Archive for the ‘pr marketing’ Category
Ryan Gerding
He Got one Call Right
06.03.10
The baseball world is in an uproar over a badly blown call that ruined a perfect game by Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga. A perfect game is one of the rarest feats in baseball. Though there have already been two this season, in all of recorded baseball history there have only been 20. A pitcher throws a perfect game when he gets every single batter out. No hits, no walks, nobody reaches base. Last night, Galarraga was one out away from a perfect game. History was about to be made. The final batter tapped a slow ground ball to the second baseman, who turned and fired it to Galarraga who was covering first base. First base umpire called the runner safe. The perfect game was ruined. One small problem: he was out. The replay pretty clearly showed that Galaragga had caught the ball well before the runner reached first.
Fans were apoplectic. Online message board and Twitter caught fire. The manager was furious. Galarraga’s teammates berated the umpire as soon as the game was over. The Governor of Michigan has even gotten into the fray. Umpire Jim Joyce, who has been calling games for more than two decades, instantly became the most hated man in baseball. And while there’s no doubt Joyce made a bad call on that play, from a public relations perspective, the next call he made was spot on.
Umpires generally don’t talk to the media. In fact, they almost never do, and especially not immediately after making a controversial–and incorrect call. But Jim Joyce did. Moments after heading to the umpire’s locker room, Joyce agreed to talk to the media. And he did something that crisis communicators and PR pros wish their CEOs and politicians would do more often: he very quickly, very succinctly said, “I made a mistake.”
“It was the biggest call of my career, and I kicked the (stuff) out of it,” Joyce said, looking and sounding distraught as he paced in the umpires’ locker room. “I just cost that kid a perfect game.”– Associated Press
Then, with tears in his eyes, he sought out the pitcher whose perfect game he ruined, gave him a hug and apologized. I’m guessing that Jim Joyce probably hasn’t gotten a lot of crisis communication training. I’m assuming he’s not had many sessions with highly paid media trainers. Yet in a few short moments, he was able to do what most public figures facing intense scrutiny cannot our would not do.
Did it help? Maybe a little. Fans will be fans and I’m certain when Joyce takes the field to umpire today he will be met with a chorus of boos. But perhaps among some of the people whose opinion matters most to Joyce, the anger has been tempered a bit.
Jim Leyland, Detroit’s manager declared after the game (and the apology from Joyce), “the players are human, the umpires are human, the managers are human.” And even Galarraga, the pitcher whose dreams of a perfect game were destroyed, seemed to be taken by Joyce’s response. “You don’t see an umpire after the game come out and say, `Hey, let me tell you I’m sorry. He felt really bad. He didn’t even shower.”
Jim Joyce’s apology for the bad call won’t make the call go away. Nor will it likely keep him from always being remembered as the guy who ruined a perfect game. But maybe, just maybe, the way he handled the situation with honesty and humility, will at least give some folks pause before vilifying a guy who probably feels almost as bad as the person whose dreams he ruined.
Categories: pr marketing
Cindy West
The Love And Hate Relationship We Have With Facebook
05.16.10
I have watched the debate over Facebook Privacy issues all week and it is fascinating. It’s like a feeding frenzy, probably one of the dilemmas of Social Media. From so called “influential’s” canceling their Facebook pages, to let’s burn CEO-Mark Zuckerberg at the stake for his evil intentions. All this consternation triggered by f8 and an exposed foolish chat post. I guess he wasn’t thinking about his own privacy when he posted that.
It shouldn’t come as a big surprise to those of us that regularly surf the internet, but the majority of our data has been collected way before Facebook came to the web. To raise such a fuss now is making ourselves look foolish, since we actually opted in from the beginning. Common sense tells you nothing in life is free. It is illogical to think you can provide a service to millions of people at zero-cost to anyone.
A lesson I learned a while back, is when you get something for free it is easy to get addicted and hard to go without when the owners of that service, decide the free ride is up and now you have to pony up to stay connected. Darn that GM for putting a “free” satellite radio in my car.
