Mike’s Points

Throughout my career (gosh that sounds so old), I’ve regularly worked with building materials suppliers and manufacturers who make products for residential and commercial/architectural building use. So, I know things like SHGC, how passive solar heat gain is a good thing in northern climates, R-values/factors, ENERGY STAR and LEED.

I’ve also worked in other industries where products are designed to reduce fuel consumption and/or eliminate unneeded emissions by reducing idling (along with other features/benefits).

One thing that has always struck me is that, no matter how much of a warm fuzzy feeling you can invoke by talking about the green benefits of your company, products or services, if it doesn’t have a positive affect on your company’s bottomline, it doesn’t really matter. I pointed that out in a post about Wal-Mart some time ago.

In other words, a company is only going to be green, if it can get more green or spend less green to run its business. (Or, if the color of your money is not green, substitute your own currency colour.)

An Information Resources Inc. study (right) found that consumers are giving more weight to green and sustainability features when making purchasing decisions. (Sources: PSFK and Environmental Leader.)

While more than half of those surveyed don’t consider sustainability factors listed, a significant enough do. Signigicant enough to get the attention of manufacturers.

However, as more companies jump on the green, eco-friendly, sustainability bandwagon, consumers naturally will be — should be — skeptical.

According to an Ipsos Reid study conducted this spring (2007) on behalf of Icynene, seven in ten Americans either ‘strongly’ or ‘somewhat’ agree that when companies call a product “green” (meaning better for the environment), it is usually just a “marketing tactic”. Consumers appear to be wary of companies who label their products as being green, or environmentally friendly, acknowledges the report. (Source: Center for Media Research)

Another issue to be resolved by each and every marketer — assuming they’re
all honest about their green efforts — what does it mean to be green, eco-friendly, sustainable, etc.?

Do your products or services reduce the need for natural resources or harmful emissions?

Do your manufacturing and business processes conserve environmental resources or somehow help our Mother Earth?

Do you encourage or mandate green practices from your vendors?

It would seem there are many shades of green. That may be why consumers are skeptical and perceive companies as “spinning” their green ways.

While there is a growing bottomline justification for companies to be green, like anything, they will have to

1) continually educate their customers, prospects and other interested parties about those efforts; and

2) prove it.

And, as PR and other professional and ethical marketing people, it’s up to us to ensure that what we say about clients and employers is the truth. Otherwise, we’ll be black and blue.
– Mike

Though it’s a never-ending battle, I try to make things simple.
That’s why part of me finds this transparency issue — a fancy way of saying honesty — puzzling.

Yes, in public relations, you represent your employer’s/client’s side of an issue or news story. You may not write or talk about every angle, but you do not mislead or lie. You tell one side of a story. Just as you would hear anyone talking about an event he/she witnessed.

If you’re doing your job correctly, you put yourself in the mindset of a news reporter to write a news release as a journalist would. Or, close to it. As noted, you may not include all angles, but you’d better be able to honestly, accurately and fairly answer any question that comes afterward.

It’s pretty simple.

In general, don’t you always expect honesty? If you always doubt what someone tells you, how awful that would be!

But, apparently, that’s how people perceive PR professionals.

Why else would transparency — or the lack thereof — be such a perpetual issue. We must all be afraid of showing the imperfections we all have. And, PR folks are kings and queens of hiding imperfections!

• [New York Times columnist David Pogue] said blogs can do wonders for companies who are looking to make a personal impact with an audience. “Material that is not cleansed by any PR person,” he said. “That is something to think about.” (Source: http://www.crn.com/it-channel/204600878)
• “Microsoft and global PR agency Burson-Marsteller are in hot water over a tactic that flies in the face of what we know about the nature of business and transparency in the era of social computing….The world is transparent, and many eyes are focused on the lens peering into the business world. Deceit will be exposed. There is no benefit in trying to get away with something like this, which only hurts the public relations profession, including those who would never engage in such practices.” (Source: http://blog.holtz.com/index.php/weblog/will_we_never_learn/)
• Anshe Chung, owner and developer of virtual real estate on the Dreamland Continent (in SecondLife) issued a news release last year “indicating that she *will* enforce the ballot initiative voted for by the residents of Dreamland — an intitiative that called for the banning of dishonest PR and marketing.” (Source: http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/2006/11/anshe_to_honor_.html)

I supposed when you are being paid to be the voice of a company or individual, people are naturally skeptic of what you communicate. However, that’s only part of the reason. The other reason is weakness. The lack of self control and standing up to what’s right.

All the PRSA Code of Ethics and other well-intentioned, but teeth-lacking attempts to enforce ethical behavior simply stink if people — PR pros — have no self-control.

