By Lori Russo, on April 27th, 2012
The following is excerpted with permission from PRNews. 
In case you’ve forgotten, LinkedIn is rife with opportunities to increase brand awareness. Not only can PR professionals build a community of customers and clients, they can connect with journalists and media on the site. Perhaps its targeted engagement capabilities are taken for granted.
It’s time, now, to put down your iPhone and stop Instagramming your latest Pinterest pin, for just a minute, and see how LinkedIn can boost your PR efforts. Social Media Summit/Taste of Tech speaker Lori A. Russo, managing director of Stanton Communications, covers four areas of opportunity.
1. Message Control – LinkedIn does a great job of auto-populating content in your profile and your company page, but relying on default language doesn’t do you any favors. By making a few small changes, you can position yourself and your company higher in search results. “Use language describing your expertise rather than listing your job title in your personal headline. Change phrases in your bio that no one would ever search for, like “Company Web site” and “Blog,” to more descriptive terms like “Baltimore PR firm” and “PR and Strategic Comms Blog,” says Russo. Finally, you have the option of editing and adding to your company page, so do it. “Customizing the content and adding ‘Services’ tabs enables you to differentiate your page from many of the others out there,” says Russo.
2. Research Prospects – If you are pitching a new piece of business or creating a list of prospects to proactively pursue, LinkedIn is a valuable tool for identifying mutual connections that could help you in the process. “Asking a shared point of contact for an introduction is perfectly acceptable if you explain why you are looking to connect,” says Russo. “Also, professional bios often include personal interests that can be used to spark a discussion.”
Click here to read the full article in PRNews.
By Cathy Imus, on April 26th, 2012
The world of journalism recently suffered a great loss with the passing of veteran 60-Minutes broadcaster Mike Wallace. Known for his gruff demeanor and tough interview style, his name could strike fear into the heart of anyone who had ever served in the role of company spokesperson. Thanks to his reputation as a relentless interviewer, Wallace is no doubt partially responsible for the reluctance of many communications professionals even today to take on the role of media spokesperson. For those old enough to remember footage of Wallace cornering a company executive outside corporate headquarters with a camera and an accusatory question, it is no small wonder that many people are fearful of talking with a journalist.
 Click Here to View Some of Mike Wallace's Most Notorious Interviews Yet, talking to reporters does not have to be a source of anxiety. Media interviews represent a terrific opportunity for individuals and organizations to get their messages out to the public. As a conduit for our clients’ messages, reporters will always play a critical role in the public relations business. That is why it is so important that we make sure our clients are fully prepared to take on the role as a media spokesperson. And if talking to a reporter causes a client to break out into a cold sweat, it is our job as professional communicators to eliminate that fear. We do that through media training.
Not surprisingly, few people actually enjoy the experience of media training. Some actively resist. Others take the passive aggressive no-time-in-their busy-schedule approach. Still others reluctantly agree, only to suffer anxiety attacks in the days leading up to the session. Yet media training is the single best way to prepare for working with the media.
Spokesperson training boils down to three simple things: preparation, planning and practice. The purpose of training, whether through a formal session with cameras rolling, or an informal Q&A over the phone, is to show potential spokespeople how to prepare by anticipating the way an interview may unfold, to plan in advance how to most effectively handle challenging questions, and to practice delivering their key points.
The most effective media training is designed to simulate a real life exchange between two individuals with sometimes very different agendas. The reporter, whose goal is to prepare a piece that supports his/her basic story premise; and the spokesperson, who has a very specific point to get across that may or may not mesh with the reporter’s objective. Simply rehearsing key message points is always good practice, but the real value of a media training session comes from having a direct interaction with another person who will actively challenge you. In real life, it is the reporter who is the source of that challenge; in media training, it is the trainer who does the challenging, oftentimes with much greater intensity than a real reporter.
The intensity of the exchange is what helps prepare the spokesperson for even the most difficult of interview sessions. Media training sessions represent a concentrated form of preparation that puts the spokesperson into situations specifically designed to mimic real-life interviews. Through a series of mock interviews that typically include softball questions, hardball questions, and totally out-of-left-field questions, the trainee gains a sense of what he or she may encounter, as well as how to maintain focus. That preparation and practice, in turn, serves to provide a real psychological boost in the form of confidence that stems from learning how to successfully handle an interview situation.
The knowledge of what to expect, along with the preparation and practice that media training provides, increases a spokesperson’s sense of control during an interview. Along with that increased control comes less anxiety and greater confidence. The combination of preparation, control, and relaxed confidence – achieved through media training – can turn the reluctant spokesperson into a great spokesperson who thrives in even the toughest media interviews. Even if the interviewer turns out to be the next Mike Wallace.
By Peter V. Stanton, on April 12th, 2012
Originally published in the April 2012 issue of PRWeek.
We heard a lot about the historical significance of the 2008 presidential election, but this year’s campaign is equally so.
For the first time in more than a century, corporations and unions are able to donate as much money as they like to help a candidate win the nation’s highest elected office. Not everyone is pleased by this, particularly the growing ranks of citizens who hold a skeptical view of corporate influence in the public arena.
 The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision held that the First Amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions. While this galvanized public opinion about corporate and union spending, it also opened a new realm of significant PR challenges for those making such contributions. In 2010, Target saw these risks firsthand when it faced boycotts for giving $150,000 to a business group that supported a Minnesota gubernatorial candidate.
