As PR professionals, the First Amendment is not only crucial to our business, but something we truly feel passionate about protecting. Today, we have all inevitably run into at least a handfull of blacked-out sites in protest of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011(PIPA), two bills under consideration by  Congress. If this legislation is made law, it would expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods.  Sounds like an easy thing to support, right?  Not so fast.

People for the bill (major motion picture companies and record labels among them) say it protects the intellectual property market and their industry, jobs and revenue, and is necessary to be able to enforce copyright laws, especially against foreign websites. One example is Google’s $500 million settlement with the Department of Justice for its role in a scheme to target U.S. consumers with ads to illegally import prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies.

People against the bill say that it violates the First Amendment, is Internet censorship, and will threaten free speech. It will hinder the efforts of small businesses and independent artists who rely on the ease of communication the internet provides. Today you’ll find a great number of websites hosting their own virtual protest, such as Wired, Wikipedia, Social Media Today, The Oatmeal.com and Google. Mashable says this will take us back to 1994, before the World Wide Web launched:

“When you turn copyright infringement into a felony and say that anyone can accuse a website of providing ”infringing” tools (and apply severe penalties whether or not you do something about it), you are essentially making it impossible for anyone to do anything online without fear of retribution.”

There is definitely an incredible amount of information available and passionate advocates both for and against it. As PR professionals, we have to be aware of how this bill would affect our clients and the work we do. Take some time to get familiar and let me know what your thoughts are.

For years it was called the B.O.D. or Building of Death by employees of the Clear Channel stations inside. An afternoon talk show host had adorned the seven floor office building with the name after the light tan façade had been painted charcoal black with purgatory grey accents, but the name stuck for a variety of reasons. As I pulled up in my rental car for the first time in six years, a smile crossed my face upon discovering that the entire edifice had been painted purgatory grey and this subtle change was just the beginning.

Armed with as many bags of Chick-fil-a as my arms could carry I walked into the WGST/GNN newsroom with my mentor and subtly greyer News Director Matt Cook and on the surface little had changed in the room since I had anchored and reported there a decade earlier. The news desks, carpet and news booth were frozen in time from the days when I’d open a newscast with the time and temperature, but the second I closed my eyes a different story unfolded. In that half second I noticed that the scanner noise that still haunts my dreams was gone and the room was exceptionally quite. The acrid smell of the running cart eraser could not penetrate the smell of chicken and biscuits because it just wasn’t there.

In the News Directors office I listened to him tell me that they didn’t need scanners anymore because the Twitter newsfeed from surrounding police, fire and EMS had principally replaced the need for them. The AP was important, but following other reporters and anchors on Facebook and Twitter also ensured that they had every morsel of information that the competition did.

The news staff of close to 25 people was now a meager six, two of them part-time. There was little opportunity for anchors to do interviews as each of them were cranking out newscasts for at least  three  or four stations scattered around the southeast.  The few times they reported live from the field, they employed 4G technology for crystal clear transmission back to the studio instead of using a giant bag phone or bringing a giant Yagi antenna with them.

The  former clutter of noise that used to fill that room was now replaced with digital white noise. Sans the bags filled with buttery biscuit goodness, how would a Public Relations professional cut through these new barriers? After we discussed ways to better use social media and technology to get on the radar of editors and reporters, one of the news anchors of the station poked his head in and thanked me repeatedly for making the effort of bringing food in and listening to him rant.  He went on about how everyone wanted something from him and it was nice that I would just introduce myself and want to get to know him.

I left the Building of Death with a most valuable piece of information that I will resolve to employ in 2012. Not the new social media channels for outreach (though important), but the reminder that in this New Year I can’t just ask and take from reporters and anchors (friends or otherwise). That as with any relationship there needs to be give with the take. I need to make time to chat and get to know those I work with before I can expect to take of their time. This sounds like a “duh” moment, but when you are juggling multiple projects with multiple clients and reporters are juggling multiple stories for multiple media outlets it is easy to let these simple, personal gestures disappear.

AdAge recently published some interesting stats about how affluent Americans consume media, and the results seem to show a strong interest for “traditional” media formats (giving hope to those of us who’d like to see print media survive and thrive).

