Producing Better Writers: Public Relations Or Advertising?

When Andrew Fowler followed my integrated communication post by asking whether advertising could replace public relations, it opened a related sub discussion worth some attention.

Does Advertising Or Public Relations Have Better Storytelling Skills?

Fowler set the stage by offering up that he thought "people in advertising are better at telling interesting stories." Ike Pigott was the first to question the idea, offering "[people in advertising] don’t have better storytelling skills, and are often much poorer writers. Often." And then David Meerman Scott added "brand journalism is a much better way to do what PR used to do so well."

There are plenty of other great comments too, folks like Jeremy Toeman, Brian Cross, Jerry Ketel, and others. I especially appreciated the comment by Bob Geller that tends to be closest to my view, which is that both are important but different.

When it comes to writing, or even creativity, we might as well be asking ourselves whether fiction writers are better than non-fiction writers or whether poets are better than journalists. They are difficult to compare because they tend to be different.

Some writers are good at one thing. Some writers are good at other things. And only a handful can dance in any medium.

However, with the exception of the handful, there are noticeable differences in education, experience, and skill sets. And so, as an instructor who also works within all disciplines, let's take an admittedly generalized look at some writers within the communication field.

Advertising. Copywriters (and some designers who think they can write) are generally creative in a divergent sort of way, well-skilled in short-format conversational writing, storytelling, and alliteration.

When the copy and content is good, these writers accomplish the impossible by convincing people to become aware of or even purchase a product even though those people know that is precisely what the writer is trying to do. How cool is that? Sometimes their work is even adopted into pop culture.

Of course, not many have heard of the Associated Press Stylebook. They're often certain they'll come up with something more interesting than any client might provide in an interview. And they tend to tune out long-format assignments.

Public Relations. Public relations writers, specifically those with a journalism background, are especially good at making the most boring content sound interesting. The best of them subscribe to the notion that there are no boring stories, just boring storytellers.

When they write someone else's story, they become as a passionate as the people they write about while writing within the tightest constraints, usually sacrificing their own style in favor of a publication, corporate voice, or audience. They can also find enough facts to bend almost anything in their direction.

Of course, ask most of them to write advertising collateral and they'll struggle with the space limitations. Many offer up cornball cliches and pages and pages of dribble so dry that it will lull you to sleep before you can get past the first paragraph. In some cases, you don't have to read further than that anyway. And, of course, public relations tends to be a safe haven for many who cannot write at all.

Social Media. Social media writers, if we call them that, stand out on their own. They can have conversations with anybody about anything and have done better than self-teach themselves in the art of delivering exactly what people want to hear.

It doesn't matter much whether they have a preference for video, social networks, or blogs. All that seems to matter is that they bring a passion to the table that sometimes eclipses the craft, attracting thousands of people for no other reason than to wonder what happens next. Clearly there is an advantage in sharing some things that traditional media have known forever as if it never existed before they arrived online.

If there is a downside, it might very well be the speed in which the content is delivered with typos and grammatical mistakes that must make their high school teachers and any college professors blush. One wonders what might happen if they didn't rely on tricks and tactics so much.

Journalists. Given journalists tend to become authors more than any other discipline, it's hard to refute their abilities as writers. Even those who turn in their press passes and migrate into public relations have better skill sets and an understanding that those editorial deadlines are very real to reporters.

One of the unique aspects of better journalists is their uncanny ability to find the right story, research it objectively, and keep it fresh enough for people to feel compelled to add it to their daily doses of elective reading. Sure, there are those who point out that 80 percent of the publications are filled with refreshed news releases, but most of us only read the remaining 20 percent anyway. You know which ones are written by solid journalists because the lead line took as long to write as the article.

Now, if only more would take the time to engage their audiences beyond serving up content. Sure, there is more engagement than a few years ago, but most still prefer to work in relative isolation, stopping just long enough to gather some facts. Otherwise, the entire process, especially those who practice it for years, can slowly kill off any creativity.

Integrated Communication Promises To Challenge All Of Them.

There seems to be little doubt that integrated communication has arrived. And with it, those writers mentioned above, along with several dozen others who specialize in niche disciplines or a specific medium, are challenged two-fold.

