Integrating PR: How Media Relations Has Changed

A few days ago, one of the local restaurants we work with was reviewed by the area's most critical reviewer at the largest area daily. The review was a pleasant surprise. While the general manager sends out news releases from time to time, he hadn't lately.

There was no release. There was no pitch. Instead, what prompted the reviewer to visit was the consistent stream of direct-to-public communication across the restaurant's social media program. There was no other communication, which made me think about how media relations has changed.

Traditional Media Relations For Restaurants.

A public relations firm would prepare all the necessary content for the restaurant, sometimes in the form of a media kit. And then, depending on the retainer, it would either pitch or send press releases to area dailies to secure a review. Sometimes it would over communicate the need, especially if it counted column inches as justification for the retainer.

Eventually, the reviewer (hopefully not aggravated by the constant contact), would visit the restaurant on one unspoken condition. Once they entered the restaurant, all claims of being influenced by the relationship were off. Only the quality of the food, decor, and service would remain.

If the restaurant was having a good day, the review would be positive and the public relations firm would claim credit. If the restaurant was having a bad day, the review would be negative and the public relations firm would wash its hand of responsibility while counting those negative impressions as having the same value as positive impressions.

Regardless of the positive or negative nature of the review, the public relations firm would also be charged with making sure all the background information and necessary photos were delivered (unless the reviewer took pictures and/or arranged a photographer after the fact). And, once the review ran (assuming it was positive), everybody — meaning the firm and the restaurant owners — would throw up their hands in celebratory delight.

And that is where it ends, with exception to public relations professionals finding new ways to convince the reviewer to come back. After all, most restaurants are not going to be reviewed every week (or even written about weekly, despite any news they might think up).

Modern Media Relations For Restaurants.

Today, things can work much differently. A restaurant (possibly with the support of someone who knows social media) can publish direct-to-public communication about any variety of topics related to its cuisine. This is significantly different than press releases and pitches because none of the communication is wasted. All of it goes somewhere.

In addition, these various messages not only reach potential patrons but also provide a direct opportunity for them to engage representatives of the restaurant. And, with almost certainty, some of these people might be journalists (assuming the the social media communicator is savvy enough to connect with them).

There is no pitch. There is no release. It's just a steady stream of positive and valuable communication. There is no pressure on the reviewers. They just read what they want when they want and promptly ignore the rest. Until, one day, they decide to visit.

They review the restaurant, either positively or negatively, based on performance. All the photos and background content are at their fingertips via the Internet. They save time and the publication saves money. No one has to follow up to ask how it went. Everyone will know soon enough when the review is published, and if it isn't published, no one will even notice.

Afterward, there may be an internal celebration. However, the celebration isn't where the communication ends. It's where the communication begins. Because the restaurant has a social media program, it can either explain why a review was bad (if they choose to) or share it with customers that already have a positive relationship with them.

They can also publicly semi-thank the reviewer, simply by being unafraid to share whatever they want. It's the best gift you can give a journalist; they don't want bribes as much as a chance to be read. But even more importantly, they would appreciate a little more attention to what they have written as opposed to when they might write something again.

Some Media Relations Is Built On A Weak Link.

While this does not hold true for all public relations firms (some are good), it does hold true for many. The relationships they claim to have are weaker than most would admit.

While the press release might not be dead (especially as it pertains to news that is not yet public), the dynamic has changed. Journalists, much like anybody, prefer to discover news as opposed to having it pushed at them. And the public, especially those who are engaged, are genuinely happy when restaurants can validate fan experiences with a critical review.

Teaching: How Social Media Changed Everything

Some people are still scratching their heads. Social media changed everything, but they are not quite sure how. Since I began teaching social media as part of communication, I've relied on one simple equation: you have to think of social media as its own environment.

People who are engaged in social media already know it's true. However, for those who don't understand this, it still seems like a foreign idea. They tend to frame up the online experience as a "virtual world" as opposed to "real life." Even my colleagues in social media are prone to stumble. They keep lists of people they met in "real life" as opposed to those they only know online.

It's a mistake. And the reason is simple enough. The environment has changed. And last Friday, I was able to illustrate the point with an example that turned the light on for many participants. It also demonstrates why traditional media is still hemorrhaging subscribers, mostly because many of them are among those who see the Internet as another broadcast channel.

Traditional Media Broadcast Messages Into An Environment.
Sometimes you have to review the past to better explain the present. So, among the slides in my deck, I presented an oversimplified communication model representing the past.


