Killing Press Releases: Ragan

Lawrence Ragan Communications, Inc. (Ragan) is considered by many to be the leading publisher of corporate communications, public relations, and leadership development newsletters. Today, it began promoting a new webinar, teasing with journalist Tom Foremski's famous 2006 blog post: "The press release is dead."

Is the press release dead? Not dead, perhaps, but wounded. Certainly social media has caused public relations professionals to reevaluate many long-standard practices, including the press release (though I prefer the term "news release").

Going further, public relations professionals have been busy developing a new standard, which Ragan and some others call the "social media release." According to their webinar description, this standard takes into consideration blogs, RSS technology, and the emerging breed of citizen journalists.

Personally, it seems to me that what we're seeing in communication is a random mutation in one species, but that is not to say that other species are extinct. Right now, news releases, "social media" releases, and corporate blog entries can all be employed strategically for different purposes. A quick example: a company can send out a new release to traditional outlets, include a variation to select bloggers, and then augment the information with personal comment by executives or other team members on their respective or shared blogs. (Or sometimes, maybe some "news" or semi-interesting tidbit is not fit for traditional media, but is certainly suitable for a blog. The other way around works too.)

Looking back over some recent commentary, maybe that was part of the answer in the recruiting world: perhaps Jobster's initial communication to address media speculation was more fitting for a news release and TalentZoo's "jab Jobster" news release more fitting for a blog entry.

Or, if you prefer, using Cisco and Apple as an example, as they seem to be right in step with this thinking: Apple sends out a release on the iPhone; Cisco sends out a release about its lawsuit. Then, Cisco augments its argument on its blog and Apple addresses the lawsuit with analysts, which is then filtered to social media outlets.

Regardless, there seems to be no argument that corporate communication and public relations is changing. The only question now is what to do about it. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the Ragan webinar.

In the interim, I'll be telling some professionals tonight that it is not enough to be a "public relations" practitioner. Nowadays, you have to think like a journalist, act like a business strategist, and write with the passion of a creative writer. And, given social media today, appeal to the casual reader who just happens to visit from time to time.

Ratcheting Up The Language: iPhone

If you think corporate image and brand positioning should be consistent, then no one can accuse Cisco and Apple of not knowing who they are in their public battle over the "iPhone" trademark. The language their executives use in discussing the iPhone trademark dispute tells a story behind the story.

"We've been following our iPhone trademark issue in the blogosphere closely and it's been interesting to see the commentary from some posters suggesting that somehow Cisco either in the US or Europe didn't meet the requirements to maintain the iPhone trademark. Our response is pretty simple: We have met all elements required by all authorities to maintain our mark. We've been pretty direct about the fact that we've been shipping the iPhone since last spring." — John Earnhardt, Cisco, on their blog.

"It's silly." — Tim Cook, Apple, about Cisco's lawsuit during a conference call with analysts today. He also noted how several companies use the same iPhone name for their Internet-based phones.

Asking Strategic Questions: Maister

David Maister recently posed a great question over at Passion, People and Principles: what does a company need most? And then he lists: mission, vision, values, direction, culture, rules and obligations, or purpose.

Since I have two answers and needed additional space beyond the confines of a comment box, I thought I would reintroduce the question here.

Although I’ve worked with dozens of start-ups and venture capital companies, one of the better models I’ve seen was not presented by a client. It was presented by L. Robert Kimball & Associates, an architectural and engineering company, who lent it to the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) a few years ago. The graphic on this page provides the basic concept, but I’ve adapted some terms to better suit my needs.

Anyway, NENA gave me this strategic plan model because I was about to conduct what I call a “core message system” session for the association, and several board members were unclear where a “core message system” might fit within the scope of a strategic plan.

So where does it go? I explained that it fits comfortably in one of two places: a core message system can be implemented as part of a communication plan at the strategic level (strategy). Or, it can positioned to precede values, making it the "foundation for the foundation." But the decision, where it fits best, is largely based upon where the executive team wants to implement it.

The difference between either location, in terms of outcome, is the potential benefit to the organization. Some companies prefer to limit the “core message system” to their communication plan while others want it to infuse into other aspects of their company or organization, ranging from hiring practices to product and service innovation.

