Experimenting With Blogs: Recruiting Bloggers.com

A few weeks ago, as I was introducing just over a dozen University of Nevada, Las Vegas, students to my "Writing for Public Relations" class, I noted how social media (blogging) and the internet have made public relations a moving target. The rules of engagement are changing and public relations practitioners would be wise to stay ahead of the curve.

In some cases, I said, some of the information I'll share over the next 11 weeks will be obsolete (the structure of a news release, perhaps, among them). But some things, I stressed, will remain unchanged. For example: you cannot choose what the media says about you, but you can choose how you react to it. The same applies to bloggers, which tend to be even bigger wild cards in the game of communication.

In answering by example, I referenced how while writing about my living case study on Jobster, one blogger attempted to take me to task, going a bit beyond the difference of opinion and giving me the moniker “Mr. Mustache" and calling me a sissy. The majority of my students were, very literally, slack-jawed and appalled.

Look, I'm always up for a game now and again, so given that most of my students are working professionals in addition to attending UNLV, I asked what they thought I should do. Of all the answers, ranging from ignoring him to considering a slander suit (imagine!), one still sticks in my mind because only one student got the joke.

"You should have shaved off your mustache," she said. "And that will be that!"

No, I have not shaved my mustache; I only do that from time to time, temporarily, if someone pays me $100. (I'm not one of those guys who is "afraid" to shave it off). I did not file a slander suit (they meant libel, but that's why they are students) and I wouldn't even have a real case if I was silly enough to do so. I did not ignore him.

What I did do was choose how I would react to the labeling and I chose to find it funny, because, well, it was funny. Then I applied the most of basic public relations strategies, responding to his argument (but in my style), which generally does not include name calling. We agreed to disagree on the issue, and both offered up that we were mutual fans despite our different styles.

Since, I've written about two other recruiting companies (Talent Zoo and Monster) for different reasons related to communication, mostly because I'm tracking Jobster to wrap up the case study sometime in the near future. Or maybe not.

You see, Recruiting Animal e-mailed me a couple days ago, inviting me to join the growing group of talented bloggers over at Recruiting Bloggers.com. I've visited the blog a few times, and know that two other bloggers I met while tracking Jobster (Shannon Seery and Amitai Givertz) also contribute there from time to time.

So I accepted the invitation from the blogger who called me a sissy, despite repeated warnings that I could expect equally fiery and unabashed comments and critiques: "Also note that participation in a joint blog would not hamper our ability to criticize each other as fiercely as is common online."

Certainly, Recruiting Animal is not everybody's cup of tea (though he prefers to be called, in his words, a "prick"), but I find his posts a nice blend of practical and entertaining commentary. He also encouraged me to check around about him; nah, I already had a sense of what other people thought of him and also know I generally get along with people who aren't vanilla (not that there is anything wrong with vanilla). I look forward to getting to know him more: good, bad, or indifferent.

In sum, it's an experiment, which I find especially interesting because this seems like such an unlikely association. Heck, Recruiting Animal has already asked that I quit saying "thank you" so much, noting he never got that I would from my posts. That's okay. I would have never guessed Recruiting Animal has a real name (he does, you know ... shhhhh.)

Of course, I also look forward to getting to know the other writers, authors, and bloggers at Recruiting Bloggers.com ... I've read some good stuff over there. So in addition to mentioning that some posts "here" will be reframed for "there," this can also serve as my post first-post introduction, which hopefully is more entertaining than writing "blah, blah, blah" about me.

Being Semi-Public: Marcotte and McEwan

Amanda Marcotte learned a hard lesson when she lost her position on the John Edwards campaign: being a public figure, er, semi-public figure (as I call these growing middle ranks, myself included) is not always what it is cracked up to be. Some people have a knack for it. Others do not.

Despite some quarters trying to claim that Marcotte and Melissa McEwan are being unfairly persecuted as bloggers (they are not), the simple truth is that their decision to be semi-public came with consequences that they didn't expect. The rhetoric that landed them a gig on a presidential bid is the same rhetoric that may cost them their jobs.

The blog cited above, Pandragon, is making this case: "Whatever opinions Melissa and Amanda hold on a variety of political issues, they are completely their own. The fact is that they have used profanity in their posts, and wrote rants that many disagree with, but their forums are about personal expression and opinion, not journalism or op-eds for a major paper."

Wrong. It has always been common practice for political campaigns to pass on campaign people who are known to have made extreme, disparaging public statements despite their perceived talent.

Pandragon also says Glen Greenwood, author and former New York City litigator, hits the mark when he wrote: "I do not know of many bloggers, or citizens generally, who do not have some views that would be offensive to large groups of people and who periodically express those views in less than demure ways, but if that is going to be the standard, we ought to apply it universally to all bloggers who are affiliated with political campaigns."

Invalid. When campaigns consider someone who is semi-public for the team, it only makes sense for the campaign to weigh how many votes could be lost due to "views that would be offensive to large groups of people" as opposed to votes won for any other reason, which is why Greenwood's "Hynes" political spin doesn't hold water.

Look, I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong as much as I am saying that if you strive to become a semi-public figure with heated, passionate, or bigoted remarks, you can expect that the loss of privacy is the price of admission. Good journalists have known this for a long time whereas some bloggers don't seem to get it.

Good journalists appreciate that the truth — not opinions — will be their shield if they eventually want to move onto another career. Likewise, even good op-ed writers temper their rants with reasoned arguments. Not so with some bloggers, who somehow think they are exempt from any accountability or responsibility when they write. It is delusional to think so.

For example, it would be silly for 15-minutes-of-fame-are-over blogger Spocko to apply for a position at Disney any time in the near future, after he berated the company for months and months over what its subsidiary KFSO did (or did not do, upon reflection of how much was taken out of context).

Likewise, it would be equally perplexing to think that I would be a top pick for a future Gavin Newsom campaign after yesterday's post despite my experience on city, county, and state campaigns. Of course, this post was an exception because I usually limit any observation to the "verb" and not the "subject."

In sum, it is absurd to think that any public opinion posted on a blog could never potentially interfere with your career, regardless of the degree to which you achieve exposure. Employers, political or otherwise, are becoming much more savvy in searching and considering blog entries and Myspace profiles in an effort to hire the best employees. Sometimes it might not matter what you have written. Sometimes it might. As a blogger, whether you want to consider this or roll the dice is up to you, but don't cry foul play if it bites you on the backside.

Specifically for Marcotte and McEwen, what they have written seems to matter for three reasons: 1. For Edwards, faith and family is part of the message. 2. For Edwards, it doesn't seem to make sense to keep people who aspire to capture more spotlight than the campaign, especially because their opinions greatly distract from Edwards' message. 3. They didn't offer to resign and/or exonerate Edwards, which left him in a no-win situation (if he keeps them, he's wrong ... if he fires them, he's wrong).

