We recently conducted a series of polls on LinkedIn to determine how professionals read news.  You can download the full report here.  The key findings showed that while news sites continued to dominate, search engines and aggregators were a major source of news.  On the mobile side, news specific mobile applications (such as the WSJ app on the iPhone) were even more important than a mobile web browser.    Our bottom line finding, based on these polls and third part research such as Hitwise’s list of top news web sites (which found both news sites and search engines in the top ten), is that major news sites along with search engines and aggregators still need to lead the way in distributing information.  Social media then provides a measurement of how well the news was received as well as an amplification effect.  Key findings included the following:

1. [Businesses] think they can tell portions of their story, leaving out the personal, messy, or confusing parts, and still have the media (and the public) consider their comments "truthful." The problem is, whatever you leave out of your story will be filled in—if not with facts, then with conjecture, rumor, or opinion. Is that unfair? It doesn’t matter. The media’s job is to tell a complete story. Your job, if you’re in the public eye, is to protect yourself by helping them get it, warts and all, with your perspective attached every step of the way.

2. Have you transmitted the same message to everyone? If there is one mistake that practically guarantees negative publicity, it’s adjusting your point of view for different audiences. Barack Obama, for instance, took a barrage of criticism when, after praising the values of religious worship and gun ownership at Midwestern rallies, he derided the same at a private fund-raising party in San Francisco.

3. Finally, have you taken your media coverage into your own hands? Time was, the media had the last word. The Web made it so there are no more last words. Sure, it can be used against you in a media firestorm, what with thousands of amateur news sites and blogs. But that’s all the more reason to use the Web for your own defense, if not offense. Celebrities now speak directly to the public about rumors; companies are doing the same. Individuals who feel maligned now have this option. You may not be able to change the course of your media coverage to your complete liking, but at least you’ll have an active role in it—in your own words.

When Campbell Brown of CNN asked McCain spokesperson Tucker Bounds about Palin’s experience, Mr. Bounds did what he was trained to do – he answered the question he wanted to answer and not the question asked.  But instead of doing what political media often (sadly) do and moving on to the next question, Ms. Brown pressed Mr. Tucker to answer the question he was asked.   Mr. Tucker was woefully unprepared and looked like he was avoiding the question (Watch the video and judge for yourself – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxMCp1vydEI).

Now, the McCain campaign has canceled a Larry King interview supposedly as punishment.    The result is risking a reputation for looking like they can’t or won’t answer the tough questions which opens up another “just like Bush” line of attack.

The problem was that Mr. Tucker, like most people in politics, was only trained to answer the question he wanted to answer.  While this is a well established and practiced media relations practice, it shows an incomplete media relations training.   Mr. Tucker was obviously not trained on what to do if a journalist presses on a tough question. 

We work most often with business and trade media.  While we do train our clients to get their message out by redirecting to answers they want to give, we also train and prepare them to make sure they answer the question asked in the most direct way possible.  It’s not simply to avoid a Tucker Bounds situation but to show transparency and create goodwill both with the audience and the journalist.  Whether it is a politician or business executive and regardless of whether a journalist pushes or not, people see when the person being interviewed is avoiding the question.   For audiences, avoiding the question reinforces the lack of transparency and truthfulness in politics.  Just imaging if a CEO avoided answering a question on explaining why the company missed earnings and simply talked about their vision?  One word – skewered. 

Beyond the PR lessons, my main hope for this political season is that, regardless of who wins, more journalists take note of Campbell Brown and realize that when they ask a question they should get an answer to that question.  And when they don’t, it should be noted publicly.  If this was standard practice, we would start seeing the transparency and truthfulness from politicians we all seek.

For those that haven’t read about it, AT&T announced something that has been available for years (I’ve been a sim-only subscriber since it was Omnipoint in 1997).  But they announced it as a new service that requires a two-year contract (the contract part was then retracted).  It was the press angle – this is a new service – that led to a lot of technology media and enthusiasts to laugh in their articles and blogs.

And it’s not the first time.  Last year, USA Today wrote a rather large story on AT&T opening it’s network.   Again, AT&T’s network was always open by definition (they use a technology that doesn’t restrict what phone you can use).  That time, the technology crowd not only looked at AT&T funny, but USA Today as well.  Check it out here and here.

Reputation Cost with a core public and reporters

The potential reputation cost? Credibility with reporters who will now have to double check everything they hear from AT&T.  And the reputation cost for consumers? The early adopter consumers, who are also some of the most influential word of mouth consumers, will have a skepticism alert go off when they hear about a deal from AT&T. 

