Who are we?

by martinwaxman

I ask the question in my -30- segment on this week’s Inside PR (2.03). And it feels like PR people – and especially senior practitioners – ask it a lot. You’d think we’re all existentialists or something.

But the fact is, our profession seems like it’s always searching for its raison d’etre.

It’s not as if we’re in our infancy. The Canadian Public Relations Society, for example, has been around for more than 60 years; yet we just came out with a formal definition of PR in 2008.

Let me ask you: how many times have you responded to the question, what do you do?, with: I work in PR; only to have people say, that’s a bit like advertising, right?

Well, no it really isn’t. And when you try to explain what you do, do you notice people get that smile of feigned interest as you expound on the subtleties of organizations reaching out to their publics? (Can you blame them?)

I think part of the reason people don’t get what we do is that we’ve put too much focus on tactics; the kids’ table where all the fun stuff happens. We are superb publicists, amazing organizers, detail oriented to the max. I’ve heard folks say if you have to get something done, call a PR agency.

And sure it’s nice to be that reliable friend; the one you can count on; the one you know won’t mind riding in the backseat. Perhaps we need to step out of our comfort zone, think big picture as opposed to pretty picture; and focus on out of the box strategic thinking rather than carrying the box at an event.

It’s my hope that with social media and our profession’s understanding of communities, real relationship building and two-way communications; we can blog, socialize and share our real value honestly, openly and with a little pizzazz.

And maybe one day simply saying our profession’s name will be definition enough.

I’m interested to hear your feedback.

Note: From time to time I’ll be posting a slightly revised version of my -30- segment from Inside PR with Gini Dietrich and Joe Thornley. In this episode, we also talk about privacy. Have a listen and let us know what you think.

13Oct2009

Fixing what’s broken between journalism and PR

by martinwaxman

On Inside PR #173, my ‘-30-‘ comment, the short POV remarks we’re using to end the show, dealt with a few of the things we need to do to start fixing the pretty much broken relationship between journalism and PR.

This is something that must be done. And I think it’s up to our industry to take the lead and try improve the way we interact with each other; build trust, credibility and respect on both sides. I think the same applies to bloggers and other influencers, as well.

Part of the problem lies with the way our profession functions: trying to place stories, traditionally in MSM, for clients or organizations. We often feel under a lot of pressure to deliver results for which we have virtually no control.

Fine. That’s our reality and no one forced us into it. I’m proud to be a PR practitioner and this uncertainty is one of the things we just accept.

There are many media with whom I feel I have a good professional relationship. I define that as being able to approach a journalist/blogger with an idea they might be interested in, showing them why/how it works in a quick, efficient manner and having them say either say yes or no (or sometimes saving it for a future story).

However, I think that over the years we have made many repeated mis-steps that hurt the industry and our collective reputation.

And now, with social media and two-way conversations being embraced by both sides, this seems like a perfect time to make the change.

Here are 10 steps the PR profession can take right now:

Always read a journalists or blogger’s past stories (and not just from last week). We need to do our research and know who’s covering or interested in which subjects.
Know the difference between hard and soft news and position a story accordingly. It may seem big to us (or our client), but we have to step back and realize where our news fits into the grand scheme of things. I mean really fits.
Be transparent and tell the truth.
Stop writing in corporate-speak
Strive to be helpful, not a pest.
Understand that while our clients are a top priority for us, the reporter has many other priorities and we need to empathize more with them.
Stop making media lists from databases. Go to the source: newspapers, broadcast outlets, blogs, online publications. See who’s writing about what. If we’re not passionate about media, why are we in PR?
Never blast out an email to a large (or small) bcc list. We’ve all done that in the past. And some are still doing it. Really, this was a bad idea from the start. It turned us into broadcasters, something we’re not.
Leave our PR egos at the door. It’s up to us to reach journalists. Stop griping if they don’t always call back when we want them to.
Help journalists and bloggers understand the new FTC rules/principles so that we can continue to work together in a mutually beneficial way.

It sounds simple but we’ve got to make the first move.

What do you think?

17Sep2009

Inside PR #170…recording

by martinwaxman

In the grand broadcast tradition of summer re-runs and new fall shows, we’re happy to say that Inside PR is back!

This season, the shows are going to be completely scripted… OK, maybe not. But they will be tighter with a main theme and some special features including 4Qs: four-questions for PR and social media luminaries; and ‘-30-‘, where Terry, Dave and I sound off on a topic of our choice for half a minute. (I promise I’m going to time my segment from now on.)

We’re also planning to take the show on the road for more live recordings.

And you can follow us on Twitter @Inside_PR.

I hope you’ll tune in, keep sending us your ideas (either as a comment or via Twitter) and continue to share your thoughts.

And thanks for listening.

-30-

11Apr2009

My mesh…

by martinwaxman

I’ve had a chance to reflect on mesh 2009 and a few things struck me:

The keynotes really stood out, especially the one by Toronto’s Mayor David Miller. He was funny, articulate, self-effacing and honest. He responded to questions quickly and credibly; spoke in plain English. He was not your typical politician by any means. That was refreshing. And while he can never please everyone, he seems open to a dialogue and new ideas (demonstrated in part by his presence on Twitter ). It appears as if he has a long term technology-based vision for Toronto; imagining the city as a creative and business hub; one that offers residents easy access to useful information/data and a viable feedback mechanism with which to engage the city. I wish him luck. Also, whoever is responsible for his PowerPoint’s does a great job with graphics.