Hmmm... if they really cared about Edwards, they would resign (unless urged to stay on). It's the right thing to do as opposed to being right.

Spinning To Disaster: Gavin Newsom

I first learned of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to hit his self-destruction button over at Recruiting Animal's blog and, as a political consultant, I have been itching to write about it ever since. Wow ... the difference a couple days can make.

Without a doubt, Newsom wants to apply the "celebrity spin" card in an attempt to save his political career, which, in my opinion, ended the day he said "I think the public in many cases finds it rather entertaining that suddenly they have someone who's still alive holding public office." Considering he said this in response to admitting an affair with the wife of a former top campaign aide, I guess he failed to appreciate that the people of San Francisco did not elect him to be entertaining.

In politics, there is one cliche that holds true: where there's smoke, there's fire. And sometimes, it's a real barn burner. Yesterday, Newsom attempted to spin the affair story away with the sudden realization he has a drinking problem.

No one was surprised, but many seem perplexed why Newsom would mount one scandal on another. After all, he had already come under fire as supervisor Jake McGoldrick called the mayor a “pathetic role model” who should resign. McGoldrick is not alone in his opinion, but Newsom seems to be gaining some sympathy from some very misguided people. And, in my opinion, supervisor Sophie Maxwell is at the front of this misguided pack.

“This is the mayor’s personal business and affairs,” says Maxwell. “If I look at what the mayor’s been doing on The City’s business I don’t see a reason to resign.”

What? Ms. Maxwell, with all due respect, an utter lack of judgement has everything to do with his ability to lead, and it goes well beyond making San Francisco a three-ring circus. Sure, the affair shows the shallowness of his character, driven by ego. Yes, the noted drinking problem demonstrates a man out of control, largely claiming to be unaccountable for his actions. But the real crime here is his handling of, well, everything.

After all, it is Newsom who made these personal problems the center of public attention during several press conferences. So please, spare me the idea that he is a victim. He is not and, even if he was, he is only a victim by his own hand, er, mouth, er, whatever.

If you want to meet a victim, check in with the campaign aide who will have to endure what experts say is 3-5 years of pain and suffering as he recovers (if he is lucky enough to recover) from this dual betrayal. Add to that additional exposure in a society much more sympathetic to women who are victimized by cheating spouses. Without a doubt, too many people assume the husband must have done something to alienate his wife. Maybe, maybe not.

The fact is that the only thing more appalling than Newsom's attempt to lampoon his unethical behavior is the utter idiocy of political consultant David Latterman's take on the situation.

“I can’t comment about whether he’s truly an alcoholic. There’s obviously been rumors about his drinking for quite a while,” he said. “But this is what celebrities do when they screw up, they go to rehab: Mel Gibson, Kramer, and now Gavin Newsom. It’s a tried and true public relations technique.”

Um, sorry, but Newsom has no celebrity status outside the context of his immoral, unethical behavior. Mayors are not celebrities and the public should not be expected to give elected officials (who are responsible for much more than a personal movie-making career) the same second chances they seem so willing to extend to actors, actresses, authors, and musicians.

While we have come to expect celebrities to enter rehabs and have affairs, I think we must appreciate that celebrities are different. Celebrities are not charged with governance of others. It does not impact the residents of San Francisco if Mel Gibson gets drunk. It does not damage them if Michael Richards needs anger management.

It does directly impact them if their mayor becomes the poster child for breaking personal and public trust on every level while claiming he is not responsible for his actions (the alcohol is). Further, it is deplorable that Newsom is so naive to think that you can create a media frenzy and claim that reporters are out of line in asking questions about his recent confessions. To think that he would be so arrogant to chastise an Examiner reporter who tried to ask a question by saying, “Could you possibly be respectful and could I close the door?”

It seems to me that question better belongs to his former campaign aide: “Could you possibly be respectful and leave my wife alone?”

As another Examiner article reveals: a political insider, who did not want to be named, called Newsom “thin-skinned” and said the reason why the mayor’s having a hard time with the press is because for the first several years of his tenure, “he had a relative love affair with the media.” And so goes the story of wannabe public figures who regret getting their wish.

Maybe someone should have told Newsom that getting at the truth and shaming the devil supersedes all relationships in the career of a reporter. Hmmm... it's kind of like a spouse I imagine. The love affair is great until something or someone changes the relationship. Imagine that. Except in this case, Mayor Newsom, you are solely responsible for your hurt feelings.

Funny. A few days ago, I might have been able to salvage this one. Today, I'd rather watch him spin himself to disaster.

Paying For Promotion: Turner Broadcasting

In a continuing tale of two companies that thought they were being bold with guerilla marketing, Turner Broadcasting Systems and Interference Inc. have agreed to pay the city of Boston some $2 million for the advertising campaign that caused a bomb scare.

The campaign, which was originally budgeted in the thousands (with freelancers making a few hundred each), will be forever immortalized as one of the biggest abuses of guerilla marketing in history. For its part, Turner Broadcasting has handled its crisis communication like professionals.

It has released several statements taking full responsibility for the "unconventional marketing tactic" and apologizing for hardships caused to Boston area residents. Other companies would have thought to pass the buck right back at their marketing firm for the stunt, especially after some public outcry that attempts to pin the advertising debacle on Boston.

"We understand now that in today's post-Sept. 11 environment, it was reasonable and appropriate for citizens and law enforcement officials to take any perceived threat posed by our light boards very seriously and to respond as they did," the Turner statement said. Turner Broadcasting has added it will review its policies concerning local marketing efforts to ensure that they are not disruptive or threatening.

In almost complete contrast, Interference Inc. handled it crisis communication like, well, a guerilla marketing firm, going underground when the going got tough — delayed statements, slanted apologies, and no spokespeople (other than wannabe funny men freelancers who are still facing charges that will probably be dropped) offering comment for days while Turner Broadcasting took the heat. While the firm's attorney argues that the company acted with "due diligence" to correct the problems caused, it is unclear how much of the $2 million Interference Inc. will cough up.

Some people are now saying that $2 million looks like a bargain considering "the amount of publicity the Cartoon Network received for its Aqua Teen Hunger Force promotion." Not really. Most news reports last night omitted any mention of Aqua Teen Hunger Force and the Cartoon Network, preferring to focus on Turner Broadcasting and Interference, Inc. instead.

I suppose there is some truth to what people are saying though: you can't buy that kind of "bad" publicity. But it's hardly worth the praise Interference Inc. is receiving in some blog quarters, especially because such praise will only encourage other misguided firms to duplicate the stunt. The price tag, $2 million, will only become steeper.

According to others who are less sympathic to Interference Inc., The Boston Globe suggested that Interference Inc. knew about the bomb scare in Boston as early as 1:25 p.m. on Wednesday and emailed the installers, Sean Stevens and Peter Berdovsky, asking them to keep quiet. Interference, Inc. denies this claim.