What they  should have done – announced it was being supported but always open (and years ahead of Verizon in that sense)

What should they have done? Instead of saying open networks or sim-only service was new, say it is now official policy that will be supported by marketing and customer service.  Perhaps this would have cost them some press in the short run (but maybe not as even support for their open network is a first), but it would have also killed the negative backlash.   Now, every time they mention these open network offerings they risk being targeted by the same media and blogs that caught them during the announcement.  In the long run, they likely would have gotten more attention with a far more positive tone. 

Who’s on AT&T’s staff or focus group?

One other suggestion is for AT&T marketing and PR to make sure they either have enthusiasts on staff or as an ongoing focus group.  That can help them catch these mistakes and better position these offerings for the market.

Here are some links to read through how it played out.

Sim deal announced here at phonemag.com and at Engadget.

Mistake caught (retraction of 2-year contract requirement) http://gigaom.com/2008/01/22/att-says-sim-contract-fiasco-a-mistake/

Again Oops – http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2008/01/22/at-no-need-for-a-contract/

But what about the clients?

Agency clients can both drive the solution and have the most to gain if they focused on the target to success ratio.   To put it in budget terms, the fewer reporters the media relations people have to work with to get effective stories published, the higher the ROI on the media relations budget. 

I’ve worked with a lot of companies that valued this approach.  I’ve also worked with a lot of companies that simply wanted to see long lists of media contacts.  Needless to say, it was the latter that not only saw higher ROI, but saw more effective results.

From a PR agency management perspective it also makes sens e.  In addition to happier clients (those list pushing clients never work out anyway), it’s more efficient for your staff.  That means a happier, more profitable staff turning out better work for clients.

So if this is so obvious why isn’t it done?  A deadly combination of laziness and ignorance (a poisonous formula in any situation). 

I would ask any company who reads this to do two simple things:

1) Ask for a list of journalists but also details as to why that journalist is appropriate.

2) Make it clear that you want to see the number of pitches that go out as the success rate of those pitches. 

3) Clients be shown how to pitch a few reporters chosen at random (or at least see responses).  They can they see for themselves if the targeting and guidance given by the agency is on target.  In other words, introduce a little transparency into the system.

Bottom line: The better the targeting to success ration (the number of journalists you reach out to compared to the number that see covering the company or story as appropriate) the higher the program ROI on a tactical basis.

Technorati tags: chris anderson, media relations, spam

PELLEY: But the American people, sir, believe that your country is a terrorist nation, exporting terrorism in the world. You must have known that visiting the World Trade Center site would infuriate many Americans.
AHMADINEJAD: Well, I’m amazed. How can you speak for the whole of the American nation?
PELLEY: Well, the American nation–
AHMADINEJAD: You are representing a media and you’re a reporter. The American nation is made up of 300 million people. There are different points of view over there.

I hate to say it but a solid point is made here.  The reporter is asking a question that assumes a fact rather than presents fact-based proof.  Had the reporter asked the question by saying “You must have known that visiting the World Trade Center site would outrage many Americans and I say this as we have a national survey showing that over 90% of the public would consider themselves outraged if you visited” then it might have forced a straight answer.  Instead, the reporter assumed a fact thus opening an opportunity to question the questioner instead of being forced to answer.

This reminds of a media training exercise Edelman put it’s senior management through when I was there about five years ago.  A reporter would interview us and start asking questions that assumed facts (e.g., explain why your company is stealing money instead of I have evidence here that shows your company is stealing money).  Of course, the right answer to the first question was to question where the reporter got these supposed facts and assumptions.  It was a good reminder that how questions are asked open opportunities to turn the tables in the interview.   I wonder who Ahmadinejad uses for media training? 

Today’s Carl Bialik column in the Wall Street Journal (read it here and in his blog- subscription required until Rupert Murdoch says otherwise) shows how candidates need to pay more attention as well (incidentially, the political consultants/pr pros in politics are, I believe, the biggest over-spinners).   Sites such Factcheck.org and Politicfact.com are now checking the accuracy of candidates statements.  

Reading this reminded me of the key difference between business and political reporting (my subjective view as a reader).  Political reporters seem to focus on reporting a candidate’s position and key messages so that audiences can decide for themselves.  Business reporters focus on what a company says, and then research the facts and reports that research so readers can decide the future of a company’s market position.

Imagine if political reporters were more like business reporters.  They would report not only on what candidate says but how also research its factual basis.  Like business reporters, they would note on an ongoing basis how accurate the facts out of a campaign were and the full context of those facts (e.g., Romney implied that military spending was cut under Clinton…how many reporters noted the spending level cut took place under Regan?…and no, I have not fact checked this fact check).  Or, as many have asked, what if the news media had focused not only reporting but qualifying the facts the Bush administration put forward to justify the Iraq war just as business reporters research the facts put foward in a company’s earnings reports. 