The study by Ipsos Mendelsohn, known as the Mendelsohn Affluent Barometer, surveyed 1,000 people with at least $100,000 in annual household income on how they consume media. When respondents were asked how they typically read magazines, 93 percent said they read the hard copies, 27 percent read them on the computer, and 9 percent saying they read them on their smartphone. Reading newspapers was similar, with 86 percent reading the hard copies, 39 percent on the computer, and 14 percent on a smartphone.

The key point by the study’s authors, Bob Shullman and Stephen Kraus, was that people tend to consume media in its traditional form, though they are increasingly willing to read it across other platforms (tablets, smartphones, e-readers, etc.)

Is this good news for traditional media outlets? It may not reverse years of lost subscriptions and declining revenues, but the research may give old fashioned print media some cause for hope.

To me, there is an underlying message in stats like these that consumers enjoy still reading their favorite magazine or local newspaper offline, where there is less noise and fewer distractions that our connected lives put on us.

It’s fun to flip through gorgeous-looking magazine on an iPad, and it’s usually more time-efficient to quickly check headlines through Google News in the morning rather than picking up a newspaper.

That said, I find that when I’m reading something in print, I spend more time with it. As a PR professional, I find I can get a deeper understanding of a publication’s focus and break it down further by reading it in print.

While technology is changing the way we want to consume news, there is still a strong desire for print media, even if the revenue those outlets earn from the printed version is only supplemental to the Web and other formats. How traditional media outlets can change their business model, create new revenue streams and deliver what today’s media consumers want would be the subject of a much longer blog post.

Writing is part of everything we do here at Matter. Pitches, briefing notes, bylined articles, notes from a client call or interview – it all requires us to put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboards) to get our thoughts out before they flutter away.

The topic of “writing” in general has been on my mind lately (I know, very deep), as one of my teams perseveres on a pretty extensive writing project. We’re creating content for a magazine published by a client for its extensive customer base. My colleagues and I are doing all the things a reporter would be doing: interviewing sources (in this case end-users); bouncing ideas off each other; writing, editing, scrapping drafts and starting over again; submitting finished pieces to the editor (our client contact); and sometimes watching 1,200-word articles that went through multiple drafts get cut for space. It’s exhausting, but it’s giving me and my team an interesting insight into the process reporters and editors go through every single day. Performing both our PR duties and editorial duties has personnally given me a new appreciation for the work our media targets do every day.

While we’re all respectful of our media contacts’ time and bandwidth, I suppose that I’m guilty of taking for granted what they actually do, day in and day out. When setting up a briefing for a client or sending background materials, I only see that small sliver of work that goes into the completed article. I don’t see all the late nights hunched over the keyboard, cigarette smoke choking the air, a reporter complaining that the editor just won’t get off his back and then yelling “copy!” the moment he rips the paper from the typewriter (every newsroom out there is just like the one in the Superman movie, right?).

Kidding aside, there’s a ton of work that goes into writing and publishing a magazine, and as a PR person that’s never worked in a newsroom, I have a new appreciation for the effort that goes into pushing an undertaking like this across the finish line.

One of the things we do in PR is coach our clients on how to give the best possible interview to the media. When we do a coaching session, this is our formula:

Effective communications begins with understanding your audience. Our first fifteen minutes are all about painting a “day in the life” scenario, describing the world of a reporter/blogger/broadcast journalist/analyst. We’re lucky to have a good number of former reporters on staff, and really solid relationships with so many of our friends in the influencer realm – we have great insights to share that make it easier for our clients to understand pressures and goals of those they are speaking with.

Cover common sense do’s and don’ts. These shouldn’t surprise you, they include such pearls as: Don’t lie. Don’t guess. Don’t be afraid to say you don’t know; if you don’t know an answer, just say so and offer to get back to the interviewer with details. Lead the discussion to your key messages whenever possible. Use quantifiable, real examples when you’re describing how great your product is (Bank XY used our product to virtualize their data center, cutting heating and cooling costs by 60% annually). Engage the reporter, seek their feedback as the interview progresses, and ask if you answered the question she just asked.  This isn’t a magical formula, but it’s helpful to remind anyone about.

Practice. Then we get to work, individually, with each executive to be coached. Normally, we try to identify in advance what each person needs to work on most to optimize their ability to communicate effectively. For example, one executive may need to curb a distracting verbal tick (um, uh) and another may need to find a way to sound less defensive when faced with a challenging question.