But then again, Interference Inc. did not bail the freelancers out of jail. That was handled by friends and relatives. For what it is worth, Interference, Inc. has done some amazing work in the past. The guerilla marketing for Shark Week was a stroke of brilliance without the usual vandalism associated with the company.

All this leaves us with the same question once again. Is all publicity good publicity? Let's add it all up.

• For $2 million plus, the Cartoon Network's Aqua Teen Hunger Force will best remembered, not for its scripts or entertainment value (if you like that sort of thing), for a bomb scare in Boston.

• Turner Broadcasting barely escaped brand damage, but only because it has some good crisis communicators on board. Even so, they will be slow to embrace the next wild idea because one misstep will only cause them to relive this incident.

• Interference Inc. will forever be questioned by its clients, seldom given the opportunity to break away from status quo again, making it irrelevant in the future. And that assumes anyone will want to touch them. One sidewalk stencil on your behalf from these guys and your company will be drawn right back into what might be the biggest bomb scare in marketing history.

Hmmm... it looks like a net loss to me. Somewhat off point, or maybe not, if all publicity is good publicity, it seems much safer and cheaper simply to release a sex tape.

Then again, if any good is to come out of this, it might be that CEOs will finally realize that if your agency is getting more attention than your product, you might start to shop around. Good agencies are all about the products they promote, preferring the product — not the agency — to be the focus of attention.

Bashing Ghosts: The Branding Foundry

The Branding Foundry, which is the brainchild of Rowland Hanson, the former Microsoft marketing "guru" who is credited with coming up with the name Windows, is already facing its first brand challenge.

After a great write-up by venture capital reporter John Cook in Seattle, Kevin Young, president of the unproven and fledgling company, forgets his position and spends more time bashing ghosts (anonymous posters) than he does delivering a message, leaving some to wonder what The Branding Foundry is really about.

"However, in the spirit of our business community, it's sad to see that people take time out of their day to share their venomous comments to feel better about themselves," said Young. "As they say, 'the farther up the flag pole one ascends in life, the more your backend shows.'"

I'm not sure which anonymous post got under his skin more: 1. "This thread is polluted with self-serving tripe. John, you need to weed out the thinly-veiled ads." 2. "Don't see how this adds any value. Looks like a predatory scheme with no risk." 3. [Rowland Hanson] "Looks like a lounge lizard."

Of course, Young's ghost bashing was only met with more ghosts bashing back: 1. "What an incredibly arrogant post." 2. "I don't know what's crappier- the story or the posts that followed." 3. "Maybe the 'guru' and his trolls should ..."

And the debate, whether there "should be" or "shouldn't be" anonymous posters, begins all over again. Ho hum. Boring.

Actually, there is a decent discussion that took place at active rain, which references, among others, Jason Goldberg at Jobster, who asked about anonymous posts a few weeks ago (a great question at the wrong time).

Active rain blogger Barry Hurd made a decent argument, despite taking it a bit too far by questioning the ethics of anonymous posting. On this point, we disagree. Anonymous posting is not about free speech or ethics, in my opinion.

You see, over the last few years, I've seen anonymous posters (and anonymous bloggers) leave as many brilliant comments as they have unrelated, unfunny swipes that are easily dismissed. Their reasons for posting anonymously range from anything and everything from fear (not wanting to lose their jobs) and faux fear (Spocko being 'afraid' of big bad ABC, ha!) to protecting their own brand (I want to say something, but don't want it to rub off on me) and simply being too lazy, or perhaps too busy, to register with the site.

The bottom line is these people have a zillion reasons to post anonymously on sites that allow it. Not all sites do. Cook does. David Maister does not. Seth Godin doesn't allow comments at all, but he does allow trackbacks. Every one of them has different reasons for their decisions.

For example, I do not allow them, but not for reasons that most people think. In my case, I simply grew tired of deleting spam ads, lots and lots of spam ads.

If it wasn't for that, I would allow them (and used to). However, even if I did allow them, I would not personally post an anonymous comment (though sometimes I'm too busy to register and just type in my name). But, for me, it's par for the course. I don't have any reason to post anonymously because I've been threatened several times for working on certain political and commercial campaigns. And in the end, I decided that I would rather be fearless in life than live in fear. (Besides, threats only apply if your candidate loses or your commercial client folds).

However, since most people haven't learned they can live fearlessly, I don't begrudge them for posting anonymously where allowed. In fact, I say leave the anonymous posters alone for some very good reasons.

Cook's anonymous posters always make for an interesting, though sometimes silly, commentary on the events he writes about.

It used to be that way over at Inside Nevada Politics until they disallowed anonymous posters midstream during the 2006 political campaign, after someone called a candidate "dumb as a post" among other things.

Nowadays, most comments on that blog have thinned to nothing, because most people don't want to bash politicians (and the reporters in some cases) publicly. Most don't want such bashes to rub off on their companies. Go figure.

Anyway, what Inside Nevada Politics lost when they made that decision was honest discussion. And, with that, the "subjects" of many posts missed out on what the opposition thought of them.

It's true. When I was working on the Bob Beers campaign, I used to read all those anonymous comments faithfully, weighing their credibility. While I might not have responded to them, I certainly used the negative comments to develop strategies that addressed every complaint, just in case even one of those "ideas" caught fire.

Heck, in one case, an "anonymous poster" outlined a good portion of our opponent's strategy, making the point that for those reasons we would lose. So while other campaign members were up in arms about it, I calmly smiled and saw it for what it was: GOLD!

But then, Inside Nevada Politics disallowed anonymous posts and we were back to flying partially blind. Our window into the minds of our opponent was somewhat diminished. Oh well.

Chalk all this up as lesson number one for Young and The Branding Foundry. It's better to see what the opposition is thinking than to think you are untouchable on your very high horse, er, ladder, as you call it.

The second lesson is for everyone questioning the validity of anonymous posts. Simply put: "Whether anonymous posts (or anonymous blogs for that matter) should be allowed or not" is the wrong question.

The fact is that anonymous posts exist. And the question you could be asking is "What are we going to do about it?"

Well, we could run around the Web chasing ghosts, responding to them (which only gives them more credibility, by the way), and attempting to crush their credibility while looking like we take them ever so seriously ... or, we can file them away as insight into the opposition, maybe using them as another opportunity to get our message out, whatever that might be.

The Branding Foundry, unfortunately picked option A, and for all it gained by a well-written and flattering post by Cook, Young erased almost all of it by trying to be a "ghost buster" rather than a "brand master." I'm sorry Mr. Young, but you cannot hit something that is not there.

Besides, ghosts tend to multiply when you swing at one. I think it has to do with the "whoosh" sound people make, swinging at nothing.

Anyway, in closing, I would like to add that there is no venom here. I wish The Branding Foundry all the best of luck in sticking to a message rather than trying to bust ghosts. Hopefully, they will even share a few lessons with future clients...