This comparison also reminds me of one of the great ironies of the non-political public relations industry – that PR gets the blame for turning fact into fiction.  In fact, while a few bad apples certainly help shape this reputation, I often find that it’s non-PR executives pushing the fact-based envelope and it’s the PR professional or agency providing warnings on how messages that can’t be backed with facts can backfire.  However, like lawyers, counsel is what we provide and, even more than lawyers, our counsel is often ignored (probably due to the punishment not including jail time…usually).

This post outlines those areas and translates them into the key business challenges that business  leaders, like politicians, must deal with.

1. The anti-market bias.  People don’t believe that helping a company do well helps them.  Witness the pharmaceutical industry.  Ridiculout paychecks and overpriced/underperforming drugs aside, you won’t find too many consumers who are sympathetic to high prices and high profits being needed for the substantial R&D that leads to drug breakthroughs.  But the economic fact is that slim profits would lead to little R&D which, in turn, leads to even fewer health improvements for consumers.

2. The anti-foreign bias.  Yes, we are xenophobic.  So is most of the world.   This reputation problem is best summed up by the fact that people love their cheap goods, but lobby against them being made in China.  Even though that is exactly what makes them cheap.   Likewise, most of us arrived as immigrants and have recent immigrants helping us today in one way or another, but are hesitant to legally open up our borders more widely.  Short term fear despit the long term gain.   Offshore related (and gardening, fast food etc) industries deal with this bias everday.

3. Equating prosperity with employment rather than production. This is one of the toughest ones larger companies have to face periodically – explaining layoffs.  The fact is, as companies grow, there are times when it must let people go in one area even if it is hiring and growing in another.  People may be let go due to lack of growth or even progress (e.g., Toyota automated it’s factories to cut the need for some factory workers but overtime still hired more vs. The Economist’s good story about an economist suggesting to a dam building foreman that they spoons instead of shovels if they want to create jobs). 

Nevertheless, while the market, the keeper of “wisdom of crowds,” may praise these moves, the mass market understandably finds them painful and reason to be pessimistic.  Over time, people may acknowledge the benefits, but they’ll always find it bitter in the short term (and rightfully so).   There is not good communications cure for this medicine.  The best companies simply focus on making the transition to new job opportunities as painless as possible through strong benefits and top notch job training. 

4. An economic bias towards pessimism (we always think the economy is worse than it is).  People are alway worried about where the economy is headed.  If the reputation of a company is that it is dragging down wages it may be deemed a corporate devil, even if it’s untrue (Wal-Mart).  Likewise, if they see a company as driving economic progress, it will be hailed as a hero (hello Intel).  While this bias may not affect the bottom line in the short term, it can open up areas of attack over the long term.  Wal-Mart found this out when attacked on wages even though it was paying decent wages compared to the mom and pop stores it was accused of putting out of business.  So as not to turn off the lower wage shoppers (it’s core base), it tool a public lead in the lobbying effort for higher wages in order to address this economic-bias reputation challenge.  Intel, on the other hand, is seen as driving economic growth and  productivity.  As a result, people want to see it succeed.  A useful sentiment for both sales and valuation.

I’m not going to claim all these biases are correct all the time or that the suggested solutions are appropriate.  However, these are biases that often reflect the sentiments of the mass market.  As a result, they are biases the care takers of corporate reputations should carefully be watching.

The basic concept is to focus not on the reach , or how many people could have seen a media placement, but on the impact, which is how many people actually saw the placement and took action (change of opinion, purchase of a product etc).  That can be a very big difference.  Granted, many executives just want to see big, ego-stroking numbers internally, but many also want to truly understand the impact of their investment in public relations activities.

The formula in paper breaks down not only how many people see the message (as oppposed to simply being exposed to it – or reach), but the different affects it could have.   For example, a placement in a magazine with 500,000 readers might break down as follows in the chart to the left.

Depending on the program, numbers 2-4 may all be important – especially if it’s not a well known company or issue that simply needs to first raise awareness.  For a well known company or issue, the focus is probably on 3-5 (comprehension, attitude and behaviour).  With these numbers, PR can then go after that holy grail and do a direct comparison to advertising by measuring how many people see an ad in a magazine and what effect it has. 

What I like best about this approach is that it completely skips over reach, deeming it irrelevant.  Who cares how many people an article reached if only a fraction of them actually read it.  Of course, becuase there is so much pressure to deliver big impression numbers, many measurement systems rely first and foremost on reach (using words like circulation or impressions).   In my experience, much, if not most, of this direction comes not from public relations, but from marketing though public relations often does not do enough push back.  But that’s for another post…