Feedback. We tape or video each interview, depending on the kind of media the executive will be interviewing with most. If the majority will be via phone, we tape so that he or she will hear nearly what the journalist will in an interview. If it will be in person or live television, we use video feedback. This part is critical. We are direct and honest about the best presentation of information, and provide ideas to make it better.

Take-aways. Following the session, we use what we’ve learned in preparation for each interview, and remind the spokesperson about their key focal points for delivery and content before each interview.

Integration of flawless delivery and solid content. Delivery is key. Content is king.  Having them both work well together is the path to the ideal interview, in which you tell your story well, and the journalist gets everything they need.

I do a media interview now and then as a spokesperson for Matter. And each time I do, I gain a new respect for our clients and their ability to juggle their jobs (as Directors of Product Marketing, or VPs of Engineering, or CEOs) and to give great interviews. It’s easy to sit and give advice about how to do an interview, but actually being in the hot seat is the best way to understand why, sometimes, people make mistakes when interviewing. Can you guess what my closer is going to be? I love doing interviews because it helps me (see point number 1!) understand my audience, and communicate more effectively with clients about actually conducting an interview. Let’s be honest, there is really nothing like experience to remind you that armchair quarterbacking is a lot easier than sweating it out on the hot seat.

I’m showing my age by giving attention to a topic related to content published “above the fold.” While conceptually the fold will always exist, the practicality of such a position isn’t as relevant as it once was. (You can guess where the fold is located when reading from www.nytimes.com but it’s not nearly as impactful, obviously.)

However, positioning related to the fold is still a priority for all media outlets delivering hard copy editions of their publications daily, weekly or with any regularity.  One such publication is the Collegian, the weekly newspaper of LaSalle University in Philadelphia. Presumably, the editorial staff of the Collegian works hard to publish timely articles and to position itself as a credible resource for its readers. And, appropriately so, this group was frustrated when they were asked by university administration to refrain from publishing a potentially embarrassing story about a business professor at the University who held an off-campus symposium using exotic dancers to demonstrate a point. The story was ready to go to print, but the administration asked the staff of the Collegian to wait until the University’s investigation of the incident was completed before it was published.

After seeking and being denied permission to run the delayed story prominently at the top of the front page, the editorial staff published their story below the fold.  However, the top half of the front page was blank except for the words: See below the fold. As journalists, the college paper’s staff felt they had to make a statement. It followed a similar, accurate story (as well as less accurate accounts) being published in other local media sources, and the Collegian editorial staff probably felt it had been relegated to the role of chasing ambulances through the streets of Philadelphia.

A polite editorial was published by the staff soon after their story properly explained their hamstrung position. The paper is funded by the university and despite its best efforts to serve as a resource, the staff felt the need to adhere to the requests of those who hold the purse strings. (Those are my words, but that’s the obvious position.)

I don’t know David Vella, the 20-year old junior who is the executive editor of the Collegian. Nor do I know Luke Harold, the student assigned to this story when the editors received their tip. I do know, however, that they made a valuable point to the University’s administration when they ran the story below the fold.  And, I’m certain that both of these guys soon will be writing breaking news stories that appear high-up on some publication’s front page.

Did they do more or less than they should have in circumventing the administration’s wishes? And is journalistic freedom something that should merely be taught at college and not allowed at college newspapers?

As the world of social media heats up for PR pros and marketers, the inevitable question arises – what to do about errors posted to social networks?

The Poynter Institute’s live chat asking, “How should journalists handle incorrect tweets?” recently caught my eye. Among the suggestions offered by journalists for dealing with errors on social media, I applaud Kathryn Schulz, author of “Being Wrong,” who recommended that “everyone who’s involved in spreading news also needs to be involved in correcting it — and, right now, in helping to figure out how best to do so.” Schulz suggested Twitter perhaps offer a ‘correct’ function (like ‘reply’ and ‘retweet’) that would automatically send a correction to everyone who had retweeted something that contained an error.

Poynter also recently linked to a great working list posted this week on Zombie Journalism, “Accuracy and accountability checklist for social media.” PR reps should keep handy this list of questions to ask before posting (or reposting) on Twitter and Facebook. Among the gems, for Twitter, “Is the original tweet written clearly enough to be passed on from me?” and, for Facebook, “Is the post text and headline reflective of the content of the story?”

