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.

When JetBlue flight attendant Steven Slater made international news after reportedly blowing up at an uncooperative airplane passenger, he seemed to many to be the real-life Peter Gibbons character from the film “Office Space.”

Gibbons and his fellow programmer colleagues, frustrated and disillusioned with TPS Reports and the corporate world in general, smash an error-ridden printer to smithereens with a baseball bat. Slater reportedly grabbed two beers, then deployed the airline’s emergency slide and made a dramatic exit on the tarmac.

On Wednesday, a post appeared on the JetBlue’s blog, Blue Tales, titled: “Sometimes the weird news is about us…”

Acknowledging that the company could not comment because the matter was still being investigated and they respected Slater’s privacy, the post closed with the following: “While this episode may feed your inner Office Space, we just want to take this space to recognize our 2,300 fantastic, awesome and professional Inflight Crewmembers for delivering the JetBlue Experience you’ve come to expect of us.”

It was well-handled, with a tone that seemed to acknowledge the inner Peter Gibbons in many workers out there while making a strong statement in support of its airline flight crews  (something many had questioned in the wake of Slater being suspended).

Three points stand out to me:

• In this case, less was more for JetBlue. They could have said more, but I feel like this would have ruined it;
• Conversational and authentic is nearly always the best tone of voice in a company blog post acknowledging negative publicity;
• Instead of regurgitating company mission statements, the post used words like “weird,” and “awesome.” Simple and plainspoken, consistent with the JetBlue’s brand image.

What are your thoughts about the way JetBlue handled this controversy?

Last week, my friend and colleague, Theresa Freeman, provided an overview of the emergence of the “hyperlocal” scene. As her post explains, these sites combine user-generated content along with some professional content. While the sites Theresa focused on categorize information into localities, they fall into the larger context of citizen journalism, which (as she discusses) faces considerable criticism. Theresa points to comments from the Cape Cod Times ombudsperson who, to paraphrase, calls on consumers to question information derived from citizen journalism. To her credit, she calls on the owners of these entities to offer clear disclaimers like CNN does with its iReports.

So, with all this criticism out there it got me thinking – do consumers really trust these sources? (14 million people can’t be wrong?) If the answer is no, how do I in good counsel spend my time pitching these outlets or even submitting articles directly on behalf of my clients. Where is the value?

Up until this past Monday I thought I had a pretty healthy dose of cynicism when it comes to reading reviews and information, and letting any one particular article guide my decision. That is until I read the WSJ.com article that told me Consumer Reports does not recommend iPhone 4. In the WSJ.com poll that followed, I quickly voted that based on this review “I won’t buy it now.” Me and 903 other people; 40% of the voting population. Oops. I guess I don’t know me as well as I thought I did.

I’m not comparing the quality of Consumer Reports to citizen journalism; but, when I took a step back and realized how quickly I lost my cynicism, I realized that it’s not entirely necessary to answer my original question, do consumers trust citizen journalists? Somewhat regardless of source, there’s always going to be value in spreading awareness in both traditional and new media. While a product review in Consumer Reports is likely to carry more weight with consumers than say, a vendor-contributed article on Associated Content – we’re still getting eyes on our brands and generating new awareness. So next time the consumer sees our brand or product, there’s a familiarity, an ‘I’ve read about them’ moment. It’s also these moments that make true PR ROI measurement an impossibility. But, that dear reader is a blog post for another time.

During the past few years buzz has been building around the idea of hyperlocal journalism and the PR industry has followed suit, seeking out ways to pitch these outlets. The execution of hyperlocal coverage varies slightly by outlet, but in general it appears to be a mix of user-generated and professional edited content. Media watchers, including those of us in the PR game, are waiting to see which services will emerge as the strongest – with the biggest backing to hire staff and / or with the largest readership and / or commanding the biggest ad revenue.

The Columbia Journalism Review this past fall noted in a lengthy piece on the reconstruction of American journalism that, “Reporting is becoming more participatory and collaborative.” Indeed, USA Today publisher Gannett recently announced plans for hyperlocal sites in 10 markets across the U.S. while it’s been reported that AOL will pour $50 million into Patch this year. Even YouTube is throwing its hat into the ring, last month launching its test CitizenTube news feed.

Locally, in Massachusetts, GateHouse Media has been ramping up its WickedLocal.com site during the past several years to be a “portal” site representing featured content from 158 individual community websites.

Advertising Age recently detailed some of the bigger players on the hyperlocal scene:

The big story about the news business these days, as a matter of fact, revolves around companies that generate news and information using big networks of cheap freelancers. They include Associated Content, which Yahoo bought last month for about $100 million; Demand Media, which is reportedly considering going public this summer; Seed, where writers, photographers and others can submit their content for publication on AOL; and Examiner.com, which says it has 40,000 freelance “Examiners.”

They’ve already got big traction with readers. Examiner’s sites got more than 14.4 million visitors in May, according to ComScore — more than the 14 million people who visited all the McClatchy newspaper sites combined, or the 13.4 million people who visited MediaNews sites, or the 12 million who visited Hearst newspaper sites.