First, they have to admit that their brand of writing might not always be the best fit, especially when we conclude that the Internet is home to every medium not just "their" medium. Second, all of them need to make a better effort to understand writing skills beyond their core skill sets.

The bottom line? It seems simple enough to me. Most aren't nearly as good as they think they are. Even fewer will ever concede the point. And from my perspective, the best of the best tend to be those who don't think much of what they write because within a week, they're certain they could have written it better.

Telling Stories: Why The WaterAid Video Works

"To understand a man, you've got to walk a mile in his shoes, whether they fit or not." — Proverb

Remember the proverb or any of its variations? The creative talents behind the WaterAid "White Collar Water Crisis" on YouTube did. Since the spot was first uploaded this morning, it gained 1,000 views in an hour. There is a better-than-average chance at viral success.

More importantly than exposure, the spot does something else. It pulls us along to learn more about the message and the international nonprofit behind it.


WaterAid's "White Collar Water Crisis" Relates To Its Audience.

The video works. It doesn't share the scores of tragic images WaterAid has collected over the years. It doesn't beat people over the head with an insurmountable challenge that leaves them feeling powerless. It doesn't rely on shock value like sex and vegetables to generate publicity. Instead, the spot simply helps us imagine a world where we don't have access to a single basic comfort that most of us take for granted.

While there are dozens of ways to communicate the WaterAid message, this spot is one of the best of them because it applies the art of metaphoric storytelling. Sure, it might make a few people uncomfortable, but it does so tastefully without laying blame or aiming to make anyone feel guilty like so many other causes attempt to do.

Right on. Sometimes guilt messages might be warranted for the short term. But if you hope to build a sustainable message, one that people will most likely share, it's critical to invite them to become part of the cause not drive them away in shame.

In the short span of 60 seconds, the WaterAid video become a great teaching tool. It demonstrates the difference between making a story fit a medium and writing a story for a medium. And when a story is made to fit a medium — whether it is a blog post, PowerPoint presentation, video, etc. — it tends to stick.

Hearting Apple: Adobe Wants Some Love

What started as a tongue-in-cheek response to a letter from Steve Jobs that was arguably reminiscent of high school, the "Adobe heart Apple" campaign has taken on a more serious tone. Adobe, which originally admitted it could improve Flash to meet iPad standards, is still working hard to stir up consumers.

The first round of advertisements, including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, state, “We ♥ Apple” in large, bold lettering. The second round dumps Apple in favor of "We ♥ Choice". Adobe also spells out its position on its Web site.

Adobe's Ad Gamble Worked.

The ad campaign was a gamble, given that the stakes for Adobe to retain Web video dominance is high. And there is no denying that it has paid short-term dividends in some sectors.

First, it gave Driod fans something to talk about. Second, Citi maintained a 'buy' on Adobe Systems Inc. and a Citi analyst concluded that catalysts are biased to the positive side. Third, the campaign afforded Adobe an opportunity to put itself in front of the classroom.

But about that third win. It might have worked too well.

Adobe might have had the players in place to speak, but its message was deep enough for the "lights, camera, action" sequence that followed. Sure, the company was well-prepared for first tier questions about whether Apple is stifling creativity. But it wasn't so prepared on second tier questions tied to what Adobe might do better.

Adobe's Win Becomes A PR Challenge.

It's difficult for any company to win a long-term public relations battle based on "openness" while erecting walls at the same time. And in this case, it's hard to miss that Adobe is all too comfortable saying it will stick to "its facts" while Microsoft and Apple can stick to "their facts." Let the media and consumers decide, they say.

The net result has become a debate of sorts between some writers at BNET and ZDNet and two camps of consumers. But as far facts go, Adobe is the more selective storyteller.

At the beginning of this year, only 10 percent of the video content on Web was HTML5. That figure has changed dramatically, with as much as 26 percent of online video HTML5. If change can occur that quickly, video market share dominance is moot.

Sure, Adobe can favor choice. But it might as well admit that choice is working against it. So is its message to investors. During an earnings call (hat tip: ReadWriteWeb), Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen told investors that Flash was "synonymous with the Internet and frankly, anybody who wants to browse the web and experience the web’s glory really needs Flash support."

