Fixing The PR Industry: Does PR Need A Do Over, Starting With A New Name?

Should we be called PR professionals anymore, or is it time for a name change? A recent Ogilvy PR Peripheral Visions Study showed that 76% of respondents (PR professionals that is) believe that PR should be rebranded. Ouch!!!! But that’s not all: in the same survey, 60% revealed that they think public relations and advertising could be joined or blended into a hybrid, which is something I have been thinking about for a while. There are definitely some discussions brewing….

So the 76% previously mentioned? That sizable group hinted that public relations professionals could be called communications professionals instead. But isn't that a tiny part of the battle, renaming what we do? Wouldn't it be more advantageous and make better sense to actually revamp how we do things, rather than simply putting the proverbial lipstick on a pig. How about redefining public relations from the inside out instead of just a name polish?

And if we were to change the name of public relations, what would it be? “Communications professional” sounds somewhat boring (and we have a policy of no boring in our agency). Besides, PR is so much more than a single layer of duties - where do we start or end? While we should probably stay away from anything that puts “media relations” in our name, given that we've been pigeonholed as it is, besides that, shouldn’t we concentrate more on what we do and how we do it – than what we are called? As any PR rep will tell you, your actions are going to seal the deal, not the fancy wrapping.

In my mind, the first call of order is to show our value. Show that we are so much more than what many people think we are, i.e., press release pushers, a pain in the arse, superfluous and so on, and conversely show what we are not, i.e., press release pushers, a pain in the arse, superfluous.

We also need to communicate that we are not miracle workers, and we can't guarantee results in every crisis situation (News Corp., anyone?). PR done best is done strategically, creatively and thoughtfully —not a bandage to be slapped on after the fact. So if we are to rename public relations, we may have to start by clarifying both what we can and cannot do.

To be sure, PR is more personal than ever and it could be argues that our name is going be way of the press release. RIP press release. Moving beyond mass marketing, we are pressed to make new connections between our clients and theirs, telling a deeper and more compelling story to select groups. Looking at how much public relations has changed over the years, and so dramatically in just a few years, then perhaps a name change does make sense.

So what should we call it, ourselves, the industry?

If we don't change the name of PR, we can still go about making changes behind the scenes. The name's been debated before—and it will be debated again—but we can still help the public understand what it is that we do and the immense value we can bring to our clients... and that we're not just singularly focusing on crisis management or media relations all the time.

Questions time!

1. Should PR have a name change?

2. Do you like the name “Communications Professional”?

3. Do we have a perception issue?

4. Do you have a better name for PR that's NOT “Communications Professional”?

5. Is a name change essential, or should we work harder to clarify what PR professionals do?

6. Do you think that renaming PR has more to do with distinguishing itself in-company?

7. What would you do to “fix” the PR industry?

I would love to hear your views on what, if anything, PR should be renamed to.

Why Groupon WON’T Save Your Company

Current economic environment notwithstanding, most consumers are attracted by ways to save money - not in their bank account, but on stuff - because they are going to spend. Businesses, naturally, oblige by offering “deals,” the growth of which has exploded thanks to Groupon, LivingSocial, Daily Deal and the dozens of other wannabes. Of course, the growing number of daily deals appeal to our human nature – getting the best offer before the next person does. One doesn’t have to be a coupon hoarder or penny pincher to fall in that category, and Groupon has been most “helpful” in transforming so many of us into online deal hunters.

In less than a year, the “Groupon experience” has become incredibly popular with retailers and restaurants trying solicit new customers and get the cash register ca-chinging again. But if they expect a lot of these new customers to jump all over non-Groupon prices after paying heavily discounted rates at the start of the relationship, they are delusional and tragically mistaken.

