Last night I spoke at the Leadership Institute‘s Public Relations School on writing effective press releases. It’s a talk I’ve been giving since 2002, but since then it has obviously changed pretty considerably.
The most significant change has been in the forms a press release has taken. Eight years ago a basic press release was a one-page document written like a news story that was emailed and faxed to a media list, or distributed through a press release service. Today, through formats like social media releases, plus tools like easy blogging and media hosting platforms (like Flickr and YouTube), organizations and campaigns can augment their news releases with all kinds of extras.
And frankly, if they aren’t doing that, they’re missing out.
Just as important, platforms such as YouTube have given long-shot candidates ways to circumvent political reporters reluctant to cover campaigns they don’t believe have much chance of success…Most prominent is Florida, where former House Speaker Marco Rubio, a darling of the “tea party” movement, had nearly 20 times the video views in late May as Gov. Charlie Crist, whom Republican leaders had recruited into the race. Mr. Crist has since fled the Republican Party to run as an independent.
One key element of public relations hasn’t changed, of course: the importance of having a strong, well-framed message. If a tree falls in the forest, and no one’s around to tweet about it, it won’t make the front page – but the tree has to fall first.
Reporters are, rightfully, under more scrutiny now than ever. Back when Thomas started, America’s romanticized view of “the media” was something like a mix of Lois Lane, Carl Bernstein, and Bob Woodward – dogged reporters turning over stones, acting as the clear pane of glass through which normal, everyday people could see the world.
But gradually, reporters (including Woodward and Bernstein) became a part of the equation. Suddenly, people realized that the reporters weren’t just a clear pane of glass, but the entire window, limited in what they showed by their own frame. Sometimes, to see what was really going on outside, you had to look out of several different windows.
News consumers began to understand that the person telling the story affects the story. And news consumers care about that.
That the grand dame of the White House press room was taken down by a citizen journalist – and that it was her own words, rather than any auxiliary commentary, that did her in – speaks to another truth about modern media. The stalwarts like Thomas are less relevant than ever before.
For starters, the best way to win over the American public is not with an English accent. Going back to the 18th century, America, Great Britain, and stuff dumped in the ocean that interrupts commerce have a less-than-stellar relationship. But more than that, it’s clear that the top leaders of BP are not personally invested in the region. They may care a great deal, but they’re from England – it isn’t their home.
Stylistically, the use of still frames is artistically poignant, but doesn’t make the cleanup effort come to life the way video could.
The bottom line is that BP can say very little right now (outside of, “Hey, the oil stopped gushing!”) to mollify a justifiably upset American public. But their strategy of replying from the highest levels of the company with detached sympathy does them no favors.
Web comic XKCD – which chronicles stick figures discussing physics, science fiction, and computer programming – has unwittingly (or possibly wittingly) touched off a mini-controversy on Wikipedia.
The original comic featured a made-up word made up of words that dealt with making up words (with the original words, ostensibly, disproportionately popular on Wikipedia). Don’t be ashamed if that seems tough to follow – any web comic that has an explanatory blog is pretty high-end stuff to begin with. What isn’t tough to follow is that some enterprising fans created a Wikipedia entry for the made up word.
The ensuing debate among Wikipedia users and site editors took 19,000 words and resulted in searches for the word (“malamanteau”) redirecting to XKCD’s own Wikipedia entry. But it illustrates a good cautionary tale for user-generated content: it’s best to have good site rules up in advance in case you want to maintain any semblance of message control down the line.
And it’s also good to keep an eye on Wikipedia. Anyone can edit it, including people who might not have good things to say about you.
YouTube is celebrating not only turning five, but reaching 2 billion views per day. In the decade before YouTube, internet publishing and blogging had become commonplace. But though the internet had long been a place where anyone could put their work out there (as long as they didn’t mind not getting paid for it), YouTube’s video sharing platform – along with technology that made quality video devices cheaper – turned everyone into a video producer. Anyone could be Cecil B. DeMille.
That said, not everyone can effectively communicate on YouTube.
1. Video is now essential to message delivery.
Political communication has always been a matter of telling stories, and no medium can tell a story like video. In 1960, the story of the cool, collected, and telegenic JFK as the harbinger of a new political generation was cemented by his now-famous debate performance; in 2008, the story of Barack Obama as the idealistic, optimistic harbinger of a new political generation was cemented by a music video adapted from one of his speeches that seized upon the phrase, “Yes We Can.”
Politicians can try to position themselves with stump speeches and media appearances, and their surrogates can attempt to provide “objective” support. People believe what they see. That makes effective online video a must-have.
The reality of modern politics is that if you can’t make your case in a YouTube video, you have no chance of winning the hearts and minds of the public.
2. Brevity is art.
Part of the “effectiveness” factor is being able to boil an argument down to the point where it fits in a two-to-five-minute video clip. Case in point: one citizen activist was able, in 1:38, to sum up just how insignificant a 2009 federal budget cut proposal was:
3. The best ideas come from others.
The best part about YouTube is the opportunity for participation from the initiated, regardless of their “official” role. Obama’s nascent 2008 campaign had a lot of energy, yet it was tough for people to discern exactly what kind of change he offered. All Democrats were, in fact, plugging away at that theme after eight years of a Republican administration. But one Obama supporter – whose involvement in the campaign was tangential, though his enthusiasm wasn’t – summed it up by repurposing a famous 1984 Macintosh commercial:
The Obama campaign could not have cut this ad – it’s too direct, and it uses images and clips which are most likely protected by copyright. By supporting user generated content like this, YouTube invited a new level of citizen participation.