No positive news is exempt from criticism, no matter where you think you are on the "ladder" of life. And bashing ghosts is an exercise in futility at its best. Almost always, you'll end up looking silly.

Writing Web Sites: AP Stylebook

Last night, I was caught a bit off guard when one of my students opened up the AP Stylebook to inform me my take on "Website" was wrong, according to the Associated Press. So naturally, today I started doing some homework on this particular rule in what many, myself included, call the writer's bible.

Kudos to Debbie Weil over at Wordbiz Report for doing my homework for me and the rest of us back in 2003. She wrote Norman Goldstein, AP Stylebook editor, after 65 percent of her readers claimed "website" to be correct over "Web site." Goldstein wrote back...

"Style, in the sense we're talking about, really means a preference (in spelling or punctuation or capitalization or usage) when there is a choice to be made. AP made the choice of "Web site" for what we thought were very good, language-based, reasons. Others are free to use their preference - as long as it is clear to a reader and consistent.

However, none of us can claim to create a "new language," for the Internet, or elsewhere. (Every generation of teenagers, for example, comes up with its own "language," but it fades quickly into oblivion.) More creative writers than I have said - wisely - that "usage will push new meanings into currency no matter how many authorities hurl themselves into the path of change."

Weil then goes on to list several solid cases made by her readers, who would prefer AP change its ruling and give us the evidence we need to write Website or website as one word. Add me to the list of miffed writers. Web site needs to be fixed up for the times, giving way to Website or website (I don't care about caps).

I appreciate where Goldstein is coming from in his answer, but for those of us who preach that AP is the style of choice in today's world, using it as a higher authority for clients, students, and others, we need some help here. Too many allowances will undermine the original intent of clear and consistent communication, especially if we teach public relations practitioners to conform to AP Style as it is the style most embraced by newspapers and magazines worldwide (with exception, it seems, to the word Website). Too many allowances will toss more toward the Chicago Style Manual, which is being revised online with new vigor, causing the rest of us to study two sources (ha, I do anyway) as opposed to having one held high.

Sure, I suppose making up some hubub about the word Website seems a bit much, but the time has come for AP Style to revisit its ruling on "Web site" for what was thought to be very good, language-based, reasons. The reason I say this is because it has put us in the awkward position of either violating our trusted Style source or joining what appears to be an ever diminished percentage of readers who agree that "Web site" is right.

Killing With No Comment: Interference, Inc.

After several days of offering "no comment" about its part in the Cartoon Network's Boston bomb scare, Interference, Inc. has replaced its entire Web presence with with a single statement.

"We at Interference, Inc. regret that our efforts on behalf of our client contributed to the disruption in Boston yesterday and certainly apologize to anyone who endured any hardship as a result. Nothing undertaken by our firm was in any way intended to cause anxiety, fear or discomfort to anyone. We are working with Turner Broadcasting and appropriate law enforcement and municipal authorities to provide information as requested and take other appropriate actions."

From a crisis communication standpoint, the company might be dead. Dead for what it did not say; dead for what was said.

Sure, right now, there are ample bloggers out there attempting to defend the “Aqua Teen Hunger Force" mooninite character (as if the delinquent animated figures need defending), but for as much as CEO Sam Ewen of Interference, Inc. thought he knew guerilla marketing, he knows nothing about crisis communication to manage the mishandling of Turner Broadcasting's campaign. When bad news happens, the messenger is the message and Ewen is nowhere in sight.

It was different in 2001. Internetnews.com interviewed Ewen back then, with Ryan Naraine asking him questions like "What's the trick to make sure it's appealing and not annoying?"

"If you put the effort into the campaign, it isn't obtrusive at all," said Ewen. "Of course, there is good and bad marketing. The goal is not just to be there but to be there at the right time and in the right place."

Unfortunately for Ewen, some six years later, Boston turned out to be the wrong time and the wrong place, with the mooninite infiltration becoming one of the best examples of bad marketing out there. It caused panic, wasted resources, and sent Turner Broadcasting scrambling to prove it is a responsible company despite the scare (they've been handling it well enough).

Where Interference, Inc. is going wrong today is that it continues to allow Peter Berdovsky and Sean Stevens, the two freelancers arrested, to act as its unofficial spokespeople, one of whom mused that what he really wanted to talk about was "haircuts of the 1970's."

Assistant Attorney General John Grossman, on the other hand, wanted to talk about something else. "It's clear the intent was to get attention by causing fear and unrest that there was a bomb in that location," he said.

You don't have to read between the lines to know that "intent" will mean the difference between a prison sentence and freedom for the two men, and quite possibly some employees at Interference, Inc. Since Interference, Inc. won't talk, its best message yesterday, also spun by Berdovsky, was that "they were up there for three weeks and no one noticed."

In other words, no one noticed. In other words, until Boston became sensitized because of an unrelated bomb scare, the marketing was nothing more than a waste of money. Of course, that pales in comparison to the money that will be wasted by Turner Broadcasting to make things right. I suspect Interference, Inc. will be footing some of the bill too.

To me, the real crime here is that Turner Broadcasting was sold a bad bill of goods when a much more effective campaign could have been created. Sure, the company didn't have to buy into the idea (so it too is the master of its own destiny), but nonetheless, Interference, Inc. abused what would have otherwise been a worthwhile tactic.

Getting back to what people like Seth Godin and Jay Levinson wrote about ten years ago, the real idea behind guerilla marketing was "helping small businesses break out of the helpless rut of leaving advertising to the big guys."

Today, it hass turned into something else. Big companies now employ it because they're getting a lower rate of return on traditional advertising dollars. (Hey, maybe it's the ad message and not the method. You think?) But in this case, I can think of dozens of things that might have worked just as well without the panic factor.

Considering it owns the network and controls the promotion time, Cartoon Network could have launched its mooninite invasion campaign on television, reinforced with direct mail (miniature mooninites, maybe, assuming they didn't tick), Internet marketing pop up banners, and a few cool billboards with big ones from the mother ship or whatever they use to get around. Sure, I'm only playing at a 5-second solution and not developing a real campaign here, but at least it doesn't terrify when it isn't being ignored. At least it's a sliver of thinking instead of hype, pomp, and ineffectiveness.

Not thinking, you see, is what will likely kill the Interference, Inc. folks even more than Boston authorities want to. They didn't think when they launched the otherwise forgettable campaign. They didn't think when they offered no comment. They didn't think when they took their site down and replaced it with a generic apology to no one from no one. And they certainly aren't thinking by allowing a freelancer—a wannabe comic—to be their primary spokesperson.

Oh well. There is a lot of that going on in the communication business lately. Lots of ideas; not much thinking. I call it communication suicide by "blank." For Interference, Inc. the "blank" is no comment.