This topic sadly has been the subject of discussion in media circles during the past two weeks after several erroneous reports appeared of the death of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords following the shooting in Tucson on Jan. 8.  Columbia Journalism Review collected positions on the subject from several major outlets in the blog post, “To Delete or Not to Delete?” Many said they kept their original tweet or Facebook post live, error and all, to appear fully transparent to readers and followers. Others deleted the incorrect postings so the false news would not continue to spread online.

Of note, the CJR post was reported by Craig Silverman, the author behind Regret the Error, a site that both pokes fun at the media’s missteps and details how to handle serious errors with class.

This recent talk is a sober reminder that we, as public relations professionals, have a responsibility to think before we act on social networks, and to not trade speed for accuracy. But we, as fallible human beings, can at least handle errors on social media with grace and candor – hopefully, just as we would when speaking to someone face to face.

As I snuggled into bed on this past week’s snowy Wednesday evening I realized I forgot to watch the President’s Speech in Tucson. Fortunately my smartphone was charging nearby so I opened my YouTube app and caught up on my current events. I smiled to myself as I thought of the iconic images of past Presidential speeches, families gathered around the radio waiting with bated breath over crackling speakers. Not quite the same scene today is it?

This got me thinking. First of all it’s incredible that we live in an age with such a wealth of information that I knew beyond a doubt that the video would already be uploaded, in HD quality of course, to YouTube if not several other sites. I spoke with a friend about this idea and she told me she had gotten stuck at work but followed live-bloggers on Twitter during the speech and eventually went to WhiteHouse.gov to live stream the video to her desk.

While in general I see this information overload as a privilege of our generation I couldn’t help but wonder, are we missing unifying moments as a nation because of convenience? My parents always watched Presidential speeches as a family and when the news came on at 6:00 PM they say, “you either saw it or you didn’t no DVR-ing broadcasts like you do.” I know I’ll never forget the pure horror I felt on 9/11 as I watched the live broadcasts of the twin towers falling, but I took some solace in the fact that I knew the whole nation was watching, and we all felt the same way.

That being said, social media allows each and every one of us to connect personally to news, and to borrow Twitter’s slogan, now we can ‘join the conversation’.

So what do you think? Are we sacrificing a human connection for convenience? Or perhaps with our ability to be a part of the news on our own terms now maybe we’re more unified than ever.

My colleague here at Matter, Nick Porter, sent me an article published by The Economist in the December 16 edition about the history and current state of the PR industry. While the examination of the start of the profession was undoubtedly interesting, the article was written in such a way that showed the writer had little if any respect for PR practitioners at all. At one point, the piece states that PR people “have been locked in an antagonistic, symbiotic relationship with journalists, with mutual contempt tempered by mutual dependency.” Both “wow” and “ouch” are appropriate responses here.

There’s no doubt that there have been more than enough PR people out there whose less-than-ethical tactics have tainted the industry as a whole. In fact, the Economist piece describes a few of the early instances where PR representatives for big corporations pulled the proverbial wool over the public’s eyes without remorse. But the fact is that labeling all PR people as “spin doctors” is unfair and irresponsible. Journalists may look upon PR people with contempt just because of their reputations, but I’d be willing to bet that most journalists have received help from a good PR guy or gal to get out of a bind on deadline, or secure that sound bite to round out their article right when they need it most.

The Economist article doesn’t only say negative things about the publicity profession – there are some nuggets of positivity worked in. However, after reading it, I had a bad taste in my mouth. Something just didn’t sit right and while everything in the piece seemed to be well thought out and well written, I just didn’t like how we’re portrayed. At Matter, we strive to be resources for the journalists with whom we work. And yes, there is a fine line between persistent PR person and annoying flack. But I’d like to think that by exercising some of the basic best practices of our profession, we avoid being looked upon as pariahs in a media landscape where PR people are needed now more than ever.

I’d love to hear what other people think about the article. Please feel free to get in touch with your thoughts or leave them in the comment box below.

I recently spoke with a friend who used to be a client.  Neither of us is tied to the company through which we met, but we stay in touch.  That company (I’ll call it ThatCo to protect the innocent) was recently included in an exposé of its industry at the hands of the Wall Street Journal. It’s the kind of story CEOs dread.  The week-long series shed a light on the industry’s accepted, self-policed business practices, and painted those practices as something the world should be concerned about, complete with paranoia-inducing headlines.  The story has since been echoed on NPR and in other outlets.

