PR, truth and consequences

When I was out running this morning I was thinking about how easy it is to be pessimistic about things. Reuters reported yesterday that “the confidence of American consumers continued to plummet as a result of weakening economic conditions and escalating gasoline prices.”

That was based on results of the ABC/Washington Post consumer confidence survey.

I didn’t need survey results to tell me that Americans aren’t very confident — or happy — these days. I waited in a long line yesterday to get gasoline. I didn’t know this but apparently there was a rumor making the rounds that the price of a gallon of gasoline was going to go up today to $3.95 from $3.75 for regular yesterday. Not a shock even if true. I figure gasoline will be well north of $4 a gallon by Memorial Day. But the idea of a 20-cent price hike was enough to get drivers scrambling to the pumps. Gee. Haven’t had this much fun since the gasoline shortages of the 1970s. (Photo: The good old days.)

Then I made my way to the post office. The number of people in line would have been an embarrassment even to Starbucks. But people wanted to beat the price hike — even if it only saved them a penny a letter. Oh, mama. Next thing you know a company will pull a stupid stunt like selling 23-cent pizzas.

Might as well. Here’s the latest from the ABC/Washington Post poll:

Eighty-two percent of Americans now say the country’s seriously off on the wrong track, up 10 points in the last year to a point from its record high in polls since 1973. And 31 percent approve of Bush’s job performance overall, while 66 percent disapprove.

I expect that one reason for this low approval rating is that many people no longer trust the president to be honest with them.

By the way, Jimmy Carter’s approval rating was lower. But that was in 1979 when we were sitting in line hoping to get a gallon of gasoline at any price. I digress.

I’m not so sure what gets us back on the right track — but something tells me that some honesty on the part of our elected officials — and those seeking elected office — sure would help to alter the perception that the glass is not only half empty but has a hole in the bottom. Tell the truth. In public relations, isn’t that the advice we give to clients and employers? And you know what, it works.

Actually, Thomas Friedman got we thinking about this a week or so ago when I read his column in The New York Times, “Who Will Tell The People?” Here’s one part of what is really an excellent commentary:

Much nonsense has been written about how Hillary Clinton is “toughening up” Barack Obama so he’ll be tough enough to withstand Republican attacks. Sorry, we don’t need a president who is tough enough to withstand the lies of his opponents. We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people. Any one of the candidates can answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom. I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV — at 8 p.m. — from the White House East Room.

Tell the truth. It’s the foundation for effective public relations. Given a chance, maybe it will work in government as well. Might as well be optimistic about it. Who knows. Miracles happen.

Bloggers, PR and spam

First morning of “semi-retirement.” Not bored yet. And I ran this morning at 5 a.m. in the rain. I guess habits are tough to break. Good.

But just to demonstrate that I really don’t have much to do, here I go into an area that I really know nothing about: contacting bloggers with information about stories. I won’t say “pitching.” I hate that term. But I recognize that it is an important part of the PR business — and maybe becoming even more important these days as bloggers move under the publicity tent along with so-called traditional journalists.

Anyway, I came across two interesting perspectives and conversations on bloggers, PR and spam. One is a post by Brian Solis on his PR 2.0 blog: “Making Mistakes and Amends in Blogger and Media Relations.” The other is by Todd Defren on his PR Squared blog: “Open Letter to Gina Trapani of Lifehacker.” I’ve been reading both blogs regularly based on the recommendation of Bill Sledzik and ToughSledding.

And I don’t know Gina Trapani — and I’ve never read Lifehacker.com, where she is the lead editor. For all I know Lifehacker is a site for cigarette addicts. Probably not. Apparently Gina is one of the growing number of bloggers who are influential in a host of industries. For PR people: Batter up!

So here’s the rub — as described by Todd Defren. Gina Trapani has “blocked” e-mails from a number of PR firms and individuals — because the “pitches” were, in her view, unsolicited and not relevant. And I think equally to the point, the e-mails were going to her personal e-mail address rather than the one at Lifehacker designed for news releases, etc. (Although Todd Defren in a post this morning raises some questions about that.)

I’m not sure that Brian Solis is looking at the same situation or writing about spam in general. But in any event, if you are interested in this subject take a look. Both Todd and Brian make excellent points. As does Kevin Dugan on The Bad Pitch Blog. Sledzik recommended this one as well. Is there a pattern emerging here?

I guess Gina feels– like Chris Anderson before her — that some PR people have been pitching her curveballs. Sorry, couldn’t resist that.