A person (broadcaster) used an expensive technology to transmit messages to a less expensive technology so other people could consume the communication in the environment of their choosing. They might read the paper at the breakfast table, listen to the radio in their car, or watch television on the couch.

Distribution was also limited. Generally speaking, the only way to receive that communication was to not only own but to be actively using a specific reception device. As long as the television was on, they could receive your message. As long as they opened the paper, they received the message. As long as they turned on the radio, they received the message.

But even more important to consider, this message was part of their greater environment. And, once they receive the communication, they might share or discuss that information with people within direct proximity to their environment — the people in their households, friends at the local pub, or maybe around the water cooler.

Social Media Broadcasts Messages Into An Environment.

Social media, on the other hand, dramatically changed the model. While two people still needed devices to broadcast and receive messages, they no longer were disproportionate in their capabilities. Every device that connects to the online environment is equally capable of broadcasting and receiving. That changed the model, and it changed it in more ways than one.


A person (broadcaster) can now use one inexpensive technology to transmit all forms of media to other people who have the same technology, while simultaneously allowing one-on-one communication with any number of people that message reaches.

The potential for one-on-one communication changed the dynamic of the communication because it allowed for engagement, enabling other people to respond to the message in whatever form they wished. The physical environment no longer mattered because the engagement effectively made the "virtual world" the only environment that mattered.

At the same time, a percentage of people who were originally communication consumers became communicator broadcasters, which empowered them to rebroadcast messages, repurpose messages, and critique messages as they felt fit. Some might rebroadcast within the same environment while others (traditional media) would also rebroadcast the original or adapted messages across traditional mediums.

Convergence Will Solidify The Change.

Five years ago, I used to receive plenty of push back on convergence — the day when broadcast would be indistinguishable from the Internet. I rarely receive much push back anymore. The average American spends 32.7 hours per week online, up from 9 hours per week in 2006.

It's happening all around us. I can pick up an iPad and watch programming without even having to plug in to a hardwired location, read my email, create original content, or put it on a larger screen. At the same time, digital is being rapidly integrated into everything from television sets to game consoles. And, as technology continues to converge, you can readily expect the various communication disciplines to converse right along with them.

Eventually, the only difference between one device and another will be the size of the screen and, perhaps, the number of people in any given environment. The reason this is important is because many people talk about social media being a one-to-one communication tool. But it really isn't. Social media is a one-to-many, one-to-niche, one-to-one communication tool at the same time. And that is where communication practitioners need to adjust their thinking.

Shifting Responsibility: Purpose-Driven Brands Over Government

A new study by Edelman shows a significant shift in public expectation as it relates to philanthropy. People are less interested in the government tackling social issues and are more interested in purpose-driven companies becoming better corporate citizens.

Specifically, 87 percent of Americans believe business needs to place equal weight on society's interests as well as business interests. Eighty percent feel corporations are in a uniquely powerful position to make a positive impact for good causes. And nearly two-thirds would like corporations to integrate philanthropy into their daily operations (beyond giving money).

"Cause-related marketing, as we know it, is dead," said Carol Cone, managing director, brand & corporate citizenship, Edelman. "Americans are seeking deeper involvement in social issues and expect brands and companies to provide various means of engagement. We call this the rise of the 'citizen consumer.'"

Is There Really A Rise Of The Citizen Consumer?

Some parts of the study bear this out. Consumers' expectation of government to do the most for good causes has declined dramatically since 2009, while their expectation of "people like me" has jumped. Only 30 percent of U.S. consumers now believe that the government should be doing the most to support good causes, down 11 points from 2009.

There is a reason for this. More than ever before, consumers have come to realize that when government tackles social causes, it must seek funding, which eventually is charged back to the consumer in the form of debt or taxes. As a philanthropic pillar, government is one of the least effective components for social good, because the return on taxpayer investments is diminished compared to corporate grants, individual donations, and direct support.

For example, the amount of one taxpayer dollar is significantly diminished (as much as 80 percent) by the time it reaches a participant when compared to a direct one dollar donation (only about 20 percent, depending on the nonprofit). In addition, people want to be directly involved in giving, with 3 percent believing that "people like me" should be doing the most, up 8 percent from last year. They want the companies who they identify with to do good too.

Where the study falls short is in placing too much emphasis on a study that suggests 47 percent of Americans rank purpose as significantly more important than design/innovation or brand loyalty as a purchase trigger when quality and price are the same. The reason is that if quality and price are the same, then there is no innovation.