After considering this, the board members commented that it seemed more fitting to call the process a “core values session.” With so many business terms being bandied about today, I agreed. For you, I said, it’s core values.

In all honesty, I probably would call it “core values” all the time if not for the simple fact that most business executives balk at the idea that some guy wants to monkey around with their core values. (It’s hard enough to add “strategic” to their “communication.”)

But then again, I never put too much weight on semantics. Instead, I listen to each company’s language and adapt. From what I’ve seen in the field, the difference between a purpose, mission, and vision is all in the eyes of the audience, which brings me back to Maister’s question.

Technically, you can’t choose just one because they are all interconnected. However, if I was going to force an answer, I would lean toward core values.

The only problem in doing so is that we fall into a trap of which comes first: the chicken or the egg?

More to the point, does our culture influence our values or do our values influence our culture? But what about our mission? Mission? Isn’t that dated? Everybody is using “purpose” nowadays. Dated? You mean like stone-washed jeans? I thought we were talking about business? You know, where are going? Ah, vision?

What a mess! I think this is precisely why I fell in love with what I call the core message (but you can call it something else if you like).

I have a much better definition, but for this post, let's say: It’s a process that pulls together key stakeholders (usually defined by the CEO), who are already immersed in the existing corporate culture, to reach a consensus about the company as it exists and will exist in the world. From this understanding, it's easier to establish values. And from values, it's easier to define a purpose, mission, and vision (or direction, I suppose).

Of course, this assumes we’re applying the core message as the foundation for the foundation. As I said earlier, you don’t have to. A communication department can limit a core message to communication with equal success.

So my second answer is a core message system, because it considers everything, including the environment in which the company operates and it's competitors. Of course, since few people have heard of it, I didn’t want to make it my first answer. Besides, it wasn't even on the list.

In closing, just to add clarity to the quick graphic I pulled together, think of it in its simplest terms, working up the pyramid: core values (foundation); purpose (why); target (where); strategy (what); tactics (how); timing (when); and accountability (who). Or, since this is about strategy as opposed to semantics, plug in your terms and see if it fits.

Courting Brand Value: iPhone

Some writers shy away from attorneys, but I never have. They almost always lend an interesting perspective on communication. Sure, there are a few who get carried away with calling themselves “wordsmiths,” but the one who left a comment on my last Apple vs. Cisco post is not one of them.

If you missed it, Rick suggested the real question will be whether the term iPhone will be considered a trademark or generic term for a type of telephone.

“This question ultimately turns on the understandings of the relevant consumer market,” he wrote, “So I expect Apple and Cisco to introduce consumer surveys in addition to evidence from dictionary and media sources and references to the status of other ‘i-noun’ terms.”

If that is the case, it seems to me that Apple’s apparent dominance over “i” anything may carry the day, because the public seems to want the Apple phone to be an iPhone. Likewise, there seems to be public resistance to the Cisco iPhone, even after it was explained that it owned the trademark. Of course, that is a communication observation; a judge could just as easily rule against Apple and that would be that, er, until the appeal.

On the communication front, we ask, to what end? Sometimes you can win a lawsuit but lose consumer appeal.

In attempting to address “what is,” it seems to me that Cisco has two battles on its hands. It wants to win the lawsuit because it acquired the iPhone trademark in 2000 after completing the acquisition of Infogear, which previously owned the mark since 1996. But, I suspect, it also wants to win over public perception that this is the right thing to do.

"Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," said Mark Chandler, senior vice president and general counsel, Cisco. "There is no doubt that Apple's new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission.”

Outside the courtroom, it becomes tricky. First, Ed Bernette at ZD Net wrote an interesting article on the case, noting that Cisco may not own the mark as claimed. Second, in order to sway public opinion on this issue, someone is going to ask under what terms was Cisco willing to grant Apple permission to use the name iPhone. And third, if it was in negotiations over the name, why did Cisco suddenly make a push on a complete line of iPhone products?