Now if Bill Sledzik were writing this post, I’m sure he would have some insights to share on public relations. Some lessons learned. I won’t attempt to head down that high road. But I have to chuckle because in many ways this situation strikes me as a cross between deja vu all over again (Yogi Berra knew something about bad pitches) and Jerry Seinfield’s Soup Nazi.

Here’s why. It seems to me that we are going over the same lessons that should have been learned way before Web 1.0. Know the publication. Establish — to the extent possible — a relationship with the reporter (blogger?). Send him/her only information about stories that are likely to be of interest. Have the balls, oops, to tell clients or employers that some stories are just never going to make it in print, online or anywhere else. And I guess in this new world of Web 2.0 — if he/she doesn’t want e-mail to come to a personal e-mail account, don’t send it to a personal e-mail account. Gee folks. This isn’t rocket science. But unfortunately many PR people are shameless when it comes to, ugh, pitching. They have no clue. Too bad. It’s been my experience that most are ethical, professional and hard working.

And I give Todd Defren credit. He goes out of his way to apologize and make the case that what happened was the exception not the rule. And Brian Solis provides an equally compelling explanation as well. In an era when TV talking heads are in bed with the Pentagon this doesn’t strike me as the most important media relations issue facing this nation. But then I never had to earn my income based on client or employer expectations of story placements. Thank God.

I hope we are not heading down the road to the day when bloggers or traditional journalists think that blocking contacts from PR people is the right or only way to go. That won’t work. Seems like this should be a mutually beneficial arrangement — based on mutual respect and professionalism. Gee, just like the old days. Before Al Gore invented the Internet.

And Gina — and others — c’mon. Give us a break. Do you really want to be the blogging equivalent the Soup Nazi? That didn’t turn out so well for anyone. Remember?

The Pope goes digital

I really didn’t want to lift those words from the Reuters headline. But, hey, it’s Friday afternoon and I’ve been reading and grading final projects and papers for about 30 hours this week. OMG

Anyway that’s how I came across this story, first mentioned in the Buzzword column in the online edition of The Wall Street Journal. Yeah, even the Wall Street Journal can provide a mindless diversion at this point in the week and semester.

Here are the lead paragraphs from the Reuters story:

Pope Benedict will text message thousands of young Catholics on their mobile phones during World Youth Day in Sydney in July, hoping going digital will help him better connect with a younger audience.

The Pope will text daily messages of inspiration and hope during the six-day Sydney event while digital prayer walls will be erected at event sites and the church will set up a Catholic social networking Web site akin to a Catholic Facebook.

The idea makes sense given the audience. Give the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict credit for trying this. And he certainly worked hard to boost the image of the Catholic Church in the United States during his recent visit here.

So if the Pope is embracing social media, can the CEOs of Fortune 500 corporations be far behind? LOL

And I wonder what a digital prayer wall is? Sounds like something Bear Stearns should have checked out a few months ago.

And I know I’ll get into trouble for writing this — but here goes.

The article says, “Australia’s Catholic nuns are already praying for good weather for the Pope’s visit.”

Shouldn’t they be twittering?

Corporate blogs and CEOs

I’ll admit it. I still have plenty of reservations about corporate blogs. Particularly those that involve the CEO. And particularly those that want to venture anywhere beyond marketing communications.

I wrote about this in April (Help wanted: chief blogger). I commented on an article in Advertising Age (no longer available online without a subscription) that talked about the growth of corporate blogs — now about 10 percent or so at Fortune 500 companies.

I’m all for communication — the more the better. And a blog in theory should be a step in the right direction. But in practice I’m still not sure — when it comes to publicly traded corporations and CEOs. Here’s why. First, writing a blog takes time. Something tells me that a CEO won’t stick with it. At that point it falls to the PR staff — and it’s an online newsletter. Second, disclosure requirements limit what you can say — and when.

Still — and here’s the twist — I’m going to give Jonathan Schwartz credit for taking a good shot at it. Schwartz is the CEO and president at Sun Microsystems and a dedicated blogger from what I can tell about him. Here’s the story.

Last Thursday Sun Microsystems reported disappointing earnings and announced a layoff involving as many as 2,500 employees. (Full disclosure: I’m a long-suffering Sun shareholder.) And Schwartz made the announcement with the usual corporate blather, as reported in The Times article.

“Our third quarter was a disappointing one,” Jonathan Schwartz, Sun’s chief executive, said. “The U.S. economy presented Sun with significant challenges in the third quarter, masking our progress in developing nations and economies across the world.”

