Be On Message

Earned Media – Time well Spent

According to The Economist “PR has done well in part because it is often cheaper than mass advertising campaigns. Its impact, in the form of favourable coverage in the media or online, can also be more easily measured.

PR has also benefited from the changing media landscape. The withering of many traditional media outlets has left fewer journalists from fewer firms covering business. That makes PR doubly important, both for attracting journalists’ attention, and for helping firms bypass old routes altogether and disseminate news by posting press releases on their websites, for example.”

But it’s important to note that the effectiveness of media coverage is directly related to the quality of the story you tell, the clips you develop, practice and deliver along with your understanding of how the media works.

 

Get it right and you can earn millions of dollars of favourable coverage, bet it wrong and you could earn many more millions of dollars of bad coverage.

"I Mean"

If you listen to many people speak they will deliver a line and punctuate it with “I mean” and then continue to talk.

 

On January 12, 2010 Michael Ignatieff, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada was on the radio talking about how ridiculous the Prime Minister was being about prorogation of the Canadian Parliament.

 

Ignatieff started off strong, he said, “that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.” That’s a good clip, but then he continued to speak undermining his own strong statement by saying, “I mean” and then he launched into a second clip only to end it with another “I mean” and then he kept talking.

 

The editor of the story thankfully cut him off after what should have been three stand alone clips.

 

“I mean” is mitigated speech and it robs the speaker of the authority needed to demonstrate they are in charge. In politics it’s the little things that count. They all count and they inform voters about you and what type of leader you will be, “I mean” tells them you are an uncertain leader.

Learn how Not to Sit for TV Interviews

On January 5, 2010 Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was interviewed by CBC National News anchor Peter Mansbridge and his body language was awful.

The PM was sitting with his legs crossed, his arms crossed and he was leaning forward.

First off he looked guarded. Second he looked uncomfortable and third he clearly doesn’t understand the physics of clothing and stretching.

There was the PM all bound up physically, his legs crossed which just on it’s own pulls his pant leg up, then he leaned forward further pulling his pants up even more to the point that skin started to show in that space between his pants cuff and the top of his socks.

At the same time his jacket was pulled tight across the upper part of his back, the collar was riding up and because he was leaning so far forward the space between his shirt and jacket collars created an un-natural gap.

Clothing that binds and rides up your body in ways that are contrary to the design of the garment is a very distracting thing, it takes away from the effectiveness of his message. Yes you want to lean ever so slightly forward because it draws out your face and makes you look better on camera, but lean too far forward and you undermine your on-camera appearance in odd ways.

Great Clips Speak to a Truth we all Relate to

It is being called the Christmas miracle. On December 24^th Tracey Hermanstorfer went to hospital in Colorado Springs to give birth.  The 37 year old mother of two was given an epidural but after closing her eyes didn’t wake up.

Her husband Mike called for help. Doctors rushed to her side and began working on her. After five minutes they declared her dead and then proceeded to conduct a C section to save the baby. The baby was born dead.

Mike was told both his wife and his new born were dead. The poor man was devastated. Then by some miracle his baby comes to life and shortly after that so does his wife. He was asked what his reaction to the news of his family's return to life was, his response was a perfect sound-bite, one that we can all relate to. He said, "it takes the legs right out from under you".

Wow what a perfect sound-bite. We all get it, it's easy to repeat and it speaks from the heart. No matter what you message is, if you can capture the essence of the moment like Mike Hermanstorfer did in ten words or less, then your are an effective media communicator.

Turns out They Don't Teach This Stuff at School - Not Even Yale

I was at a dinner party the other night. Four of the people at the table were graduates of Yale in the theatrical department. All of them have gone on to successful careers and all of them do not have an appreciation of the media. They are openly hostile.

They all look at the media as an evil they have to deal with. They feel powerless when it comes to dealing with the media and only do interviews because at some level they know it can be of benefit to their careers.

I was stunned, "don't they teach this to you at school?" I asked. "Nope!" was the answer.

How is it possible that an industry that relies so heavily on media attention does not prepare it's students for active and positive interactions with the media?

Those at the table have clearly bought into the entertainment industry concept that the PRESS are either idiots who never ask interesting questions or they are evil and out to get you.

Let's look at the fact that reporters have a job to do, namely they need a story. If you go into an interview un-prepared then you get a story that is based on the reporter's agenda. If you go into an interview with the goal of enhancing or preserving your reputation then you need to go in prepared. Develop a story about the production, an interesting tidbit about the story behind the story, a revelation you had making the production, in other words anything interesting. Reporters love that stuff, it gives them insight into you and it makes their job easier.

Media interviews are easy if you accept the concept that you can have a huge influence over the outcome of the story.

Will Social Media Make us Tell the Truth?

On Saturday December 19, 2009 it snowed in Washington DC. For the capital region that was an unusual event for mid-December. So unusual that the city came to a virtual standstill.

If you're young or young at heart you make the best of a bad situation. You start to Tweet that a snowball fight is taking place at 14th and U Street NW, And sure enough it came to pass, quickly. 

Snow balls were flying everywhere. A Hummer passes through the intersection and it gets pelted with snowballs. The driver stops, gets out of his vehicle and goes nuts. He pulls a gun and starts to make threats.

Of course this all gets captured on cell phones and quickly it's on line, in the papers, on the radio and on National TV. Here's where it gets tricky, the guy with the gun is a cop who didn't identify himself until a fellow uniformed officer showed up at the scene. The media pick up on the story and the initial reaction from " Assistant Chief Peter Newsham, was  "There was no police pulling guns on snowball people."