Last month, I posted a comment on a Loyalty group I’m a member of on LinkedIn:

“While relatively innovative, Groupon is not a company that helps brands build loyalty. Because Groupon offers consumers discounted goods/services from an ever-changing variety of companies, it inherently encourages consumers to purchase a scattershot of different items, driven by heavy discounts offered during a short timetable - not through developing brand loyalty. The process works against loyalty because it drives consumers to try many new brands – rather than sticking with one brand consistently - all on a single factor. Price. Groupon essentially says to consumers, why stick with the usual go-to salon/restaurant/bookstore when you can try this coupon for another, different company that's much cheaper than what you're probably paying? Companies may increase business by using Groupon to bring in new consumers who might not normally try their brand, but in terms of encouraging long-term brand loyalty the service simply isn’t equipped to offer real results. I've always argued that when marketers go down the discount highway, it's almost impossible to turn back around. Think about it... it's highly unlikely that a consumer making a purchase decision based on a percentage discount from an unknown retailer/brand will return to that retailer/brand for "non-Groupon" prices. Why would they? Instead, they'll simply look for the next bargain delivered by Groupon from yet another retailer/brand... and so on.”

That discussion is gaining a lot of traction as the “Great Groupon Debate” is argued among retail marketers and business reporters alike:

- Bryon Morrison, president of The Marketing Arm's wireless practice discusses the cons of Groupon in his article featured in Mobile Commerce Daily Countering the Groupon effect and linking tactics to strategy
- And Fred Minnick, writing for Stores, asks if daily deal sites good or bad for retail in his article “The Great Groupon Debate”

In a recent Slate feature, Noreen Malone lived off Groupon for a week. There was a lot of effort involved (20-minute walks each way for a coffee shop? No thanks.) and a little pressure (don't forget your coupon!), and Malone noted that it's also an easy way to be blinded by the deals: “We might not know, sitting in our cubicles, that we want these things—but take 50 percent off the sticker price, and suddenly we do,” she said.

And that's the trouble with Groupon. In a social deals-type environment, we look at sticker price, not at brand value. Groupon is less about the brand, more about the price. Why go back and pay full rates if you're always presented with something new—and that deal you grabbed wasn't even nearby?

Yes, we are even willing to go out of our way for a good deal, but will we return to the same place when we don't have a chance at a discount? Fat chance. In a recent survey by Cooper Murphy Copywriters, 82 percent of companies that had Groupon promotions in the past said that they were unhappy with the level of repeat business they received after running their promotion.

To continue Groupon momentum, a company might consider another deal, and another one... and they're continuing that cycle of margin giveaways in the process, not to mention alienating loyal customers who have been paying standard prices for months or even years. With an influx of new customers waving deals, will the regulars have the same level of service, the same experience?

It's better to concentrate on customer connections in the long run. Keeping costs low for all buyers—not just the Groupon set—will ensure repeat customers. Specialized pricing and competitive edge can hook new clients, but how can we keep customers coming back? is a better question than how low can prices go this month?

There is no quick fix to finding new customers – any marketer worth their grain in salt will tell you. The experiences that consumers are having with Groupon like not being able to redeem coupons for 4+ months (personal story that I’ll share with you next week) or finding out that the deals are only available at very limited times will and work against Groupon, the business and their brand.

My advice? Treat Groupon and its ilk with caution and think about long term ways to connect with customers to build profits – not give away margins and alienate existing customers through deep discounts.

The Rise Of Opinion 'News'

The following commentary originally appeared in MediaPost’s Marketing Daily (8/16/11) where I have a regular column.