Where is the choice in that?

It seems to me that the dvertising campaign seemed to work in that it sparked the conversation that Adobe wanted to have. But as an integrated communication strategy, Adobe is coming up short. They aren't prepared to have open conversation.

It even makes me wonder whether Narayen ever learned that oh-so-valuable lesson from first grade. When you hope to look smart by being the first to raise your hand, always keep in mind that the teacher might call on you.

Oh, if you do want to view Flash on an iPhone, there's an app for that.

Engineering Trust: Can Toyota Do It?

According to a recent study by Consumer Reports, Toyota has lost more than sales in the first quarter. It has experienced a spiraling decline in consumer loyalty.

In April, 57 percent of current Toyota owners said they would "most likely" buy another new vehicle from Toyota, which is down from 70 percent in December, with Honda and Ford the new beneficiaries. While Toyota has lost some consumers permanently, Honda now tops consumer loyalty with 68 percent of Honda owners saying they would buy another Honda. Ford has climbed to 61 percent.

While Toyota did manage to curb sales losses with zero-interest financing and cheap leases, it could be undermining its own long-term brand value as incentives tend to be quick fixes that competitors can match. And, if continued too long, can create consumer expectations to wait for more historic sales once they are over. Toyota's defensive posture throughout its recall crisis may have long-term consequences.

"There's permanent damage there," James Bell, an analyst with Kelley Blue Book, told the Daily Finance. Though not fatal, the recalls require that "Toyota compete in a way they haven't in 25 years."

Restoring Trust Starts At The Local Level With Dealerships.

If Toyota wants to regain long-term consumer loyalty, it may need to reconsider national sales efforts and focus in on where trust really counts — with individual dealerships. While reliability may no longer be associated with the once admired auto manufacturer, dealers could make the difference with one-on-one consumer-dealer communication and outperforming on service expectation.

A recently published five-month study by Foresight Research backs up such analysis. More than 50 percent of all new car buyers surveyed reported the dealership experience as being "highly influential in the purchase process." In fact, dealership experience is the number one factor positively influencing sales during the car buying experience.

"At a time when the dealership network is under increased pressure across the industry, this data clearly supports that no single aspect of the automotive sales and marketing spectrum is more influential than what happens inside the dealership," said Steve Bruyn, president of Foresight Research. "Many buyers visit the dealer early in the shopping process, not just at the end of the process so automotive marketers have a big opportunity to win new customers and build brand equity by offering attractive dealership environments."

To capture a positive in-person experience, the burden primarily resides on the sales team. Study respondents attribute positive experiences with professionalism (90 percent), product knowledge (84 percent), and trustworthiness (66 percent). Sixty-seven percent also said that inviting, modern and well-organized showrooms makes a difference.

When you stop to think about it, the new study goes well beyond auto sales. These factors tend to be the same underlying trait associated with sales professionals, consultants, and even bloggers, online and off.

But for Toyota specifically, the national brand needs to work at non-incentive reasons to drive people into the dealership and then encourage their dealers not to blow it. And, for some dealers, that may require a culture change.

Framing Everything: Fresh Content Project

What makes one message resonate more than others? Who's buying whom in the United Airlines-Continental merger? Why does public relations continue to target impressions? How can social networks and advertising be influential but mistrusted? Why is the Mississippi more mighty than the Missouri?

If your communication firm doesn't understand the flow of communication and how framing makes a difference, they might scratch their heads over any one of those questions. It's all very simple, really. Sooner or later someone frames the conversation. And if it sticks, that's all there is in any story until someone comes along with a better method of measures and a better message that communicates it.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of May 3

• The PR Hype Cycle.
Valeria Maltoni suggests three areas of improvement for public relations, including database management, improvements to press releases, and how news and information spreads online. The suggestions touch on a bigger issue for public relations, shifting away from attempting to control the message by manipulating the media and toward the original intent of developing mutually beneficial relationships with publics, online or off. It makes more sense than trading media in for online influencers.