The problem with that statement is there are pictures of the cop and the gun along with an exact capitalized spelling of the cops name. Check it out at http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/12/19/did-d-c-cops-overreact-to-snowball-fight-14th-and-u/

Social media and citizen journalism speeds up the process of the truth getting out. John Ashford,CEO of the Hawthorn Group points out that you MUST tell the truth at all times. He is right, and he's quick to point out the next step is how you frame your story, which is a whole other story.

Lessons from Hugh Grant

Tiger, take a page from Hugh Grant's playbook. You'll recall a few years ago Hugh found himself much the same position you're in. In other words he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

It was a scandal. He was the butt of late night television and Saturday Night Live jokes. He went into hiding, he wouldn't talk to anyone. Finally he talked and it's who he talked to that is interesting.

He went the comedy route. Jay Leno was the guy who got to say to him, "What were you thinking?" Shortly thereafter Hugh's indiscretion became yesterday's news and now journalists stay away from the topic.

But come on, we're in the midst of Tiger Melt Down and Hugh is out on the PR circuit pitching his new movie about a man who cheats on his wife.

Grant was on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Dec 16, 2009 where he was plugging his movie. He gets to the point about cheating to which Stewart says, "cause that's what you do", to which Grant smiled and laughed a nervous laugh.

I sense he was worried Stewart would do what I expected of the man who has defined Post Modern Journalism would do, ask for some advice for Tiger or at least Hugh's perspective.

Did the modern face of journalism do that? Nope, not a work, not a raised eyebrow, nothing.

How could this happen? Most likely Grant's publicist told the Daily Show, if you want Hugh there will be no talk of hookers or hankie pankie.

What's in this for the Tiger? The answer is a perfect play book on how to move forward. Talk about publicly, once and only to a friendly audience that will bend over backwards because they want you and then tell everyone else the topic is off limits.

It's an odd thing but when you are at the center of a media storm reporters need you more than you need them. As a result you have great power, you can spell out the terms of the interview and if they don't like it then tell them you won't be doing the interview.

The bigger the stakes the bigger the risk of having a journalist or talk show host go Rouge on you. So get your lawyer involved in the negotiation and have them create terms for the interview that spell out some pretty severe penalties should the interview go sideways.

One last thing, anticipate the worst question possible and be prepared.

Less from Hugh Grant

Tiger, take a page from Hugh Grant's playbook. You'll recall a few years ago Hugh found himself much the same position you're in. In other words he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

It was a scandal. He was the butt of late night television and Saturday Night Live jokes. He went into hiding, he wouldn't talk to anyone. Finally he talked and it's who he talked to that is interesting.

He went the comedy route. Jay Leno was the guy who got to say to him, "What were you thinking?" Shortly thereafter Hugh's indiscretion became yesterday's news and now journalists stay away from the topic.

But come on, we're in the midst of Tiger Melt Down and Hugh is out on the PR circuit pitching his new movie about a man who cheats on his wife.

Grant was on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Dec 16, 2009 where he was plugging his movie. He gets to the point about cheating to which Stewart says, "cause that's what you do", to which Grant smiled and laughed a nervous laugh.

I sense he was worried Stewart would do what I expected of the man who has defined Post Modern Journalism would do, ask for some advice for Tiger or at least Hugh's perspective.

Did the modern face of journalism do that? Nope, not a work, not a raised eyebrow, nothing.

How could this happen? Most likely Grant's publicist told the Daily Show, if you want Hugh there will be no talk of hookers or hankie pankie.

What's in this for the Tiger? The answer is a perfect play book on how to move forward. Talk about publicly, once and only to a friendly audience that will bend over backwards because they want you and then tell everyone else the topic is off limits.

It's an odd thing but when you are at the center of a media storm reporters need you more than you need them. As a result you have great power, you can spell out the terms of the interview and if they don't like it then tell them you won't be doing the interview.

The bigger the stakes the bigger the risk of having a journalist or talk show host go Rouge on you. So get your lawyer involved in the negotiation and have them create terms for the interview that spell out some pretty severe penalties should the interview go sideways.

One last thing, anticipate the worst question possible and be prepared.

Stop em before they get started

If you watched 60 minutes on Sunday Dec 13,09 then you would have seen President Obama stop Steve Croft before he could get started on a number of points.

At one time in the interview Croft said "if you accept the premise that...." But before Croft could complete his sentence the President said "I disagree with that premise" and then he launched into his point.

Why was stopping Croft dead in his tracks a good thing to do? And what can you learn from the President?

First, Obama prevented a negative message from even entering the conversation. Second, by stopping that negative message then he didn’t have to address it. Had he needed to deny it then he would have given the point a life – a life that can cast doubt in the mind of the audience. It’s best that it just not be there.

And finally the President was signalling to Croft that he was not going to let him wander down paths that lead nowhere for Obama. The reason he wasn't going to let that happen was because an interview is only worth doing if it is going to preserve or enhance your reputation.

Nike Stands by Their Man

Just do it is one of the great company slogans and from my point of view Nike just did it again.

Rather than turn and run from the man who launched the company into the golfing market, they stood by their man.

Nike Chairman and co-founder Phil Knight recognizes that great athletes are human, they make human mistakes and he says scandals are "part of the game".

A big part of messaging isn’t just what you say, it’s how you say it. By standing tall and not apologizing for their backing of the Tiger and indicating life in all of it’s glorious manifestations is part of the game Nike once again demonstrates why it’s number one.

Phil Knight a tip of the hat to you.