I’m not writing to condemn the industry’s practices, nor to call the Wall Street Journal irresponsible.  The industry is not out to do anyone harm, and I imagine it’s hard to draw eyeballs to the Wall Street Journal in August.  The story is engaging, and it is better that the general public be aware of these issues.

Not only does the story make sense, but we knew it was coming.  About two years ago the PR team conducted a media training session with ThatCo and we set aside a significant amount of time to cover this issue.  They had the messages – fact-based, reasonable, clear and easy to deliver.  I can say them to myself now.  We also covered when to use them.  This is apparently where the breakdown occurred.

ThatCo’s executive provided the “golden quote” – the one that instantly put miles of distance between a cool, collected executive and an enraged public.  The former client’s words were the first quote in the first story of the series.  Even the industry blogs that have since come out in defense of the client have repeated this quote.  I believe I’ve heard these words come from this client before, verbatim.  I don’t doubt for a second he said them. It’s the context, however, that makes me imagine a giddy reporter (and a reporter not prone to giddiness) stifling a squeal to avoid tipping off the unaware interview subject.

Someone missed a sign.  They followed a path that seemingly led to a glowing review of their mastery in creating value for customers, and forgot to deliver the messages that connect that value to responsible use of their powerful product.

I understand I risk sounding like a spurned partner in saying that if the company still had a PR firm, the spokesperson may have had a briefing sheet in hand that told him this reporter had previously won a Pulitzer for exposing corporate misdeeds.  He might have read the recent article in which that reporter covered a company that knowingly withheld information from customers.  He might have had someone on the line that cued him to step back and provide appropriate context for the reporter’s audience.

That’s water under the bridge, and it doesn’t help the ThatCo now.  But there is a learning opportunity to be had from this experience.  Below are 10 steps companies can take to help them avoid being ThatCo. The one that industry colleagues now look at with equal measures of shame, pity and accusation.  The one that has to explain to family and friends how he isn’t in an evil line of work.  The one that might get the cold shoulder from partners and clients “until this whole thing cools off.”

Before the interview:

1)      Know who you’re talking to. Look up their previous stories. Read their bio. At the very least, if the reporter tells you he or she need to conduct the interview in the next five minutes or the world will end, Google him or her while you’re talking.

2)      Get the context.  If you are discussing something controversial or easily misunderstood, ask the reporter what section the story will run in and who the audience is.  If they say they don’t know, assume it will be the audience least likely to understand.

During the interview:

3)      Hear yourself talk.  Understand how each soundbyte will sound in public.

4)      Ask questions.  Who else is the reporter talking to?  What do they think of the industry? What else are they covering?  Two minutes of seemingly idle chit chat can provide a world of information.

Before the story runs:

5)      Don’t be afraid to follow up.  If you feel you missed the opportunity to strike the right balance, send a note with more information.

After the story runs:

6)      Know how this affects your business.  Do the people who pay your bills already understand this issue?  Are they exposed along with you?  Do you need to defend yourself or take the fall in order to keep business running smoothly?

7)      Deliver the untold story in public.  ThatCo has responded in a blog, but missed the source of the real concern, and further, has yet to deliver the messages that connect value to customers with responsible use of the product.  To its credit, it stepped in the line of fire and offered to respond to any concerned parties.  It would have been better if that response was also public.

8)      Tell the truth, quickly.  This axiom of crisis communications applies to PR crises as well.  Don’t play the victim or pull back from the media or the false perception will sink in further. Use your newfound (if unwelcome) attention to fill the information gap.

9)      Understand this is now public record.  Expect the questions to come up again.  Have your answers on hand.

10)   Sympathize with the outrage. In this case, the company already had ways to accommodate anyone who didn’t approve of the standard industry practices.  They made these accommodations widely available, but until the series ran, most people didn’t take advantage of them.  If your company is not as prepared to respond to an angry audience, open your communications channels.  The only way to battle distrust is with honesty.

My friend, the ex-client, said grimly, ThatCo “finally got its Wall Street Journal story.” It turns out ThatCo got half of its story in the Wall Street Journal.  By demanding — and providing — transparency, it might not happen to you.