The reality is that Americans want two things from companies. They want innovative products and services that do no harm. And they want companies, especially those with hefty profit margins, to do more good.

What they don't want are companies that employ cause marketing as smokescreens, notably the concept of greenwashing. What they do want, which most cannot articulate, are companies that follow a Marc Benioff model. He believes the best charity models include investing one percent of a company's profits into grants and donations, one percent of its time into volunteer efforts, and one percent of its time into equity (e.g., foundations).

The model makes sense. When companies invest in the communities in which they operate, they strengthen the community in which they operate, which eventually leads to more prospects willing to purchase their products (assuming the products have value). Even more importantly, as the study points out, people want to work with companies to get the job done (much more than they want the government involved).

Additional Highlights From The Edleman 2010 Good Purpose Study.

• 79 percent of Americans find it acceptable for brands to support good causes and make money at the same time.
• 75 percent of Americans believe that projects that protect and sustain the environment can help grow the economy.
• 67 percent of Americans support legislation requiring environmental standards even if it negatively impacts profits.
• 62 percent of Americans would pay slightly more for a product (like a beverage) if that money went to good causes.
• 34 percent of Americans would prefer to receive a donation to a good cause as a gift than a friend-picked gift.

The takeaway on this last set of numbers is very telling. People are basically saying that they want companies to become more involved and will reward those companies for doing so. However, if companies do not become involved, then the public is willing to force legislation that will require them to do so.

This study might suggest something else too. As long as companies are not abusing their support of good causes, customers want to know they are involved. While it used to be some strategic philanthropic thinking was to hide donations (rather than boasting), consumers really want companies to speak up and help set an example. Now that's something to think about.

Focusing On Social, Not Media: Fresh Content Project

Every time communicators talk about social media, they tend to talk about social media. In reality, we are really talking about one portion of a communication plan. The reason is simple enough. Social media still seems new and that is where people want to focus.

Keep that in mind when you read these five fresh picks. If you do, you'll have a better understanding of why Malcolm Gladwell was right, why public relations professionals ought to have been clipping content beyond client mentions all along, why mass data collection never seems to match a single customer, and why you are only pretending that B2B and B2C are different. When it comes to people, people are people.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of October 25

• Gladwell Is Right. The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted.
While there were plenty of people who took exception to Malcolm Gladwell's comment that the revolution will not be "Tweeted," Jason Falls takes the time to point out why he might be right. Falls says the primary reason is that the argument was meant to add some reality to the over-inflated sense of importance we give social networks. And, in this case, he is right. Social media does not happen in a vacuum. Unless your communication takes a physical or tangible form, it just doesn't matter.

• Curating Information as Content Strategy.
"Content, which is anything that informs, educates, or entertains online, is your business digital body language," writes Valeria Maltoni. And the importance could not be underscored enough. In a related study, we recently found that that 46 percent of the time, people are looking for topics of specific interest, 39 percent of the time for information, and 37 percent for multimedia, and 55 percent for news. Content consumption IS the primary activity online, despite why people join a social network. Think about that. And then find out from Maltoni why curation is important.

• Marketers, It’s Time To Rethink Target Market Segmentation.
Beth Harte tackles the various graphics — demographics, firmograhics, pyschographics, sociographics, and enthnographics — that marketers look at every day. When you add CRM systems and social media monitoring tools, there is a ton of data that can be pulled and pooled and analyzed. But instead of relying on that data alone, she suggests that marketers pay more attention to audience research analysis. And she is right. The best way to understand your audience is to connect with them and engage them on a regular basis. Besides, sometimes when you ask two questions, you discover different answers.

• The Pre-Holiday Internet Marketing Checklist.
Ian Lurie shares 20 things you could be doing right now, before the holidays, that you probably are not. He touches on almost every aspect of online marketing: scrubbing the house e-mail, fixing the Facebook page, improving site performance, doing SEO homework, fixing broken links, and so on and so forth. It's stuff many content creators never think about (guilty here, but not for clients). But even more importantly than running the list, Lurie specifies some of the stuff that people neglect and makes you want to get busy with it.

• Destroying the 7 Myths of B2B Social Media.
Jay Baer pinpoints some of the myths of B2B marketing in a slideshare presentation that makes sense. Among them: he includes the idea that B2B customers do not use social media, that it's not worth the trouble, and that it seems like a B2C world. Although not included in his slides, almost 90 percent of B2B decision makers are already interacting with personal and professional connections. The question B2B companies might ask themselves is if their prospects are not talking to them online, then who are they taking to?

