By Leo Valiquette
In my years as a journalist I endured my fair share of embarrasing gaffes, both my own and those of my staff (which I was often on the hook to explain, apologize for and redress.)
Despite the emphasis on clean, factual and reliable content, the occassional mistake is made in the newspaper business. Nobody’s perfect and the strain of rushing to meet a deadline can easily lead one to skip out on taking the time to check the facts through a second time.
Of course, it’s difficult to feel all that sympathetic about the plight of harried reporters when it’s your good name that’s attached to the error. Maybe they called your CEO Rob when his name is Rod. Or said your flagship product is still in trials when it has been commercially available for six months. There’s the little things that don’t matter so much, such as whether your company was founded in 1989 or 1990, or the big whammies that can land you in a lawsuit — like that defamatory off-the-cuff remark that was never intended to be on the record.
Sometimes the error is clearly on part of the reporter. On the other hand, I’ve seen many examples of interview subjects horrified to see what they said on the record immortalized in print desperately backpedal and claim no such thing passed their lips.
But what makes my teeth gnash as either PR consultant or newspaper editor is the simple, easy things that can be verified within thirty seconds by journalists with this little thing called the internet. In one client’s case, it amazes me how many little factual details about the company, its history and the features of its product are so consistently mixed up by some media despite the fact that it’s all there clear as day on the online newsroom page of the corporate website.
You can lead a horse to water, but …
All we can do for our clients is ensure we have provided all that factual information in as clear and concise a format as we can, as readily available as it can be. Never pass up the opportunity to follow up with a journalist to ensure they have everything they need to complete their story and make sure what they need is what they have.
If factual errors do appear in the final product, don’t lose your cool. Contact the reporter in polite, but firm fashion, to point out the problem, without pointing fingers. If they aren’t receptive to the idea of addressing the matter, then call their editor. A correction notice in a subsequent issue of the publication is a common method of setting the record straight. Don’t be extreme in your demands for redress, but don’t let your concern be casually dismissed.
Though it’s often seen as a nuisance by journalists, it isn’t unreasonable to ask to run through an article pre-publication to verify whatever facts, figures, proper name spellings, and dates they are using. Don’t expect to be handed a copy of the entire article. That’s not considered a reasonable request (for reasons I won’t go into here). Instead, the journalist will simply run through what they’re using with you over the phone or through an email.
The tone and angle of the story is beyond your control, but in this way you can at least ensure that the peevish journalist who’s writing unfavourable things about you at least has their facts straight. If you don’t like your portrayal, but there aren’t any factual errors in the piece, well, you can always try and get your side of the story better represented with a letter to the editor, but that’s a topic for another time.
By Leo Valiquette
A community manager does what again?
There’s this new corporate entity that’s apparently popping up more and more called the community manager. I’ve been trying to wrap my head around what exactly is the scope of responsibilities of this position and where it fits vis-a-vis the public relations function. Over at his blog, Chris Brogan gives his take on the essential skills of this all around champion, cheerleader and ambassador who, among other things, must obviously steer any social media effort. It still seems to me to just be another PR role with a specific set of responsibilities, but some people will jump at any chance to decorate their business cards with a catchy new job title.
Gone in seven seconds
Getting and holding the attention of big-wig, heavy-hitting media types means doing one’s homework and preparing to make the most of a seven-second opportunity before picking up the phone. Talia Andrews from Fusion PR offers some pointers.
Viral buzz
Lastly, over at The Buzz Bin, social media consultant Mack Collier talks about viral marketing, what he considers to be valuable social media tools and how likely it is that all the social media tools that are so hot today will prove to be flashes in the pan tomorrow.
By Leo Valiquette
I recently commented on a blog post of Piaras Kelly’s about why people hate networking, which in turn spawned an interesting exchange between me and author John Cass on maintaining one’s network (see comment section to the right).
Today’s fresh contribution to the art and science of networking is this insightful piece on the subject from Chris Brogan. Enjoy.
By Leo Valiquette
Since joining the inmedia team after almost a decade working in traditional media, I’ve been somewhat bemused by all the talk in the blogosphere of the impact of social media. Traditional media is withering away, some would have us think, in favour of content driven by the people for the people. The mass communication tools of Web 2.0 (whatever that really is) have empowered citizen journalism like nothing else could.
It’s the next generation of that same old video-killed-the-radio-star debate that’s been going on since, well, the advent of video. I heard it when I went back to school for journalism in the late 1990s. I lived it for eight years at a weekly business publication where the web wasn’t considered a threat, but a boon in the daily challenge of keeping on top of breaking news when your product hit the street only once a week. In that context, the web was the great equalizer. We enjoyed consistent, strong web traffic because our readers saw the paper as a trusted source of news and insight that was relevant to them.
I’ve blogged on this before, that being viewed as a trusted source of news will become even more important, not less so, in this age of citizen journalism. There is no doubt that traditional media is being forced to give some ground before a new challenger, but for the forseeable future they will co-exist.
This fact is readily apparent when one looks at the reach and influence of the trade and industry press that we target for our media outreach efforts on behalf of clients. As I write this, I’m in the final days of assuming Linda’s responsibilities before she heads off on maternity leave. The number of newsletters she subscribes to in order to keep her finger on the pulse of the news and issues relevant to her clients is astonishing. These are influential and widely read publications that we can’t afford to ignore if we are to provide the high degree of client service that inmedia prides itself on. And yes, there are influential bloggers among them, but many of those bloggers are still journalists working for a traditional media channel.
While the death of traditional media has been exaggerated, so too has the demise of traditional public relations and marketing efforts. In fact, shops like Social Media Group and Livingston Communications purport to focus exclusively on social media marketing and communications. In announcing the merger of the two agencies this week, Livingston CEO Geoff Livingston told PRWeek that agencies that attempt to provide both social and traditional media outreach end up selling their clients short because doing both “hampers their thinking.”
Huh?
That’s brand positioning speak if I ever heard it. Maybe I’m old-school and my perspective on the matter betrays archaic thinking, but I still think all these channels that fall under the heading of “social media” are just another set of tools to be integrated into a larger public relations and marketing strategy, not a strategy in and of themselves to be focused on to the exclusion of all else. And wiser souls much more savvy with this stuff than I agree. You engage with one or more of these channels because it makes sense to do so, because you’ve been able to confirm that they will allow you to engage in a fresh and impactful way with a specific segment of your community you have deemed important to your business growth and development. It must be much more than “let’s do social media because it’s all the rage right now,” or “drop Facebook, I’ve heard about this new thing called Twitter.”
Bottom line, no one knows for sure how the prevalence of social media will impact traditional media, or traditional public relations for that matter, over the long term. But even the telegram is still around, so that should tell us something. The only thing we can say with any certainty is that the message remains more important than the medium and being able to create a clear and impactful message will always be key.
By Leo Valiquette
Over at ReadWriteWeb, there’s an interesting discussion underway about the concept of a “community manager” and the need for this entity early on at a startup company.
The question, however, is whether this job description is simply an extension of the PR department or a separate, if complimentary, position. In addition, in the early days of a startup, how much money should be devoted to this kind of role when cash is scarce and the company founder should be taking a leading role in cultivating the company’s community?
If you look at any component of a comprehensive and strategic public relations strategy, having a person dedicated to a particular role or set of responsibilities is definitely more effective than a scattergun approach in which one person is challenged to wear several different hats. In addition, how you manage relationships with your community should also be conveyed in a philosophy that is permeated throughout the entire culture of your organization at every level.
What do you think?
