he, but one site user sent him a letter voicing displeasure about the business concept itself.

Now, we in the communications industry are famous for saying a number of things related to this.  1) We can lead a horse to water, but can’t make him drink.  This means that we can set up interviews, but if the reporter doesn’t see a story, it ain’t our fault. 2) We never have total control over the article.  That’s what makes us different and – we say – superior to the advertising folks.  They pay for the privilege to write what they want, but lose credibility in the process.  We don’t pay the media, and lose control over the content, but enjoy higher credibility. 3) Media relations is a serious game, and one better know that there are no guarantees before embarking on a campaign, because there WILL be negative angles taken.

And you know what?  For years, I believed all that 100%.  But now, after yesterday’s meeting, I want to challenge them.  Let’s take them one-by-one: 1) So maybe it’s true that we can’t force a reporter to write a story, but if we do our job of preparing the spokesperson to explain in a compelling – and honest – way why his/her organization/company/product is something special, the reporter WILL walk away ready to write.  But there is something else to it as well.  How are we pitching stories?  Do we only always say that what we are pitching is the most incredible thing to come along in the history of the world?  Or are we describing the story in a way that the interview will be consistent with the pitch? 2) It may be true that we never have total control over the article, but we also know that, for each client, there are certain "danger terms" or topics we want to stay away from, and that if we craft the pitch in a way that steers clear of such issues, we give ourselves an almost sure shot at positive coverage.  So what are those terms and topics for your client?  Have you even identified them?  It’s crucial to know.  3) Yes, media relations IS serious, but how thorough a job do we do in preparing our spokespersons for facing the media.  Especially when dealing with start-ups, which don’t have endless supplies of money, media training is something that is often placed on the back burner.  That is a mistake, and it will be the agency that pays the price later, because your client will blame you for the negative coverage resulting from that lack of preparation.  

Will users send complaints to website owners?  Yes.  Will reporters occasionally take a negative angle on a story? Yes.  Are there more skilled and less skilled spokespersons?  Of course.  

But folks, this is why they are paying us.  So we can either continue with the party line of "Hey, there’s nothing we can do," or we can take this as a challenge and try harder when we do our jobs.

I am by no means a grizzled industry veteran.  At the same time, my career does pre-date email, the Internet and cell phones in the way we know them today.  There were no blogs when I got started.  No Internet media.  Heck, in general, there were far fewer media outlets to choose from.  The best ESPN had to offer was Australian Rules Football.  Fox News?  There wasn’t even Fox not-News!  MSNBC and CNBC were just glimmers in their network’s corporate eye … or corporate feathers, I guess.

Anyway, the point is that while I’m just now showing some gray hair, I do remember another time in the media relations industry.  A time with far fewer outlets available to secure coverage of clients.  

So we had to be creative.  We had to sometimes wrack our brains.  We had to figure out how this client could wind up in that newspaper.  It was like a puzzle.  It was fascinating.

Sure, it still happens.  We had a client not long ago that we realized would benefit most from a piece in Barron’s Weekly.  So we were creative.  We wracked our brains.  And we figured out how this client would wind up in that (Barron’s) newspaper.  And it worked.

But today, with all the websites and blogs available, and with many of them having "newsfeed" sections, many in our industry will send a news release out over PR Newswire or Businesswire, and then merchandise the "results" to the client as actual achievements … even if the only way to find that news release on a particular site is to do a search for the client name on that site.

It’s not about hits.  It’s about value.  So I have a suggestion: How about we all agree to identify a specific media outlet as the "target’ for each particular announcement, not because it’s an easy hit, but because it will help our client accomplish its business or organizational goals.  Then, we can sit and strategize, and ultimately figure out what it will take to make it happen.  We can then call the reporter and explain why it makes sense to cover the announcement.  Then, the last step would be seeing the results … the real results … of our work.

They say that crossword puzzles keep someone’s mind fresh.  I guess what I am suggesting is that today, in this age of virtually limitless media outlets to approach with a news release or story, we need to do something to keep our media relations minds from going to mush.  And I think my idea above would be a good start.

I recently heard about a company in Israel that works with a US-based public relations firm for media relations services.  That’s not a big deal.  Israeli companies work with US-based firms all the time.

Except for one thing … This particular PR firm (not one of the big ones) has somehow managed to secure this client without having "news release follow-up" as part of their mandate.  Yes, that’s right.  This firm does make sure the releases are distributed to the media, but then … nothing.

One of the primary lessons I’ve learned during my time in Israel, not just about the communications industry, but about life, is something called "Tachlis."  I think a fair definition of the word is somewhere between "brass tacks" and "bottom line." (I asked the Ruder Finn Israel team how to translate "tachlis" and one guy responded with "Can mean anything from show me the money to bottom line, actual, real, practical, the real thing, cut to the chase and getting down to business.")

You see, Israelis are all about "tachlis."  And that carries over to the PR industry as well.  What that means is that if an agency such as Ruder Finn Israel is being paid a monthly retainer by a corporation, the question we all have to ask ourselves is, "Tachlis, how are we helping this company?" 

And if we can’t answer that question, we don’t get paid. 

And that’s a terrific lesson for all of us.  

You know, I tell my team sometimes that we have to operate in such a way that we will not be concerned about any of our clients calling on any single day and asking, "What did Ruder Finn do for my company today?"

That’s Tachlis. 

And that’s why I’m just a bit surprised this US-based firm that receives a monthly retainer for NOT following up on news releases hasn’t said to itself, "You know what?  Let’s follow up anyway. It will make our client happier with our work if we get strong results for them."

Instead – and now I’m thinking about how I used to feel when I was a client myself – this agency has a situation where its client sits at his/her desk staring at that agency’s invoice, month-after-month, reluctantly approving it again and again.

But this is Israel.  So one day, that client will say "Enough!"  And then it will be "tachlis-time" for that particular agency.