Consuming Research: What If Popular Identified A Market Opportunity?

"We overdo pretty much everything," Gayle Bessenoff, who teaches psychology, told the Hartford Courant. "There's something about the American Dream that leads to overdoing everything."

It's one of several stories focused in "The Psychology of Overconsumption." The idea came out of research for another class, when Bessenoff noted the increased attention on hoarding and addiction. And she believes the American dream might have something to do with it. She's partly right, claiming the American dream originated as religious freedom, and suggests it is now fruitless.

In actuality, the American dream was first defined by James Truslow Adams in 1931. He said America was a place where citizens of every rank can achieve a "better, richer, and happier life." You can find the idea in the Declaration of Independence. It says that "all men are created equal" with inalienable rights such as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

The American dream Bessenoff is talking about today, is a misunderstanding. That American dream came about in the 1950s when certain items became commonplace as part of the American experience — a suburban home, lawn, car, and television. Basically, the public as a whole decided you could not have happiness without those things.

As the years moved forward, the quest for the new definition of the American dream became a compulsion and entitlement as opposed to something earned. We've added a lot more to the list too — a computer, smart phone, game console, certain services, certain assurances, etc.

More central, it seems to me, is her argument that people identify with not what they do (equally bad) but what they own (like a toothbrush).

How Does It Apply To Marketing And Communication?

If we oversimplify, marketing often comes in one of two forms. Innovate and create demand. Or, out position as a preferred choice. Both hope to establish a brand relationship that people identify with, as it generally solidifies consumer loyalty.

If Bessenoff is mostly right, then she is saying that people allow their things to identify them as much as they identify with their things. But I don't think that is right, except in some cases that I won't get into here.

Most people seem to buy something because it best meets the values or characteristics that they possess, like a hybrid car. Innovation tends to come out of these values too, which is why there is an increased focus on public transportation. And that is why what she is doing might be important to marketing. It helps clarify the thrust. People buy things (besides essentials) because it best meets their values and characteristics.

That seems like a very different class than overconsumption, although I agree with her that some brands are trying to hijack "happiness" into every can, cup, or cardboard box. Overconsumption is something else entirely, and I wish more marketers would pay attention to it. It's because the experience of purchasing the product (or consuming the product) is providing more happiness than the product.

That is something to think about. It could underpin which products or services are inherently weak, giving someone an opportunity to better innovate. Or perhaps, even more importantly, help us understand why popular tends to be less satisfying.

Advertising Negatives: Does It Still Work?

Now that the dust is settling after the midterm elections, it might be safer to consider the advent of negative advertising and whether or not it still works. The answer might be in the middle, with Americans clearly losing their appetite for it.

It's not exclusive to political advertisements. Companies employ them from time to time too, just with less frequency. Chevron clearly has in its campaign to claim that it is different from most energy companies. However, there might be some unintended consequences based on what it says.

What does it say? Oil companies make huge profits. Last year, Chevron made a lot of money. Where does it go? Oil companies should put their money to good use. All that sticks, but not the solution. Let's take a look...


The rest of the message is quickly lost to overlapping and less convicted dialogue, until Chevron is fully branded to the opening negative message. Did you see it? We make huge profits ... Chevron. We should put our money to good use ... Chevron. The economy is bad ... Chevron. It's the kind of strategy that lends itself to all sorts of interpretations, including those with colorful language.


Advertisers need to learn that people tend to associate negative messages with the source as much as the subject. The same can be said about political advertisements that are overtly negative, with some exceptions. But if it will help you to give yourself pause, always consider that negative messages generally stick to the source.

Some candidates learned this the hard way last night, except in Nevada. Front groups still seem to pull the wool over the eyes of Nevada voters. More than $1.7 million in negative ads was lobbied against one candidate from one front group, for example. But since the ad was funded by a front group, the opposing candidate wasn't considered the source.

Of course, both candidates did enter into the mudslinging on their own too. The reason was simple enough. Both of their respective teams knew they could no longer gain likability so they sought only to increase each other's unlikability. Now, neither of them are very well liked. Mission accomplished.

As much as I hate to admit it, negative ads do work, especially in politics. However, they tend to work best if they aren't too personal, too unbelievable (with the exception of humor), or too attached to the source as opposed to the subject. Looking back at the Chevron ad, you can easily see they miss on all three. The spoof, however, hits all three.