Creating Panic In Boston: Cartoon Network

The Cartoon Network learned the hard way yesterday that guerilla marketing is fine unless it looks like guerilla warfare. That was the outcome of its marketing campaign as federal, state and local police swarmed around Boston, Somerville, and Cambridge as reports poured in of suspicious devices, closing roads, tunnels and bridges for hours.

In total, 38 battery-operated ads featuring a character called a mooninite flipping the bird for an upcoming TV show “Aqua Teen Hunger Force" were located, turned off, and detonated in some cases. At least 10 caused bomb scares.

“It’s outrageous, reckless and totally irresponsible,” Boston City Councilor Michael Flaherty said, after demanding Turner Broadcasting, the owner of Cartoon Network, reimburse the city of Boston for costs associated with public safety. “What a waste of resources.”

Turner Broadcasting was quick to respond with regret that the devices were mistakenly thought to pose any danger. It also said, in a statement, that the devices have been placed in 10 cities for two to three weeks in Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Austin, San Francisco, and Philadelphia. Turner is working with local and federal law enforcement in each city to ensure the devices are removed.

The marketing company responsible for the campaign, Interference Inc., said it would need until Thursday before it could issue a comment. Thursday?

Its Website, which bills it as a nationwide guerilla and alternative marketing agency from "idiation" through tactile implementation and staffing, was down this morning.

Unless I'm mistaken, back in 1999 Interference, Inc. was responsible for The Mining Company's name change to About.com, placing the name on park benches, at train stops, and spray painting it on sidewalks. Most communities consider the company's stunts vandalism, but Sam Ewen always felt that the neat thing about his version of guerilla marketing is that the media can buy into it and the campaign becomes the story. Ah yes, crazy publicity stunts. Har, har. Mission accomplished... sort of.

This time, with the whole world watching, two team members were arrested: Peter Berdovsky, 27, of Arlington, and Sean Stevens, 28, of Charlestown, one on a felony charge of placing a hoax device and one charge of disorderly conduct, state Attorney General Martha Coakley said.

Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with guerilla marketing and publicity stunts, except maybe that guerilla marketing stunts become passe after awhile, leaving agencies to seek ever more creative, intrusive, and destructive means to get their non-messages out.

Non-messages? Yep. Publicity stunts are generally reserved for those who have no message, kind of like “Aqua Teen Hunger Force," another Cartoon Network show that continues to glamorize delinquent behavior and target 8-year-old kids under the guise of cartoons made for adults. The risk is always the same. The more extreme the stunt, the greater the risk that your message will drive up negative impressions.

This time, it seems, Interference Inc., Cartoon Network, and Turner Broadcasting have hit the jackpot in brand damage. Even Gov. Deval Patrick summed: "It's a hoax, and it's not funny." To which, all I can think to add is that "it's a living case study in guerilla marketing gone wrong."

I'm waiting to hear what Interference Inc. has to say beyond the obvious. The obvious being: for all our crazy antics, we have no idea how to do crisis communication. We need at least 24 to 48 hours to craft a statement, which seems to be much longer than it took to put the devices up in the first place.

Kicking Dead Dogs: Tom Murphy

One of the definitions that Tom Murphy assigned to his catch phrase "kicking dead dogs" is the continual wave of posts that declare something as dead. I first stumbled across the phrase when I was curious to see what other communication experts might be saying about the concept that the "press release" is dead.

Well, first I would like to clarify that kicking dead dogs is certainly not limited to posts. It wasn't that long ago that Wired Magazine declared newspapers dead. Before that, of course, radio was declared dead with the advent of television. And more recently, blogs were declared dead by John Pretto, who, not surprisingly, is the president of Mr. Podcast, Inc.

Anyway, after awhile, it does make one wonder just what the heck isn't dead. The answer, very simply, is: nothing is dead.

Of course, I already knew this because Bruce Spotleson, publisher of In Business Las Vegas and a self-described "old newspaper" man, is a frequent guest speaker in my Writing for Public Relations class. He has an uncanny way of stating the obvious: no new media has ever replaced another media.

Spot on. Nothing is dead, no matter how much some people might declare it is, press releases included (though I still hate that public relations folks insist on calling a "news release" a press release). What I also find interesting is the number of public relations and communication professionals who are defending the "news release." Most of them, no ill will intended, are speaking passionately enough about press, er, news releases that they are looking at things emotionally instead of objectively.

Shel Holtz is a stand-up guy, for example; he's been in the communication business since the 1970's and I've attended a function or two where he has spoken (we're both accredited business communicators and all). Anyway, Holtz normally defends the concept of a social media release, but backtracked a few days ago by giving Jeremy Pepper's idea some praise:

“What people don't get—especially non-PR people—is that, oh, the majority of PR is done at the local level, where people don't care about blogs or RSS. The local level is done with a press release—sometimes sent over the wire, often not sent over the wire—and done with one-on-one contact," said Pepper.

Murphy jumped on board and says it is the audience that matters "That's why a press release is useful — yes, I know they can be spam — yes I know they can be badly written — but they provide information in a common format that, in most cases, provide the same types of information."

I have to chuckle a bit, not at anyone in particular, but in general. While some public relations professionals are indeed calling for the death of press, er, news releases in favor of social media releases, who really wants this silly issue to become polarized. Is that where public relations is heading? Are we either "for them" or "against them?"

Not here, thank goodness. Maybe we see it all differently. We already know where new media fits in with the old. It's not that hard to figure out.

Here's the bottom line: The social media release concept is a long overdue format to send information to bloggers and social media outlets. The news release still is equally useful (even on the national scale) because, yes, newspapers, magazines, radio stations, television stations, etc. continue to evolve, and have yet to be proven dead.

Come to think of it, I know a couple of companies that still have employee communication bulletin boards too, and use them quite effectively. So what? Big deal if public relations folks have another tool. So what if some ad guys like to be cliche and call everything dead? Since when do communication professionals care about that?

The truth is the only problem with public relations practitioners having another tool is that too many of them are not good enough with the ones they have right now. A news release that is poorly written? Why? A news release that is spam? Why?

If you are a public relations practitioner (like the ones Tom Murphy is talking about) who is sending out poorly written spam as opposed to well-written relevant news releases that are only sent to journalists who might actually want them, then please spare the rest of the world and stick to news releases. Trust me. It won't take long before bloggers will be as unforgiving as editors, tossing those e-mails, letters, statements, and pricey media kits into the trash.

In fact, I just received a news release yesterday. It contained "news" about nothing that I write about or have written about, anywhere, for any magazine or blog. It was poorly written, typos and all. It wasn't even news, really, by any definition. It was spam, pure and simple. Well, it gave spam a bad name. You get the point.

All this leads me back to Murphy's second definition for "kicking dead dogs," which is: why people talk about the same thing over and over and over again. That's easy.

It takes 80 impressions before readers remember good information and another 640 impressions to erase any bad bits of information they read 80 times. Great stuff, by the way, Murphy. Enjoyed your new digs, grumpy and all.