• From Chris Brogan to Andy Wibbels.
Ari Herzog considers the daily ranking of marketing listed on AdAge Power 150 and how many of the 1,097 blogs show virtually no movement, with Chris Brogan entrenched at number 1 or 2 and people like Andy Wibbles tucked in at 600. Herzog considers whether those at the top are any less insightful than the bottom, which is precisely why we started the fresh content project. Without question, AdAge is a great list with an increasingly erroneous algorithm of measurement.

• Puffery in Merger Communications.
Sean Williams captures a snapshot that few people notice. When two companies merge and claim it is mutual, it usually is not. In presenting facts from the United Airlines-Continental merger, it seems increasingly clear which company is acquiring which company, making all the talk of a mutual merger not much more than an exercise in puffery. It's not the first time nor will it be the last. People like to pick on AT&T because it has been around for so long. The irony is that AT&T was bought by SBC years ago.

• Social Networks Influential, Not Always Trusted.
Twenty-eight percent of Internet users ages 18-34 say they have purchased a product because of something they have seen on a social networking site, but they'll also say they don't trust anyone if you ask them. The same holds true for media. Ask a group of people how they were introduced to a product and they'll mention advertising. Ask them a few weeks later if they trust advertising and they'll say "not a shot." The same phenomenon exists right now with Facebook. Everybody is outraged over privacy issues, but few people are canceling their accounts.

• The Flow of the First Mover.
The Missouri River has 200 miles on the Mississippi River, but the mighty Mississippi gets all the credit. Ike Pigott gets part of the equation right. It all comes down to big mouths that define how we frame up the world. It works that way for business too. Any company that has an opportunity to define the playing field will always have the advantage. All in all, it's a great analogy that ultimately offers up an answer for every other post included today.

Pinning Down Gen Y: Why Millennials Feel Uncertain

For several weeks, I've been enjoying a conservation about Generation Y. First with Bill Sledzik, associate professor at Kent State University. Then Todd Defren, a founder of Shift Communications. And then Jed Hallam, who works at Wolfstar.

Go ahead and read those posts to get caught up if you like. Each of them, from three different generations (I think), offer plenty of good advice for Millennials, especially those hoping to make it through school and/or find employment. I agree with much of what they say, but this post isn't about any of that.

The Only Constant Is Change, But That Change Tends To Be Circular.

This post borrows some insights from Joel DiGirolamo. He wasn't part of the above conversation, but he might as well have been. He was tackling a similar issue from the top down as it relates to evolutionary psychology.

What's interesting is that, throughout history, tribes tend to require less leadership and more consensus during times of abundance. In some ways, this observation seems to fit well with the American Revolution.

When the founding fathers grew weary of what they perceived to be shackles, they didn't do so because they were destitute. They did it because there was seemingly endless abundance in America and they wanted more personal control over that abundance.

Flash forward to today. Millennials primarily grew up in an era of abundance, which required less competition and more consensus. But unfortunately for them, because economies ebb and flow, they finished this streak of abundance only to discover a society focused on scarcity. So, while I'm not big on labels, one could make a pretty good case that this shared experience does set Gen Y apart. And by many employer accounts, most Millennials don't start off as tough as Sledzik or Defren or even I would like.

Interestingly enough, when you look at the push back, most didn't come from Millennials. On the contrary, many Millennials like Hallam recognize that hard times are best met by effective leaders and a willingness to meet challenges with a certain tenacity. So who pushed back? Boomers, specifically those who long for their continued role as enablers; and some Gen Xers, specifically those who claim to identify more with Gen Y (which they don't, given many Gen Yers were happy to hear the message).

All in all, what this might demonstrate to me is that Gen Y does need more tough love and most are willing to accept it in exchange for a new kind of inclusive leadership. Unfortunately, from my perspective, there doesn't seem to be enough leadership out there. And why would there be? Most modern authorities surfed a wave of abundance without ever becoming prepared to lead.

Huh. This kind of atmosphere is almost too perfect for something Orwellian, unless Gen Y empowers itself (given the apparent lack of Sledziks and Defrens). So my advice is simple enough. If you want a fair shake, one my intern was convinced didn't exist out there, then you have to learn to look for people who will empower you rather than those who aim to enable you.

And as far as all those other feelings? Well, they just aren't that special. And if you don't believe me, read from Orwell.

"Each generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it." — George Orwell