AOL and Yahoo have separately been staffing up their original blogs and news sections; Yahoo is currently advertising for a blog editor for Yahoo Finance, who will report original stories plus hire a team of bloggers. And sites that aggregate local content are also mixing things up. Last year MSNBC.com acquired EveryBlock, giving it a new ability to horn in on newspapers’ role as local information centers.

Newspapers have, meanwhile, been cutting reporters, thinning the distinction between their products and those of their rivals.

However, even The Gray Lady has stumbled in its foray into the hyperlocal market. The New York Times just last week shuttered its hyperlocal and collaborative journalism experiment called, appropriately, The Local, and hooked up with the New Jersey-based Baristanet.com which now has free reign to link to The Local archives.

As PR professionals we should all be on the look-out to make sure any articles we submit or post are transparent in their origin and clear in their objective. While sites such as these or Allvoices.com, NowPublic.com or Helium make it easier than ever for PR pros to submit news and feature stories we’ve still got to rely on some of our tried-and-true pitching strategies: know who we are pitching and make the info clear and relevant for their readers. In Matter’s own backyard, The Cape Cod Times recently cautioned readers of hyperlocal sites to look closely at and consider the source of their news. Newsroom ombudsman Jayne M. Iafrate wrote, “Citizen journalists are reporters and editors with little, if any, professional journalism training who write and publish news. Many practitioners have a specific point of view they wish to promote; others mean well, but fall short of professional ethics and standards simply because they lack training. And other citizen journalists flourish because they provide unvarnished glimpses into their worlds — places and ideas left unexplored by or unavailable to trained journalists.”

Have you been pitching hyperlocal or user-generated sites? What tips would you share with other PR pros for dealing with this new breed of media?

The Associated Press Stylebook has been guiding word usage, punctuation and grammar for countless reporters since 1953, and while it’s not the only style guide out there, it’s certainly the most popular. AP reporters are known for their strong reporting, and the Stylebook is constantly referenced to ensure consistency and excellence in writing. But as newer forms of media evolve, is there another set of rules needed for online content creation? Yahoo! thinks so.

Yahoo! has launched The Yahoo! Style Guide: The Ultimate Sourcebook for Writing, Editing, and Creating Content for the Digital World, whose purpose is to provide a framework for grammar, punctuation, writing and editing for the Web. Some of the article topics in the guide include, “Streamline Text for Mobile Devices,” “Be Inclusive, Write for the World,” and “Construct Clear, Compelling Copy.” It also includes a word list and an “Ask an Editor” page to help clear up questions about word usage and upcoming developments for the guide.

As Mashable points out, there are a few points on which Yahoo! and the AP disagree, including whether to hyphenate e-mail (the AP says yes), and “smart phone” or “smartphone” (one word, according to Yahoo!). The overall topic is particularly timely, as Matter recently held a training session to refresh everyone on strong writing practices. We explored common mistakes that writers make and looked at the differences between the AP Stylebook and Strunk & White’s The Elements of Style.

But the debate came down to two core factors that guide Matter’s writing: consistency and client preferences. Often, Matter’s clients want their teams to bend AP writing rules, and as long as we’re consistent in our deliverables, the content we generate passes their tests. For example, serial commas are a source of debate between teams. Some clients require them (X, Y, and Z) and others don’t want them (leave out the comma before “and”). For the clients that don’t have a preference, we simply use them or don’t use them throughout all our writing.

It will be interesting to see to what degree writers gravitate towards the Yahoo! guide over the AP Stylebook, if at all. What do you think will happen?

Peter Shankman makes all the right moves.

The guy is brilliant and, if you’re in PR, you can’t help but know that he has a cat named Karma and, when he’s not jumping from an insane altitude, he’s training for an Ironman. Oh, and he’s the founder and CEO of a PR/journalism game-changing company called Help a Reporter Out (HARO).

HARO was founded on Facebook in 2008 and has since grown to be THE social media services company that connects writers and sources. In my opinion, two things make HARO particularly unique: It’s a free service for all involved and it’s a no-BS community where PR pros are held accountable for the pitches they send. Users get booted for spammy, spray-and-pray pitches and, as a result, HARO is somewhat of a safe haven for members of the media.

The lucrative HARO “sponsorship” program that Shankman created is also noteworthy. He places advertisements at the start of each email, which are chock-full of media queries, and the open rates are said (by HARO) to be about 75 percent.

In fact, this business model is so remarkable that, just last week, Shankman announced that his little enterprise had been scooped up by Vocus, a company that provides on-demand software for public relations management and manages the press release distribution service called PRWeb.

We join the industry in congratulating Peter Shankman on this significant accomplishment. According to a Mashable story, he will continue to build the HARO brand with the help of the folks at Vocus and, more importantly, the service will remain free. We look forward to seeing what the future holds for HARO – and continuing to use this fantastic service to supplement our daily PR activities and outreach!

Are bloggers wired differently than traditional journalists?

This week I came across new research by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism that uses hard data to quantify the differences between the news agenda of new and old media.

The Pew Research Center’s study, titled “New Media, Old Media,” collected a year’s worth of data on the top news stories linked to on blogs, discussed on Twitter, and shared on Youtube. The major finding was that each social media platform “seems to have its own personality and function.”