"Is traditional news dead and gone?" I'm hearing that question more frequently. During the past 12 months, AOL bought the Huffington Post, "unbiased" Fox topped CNN and MSNBC's profits, and Twitter continued to grow -- boosted by worldwide coverage and the toppling of insidious regimes. With the downsizing of print media and the rise of the blog, we've gotten used to reacting to opinion pieces instead of forming our opinions at the source. A lot like what we're doing right now. Backtracking just a little bit, you might remember a time when you would read a piece online -- not on a blog, but on a breaking news site -- and wondered where the headlining story came from. A PR resource, perhaps? But ease of access to trending topics and Twitter hashtags can lead to and has led to rampant rumors, from death hoaxes (#ripnickiminaj, 2011) to merger news (AOL-Yahoo merger, 2010) and plain old rubbish. There's just so much stuff to filter that it's really no surprise that traditional news sources can pick up on a trending tag, locate an "insider" to comment, and report on something -- mistakenly -- that happened only in a fantasy cocktail of viral news and online pranksters. That's the case with conjecture and the odd off-base source, but what about news sites that survive on a daily dose of drama? It's hard enough to follow the online trail of "who reported it first," and if there's a team dedicated to opinion-making and finger-pointing? The original truth is obscured with clever turns of phrase and selective linking. Since everyone and their dog appear to be blogging, it's particularly difficult to ascertain what is what -- and from where. Editors, guest bloggers, staff members, and "experts" have blogs or online columns hosted by their publishers, and that adds to the fact-opinion blurring of boundaries. Let's call it the "Foxification of News," cheap and quick journalism, or the negative side of citizen blogging: the muddling of opinion and fact-only reporting is killing "news news." Complaints about opinion-infused reporting often mention Fox. Its representatives claim that it is unbiased, but if it were, would Bill Shine, head of programming, say that Fox can "offer opinions not seen anywhere else"? As is the case with any successful business model, Fox's unique blend of fact and opinion inspired other news sources. Fox's revenue for 2010 is said to have reached profits of $800 million on revenue of $1.5 billion, more than MSNBC and CNN combined. When we noticed MSNBC getting more political, we knew why. News is morphing, slowly but noticeably. Networks incorporate viral video and social media responses about anything from major sports games to natural disasters. While networks are highlighting YouTube videos and Twitter feeds more frequently, newspapers are continuing to fight for some share of the market. But is it really that much of a change, or simply a return to our roots? Some suggest that opinion news might not be such a modern move after all. It's different, but the switch could be likened to 19th-century journalism described as "discursive" by The Economist. Back then, news was spread through personal connection and networking. The only problem? The social side of media used by average citizens to share news is now used as a marketing tool for huge networks. It's not the 19th century anymore, and the speed and sheer reach of the Internet, coupled with the ability to put anything live almost instantly, changes the way we access news, react to it, and, from a PR company's perspective, spread any kind of rumors, half-truths, or leading questions we want, at any time, and from anywhere. PR support for businesses and professionals in the spotlight is more important with the domination of opinion news (and worldwide self-publishing, done gratis). And now that aggregated content is a constant online presence and even networks are spicing up their coverage with an opinionated edge, it takes an eagle eye to find skewed news and quiet a storm. Twitter hashtags can skyrocket in an hour; blog posts can be published in seconds. Navigating online PR minefields is challenging enough without dissecting nuances on formerly trusted sites. We're looking at the possibility of heavily slanted news passed person-to-person -- a relic of the 19th century -- combined with the speed of a new era. Is opinion news really "news," and should we mourn the death of unbiased reporting? http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=155876&nid=129906#

Backtracking: A PR Lesson From Airbnb

Have you been following the Airbnb PR disaster unfold? I first started following Airbnb last year when I discovered the site as I was looking for apartments to rent while travelling for business. Great idea, easy to use interface and an honest feel to the site – unlike the thoroughly dodgy HomeAway and other barely cobbled together vacation rental sites which have always left me feeling on my own.

Airbnb promised something different and judging from the investment community pumping in over $100 million and a crazy valuation of $1 billion-plus, others got that feeling too… until a few weeks ago, that is, when Airbnb tried to cover up some rather nasty news about a customer whose home had been violated and ransacked by renters.

Shit happens. A lot. But it’s how you deal with the crap that can turn those, er, negative moments into somewhat better ones. And it’s never a good idea to try covering up a mess – like we’ve seen with the News of the World phone-tapping scandals or when you have a very influential blogger on your tail, and especially if that blogger’s name is Michael Arrington.

Arrington, a man who’s known not to mince words, called Airbnb's response “tepid,” noting how supremely disturbed victim “EJ” was after finding her home ransacked and looted—so much so that she plans on moving. Arrington pointed out the how inadequate Airbnb's policy was, noting that, at the time of the incident, their only FAQ about theft stated: “Grand pianos weigh thousands of pounds and do not fit through doors.”

Things could have gone differently from there. Arrington's post detailing Airbnb PR issues could have been (and should have been) met by a thoughtful company response, updated policies, and detailed reparation information. Yes, Airbnb responded on TechCrunch, rather airily, but that response only materialized due to media pressure and public outcry. It was an attempt - a very late one - to make amends, and their efforts were almost immediately overshadowed by Y Combination founder and Airbnb investor Paul Graham. Graham called Arrington's report “bullshit” and insisted that Airbnb was doing all they could to help the victim—even though it was already weeks later. The name-calling, the hedging, the references to unverified information:this is exactly what taints even the most sincere of PR responses.