And what’s been the upside? I have met some amazing people on Facebook. I have connected with relatives I haven’t seen for years and my classmates from 19XX…(gotta go to Facebook if you want me to share that!) People have reunited with each other, all possible because of Facebook. Since when have you had so many friends?
Want PRIVACY? You’re in control because you are the one that hits UPLOAD & SHARE. By adjusting your settings you decide whom you want to share it with and what others can share about you. And if it goes beyond that…maybe you shouldn’t have posted it to begin with.
I agree with one thing. Facebook could make the privacy settings easier to navigate. And those oversized pop-up ads are a little much. I would ask that they be balanced on the side of the page and not allowed to exceed the width of the column.
But seriously, if you truly want to have an opt-in or opt-out on privacy, then maybe Facebook should become a platform for which you pay. Although, you could always go back to typing emails. Now there’s a fail-safe platform for privacy.
Here’s my revolutionary suggestion if you really and truly value your privacy …don’t post it. I have a friend, quite intelligent and very social, but has never once communicated via email or ever made an online purchase…and certainly doesn’t socialize on Facebook. He’s digitally disconnected, but content.
But for me a life without Facebook… would be frankly…boring.
Categories: pr marketing
Dick Grove
Five ways Pay-for-Performance PR is Misunderstood
04.25.10
Making a list and checking it twice…
In a recent “PR Post” by Aaron Kwittken, he lists Seven Stupid Reasons to Not Hire a PR Firm; and overall, Aaron is pretty insightful in his thoughts and advice. Except for one rather striking instance…his counsel to avoid agencies that charge on a per media placement basis, i.e., in his words, “smile and dial factories.” He goes on to claim that if you are so stupid to do so, you will likely be sacrificing “the quality of the pitch and the quality and relevance of the outlets being targeted” …that PR firms “should be compensated instead for their strategy and time spent on your behalf.” Really, Aaron?
I’m afraid that instead of giving sound advice on this point, he is at worst showing his own “stupidity” but at best he is simply falling in line with many in our industry that misunderstand how “Pay-for-Performance” PR works and how it is practiced by reputable firms, including my own. It occurred to me, maybe it’s time to make list of the ways Pay-for-Performance PR can be misunderstood…
1. Defining Pay-for-performance PR: To start, Pay-for-Performance PR goes by many names and probably an equal number of ways it is practiced….”Pay for results,” “Incentive based compensation,” “pay for play,” and even now the acronym, “P4P.” All basically mean that a client is charged primarily for actual media placements…print, broadcast, and online…and not just for the effort of “trying” or “giving best effort” or simply “establishing a relationship” to be capitalized on later. The amount charged will vary from firm to firm and the model may change as well with some firms charging by individual placements and others with bundled or even bonus amounts for levels of coverage. One thing stays the same however, firms like ours believe that there should be a high degree of accountability in both what we charge and when we charge our clients.
2. Why hire a P4P PR firm? For the exact same reasons that Aaron points out in his prelude…”brand awareness, thought leadership, increased executive visibility, and crisis communications preparedness.” I might add a couple more however…making the phone ring and investor awareness. And all of these reasons (including to a great degree, crisis communications) entail getting positive media coverage. Yes, PR firms get hired for many differing reasons, but they inevitably and ultimately get fired for one reason…not getting consistently positive media coverage. It makes sense to start with a PR firm that puts that as a priority and add other core services as needed…with the added benefit of accountability.
3. But what about strategic counsel, messaging, and research? Successful, experienced P4P firms know that they won’t stay that way long if they haven’t done their homework with both the client and the media. A thorough understanding of a client’s goals, their company, their products, and their management is as imperative as understanding the media that can best convey the client’s messaging to its important audiences. If a PR firms’ income is based on successfully getting this messaging placed, that firm will go to extraordinary lengths to see it fills both the clients needs, but also the media’s. “Sacrifice the quality of the pitch and the relevance of the outlets being targeted…” I don’t think so. The best part however, is all of this strategic counsel and research is not on an ever-expanding hourly fee, rather it is included in the pricing of the resulting media placements.