Among the other key findings:

·         Bloggers tended to focus more on stories that “elicited emotion, concerned individual or group rights or triggered ideological passion.” Often these were stories that people could easily share on social networks with their own personal thoughts;

·         Social media tends to focus on stories that don’t get a lot of traction in the mainstream press. Rarely does a story get picked up in social media first, then by traditional media outlets;

·         Technology is a big topic of discussion on Twitter, while politics is less so. Blogs tended to focus more on politics and foreign events, less on technology;

·         All three social media platforms (blogs, Twitter, Youtube) shared the common characteristic of not staying on one story very long.  On blogs, 53 percent of top stories remain on the list of the most discussed stories for no more than three days, while on Twitter, the same is true for 72 percent of lead stories.

What does this all mean for PR professionals? Keeping in mind the different personalities of the new and old media, and how they interrelate, is key. There is a huge disparity between what the mainstream media considers to be the most important news and what each social media platform is most interested in discussing. It bears close watching as to whether traditional media outlets will continue to adjust their news coverage to better align with the interests of each social platform.

Michael Arrington’s recent post about his exchanges with the PR group at Fortune have stirred up some lively discussions – online and around the office. We’ve kept the profanity that is common among TechCrunch commentators out of our debates, but have nonetheless tried to get to the right side of the debate.

I’ll summarize it for you, in case you missed it: The PR team at Fortune reached out to Arrington, offering exclusive posts of The Facebook Effect. In Arrington’s words, “[The rules] were fine. We’d print the excerpts. And we’d link to Fortune. We don’t get much out of that deal, but… we want to support Kirkpatrick and I figured Fortune could owe us a favor.”

After the posts went live, Fortune changed its mind. As Tina Fey might say, they asked for a do-over. The Fortune team wanted Arrington to post excerpts of the excerpts – not the whole excerpt. Sounds crazy, but the publisher cried copyright infringement.

The lessons are numerous, but three really stand out. First, there’s the obvious – that favors are still big currency. Online and off. Make sure you know what you’re being asked, and what you’re asking of others. Secondly, poke holes in plans –someone in Fortune’s PR department should have played out various scenarios and asked more questions (what if they run the full excerpt? Is that the desired outcome? Is it allowed?). And finally, whether you like it or not, remember that your emails are public.

Use of profanity is traditionally accepted as an occasional outburst reserved for situations of duress or frustration, but as recent events have demonstrated, it can also be used to ring in historic government change. By now, we all know that Vice President Biden said on-air, for millions of Americans to hear, that the new healthcare bill was a ‘big f***ing deal’. It sure is. However, as a PR professional, I find the response tactics employed by the White House and the national media disconcerting.

Putting aside all political alignment and opinions of the current administration, the fact remains that Vice President Biden and President Obama are international public figures and as such, the eyes of the world follow them and many aspire to one day achieve greatness like them. Is the use of profanity appropriate for the second-in-command of the free world? Of course it is…as long as no one catches you.

Moments after the bomb dropped, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tweeted, ‘And yes Mr. Vice President, you’re right…’  As surprising as this bluntness and lack of embarrassment may be, Mr. Gibbs was simply following suite with what was coming down from the big man himself.

President Obama was later quoted at a press conference saying “You know what the best thing about yesterday was? Joe’s comment.”

The White House further dismissed the incident as Biden told supporters at a fundraiser in Baltimore late Wednesday that Obama was not mad at what he delicately termed his “faux pas.”

CBS News later made light of the story by stating that Biden’s F-bomb was ‘the highlight of the day.’ 

From Twitter to late night television, the Biden F-bomb is being tapped as a source of comedy. With a bit of Googling, one can even find and purchase a t-shirt with an image of Biden and the phrase in question scrolled across it. Some comedic highlights from Tuesday night include:

Jimmy Kimmel suggested that Biden get a “swear jar” after playing the video on his show Tuesday night. Jimmy Fallon: “Joe Biden got himself in a bit of trouble. Did you hear about that? Apparently it sounded like Biden said to President Obama, ‘This is a big f-ing deal.’ In response, NBC picked Biden to host the show, ‘Big F-ing Deal or No F-ing Deal.’”

Jay Leno: “In my lifetime, I’ve been fortunate to hear presidents say great things. I heard John F. Kennedy say, ‘Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.’ I remember Ronald Regan saying, ‘Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.’ On this historic day, I got to hear what Joe Biden said to our president. This is real.”

So, comedy is the answer, right? Well, what was the alternative – a formal apology? In my opinion, yes, a very brief formal apology would have been appropriate and would have shown Americans and more importantly children, that this is not an acceptable way to speak. I don’t think it’s a stretch to imagine a child seeing someone they are taught to admire uttering this phrase and then seeing people respond by smiling and laughing about it, and then feeling comfortable repeating it. Perception is reality and I think that Biden and to a lesser extent Obama, have lost a bit of respect by shrugging this incident off. If history has taught us anything, it’s that public figures can do some pretty heinous things, but as long as they apologize, their halo will not remain tarnished for long.