One of the positive aspects of social media is how — eventually — the truth will come out if someone is being deceptive or dishonest.

I firmly believe that knowing right from wrong is a basic, inherent human instinct.

We simply must follow our instincts.

–Mike

What makes social media and related tools great — making it possible for a single voice heard everywhere with just a bit of momentum – is also their greatest opportunity for mob rule.

We all can applaud the sleuthing, okay fisking that goes into shedding light on someone that wishes to remain anonymous.

But, sometimes, the light being shed comes from the torches of an angry mob.

Case in point is the mother and family that played a harmful, deadly prank on a young girl, and is being blamed for pushing her over the edge to hang herself.

Legally, the family posing as the “friend” have done nothing wrong. You know, innocent until proven guilty. And, rightfully, traditional, trained, professional media kept the family out of print. But, then, there’s online rule.

The St. Charles Journal decided not to identify the neighbor in the absence of criminal charges or a civil complaint — even though her name is in a police report on a related incident. Columnis Steve Pokin said he wanted to protect her daughter. “Kids don’t get to choose their parents,” he said.

But once the story was posted online, bloggers matched details in his lengthy piece with property records to come up with the name. Thousands of readers soon began posting hateful comments. They posted a map and satellite image of her home on the website rottenneighbor.com, calling the family “psychos who pushed a teenager to SUICIDE.”

Yes, what that family did was wrong. Shameful. Vile. Evil. And, they will get their just desserts.

But, for that justice to come from an uncivil mob, even if only online . . . is that right? Shouldn’t we govern our actions according to the rule of law?

Or, does being online and the ability to be anonymous bring out the worst in us?

Unfortunately for many — an apparent vocal minority — it does.

For all the positive potential of citizen journalism and outlet for entrepreneurial spirit that blogs and other social media offer, there is a dark side of humanity that will always rear its ugly head.

I just hope that, when they do, their torches don’t do any real damage.

– Mike

I don’t have a big problem with services like PayPerPost (mostly because it encourages its bloggers to disclose a PPP post). And, really, if a blogger does paid reviews, it’s part of living in a free market society. For the most part, blogging doesn’t pay (much), and if you can make a buck or three, I can understand the enticement.

But, it’s . . . just . . . not . . . right.

David Binkowski often enough writes about PayPerPost and his opinions are pretty clear.

Sara of Suburban Oblivion, while not giving her opinion, recently asked her readers about paid reviews. (She and others do product reviews, but I saw no indication if they’re paid or not.) It seemed that most of the commenters have no problem with paid reviews.

If you’re being paid to review and blog about a product, there always will be a veil of bias hanging over the post.

I don’t think I’m being utopian by stating that blog posts are viewed as being honest. Forthright. Upfront. 
Trusted. Blogs are a powerful online, word-of-mouth, connecting resource. And, being paid to give an opinion hints at being biased. Not entirely honest.

Like advertising, I suppose services like PPP have their place. But, they do not — they cannot — have the same value as an honest, transparent product review.

As a public relations/marketing communications professional, I will not ask a blogger for a published review. I figure that, if a person blogs, he or she is naturally opinionated and will (postiviely or negatively) blog about the product, if he or she wants to.

The only thing I will ask for is for feedback — privately. That is one of the greatest values: objective subjective feedback.

Granted, however, I do tend to expect, or hope bloggers to blog about the product (because, as I stated, they’re opinionated). So, while not asking for a post, I have stated that, if a blogger does, then we’d try to work out a system where any of his or her readers who order a product and reference the blog, receives a small discount.

One of the greatest assets of social media is in how it connects. But, because that connection is done behind computer screens and keyboards — where you can easily be anonymous — what you type is who you are. Your reputation, your credibility is on the line whenever you blog.

If you’re being paid to review a product, your greatest asset – your credibility – suffers. And, no amount of payment will rebuild what’s been lost.

– Mike

Social media, I think more than anything else, is shining a bright light on public relations.

And, that’s a good thing. Because, rarely does anything good in business happen in the dark (figuratively speaking, of course). So,  goes the argument, if you’ve got nothing to hide, then you won’t mind answering a few questions for us.

Ultimately, good public relations is about achieveing good business results — whether that’s promoting a product, educating the market or pointing out a company’s true good aspects.

It seems like advertising doesn’t have any issues regarding if it’s honest or not. That’s because we know it’s advertising and, of course, it’s slanted. But, public relations — media relations, social media, and other activities to influence people — is generally more tactful. Traditionally, more “behind the scenes.” More indirect in reaching consumers.

And, it’s more personal. (That’s why it’s public relations.) And, because PR pros are being paid to represent a company, there’s an assumed slant. Like in advertising. But, because it’s often personal (not mass-marketed like ads), PR pros are held to a higher standard. We should be.