Arrington backed up his sources and soldiered on, proving that bloggers with conviction can get companies to change policies, make amends, and tighten up customer response practices. I’m glad to see some good come out of it for the sake of the victim – and future Airbnb customers. It’s still disappointing though that Airbnb never had a crisis management plan in place, particularly for a company whose business model relies on stranger-to-stranger interaction.

Airbnb says that it is “improving” security and service, and that's a no-brainer—they should have been improved before any of this happened. It's true that company missteps provide opportunities to learn, but Airbnb should have known that, statistically speaking, this was in the cards. (Actually, a similar situation had already occurred.)

What Airbnb should improve beyond all security measures next is how even their investors deal with the public. Here's hoping that they take every one of these suggestions seriously.

Oh, and thank you Michael Arrington for making companies like these accountable.

What Went Right for PR and Media Outreach in Norway's Aftermath

No matter how gut-wrenching or shocking the news, PR professionals will always look back and see who handled crises best. It's not just work-related curiosity. By knowing who had an admirable crisis plan in place (and who didn't) and how it worked, we can fine-tune our own. Over the past few weeks, Norway's tragedy has remained lodged in our minds (along with the debt ceiling crisis and News of The World scandals), and it stuck with the easily-distracted press, too. We watched reporters handle interviews admirably in the aftermath, but it feels like much of the media has taken a step back from delving too deeply into the 93 deaths (at last count). Invasive family interviews, harsh criticisms: they simply didn’t have a place here.

Take, for instance, Helen Pidd's piece in The Guardian. She's covered tragedy, heartbreak, and murder the world over, but while in Norway she had an overwhelming sense of guilt for simply being there at all. Pidd traveled to Bardu to speak with the survivors, but when she arrived and was told to keep her distance, that was it pretty much it.

“If I am specifically told to leave the families alone, I won't go near them,” Pidd said in How Should Journalists Talk to Survivors of the Attacks in Norway? “If the police liaison officer hasn't issued a warning, I will take a deep breath and knock on the parents' door once, telling myself that sometimes people want to talk about those they have lost. It doesn't feel good. If they say they don't want to talk, I won't return.”

Pidd saw one of the survivors, and she didn't approach her for an interview. A nurse in Bardu asked her not to attempt contact. Instead, Pidd drove towards the Ice Peak mountains, thinking about all the other times she had pursued survivors for the perfect interview. This time, however, she felt torn between going after her story and leaving the survivors alone – and ended up choosing the latter.

I’d like to think that crisis management in Norway set the tone for coverage, beginning with PM Jens Stoltenberg’s response to the attacks. He showed emotion openly, and with obvious sadness, coupled with the skills of a true orator: “right words at the right time.”

Could it be the time of year, as we edge closer towards the tenth anniversary of 9/11, or the fact that Norway's reputation as peacekeeper and record-setting giver of foreign aid made the attacks even more shocking, pushing us towards a “softer” stance in media response? I think it may be so.

Murky Murdoch And The News Corp.

(This article originally appeared in MediaPost’s Marketing Daily, where I am a contributor)

A bit of distrust in the media is never a bad thing. It's good to keep people on their toes. For News Corp., however, a "little distrust" has turned into full-blown doubt and disgust for readers and viewers in the UK and just about everywhere else.

When a colleague asked recently what I would do if News Corp. were a client, I responded: "In the UK, I'd do nothing -- they made their bed a long time ago, and now they have to lie in it." And an imagined question directly to News Corp. executives: this wire-tapping has been tossed around for over four years; how could you allow it to crescendo into such a devastating crisis? You could have sought our counsel back in 2006.

Alas, we seldom have such an opportunity to get into the game prior to a crisis. But what actions, if any, could help resurrect News Corp.'s reputation in the UK, criminal proceedings notwithstanding? For a company facing this much fallout, it would take a massive overhaul of staff, a great deal of public groveling, and the creation of the strictest code of ethics one has ever seen in media. And even then, I'm not sure how much good it would do.

With zero credibility and so many changes needed, it's better to start afresh.