4. Will client service be sacrificed? Certainly not in the areas of strategic counsel, research, etc. as described in point three. But if one defines client service as lots of superfluous meetings, phone calls, unnecessary production of materials, all usually charged by the hour, then for sure. P4P PR firms are by definition focused on the most important thing and the most tangible deliverable a client ultimately wishes…positive awareness in the media most important to its key audiences. Client service is focused on real value for the client and not on billable hours.
5. Is Pay-for-Performance PR ethical? We believe it is the most ethical and fairest way to charge a client. Since when did accountability and charging for actual tangible results become unethical? Guaranteeing results either in general or worse, specifically by media, is not only unethical, but also impossible; and any firm doing so deserves to be ridiculed and driven out of business. Almost as bad however, are those traditional PR firms that charge exorbitant hourly fees for nothing more than effort month after month with little to no results. Experienced P4P PR firms that have been practicing this compensation model successfully for many years believe client value is best determined through experience and effort resulting in tangible results…and charged accordingly.
Categories: pr marketing
Ryan Gerding
Why is this so controversial?
04.05.10
There’s been a lot of talk lately about proposals to tie the pay of public company executives with how well the companies they lead actually perform. This “pay for performance” model is apparently new to the world of executive pay. And in some cases is so controversial that media folks covering it have been given some pretty nasty treatment.
Consider CNBC’s Jane Wells, who was actually booted off the property of at KB Home shareholder meeting because she was there to cover several proposals to tie the pay of their executives to company performance. Seriously?
I guess I can’t say it surprises me that the notion of paying people based on how well they do their job is seen as controversial in some circles. Our unique pay for performance model of public relations has been ridiculed, shunned, and flat out trashed by people who either don’t understand the concept or are afraid that the way WE work might cause their clients to wonder if bloated retainers based on hourly fees makes a lot of sense.
In what other industries would paying people more when they do well and less when they don’t be seen as controversial? Or to put it another way, in what other industries does it make sense to pay people for ‘trying really hard’ rather than…actually…doing….something? Try THAT the next time you go through the drive through. The video below explains it quite nicely.
Categories: pr marketing
Ryan Gerding
Making TV “Magic”
03.11.10
I’ve spent a good chunk of my ‘professional’ life around and in front of TV cameras. For eight years I worked as a local TV reporter, anchor, and photographer: doing everything from standing in front of the camera to lugging the camera around myself. And for the last seven years I’ve been working to try to get my PR clients in front of the camera. When we get one of our local Kansas City clients on TV, I love to tag along.
Yesterday, David Brain, the CEO of INK client Entertainment Properties Trust had a live interview with Fox Business Network. As we waited in the studio for his segment to start, I was struck by how far television technology has advanced in the years since I started working in TV. As you’ll see in the clip below, our ‘studio’ was nothing more than a conference room with a couple lights. And look at the size of the camera on top of the tripod. It’s so tiny! I know it’s a sign of old age when you start using phrases like, “back in my day…”, but here goes anyway. Back in my day, the cameras were huge. Enormous. And sometimes they were connected to a large tape deck that you had to carry around, too. It’s amazing how much more compact the cameras have gotten, and the video quality has actually improved.
The other thing that’s amazing to me is that these types of interviews no longer require a full on studio with thousands of dollars in expensive and heavy lighting. The lights have gotten smaller but the quality remains high. Advances in technology are going to completely change journalism. Smaller and cheaper and better equipment is removing the barriers to entry. Heck the video you just watched was shot with my cell phone. Now practically anyone can become their own online video news outlet. And I believe that more voices, more sources, more options for news consumers is a good thing.
Of course, big camera or small, you’ve still got to have a good story to tell (that’s where we PR folks come in), and you’ve got to have a good ‘messenger’, too. In our case, we’ve got one of the best.
Categories: pr marketing
Subscribe to P4P!
Videos
INKster Photos
Via our RSS Feed.