Can’t believe I used to write crap like that. As usual, I digress.

I figured Schwartz would have something more insightful to say on his blog. I checked Thursday night. And again Friday. Nada. Nada.

Then I kind of forgot about it until today. But looking for any excuse to take a break from grading student projects and ethics papers I figured I might as well take another look.

To his credit, Schwartz wrote an excellent post on his Jonathan’s Blog on Sunday, May 4. It’s a very detailed look at the company’s results and performance. I assume he wrote it himself. In any event, it’s well done.

And in a question-and-answer format, he wrote the following:

“Why does Sun’s CEO waste time writing that blog?”
Because I believe in providing clarity surrounding our strategy and operations - not just once a year in the Annual Report. I believe clarity behind our direction is useful for our shareholders, customers, partners and employees.

In good times, and in challenging ones.

Good for Jonathan Schwartz. If this is the model for blogs by other CEOs — then maybe I’m wrong. Maybe blogs will become another tool that enhances communication. Yet realistically — there are still a few hurdles to get over before everyone joins in the conversation here. Check out the ending to Jonathan’s blog:

Safe Harbor Statement

Jonathan’s blog contains forward-looking statements regarding the future results and performance of Sun including statements with respect to the effects of our restructuring plan, and expectations for deferred revenue. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties and actual results could differ materially from those predicted in any such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in such forward-looking statements include: risks associated with developing, designing, manufacturing and distributing new products; lack of success in technological advancements; pricing pressures; lack of customer acceptance of new products; the possibility of errors or defects in new products; competition; adverse business conditions; failure to retain key employees; the cancellation or delay of projects; our reliance on single-source suppliers; risks associated with our ability to purchase a sufficient amount of components to meet demand; inventory risks; and delays in product development or customer acceptance and implementation of new products and technologies. Please also refer to Sun’s periodic reports that are filed from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 and its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarters ended September 30, 2007 and December 30, 2007. Sun assumes no obligation to, and does not currently intend to, update these forward-looking statements.

Mama, don’t let your babies grow up to be … lawyers.

Kent State and May 4

I wasn’t planning to write about this. But I couldn’t get it out of my mind as I was running this morning. Kent State and May 4, 1970. That’s 38 years and a lifetime ago — but I still think about Allison Krause and the others who were killed and injured that day.

I didn’t know Allison — or Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer and William Schroeder. But I think about Allison because of the Pittsburgh connection, hers and mine. And I think what a shame. Allison and the others would have been — should have been — in their late 50s now. Maybe they would be ending careers. Maybe they would be parents — possibly grandparents. I can’t shake those thoughts having been at Kent State myself in 1970, although graduating in March and back home in Pittsburgh in May.

I know there is no point in rehashing what happened that day 38 years ago. If you have an opinion, like me, it has been anchored in concrete for years. For most others now — it’s history. Yet it is worth remembering. We’ll see what happens in American cities and on campuses throughout the nation when we don’t have enough volunteer troops to fight the 100-year war in Iraq.

And as the Olympic torch continues its trek to Beijing it’s interesting how much attention is paid to the Chinese government and its policies toward dissent. Yet there are still people in Ohio and elsewhere who have no problem with the fact that at Kent State 38 years ago the militia killed four unarmed students. So it goes.

I’m about to leave Kent State for the third time: 1970 with my bachelor’s degree, 1979 with my master’s and 2008 as a faculty member. That’s pretty much a lifetime. What a tragedy that Allison and the others didn’t have the same opportunity.

Update: I wasn’t going to include any video. But then I figured there may be some reading this who don’t have the context for what happened at Kent. Some of my friends might not like this. WTF

Arianna and the military pooh-bahs

Well, Arianna Huffington has it right. Where are the mainstream media when it comes to looking at the relationship with the TV talking-head military pooh-bahs and the Pentagon?

The New York Times broke this story April 20. I’ll let Huffington provide the overview in her post “Shameful Days: Why Won’t the Media Pursue the Pentagon Propaganda Scandal?”

“On April 20th, the New York Times published its expose of the Bush administration’s use of Pentagon-approved, prepped, and financially-enriched ‘military analysts’ to appear on TV to sell the invasion of Iraq, and then put a positive spin on the occupation — even as conditions on the ground deteriorated.”

And the point?

“How big a story was it? John Stauber of the Center for Media and Democracy called it the Pentagon Papers of the Iraq war.