Fighting On New Fronts: iPhone

When two companies decide to wage a trademark battle, interesting things always happen. People choose sides. Smaller skirmishes ensue. Loose alliances are forged between unlikely players.

USA Today reports Verizon, probably because Cingular got the Apple iPhone deal, tossed in its hat with Jim Gerace, vice president of corporate communications, saying, in one breath, “We have nothing bad to say about the Apple iPhone. We just couldn’t reach a deal that was mutually beneficial.”

In Gerace's next breath, he says the demands were “steep,” including revenue share from service fees, distribution rights and much more. “They would have been stepping in between us and our customers to the point where we would have almost had to take a back seat … on hardware and service support,” he said.

Gee, so much for not having anything bad to say. His message was almost written by Cisco, which also claims the biggest stumbling block between the Cisco/Apple trademark negotiation was about sharing technology. Ho hum, you don't have to be a Fortune 500 executive to know that Apple does not like to be open about its innovations.

Some people don't like that, but whatever. Frankly, if it did share everything, I'm not so sure that there would be an Apple around to shake up the market like it does. So, I don't blame them. (Besides, they tried sharing once, if you recall, and it failed miserably).

Although Cisco has since backtracked on that idea that all this was about wanting Apple technology, it was part of the equation. Moneyweb published an early quote from Mark Chandler, Cisco's general counsel, saying "Fundamentally we wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future."

Was that the deal breaker? If so, then Cisco knew the deal was going to fail all along because I really don't believe such a media relations savvy company would be so naive that it would think Apple is going to jump to interoperate with Cisco. For the reason I already stated above, it would be "silly."

Even sillier is the misnomer being floated by some analysts (those applying for Cisco fan status, I imagine) is that Apple is doing all this for the publicity. Yeah, right.

Apple has never been a company to think that all publicity is good publicity. Given that the iPhone launch was one of the most anticipated tech announcements of the decade, I hardly think Apple needed a Cisco lawsuit to jazz things up.

But, of course, that didn't stop someone at ThinkEquity Partners LLC from dreaming up this non-reality: "As this trademark infringement case escalates, we are taking the stance that 'any publicity is good publicity.'" Oh well, it's an easy way to get your name in the paper, I suppose. File under not thinking in New York.

You see, Apple and Cisco have always understood that there is a fundamental difference public relations and publicity. Neither have been big on employing the latter because it carries more risk and is generally reserved for companies without name ID or brand value.

In fact, the resulting lawsuit has drawn attention to some subjects neither company wanted to talk about: Cisco's recent violation of an open source license (which it has since thanked everyone for, er, pointing out the oversight) and Apple's iPhone mark up (which prompted some sideline banter that Apple has yet to set a final price). Darn publicity. You cannot control it. I doubt either wants it.

Specifically, the license violation made Cisco look not so good about sharing, which was the case it wants to make about Apple. And the profit margin of an iPhone made Apple look a little less "taken advantage of" by Cisco hoping to cash in on the trademark.

Hmmmm. I think Technewsworld called it right like I did when they said this one has "the potential to turn very ugly." Why any company, Verizon included, would want to comment on this is beyond my comprehension.

The bottom line is that Cisco kind of holds the higher ground, but I'm unconvinced it can keep it, especially as other companies come forward to challenge Cisco's hold on the trademark (which benefits one of Apple's arguments that the the term iPhone should be shared because other companies have been using it for years). Besides, as I said before, the public seems to want Apple to have the name.

So what is this really about? More and more, it looks to me as if this is nothing more than a high stakes game of "you're not playing fair so I'm going to sue you, nana nana boo boo." And in this game, there will be no winners, but a whole lot of losers.

But then again, it might seem obvious to me to because as a journalist student in the 1980's, I learned everything I needed to know about law (as a non-attorney) while writing my very first article for The Sagebrush. To the ire of the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), I asked what some consider my very first "dangerous" question: "Could UNR find itself caught in a liability suit for injuries related to adminstration-approved events run by private organizations such as fraternities?"

I found my answer by calling every attorney in Reno until one of them gave me the answer. His answer was "yes" (to the chagrin of the UNR). Simply put, however, he also told me, novice that I was in the ways of business at the time, that anybody could sue anybody for anything. He then went on to explain that he could, in that instance, build a strong case against either side.

"Whether or not the plaintiff would win the case would be up to the courts to decide," he said.

This was also my first real lesson in the power of reporting and the importance of public relations. The lesson learned for public relations came from how easy it was to ask questions from the coordinator of campus standards and receive answers that lent well to the story, but did not lend well for her.

My intent was not to harm her (we were friends for heaven's sake). But as I said, I was pretty naive at the time. The fact is, the damage done to her by what was a "good story" became one of the reasons I leaned toward corporate communication and public relations as opposed to reporting. These people needed help, I concluded.

Of course, that's not to say I'm afraid to call a duck a duck either. And the iPhone lawsuit is exactly that. It's a duck. Or, more appropriately, if you are a company thinking of taking sides, you better duck. The publicity is not worth it.

Spinning The Spin: Spin Thicket

What's not to love about Spin Thicket? They do what I sometimes do here, but with much fewer words — usually about one sentence to highlight the most memorable public relations mistakes of the day and then a link to the point of origin. Not surprisingly, there are always an abundance of mistakes to pick from.

More than 20 (and counting) are highlighted today (and every day): everything and anything from Donald Trump and Paris Hilton to Domino's Pizza and YouTube. If you are smart (or at least have common sense), you'll always strive to be the comment cited and never the subject. People who think they know spin — celebrities and politicians — appear often. But more and more companies, it seems, want to give those who think they know a run for the money.

In sum, Spin Thicket is one of several great places to go when you want to see "what not to do." They're often spot on when it comes to what's wrong with spin when all there is spin and no substance. Is all publicity good publicity? Hardly.

Selling Sausage: Marc Gobe

Marc Gobe likes to be called a “conceptual provocateur,” which he defines as "a mind that never rests, that never stops seeking ways to look at things from a new and totally different point of view." He has a lot of interesting ideas that come from his stream-of-consciousness approach, but the one I read in Communication Arts, yesterday, is baloney.

That is what happens sometimes: instead of finding stream-of-consciousness inspiration, we end up selling baloney.

Gobe writes that the designer is the mirror image of the consumer, calling it a revolutionary idea, but mostly, it seems, it's revolutionary because he claims it is his idea. He says that designers are the consumers, understand visual communication better than anyone, and basically, if the researchers would step out of the way, then designers could reach down deep and pull out innovation to jazz up those brands. (Not surprisingly, his design firm, he says, fully endorses this approach. Eh hem, it would be a shocker if it did not.)

Sure, everybody in the industry "feels" this way from time to time: free the creatives from the shackles of research, give them unlimited access to the consumer, and add more weight their opinion, because, after all, they are consumers too. But just because we "feel" this way, doesn't make it so.