4. Compelling content is the most important factor in attracting an audience.
Never has publishing content been easier. Yet because of this, never has it been more important to create quality content: media consumers have plenty of choices.
It’s counter-intuitive: We think of the internet as this highly personalized frontier, where each user has the utmost control over the news he or she reads or the entertainment he or she consumes. Humans are social beings, and the internet augments that.
YouTube’s comments, video responses, subscriptions, and other site tools make it more than a place to post and share media; YouTube is a social network built on user connections.
But more that, YouTube success is based on the ability of an idea to pass from one person to another. High-ranked YouTube videos don’t amass viewers from independent searches, they come from recommendations. It’s the most obvious viral medium.
Of course, not helping was that Senator John Kerry picked a Politico Arena discussion board – ostensibly set up to discuss whether the nominee is too steeped in “Ivy League education and elite positions in government” – to sing Kagan’s praises from their time working together on high stakes tobacco legislation in 1998.
Kagan’s camp could not have asked for a worse messenger with a worse message:
“Massachusetts has been Elena Kagan’s adopted home, but it’s not for such home state boosterism, parochial reasons why I think she’s a terrific choice.
No, it’s because I got to know her well not in Boston, but here in the Senate.”
That’s John Kerry, who connected so poorly with voters in 2004, the poster child for liberal elitism. And his comments have nothing much to do with the topic: he’s essentially adding his two cents to a discussion about Euros – and helped keep alive the notion that Kagan is an insider pick.
TechRepublican points to this pretty cool video about the continued significance of social networking:
The importance of online engagement is nothing new to businesses and politicians – at least, it shouldn’t be. Still, even those who appreciate the power of this communication don’t seem to grasp the underlying principles.
One set of stats stood out from this video: while only 14% of people polled trust advertisements, 78% trust recommendations from friends. Those aren’t necessarily Facebook friends, either; the more technology becomes integrated in our lives, the more it exposes our human nature. We trust people we know more than those we don’t know. Political strategists from the nineteenth century understood the need for voters to hear from local party leaders, and no substitute has ever worked.
Plouffe said the campaign was built using the Internet to engage voters in volunteering, contributing money and “sharing the message” amongst themselves. Connecting these people — not only to the campaign but to each other — helped them build trust with prospective voters they engaged both online and face-to-face.
“There is a lack of trust — in government, in business leaders, in academic leaders, even in faith leaders,” Plouffe said. But, he said, “People trust each other.”
Forget about local – all politics are personal, and always has been.
SNL’s target audience has always tended to be younger, and as such the show must constantly adapt to changing times. Tapping White to host in response to popular demand is a good start, as is the Backstage blog which includes sketches cut at the last minute. But SNL can do even more:
1. More online video content
I don’t know how many times I’ve wanted to make a post using an obscure SNL sketch to make a point. And honestly, there’s no reason (other than to promote DVD sales) for SNL not to have a library of all their sketches available on YouTube. Currently, only select sketches are available.
Aside from my selfish reasons, having every sketch ever made available could be a good business decision for SNL. Old, obscure sketches could become viral sensations when exposed to a new audience. And then there’s the social factor: For many folks, watching SNL is a social activity, and so any sketch can become an inside joke among friends – whether or not it’s a “classic.” An otherwise unfunny 1999 sketch where Horatio Sanz repeatedly screams, “a bear ate my parents!” was pretty lame, but it would get plenty of laughs from some of my UMass chums if I sent them a link to it. You and your friends probably have sketches like that too. SNL is missing out by not tapping into that emotion – it keeps viewers loyal.
By inviting submissions and letting viewers vote on which one should be on TV, SNL can not only build a great interactive relationship with their audience, but also find cheap talent.
Offering a season-long, election-style contest between two good comedic actors for a spot hosting the season finale would not only be comedy gold, but would reach into those actors’ networks – their Facebook fans and Twitter followers would suddenly have a reason to visit SNL’s website, and to recruit friends to do the same.
Despite his stature as a political institution, he was facing an electorate that has soured not only on liberal policies that he has championed, but also on the concept of incumbency.
More important, his opponent was young, telegenic, and media-savvy – the perfect counter – and, more important, was drawing attention from beyond the district. This is the second big story for Sean Duffy in a week, the first being his victory in Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s PAC endorsement contest. Clearly, Duffy would have money and support coming from outside the district from a Republican infrastructure eager to find a fresh new face.
Despite the fact that he looked like a long shot on May 4, Duffy’s campaign had the chance to follow a similar arc to Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts. Running against a senior ideologue from the other party, Duffy could have tightened the polls gradually over the summer and been in position to score a big upset with a late push of volunteers and money from across the country – think online money bombs and remote get-out-the-vote call centers.
All politics are still local – but when the right candidate uses the right technology, a whole lot of people can become local.
Cupp is right to ask the question, but the situation is not a double standard – and media watchdogs would be wise to let this one pass lest they look foolish. Many folks know that Olbermann made his national bones on ESPN. Few know that he was a particularly intelligent and funny sportscaster, even if his encyclopedic knowledge of the 1899 Cleveland Spiders Base Ball Club gave an early glimpse into the pomposity with which he now doles out his nightly “Worst Person in the World” award.
This isn’t to say that Limbaugh should be more like Olbermann, but the fact is that there are plenty of people – large numbers, actually – who don’t watch MSNBC. To them, Olbermann’s image hasn’t been “tainted” by his politics. Olbermann still does sports because he always has done sports – and because, on some level, he’s good at it.
While Limbaugh will always be the “Republican talk radio guy,” Olbermann can still be the guy who pioneered the practice of using catch phrases to narrate sports highlights. That may or not be something to be proud of, but it’s kept him working.
Jim Eltringham 