According to the aforementioned article, it had to push iPhone products: “If Cisco didn't launch a product using the iPhone name, their trademark registration would be canceled and they would have no bargaining chips with Apple. So in order to keep the trademark active, they had to file the Declaration of Use, and start selling a product under that trademark.”

Add to all this a recent blog post from Chandler: “Was it money? No. Was it a royalty on every Apple phone? No. Was it an exchange for Cisco products or services? No.”

While the post shows how seriously Cisco takes public perception, it also focuses more attention on that other unanswered question: what were the terms that prompted Apple to abandon negotiations and launch an “iPhone” without an agreement? Or was it something else, an eureka moment from Apple’s legal team perhaps, that killed the deal?

At the moment, only a few know. What the public knows is that several people have laid claim to iPhone over the years, including a Toronto-based company that has been marketing voice-over-Internet services under the registered trademark iPhone since 2004 and even has a wireless device called iPhone Mobile.

How a 2004 claim could potentially supersede Cisco’s claim, I am not sure (unless the ZD Net article is right). However, based upon the comment contribution referenced earlier, it could potentially assist Apple if Apple is looking to turn the trademark iPhone into a generic term, which it may or may not do.

What we also know is that Apple and Cisco have appealed their cases to the public; Apple by releasing its product as an iPhone and Cisco by publicly stating it expected Apple was onboard with those mysterious terms. How good a case both sides can make to the public will be decided by the public or perhaps by investors, who never like to hear the term lawsuit associated with their investments, especially when risks seem to outweigh the advantages.

Sure, Cisco is right to challenge Apple over a trademark it considers an asset. Apple is also well within its rights to look for some wiggle room on a name that has been associated with its product concept before it even landed on the drawing board. But given that the courtroom is not the only place both companies have made a case, public perception may weigh in more heavily than the letter of the law. That’s not good, bad, or indifferent — that is "what is."

All the while, both companies have to be careful not to damage their respective brands that have far and away more value than the potential brand value of an “iPhone.”

Missing Noble Causes: Martin Luther King, Jr.

When 250,000 people peacefully marched on Washington, D.C. in 1963, to whom Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his address, "l Have a Dream,” most knew he was a leader of the American civil rights movement, political activist, and Baptist minister.

Most people also knew the march made specific demands upon government, including: a law prohibiting racial discrimination in employment; protection of civil rights workers from police brutality; a $2 minimum wage for all workers; and self-government for the District of Columbia, then governed by congressional committee. His speech, considered one of the greatest addresses in American history, and the outcome of that march, led to King being becoming the youngest man to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (for his work as a peacemaker, promoting nonviolence and equal treatment for different races) in 1964.

A lot can be learned from King, a man who was more interested in promoting civil rights as opposed to censoring those whose aim was to deprive them of those rights. A lot can be learned from the people who followed him to the foot of the Lincoln Memorial, because they understood why they were marching.

Certainly not in every case, today’s activism seems to have changed, and not always for the better. Nowadays, some activists use “we just want to make a point and be heard” as a shield for alternative agendas that their marchers might not understand or agree with.

Addressing “blog swarms” specifically, an activist’s message might be carried forward on thousands of blogs before anyone has gathered the facts. Indeed, the mere volume of posts may make it appear as if the protagonists are telling the truth, even when they are not.

There are many reasons “blog swarms” catch fire, ranging from those who are curious to see why a certain search term has suddenly been driven to the top to those who simply repost an inaccurate recap in order to stack their stat numbers. Even for those who understand a portion of the topic they write about, sometimes the best intentions often bring out the worst behaviors.

Indeed, for these reasons, the phenomenon is probably the most misunderstood and least written about in crisis communication and public relations today. As my class, which usually consists of 15 to 20 students and working public relations professionals, begins this Thursday, it will certainly make for a worthwhile point of conversation in how to apply new and traditional crisis communication strategies to what has possibly become the greatest communicaton threat to businesses today.

Happy birthday, Martin Luther King, Jr. I, for one, miss your message that a true common man could become a civil rights leader, without the benefit of the Internet or anonymity, and move a nation with a noble message that all people, not just some people, could be equal and have a voice.