Case in point. How many professional organization meetings have we attended when one person floats an event idea, a bad one, but inevitability, someone else on the board says "Ooooo, that's a good idea ... I would go to that" despite the fact that it flies in the face of everything the organization knows to be true from its own member research. The logic: board members are members too. When the event flops, everybody stands around scratching their heads wondering what happened.

What happened? Simple. They fell into the trap that board members are the mirror image of members, despite the fact that there are fundamental differences between them. Board members and members are different audiences because one is engaged while the other is optionally engaged. In business, we often remind clients that no one is more interested in their product than they are. In other words, once you're engaged, you're automatically different than the target audience.

The same holds true for designers and other commercial creatives. Sure, some will find brilliance by becoming emotionally engaged by their own perspective and ego similar to artists like Paul Guanguin. But like all great philosophical approaches to art, design, and even business, there is another direction that's given less attention but has a superior effect. Staying with artists as the analogy, it would be the path taken by Michelango.

Michelango understood that if you destroy the ego and view the world as a third-party observer, looking not for that not-so-elusive emotional jazz, but for the truth, inspiration will flow through unencumbered and touch a greater audience. Right. Take yourself out of the equation and you'll end up with better design. Likewise, you'll end up with better communication that achieves the only real result: changing behavior.

Besides, when designers are given the shot to be the consumer, something else happens. Not all, but most fail. For evidence, look at the abundance of overproduced Flash-heavy agency and design Websites out there and you'll see what I mean. Their self-promotional work has more consumer appeal to their competitors than it does to the businesses they hope to win over.

Denis Du Bois with P5 Group Inc. in Seattle made the case nicely. He didn't have an article in Communication Arts like Gobe did, but he did send in a letter critiquing that designers are becoming too addicted to Flash. While I'm not a fan of the P5 Group Inc. Web site (that's okay, I'm not a fan of mine yet either), I am a fan of this thinking: "When our only tool is a hammer (Flash), every problem looks like a nail." Now only if he would concede that budget has nothing to do with whether or not you can make great communication, we might be friends.

Anyway, here, I'll give Du Bois what he asked for that Communication Arts didn't deliver and also illustrate my argument against Gobe's notion that all designers should be counted as the ultimate consumers (nor do all of them have intuitive superiority). ScuderiaO2 produces an simple, probably cost-effective design Web site that seems to appeal much better to its business target audience than most agnecies without any Flash whatsoever. Smart.

In conclusion, let me clarify a few things so there is no confusion: Flash is cool and works for a lot of products and companies (just not all products and all companies); Gobe has floated some great ideas before (but he's not as innovative as he thinks by feeding designer egos this time around); and Du Bois seems like a nice guy with some smart ideas (though I hope he abandons the "it's all about the budget" excuse). And ScuderiaO2, well, I'm still learning about them ... there seems to be a lot to be liked ... they seem like the kind of folks we would like to work with. But then again, we like everybody. Grin.

Moving Beyond Bad News: Jobster

If Jason Goldberg, CEO of Jobster, is wondering why HouseValues didn’t have to endure a blog swarm over layoffs while Jobster remains the poster child for inappropriate blog posts (made about a month ago), the difference can be found in their approach to crisis communication, inside and out.

Ian Morris did it 89 percent right. Goldberg did it 99 percent wrong.

As a result, from a communication perspective and not necessarily a product review, HouseValues is in a much better position to move beyond its recent bad news than Jobster. The difference is clear.

Whereas the Lukaszewski Group Inc. might call it mismanaging the victim dimension (the treatment of the victims will maintain or destroy trust) and I might call it demonstrating a lack of empathy for those who were impacted, the outcome is the same.

If you do it right, the public is satisfied and their interest wanes. If you do it right, your company might even find protection from having the issue resurface a month, a year, or ten years later.

In politics, it’s called inoculation: a clearly defined explanation of what happened, what was learned, and what was done to rectify the situation. With a good candidate, bad news can even be reframed as good news, all assuming they handled the bad news properly and actually learned something from the mistake.

Companies can move beyond bad news too, assuming the same. While this only touches on the surface, there are a few questions you can ask to guide yourself away from reliving the same bad story over and over again.

Did you acknowledge something went wrong? At Jobster, Goldberg never really apologized for his blog posts regarding the layoffs, which he still muses over today, even referencing that he blogs about what is on his iPod.

Did you apologize? At Jobster, Goldberg didn’t apologize for the posts that caused his former employees to wait on pins and needles through the holidays.

Do you offer explanation? While others have speculated on Goldberg’s behalf — that he was torn between keeping the layoffs under wraps and letting his employees know — he never really said.

What did you learn? It’s difficult to say whether Goldberg learned anything based upon his questions about blogging after the situation unfolded. Contrary, it seems he missed that the situation had little to do with CEO blogging and much to do about hinting at but denying layoff rumors.

Have you satisfied the public interest? If you want to move beyond bad news, you have to commit to regularly reporting additional information until no public interest remains. This includes all positive steps being taken to address the situation and any remedy for the victims. To his credit, Goldberg has done some of this by profiling former Jobster employees.

Did you verbalize empathy, sympathy or even embarrassment? There seems to be no time for that at Jobster, given that Goldberg and some crew have been too busy playing with the office’s new camcorder.

Did you seek outside consult? While Goldberg did ask people to hire his former employees, he remains dead set against turning to his public relations professionals for counsel, likening it to being “handled.”

Did you offer restitution? There seems to be little evidence that Goldberg has gone beyond community and victim expectations in order to remediate the problems.

Of the eight, Goldberg seems to have done one and a half, which was further overshadowed by bouts of arrogance, unpreparedness, and ignorance.

For example, as if he read a line right out of what not to do, Goldberg at one point asked (paraphrased, as this is actually a line from a Lukaszewski example): "Why are the bloggers interested in this anyway? It's nobody's business, but ours. They'll just get the story all mixed up; they simply can't get it right. We certainly can't let our employees talk about this!" One of Goldberg's actual posts is here.

In complete contrast, Morris at HouseValues sent a memo that details to employees (first) everything that will be done, why it will be done, and what measures are being taken to ensure the solvency of the company going forward. There is a certain amount of empathy and regret.

While it seems to me that the release that followed placed too much emphasis on the addition and promise of Barry Allen as chief financial officer and executive vice president of operations, among others, in order to bury the bad news of cutting its workforce by about 12 percent, its overall communication as summed by John Cook of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer — the internal memo, quotes to journalists, etc. — are just enough on par to avoid the ire of the public.

Case in point: "Today is a truly difficult day. And the departure of friends and colleagues is very painful for all of us," Morris said in the memo. "But the decisions we have made -- to focus 100 percent of our energies on the success of our real estate agent customers -- are the right ones and they will enable us to profitably grow HouseValues in the future."