There should be an expectation of honesty. Beyond the shadow of doubt.  Honesty SHOULD BE THE NORM. Because much of public relations is one-on-one. It’s about relationships.

Unfortunately, there are enough PR pros that are either lazy and don’t do their job thoroughly (as Chris Anderson rightly pointed out) or they are dishonest. I’m sure that being paid to represent a company is a factor in why some suppposed PR pros are lazy or not honest. But, it shouldn’t. In the long-run — particularly dealing in social media — honesty prevails.

Because, as a PR pro, your reputation and your word is your career.

For me, I’m glad there are tools like wikiscanner. It’s only a “nightmare” if you’re being dishonest. While I strongly disagree that PR firms should be banned from editing entries just because they’re PR firms, I have no problem being upfront about my work on Wikipedia or about someone else reviewing any work I’ve done.

I look  forward to the day when PR pros have a better reputation.

- Mike

As we get wrapped up in our work, setting — and meeting/exceeding — goals (hits, placements, coverage, etc.), it’s easy to loose sight of what we are really doing. We can get too wrapped up in numbers.

Driving traffic to Websites.

Getting online and offline “hits” for product or company coverage.

Click through rates.

Unless you are making a “pitch” in face to face, it’s easy to become separated from your audience sitting in front of a computer or even on the telephone phone. Just type, click and distribute.

A post by CityMamma/Stefania Pomponi Butler about a BlogHer session reminded me of the importance of knowing who we are dealing with in our work: People.

“In the “State of the Momosphere” session on day 1 of Blogher07, I listened as not one, but two PR guys stood up to tell us mothers how proud they were of their strategy to ‘hook’ moms into trying their products by pretending to read our blogs (so we’ll trust them) before offering up whatever it is that they’d like us to blog for free.”

Two things stand out as being VERY WRONG in the above.

First, in media relations (as in sales), if you’re really good at what you do, you don’t “hook” people to publish your story (or buy your product). You match needs/wants with what your product/service/company can offer. Generally, bloggers and traditional media have a need for good content to maintain and grow readership. If you can show how your ________ can legitimately help them, then you have a great chance for getting a hit. (And, there are other reasons to have bloggers and media review your______ than just coverage.)

Secondly, and most importantly, the comment by the supposed PR pros gave little credit to the bloggers they dealt with. They’re not bloggers. They are people. Assumingly, smart people. People with their own personality, expectations, objectives in blogging. They are individual human beings. Not just bloggers or possible hits.

If good marketing is anything, it’s about how to connect with people. And, social media is so much more because it can be so personal; so one-on-one — even if you are just sitting in front of a computer.

So, the better we can keep in mind that we are dealing with people — with individuals — the better our results will be.

– Mike
Point to Ponder: For another great perspective on that each individual is worthy of being treated as a human — not just another face or a number — see a post from September and follow the link to a column by Toledo Free Press Editor in Chief Michael Miller.

. . . and other digital image altering tools.

If you’re not in the Toledo, Ohio-area or don’t have eye tuned into journalism, then you might have missed the stories about veteran Blade photographer Allan Detrich saying he mistakenly submitted a photograph that he altered. And, that image wound up in print.

Of course, manipulating an image to change history — even if only for aesthetics — is a sin in journalism. The Blade’s review of other photos Detrich submitted turned up many other images that he doctored. (For a good column on the subject, including Detrich’s comments after the Blade review, see here.)

I bring up the incident to raise a question: For those of us in media relations (including social media relations): What ethical guidelines should — or must? — we follow regarding photography we provide to media?

I’ve never had a reporter question the legitimacy and honesty of any image I’ve supplied. I assume that’s because there is a level of trust that reporters assume when they receive images from PR pros.

For the most part, the images I’ve supplied to the media have had little touching up. For the most part, the retouching has dealt with improving the contrast, lighting, and other work to make the image better looking; of a higher quality. For the most part, I believe I followed the guidelines of what Washington State U. has in its WSUWiki. (It’s a site I found within the last week, courtesy of a ToledoTalk.com member.)

I say, “for the most part” because I know I’ve never had total control over all of the images I’ve used before I used them. Sometimes they were used in ads. Sometimes in direct mail or on the Web. Before using any images, should I have checked for any altering before submitting them to the media?

Ultimately, as stated above, what ethical guidelines should the PR profession follow in submitting images to the media? What about our duty to clients or our employer to represent them as best we should?

In a black-and-white world, I know where I stand. Realistically, however, I’m a bit wobbly.

Thoughts?

– Mike

Image of The Serpent, by Guy Rowe