Missing The Mark: KSFO

If someone ever writes a white paper about why modern media needs strategic communication help from the same “handlers” they used to loathe as the gatekeepers to corporations and public figures, KSFO will certainly be a mention in the lead paragraph. Its message on a 3-hour special broadcast was weak, probably because it didn’t have one.

While I did not listen to the show because it conflicted with a client meeting, I did spend some time reading the various commentaries about it, looking for the relatively few grays in a sea of blacks and whites. Among the best lines anywhere came from Joe Garofoli, staff writer for the San Francisco Chronicle, who called it right when he summed: “The controversy, fueled by liberal bloggers, showed the increasing power of new media to affect traditional outlets by going after their advertisers.”

Indeed, the landscape has changed and, for better or worse, traditional media has been the slowest to respond. You see, it used to be that the media (both objective reporting and op ed writers/broadcasters) was charged with the responsibility of “setting the agenda” for local, state, regional, and national discussions. Their underlying ethical guidelines were simple (much simpler than public relations professionals) because it was their job to “find the truth and shame the devil.”

Certainly, most good reporters follow ethical guidelines that include objective reporting and not accepting bribes, etc. But good reporters, the best of them, also perceive all ethical guidelines as secondary to "getting at the truth" whereas the worst of them, KSFO included, spend too much time trying to “shame the devil,” a label they seem to apply to basically anyone who does not agree with them. (My apologies to good reporters who might take exception to seeing radio talk show hosts lumped in with them.)

As I said, the landscape has changed and Julian Seery over at Exceler8ion presents some good points for newspapers to consider. More to the point: in today’s world, there seems to be an underlying movement by bloggers to take over the media’s job of “setting the agenda,” with the net result being that any biased reporting and reckless shaming the devil will be ever more scrutinized by a public that has much more power to communicate than a letter to the editor or calling into a talk show.

It seems the old adage “never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel and paper by the pound” is dead or dying. Today’s social media is only limited by the time it takes to post anything it wants: objective, biased, or completely polarized. With increasing fervor, every day, traditional media is finding that it is being subjected to the same scrutiny it is used to subjecting upon its topics of interest. Given KSFO’s performance on Friday, as well as many other examples out there, it seems to me that the media is not prepared for the job.

From a communication perspective, KSFO chose the wrong messages to make its case. The idea that a critic could not campaign against it was naïve, especially because it has campaigned against other people. The argument that its rival is anonymous was ludicrous, given that the media has long protected anonymity when it serves its purpose. And the concept that it can choose “not to address the subject again” is hypocritical, given the media shames people into talking about things they don’t want to talk about every day.

KSFO would have been better served to craft a message that was much more powerful and readily at its disposal.

First and foremost, its people needed to apologize for the threat of the lawsuit, recognizing that their rival does have a right to campaign against their show, although perhaps mentioning it was an attempt to teach someone a lesson between the difference of being a critic and attempting to censor critics (which is what Melanie Morgan herself learned a few years ago).

Second, they could have mentioned that their critic is equally guilty of colorful and hateful language, pointing out that he is sometimes a hypocrite in his argument (it seems as if they never read his blog ).

Third, admit that they have, at times, been radically harsh in their criticism but that must not overshadow Charles Bradlaugh’s warning that it is “Better a thousand abuses of free speech than the denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial stays in the life of people.”

Last, but not least, that despite what people say during passionate discussions about their beliefs, we can all agree to disagree on these overly polarized issues. As Australian-born Robert Hughes once wrote years ago: “If they (Americans) are fraying now, it is because politics has, for the last twenty years, weakened and in some areas broken the traditional American genius for consensus, for getting along by making practical compromises to meet real social needs.”

The one line remains as haunting to me as the first time I quoted it in 1994. It haunts me because none of the players in this debate has ever heard it. How could they? They are too busy yelling at each other. And that is something for all members of the media to keep in mind as they make a choice: do you want to get back into the business of “geeting at the truth” or do you want to join the ranks of millions who enjoy yelling about their polarized issues on blogs, vlogs, and broadcasts?

I hope you pick the former, because if the media (print and broadcast) continues to simply join in the shouting matches or host them, then who will be left to find the truth? Obviously, no one in the case of Spocko vs. KSFO.