The U.S. News Corp. Problem

The problem at the WSJ irks me -- not at the publication itself, as I feel it is comprised of hard-working, ethical journalists, and editors -- but because of Murdoch's ill-fated decision of allowing longtime friend (and News Corp. veteran) Les Hinton to become CEO of Dow Jones in 2007. By letting Hinton cross the pond, Murdoch provided one (and as far as we know, the only substantial) link to the wiretapping scandal in Britain.

Until 2007, Hinton was executive chairman of News International, publisher of News of the World. After the 2006 wiretapping scandal involving Clive Goodman, royal editor of News of the World, Hinton told parliament there was no widespread involvement in wiretapping. Okay, fine: an illegal embarrassment under Hinton's watch dies down, Goodman is jailed, and the scandal is confined within the U.K. Now we come to my issue with Murdoch.

Why would anyone who just dodged a bullet -- or a rain of bullets, for that matter -- send a tainted newspaper publisher/CEO across the Atlantic to head an upstanding, nationally respected publishing company and its subsidiary newspapers? It doesn't matter whether Hinton had knowledge of the wiretapping in 2006 or not -- it happened while he was in control. It's unbelievable (not to mention foolhardy), and it's up to Dow Jones, the Wall Street Journal, and their public relations experts to do the damage control.

Let me be clear: I don't believe that there was any illegality involved here regarding Murdoch, Hinton, and The Wall Street Journal. It just wasn't a good idea in light of all the scandal that surrounded News International at the time.

The takeaway from all of this?

The business of public relations has as much to do about crisis prevention as it does about crisis management. Did Murdoch understand the potential jeopardy he was putting Dow Jones in? Did he ask anyone around him -- like, for example, the public relations team?

Click here to continue reading.

Holy Talking Vajayjays! Summer's Eve Scandal: Too Much, Not Enough, or Just Right?

Is it possible to go too far with damage control? Summer's Eve hit the news again last week when it pulled the "controversial" Hail to the V campaign promos after the ads were called racially insensitive. While talking-vagina hand puppets will certainly get tongues wagging on their own, it wasn't Summer Eve's creative representation of the “V” that led to a wave of criticism. As if a company still associated with woefully old-fashioned (if not dangerous) douching doesn't have enough PR hurdles to begin with.

For those of you unfamiliar with the "V" campaign, it consists, consisted of three videos with three apparent audiences – and those audiences appeared to be neatly divided by race and their stereotypical interests - the white girls are the gym bunnies; the Latina punctuates her rant with an “ay-yi-yi.” When Huffington Post polled their readers, 56.14% responded that the ads were “offensive!” 43.86% disagreed, choosing “nothing to see here.” Personally, I'm more offended by Fox's assault on my intelligence than these videos.

PR executive of Richards Group Stacie Barnett told Adweek that the ads were pulled because "Stereotyping or being offensive was not our intention in any way, shape, or form. The decision to take the videos down is about acknowledging that there's backlash here. We want to move beyond that and focus on the greater mission."

The response, however, has me wondering if they should have handled the damage control without yanking the campaign offline. Taking them down was not only an acknowledgement of backlash but also guilt of racial stereotyping by poll, and failure by client pressure. The client saw the ads, everyone agreed they were edgy - so why take them down? Only the week before, The Richards Group defended their videos, doing a much better job of explaining their (albeit poor) campaign-planning process. Talk about flip-flopping.

Now I'm not saying the ads weren't questionable, but audiences were split on whether or not they were actually racist – while Summer's Eve vehemently stated that that they weren't. Pulling the ads prolonged coverage of an overall lackluster campaign whereas an explanation or simple mea culpa could have done a better job of righting wrongs than simply removing the campaign.

In fact, a recent study in 2011's Retail Consumer Report shows that companies willing to interact come out ahead – they don't necessarily need to pull products or ads. 61 percent of consumers in the study said they'd be “shocked” if a company responded to criticism online. Upon receiving a response, 33 percent of reviewers would go back and post a positive review, and 34 percent would delete their original negative review. If nothing else, it certainly makes a case for a well-worded apology.

Creative agencies should stand by their work, even if they need to apologize for it later. If not, they risk being relegated to order-takers and compromise-driven lackeys. I’d rather see work that is controversial and has people engaged in discourse rather than homogenized “creative” that appeases the masses and skirts around “private parts.”