Target justified its donation by saying it agreed with the candidate’s economic policies. Unbeknownst to it at the time, the politician also opposed gay marriage, a view in conflict with Target’s record on LGBT issues and antithetical to the interests of some customers.
Target’s support of a controversial social position was inadvertent, so it was fairly easy to recover. It apologized, explained that the appearance of support for the candidate’s position on gay marriage was unintentional, and promised to vet contributions more carefully.
The challenge for companies now will be to explain their intentional support of economic policies that might be perceived as being at odds with the interests of vocal segments of their customer base. It’s a dangerous mix – this combination of greater corporate participation at a time when the Occupy Wall Street message of inequality and corporate overreach remains fresh in the collective consciousness.
Many large companies have published policies guiding their political contributions. But, too often, the legalese does little to ease public concern. Companies must say more about how their political contributions help Main Street. Making a case for supporting policies that lead to greater job creation is a good start. Getting the policy right and then communicating thoughtfully about it not only displays a sensitivity to the varied interests at play, but reduces the risk of a backlash that could negate any benefits of a political win.
Copyright (C) Haymarket Management Publications Limited
By Patrick Brady, on March 26th, 2012
As the Supreme Court gathers to hear the first of three days of arguments on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as: PPACA; ACA; Obamacare; and, a variety of other pejorative names), journalists, health policy experts, elected officials, and motivated activists are eagerly gathering outside the Court. Some are interested in the policy while others are there to contribute to the spectacle surrounding one of the most highly contested issues of our time. The ruling, which is expected in mid-summer, will jolt the presidential campaigns and, without a doubt, fire up activists across the political spectrum. Finding clarity on whether the law as written is good or bad policy will take years (we all have our opinions), but the complexities of the law and the passions it inspires are apparent to any casual observer.
But why does it inspire such passions?
Because health care is different. With total health care expenditures in excess of $2.5 trillion representing nearly 18 percent of the United States’ Gross Domestic Product, health care touches every person, company and level of government. Individuals and families confront health care issues on a daily basis as they struggle with premiums and out of pocket costs, address illness, or seek to help an older loved one. Companies see health insurance costs rise for current workers and retirees as a disjointed delivery system contributes to greater “presenteeism” among workers seeking to coordinate care for themselves and sick family members.
Government at all levels continues to struggle with maintaining critical services, controlling health care costs, funding employee benefits, containing state Medicaid budgets or addressing Medicare. Increasingly health care costs are the nexus between individual financial security, corporate competitiveness and long term, government solvency. And, in many cases, access to care is the difference between life and death. That is why health care is different.
Yet, as these challenges compel action on health care reform, we cannot ignore that innovations in health care driven by medical and information technology as well as pharmaceutical and biotechnology advances offer current treatments and the potential for future advances that once seemed unthinkable. While expensive, for people struggling with a chronic disease, a rare illness, or a degenerative health condition, technology and medical advancements offer hope for a better life. Some see health reform as a threat to progress and hope while others see it a guarantor of them.
It may seem simplistic to say health care is different, but the list of issues that are of vital concern to individuals, families, corporations of all sizes, as well as local, state, and federal governments are very limited. Whether you watch this week’s spectacle at the Supreme Court as a patient, an employer, or just a professional communicator looking to steal a few ideas on how to get a message to break through, remember it is truly one of the great issues of our time. Very few others can match it for size, cost, complexity and the acutely personal effects it has on our daily lives.
By Julie McKinney, on February 1st, 2012
Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation, the breast cancer research fundraising giant that proudly places its pink label on everything from yogurt lids to blenders, is in hiding today.
 News outlets and social media sites are buzzing about the breast cancer awareness group’s decision, announced yesterday, to stop providing funds to Planned Parenthood centers for breast cancer examinations and other breast health services. The organization says funding was pulled because of new criteria that forbid it from funding any organization under government investigation. The investigation, led by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla), is examining whether Planned Parenthood uses public money to fund abortions.
Nineteen Planned Parenthood programs are funded by the Komen Foundation, according to the Planned Parenthood website. These programs provide women with breast health education, screenings and referrals for mammograms. Planned Parenthood statistics in an Associated Press story reveal that Komen grants funded nearly 170,000 breast exams over the past five years.
Tweets, blog posts and Facebook rants are pouring in by the second about Komen’s decision to pull the funding. Overwhelmingly negative emotions are being directed at the organization on these platforms. At the same time, Komen remains mum on Twitter and was late to the game on Facebook. The issue isn’t addressed on its homepage, and a statement is nowhere to be found in the media center.
While it seems Komen executives may be doing selective media interviews, the organization’s general public silence leaves the impression it is hiding from all the commenters who are taking the story viral. The online community is emphatic on the resulting conclusion – politics played a role here.
In deep contrast to Komen’s response, Planned Parenthood has put the controversy front and center on its website. The site, and its partnering websites, share a response to Komen cutting funds. The organization went beyond just responding to the news. It included personal stories from breast cancer survivors into its response, who may not be alive without Planned Parenthood’s screenings. This personal touch drives home the importance of breast cancer screenings for everyone, something that Komen is denying women through its denied funds to Planned Parenthood.
Whether you agree or disagree with how Komen handles money, and even if you don’t support all of Planned Parenthoods services, one thing is clear when examining this from a communications standpoint: When you’re under fire, frequent, open communication is critical. Politically driven or not, Susan G. Komen for the Cure made this decision itself. It should have had a plan in place for a more aggressive response, and we should be hearing more from them now. Given prior history, the damage from its mishandling of the communication will likely be long lasting.
|
|