“So it only stands to reason that a story this explosive would quickly become the subject of extensive follow-ups by TV and print journalists, and endless debate on the political talk shows,  right?

“Wrong.

“Instead of opening their reportorial and analytical floodgates, the mainstream media have all but ignored the story.”

Arianna Huffington has it right — although she failed to mention my April 22 post on this subject, “The New York Times and military pooh-bahs.” But, hey. At least I tried. It doesn’t appear that many others did.

That’s a disgrace. Or as Huffington says, “The last ten days have been among the most shameful in the history of American journalism.”

Given that we just celebrated the fifth anniversary of the great “Mission Accomplished” spectacle, it’s hard to make the case that the last 10 days have been among the most shameful in American journalism.  As usual, I digress.

But maybe it speaks to why more and more people are turning to sites such as The Huffington Post and The Drudge Report for news and commentary. The New York Times reports that The Huffington Post in February had 3.7 million unique visitors, according to Nielsen Online.

Yet here’s the rub. It takes the resources of the titans of journalism — The Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, etc. — to investigate and publish these kind of stories. And maybe in an era of declining newspaper circulation and increased pressure on financial results it’s no longer worth the effort. If that’s true, we’re in deep doo-doo.

Retiring again? Well, not quite

Well, I guess I’m racing toward my second retirement. Today I will teach my last class at Kent State. And while I still have final projects and papers to grade, my second career — as a teacher — is coming to an end.

It’s been a great experience. When I left BFGoodrich now nearly a decade ago, I figured my career was pretty much over. Yeah, I could find a job or start a business — but I wasn’t sure that I would ever have the opportunity to experience again something that I was really enthusiastic about.

It’s nice to be wrong. I know this sounds like bull — but I’ve enjoyed just about every minute of the last five years teaching at Kent State. I’ve had the opportunity to be associated with a great group of students — motivated to succeed, hard working and likable. I’ve been part of what by any measure is one of the top public relations programs in the country — thanks to the skills, experience and regard for students demonstrated by Bill Sledzik, Michele Ewing and Jeanette Drake. And I’ve had the chance to stay connected to the “real world” of public relations by working with a group of talented professionals in Kent State’s University Communications and Marketing organization.

I’m proud of what I have been able to do in the classroom and with Flash Communications, our student-run public relations firm. But two things top the (short) list.

Every student who worked with me at Flash Communications went on to a professional position in public relations or marketing communications immediately following graduation. That’s a credit to them — and to the overall strength of the public relations major at Kent State.

And many of my former students still keep in contact, via e-mail, phone calls and visits at Homecoming and other events. I now consider them friends — and professional associates. I never experienced that type of personal satisfaction during 30 years in corporate public relations.

So why retire?

Well, I know most don’t believe this but teaching is hard work. I’ve mentioned this previously. Many of my former business associates tell me that they would like to teach after they retire. Good luck. And God bless them. You don’t retire into full-time teaching. Trust me. And actually the amount of work and effort that I put into this doesn’t bother me. But I’ve reached the point where I want some more flexibility, particularly on the weekends. Most teachers spend at least some part of the weekends — and most nights — grading papers or preparing for classes.

Also, I have the opportunity to work for a nonpartisan public-policy organization in Washington that I really believe in, Corporate Voices for Working Families. It’s time for me to get off the sidelines and into the game — seeing if I can’t in some small way contribute by at least highlighting and advancing possible solutions offered by very expert and thoughtful people to some of the major problems facing this nation.

For instance, on average a teenager drops out of high school every 26 seconds in this country. That’s a crisis — and a national shame. And we better start taking this seriously. In fact, I believe that this and other related issues represent a much more serious threat to our nation and to our way of life than global warming, etc. But I digress.

Here’s a link to the blog I started for Corporate Voices. So I’ll be blogging there — and here. Like I said when I started this blog, I can’t let Bill Sledzik have all the fun.

So from the standpoint of teaching, I’ll adopt and paraphrase the view of Gen. Douglas MacArthur and say: “Old PR people never die. They just fade away.”

I’ll fade away from teaching — but don’t expect me to retire.

If Joan Benoit Samuelson can finish the Olympic marathon trials at age 50 in less than 2:50 — I still have a few more things that I want to accomplish. Maybe another marathon is one of them. We’ll see.

And just one more thought on this idea of retiring from teaching at Kent State. To those of you who I know from Kent who are reading this: thank you. You gave me the most rewarding experience of my career.