Mike Masnick, with his concrete poetry approach to slides and ‘button-down’ case studies, comes a close second (you can download his presentation and see for yourself).

I didn’t get as much out of the panels this time around. Yes, some of them had lively discussions, but for those of us who are actively involved in social media, many seemed a bit too tactically focused. Especially since we’re finding out about and sharing the latest trends, apps, etc. on Twitter or other web 2.0 platforms. I’d like to see more MSM and well-informed critics involved in the panels as a way of sparking some fresh thinking.

Social media, like its name says, is all about people – and the ones I met and had an opportunity to talk with were intelligent, passionate and open. I had too many great conversations to note them all here, but I want to call-out Bryan Person, who I enjoyed meeting in person. Have a listen to Bryan’s post-mesh podcast for a Canadian perspective (and thanks for including me).

And thank you to the mesh organizers for putting it all together again.

18Mar2009

Clearing the Air (Canada)

by martinwaxman

Last summer, I posted about my first experience with the new Air Canada electronic boarding pass (eBP) that was sent directly to my BB. At the time, it wasn’t that well recognized by airport security and was difficult to scan. I reverted to printing it the old fashioned way.

So I was a little taken aback when, two weeks ago, I got a message from Darcy Noonan, who works for AC as a ‘customer service platform manager, ecommerce’. He said he’d read my blog and, though it was published in the summer, wanted to talk about my concerns. He followed up with an email, too.

When we connected, he was pleasant, well-informed and listened to what I had to say. He told me the airline was trying to educate the front lines on the new processes but it was more difficult than they’d planned. They were, however, committed to making it work and rolling it out across the country. He also mentioned that if I had any other issues, he hoped I would contact him.

I hung up the phone feeling pleasantly surprised. Here was Air Canada, not generally known for its stellar service and yet I’d just had an experience that made me think positively about the company.

From a social media perspective, I think the fact that they’re trying to listen to and engage customers is a good beginning.

However, IMHO I think they might want to add additional functionality to their regular online experience, here. I may be lucky enough to have a direct number, but it’s difficult to get through on the toll free lines. Perhaps AC could include a two-way platform so customers could reach them in real time (especially important mid-travel). An active eBP Twitter stream would be helpful too. That’s my two cents.

Still, this take-off seems to be heading in the right direction.

Thanks for following up, Darcy. I wanted to let you know that I going to give the eBP another chance.

17Feb2009

Something newer

by martinwaxman

Earlier in the month, I wrote about a job seeker who sent me a snail mail resume and cover letter addressed: ‘Dear Sir/Madam’. Thanks again for all your thoughts.

Today, we received another note I wanted to flag (again for the wrong reasons).

It was addressed to the principals of three separate agencies, but all were listed in the ‘To’ line of one email.

Now, I’m sure a ‘multiple submission’ wasn’t her intention, but it reminded me of the Hollywood agent’s trick to spur a bidding war.

My business partner, Louise, sent her a polite and pleasant note thanking her for her interest and suggesting that, in future, she may want to reconsider the group application approach.

8Apr2008

The old joke I alluded to on Inside PR #106

by martinwaxman

Inside PR #106, taped before a live studio audience at Third Tuesday Toronto, is available for download. For anyone who listens and wonders about the old joke I alluded to, here it is:

What’s the difference between advertising and PR? In advertising you pay; in PR you pray.

(…Groan…)

23Mar2008

Put that in your pipe and smoke it

by martinwaxman

In a recent Inside PR podcast, I was taken to task for my statement (and I’m paraphrasing) that in Canada, tobacco companies are legal entities and, while most of us would say that smoking is bad for you, tobacco companies, like other Canadian corporations, are entitled to PR. To me, this is similar to the right of legal representation.

I still believe that. In much the same way that I believe in free speech though I may not always like or agree with what’s being said (or written).

And for that reason I don’t think our industry should get into a position where we become the arbiters of what’s ‘right’ and dictate what work others should or should not do. That smacks of censorship; small-minded political correctness. We are not holier than thou ‘Big Brothers’ (and I don’t mean the TV show); we are communicators.

In any case, the decision as to whether or not you’re going to take on a company’s work is (or should be) yours. This can be tough if you’re employed by an organization that chooses a direction you don’t support. If that happens, I would urge you to think long and hard and do what YOU think is right (even if that means having to leave a job).

As for me, I consider myself an ethical PR practitioner and adhere to the CPRS code of professional standards*. I believe we should never lie for a client or break the law. But our industry is not the country’s judge and jury. Nor should it be. We don’t have an inside track on a so-called moral high ground.

In my books, there’s nothing wrong with trying to help facilitate an honest, transparent, two-way conversation between an organization and its publics. Isn’t that what the profession is all about?

When I was a kid and had a ‘talking to’ for something I did, my dad used to say, ‘put that in your pipe and smoke it’. Which meant he wanted me to consider his perspective and hopefully learn something.

But I guess in these days and times that expression would be considered politically wrong.

*Disclosure: I am the CPRS Toronto accreditation committee co-chair.