All this seems to indicate, in my opinion, that HouseValues is in a better communication position to avoid reoccurring stories about layoffs. Jobster, on the other hand, continues to demonstrate a communication strategy that will be written about over and over again as how "not to do it." It will very likely be immortalized and will certainly resurface every time Jobster has even marginal news (let alone bad news) again.

Worse, despite hoping they could get over it, it is quite possibly too late for Jobster to regain any semblance of being credible with its communication. While the company may succeed, it will always have this dark piece of history lurking over its head.

Adding Financial Experience: Copywrite, Ink.

From investment plans and ATM cards to banking services and mortgage products, our work in the financial industry has produced some remarkable returns for dozens of companies. In addition to our communication experience in this industry, one of our lead executives has an additional 10 years' experience in banking management for Bank of Boston.

You can download our financial work overview by visiting Copywrite, Ink.

For experience in other industries beyond those highlighted in our pdf portfolio pages, review our account experience lists. Our next scheduled pdf portfolio overview will feature our work in the entertainment industry.

Pitching Public Relations: Monster

Jim Durbin was a recruiting blogger back when he was an account manager for staffing firms, but he says in his profile that the crazy success of blogging led him to start his own blog consulting company Durbin Media. Indeed, Durbin has about a dozen or so clients and the blogs look pretty darn good.

At Recruiting.com, he recently wrote a pointed post called How Many PR folks at Monster Does It Take To Send An E-mail? It's a spot on lesson for public relations professionals sporting a second job title, something like "spam e-mailer."

Instead of writing about Monster's contest, Durbin shares the pitch letter. If you want to read the whole letter, he published it in his post.

I won't post it here, but I will focus in a few highlights: there was no greeting, which is indicative of a spam e-mail (Monster should know better ... I mean, gee, at least buy a program that fills in the names); it's a social media release pitch that screams: try our game and write about it (they say let us know what you think, but they don't care unless he writes about it); and it closes with "public relations account executive," which is a sure bet as to the intent of the e-mail to begin with. It was a poorly written PR pitch.

Durbin did exactly what Monster wanted him to do, but not the way it wanted him to. He wrote a post on a well-read blog in the recruiting industry, chastising the e-mail. His response starts: "There are so many things wrong with this e-mail that I feel the need to correct you." Good for him.

You see, right now, public relations professionals are making a long overdue push into the world of social media and most of them are going to fail miserably if they do things to bloggers like they do with traditional journalists — send news releases and pitches that are impersonal, impractical, and irrelevant to what the blogger is writing about.

As editor of a concierge and hospitality trade publication a few years ago, I saw (and still see despite selling the publication years ago) mountains of poorly crafted public relations pitches that are supposed to attract my attention. My response (assuming I just didn't file the release or pitch letter in the trash) was pretty similar: if you have not read the publication, which is obvious based on the pitch you're sending me, why on earth do you think I'd publish it other than to let people know why I didn't want to publish it ... or, in other words, before you blast e-mails and faxes (which was the rage back then), you should really consider reading the publication or connecting with some concierges to build a relationship.

Sound familiar? It should. Durbin writes: "Before you blast off e-mails to bloggers, you should really consider joining the community, contacting them, or building a relationship."

Durbin might not know how some public relations professionals answer, but I do. Those who practice "spam pitching" profess that they are "too busy to read everybody's publication (or blog) and certainly too busy to cultivate a relationship."

Yeah, right. And every editor or writer on the planet isn't busy. Nope. They just sit in front of their faxes, phones, and computers waiting for someone send them a pitch that has nothing to do with what they write about ... so they can spend an hour or two figuring out a way to write about your client.

The most common response to this revelation? "Do you mean I should take them to lunch and then pitch them?"

Oh, you mean bribe them with food? Yeah, that will help. It will help you lose even more credibility.

Sure, there are some strategic uses for pitching a story under some circumstances, but most pitches are nothing more than a novice public relations professional unable to find a real story about their client. So, they call or e-mail with the hope that the writer just might.

If you're a blogger, get used to it because it's going to get worse before it gets better. As public relations professionals set their sights on social media, expect mountains of pitches to come your way. Nothing will change it. I've been telling public relations professionals not to spam pitch for years and they just don't believe me, until fine people like Jim Durbin teach them the hard way. Of course, even then, they still don't get it.

Turning A Corner: SCO

If you ever wondered whether there is a point of no return — a time when you lose control of your message forever — SCO might provide the answer. The company's primary message has been so public and so narrow for so long, it's difficult for anyone to see past it.

Sure, CEO Darl McBride wants people to look at SCO's new product releases — UnixWare and OpenServer, and the fledgling Me Inc. suite of mobile messaging applications. I don't blame him, but it's too little too late because everyone else wants to talk about what SCO wanted to talk about in 2003: its ongoing (and failing) lawsuits with IBM and Novell. Some journalists, like Bob Mims of The Salt Lake Tribune, even define the company this way: "SCO, best known for its ongoing US $5 billion federal lawsuit alleging that IBM leaked proprietary Unix code into Linux..."

From a communication standpoint, this illustrates why, sometimes, you have to be careful what you wish for. In 2003, McBride wanted the world to know that "SCO is in the enviable position of owning the UNIX operating system." But that was the year that SCO had so much news, it issued about 90 news releases and its "News About The SCO Group" page had at least that many entries. By comparison, in 2006, it issued about 30 new releases, but only a paltry five stories are included in the "News About The SCO Group" section, probably because all the rest are unfavorable and about the lawsuits.

Over at LWN.net, for example, the editor summed up a recent SCO conference call as: The answer is somewhat unsurprising: more of the same, with the main point being that SCO claims to own the Unix copyrights and believes that Novell is "trying to curry favor with the Linux community" by pressing its claims. SCO believes it will prevail on this point.

No, it isn't surprising, primarily because SCO has wrapped itself up so tightly in lawsuit communication, its executive team can no longer help themselves. You see, the conference call began with a statement that they would not talk about the lawsuit. But, of course, that was exactly what it was primarily about, with exception to some details about declining revenues and workforce reductions, which everyone except SCO seems to think is linked to, well, you guessed it, the lawsuit.

Which brings me back to the idea of reaching the point of no return. If SCO loses the lawsuit, assuming it can continue to operate with ever-diminishing returns, it seems to me it will be sunk. If, on the other hand, prevailing opinion is wrong, and somehow it wins the lawsuit, then it will forever be linked to winning a lawsuit no one seems to want it to win.

Ho hum. Sometimes when you win, you lose anyway. And that, to me, is the point of no return. You can have your day in court, but it's a short day when winning costs everything else. Addictions are like that.

Making The Times: Jobster

There are many reasons for a CEO to be excited when his or her company makes the pages of The New York Times. Unfortunately for Jason Goldberg, it was for all the wrong reasons.

Just when Goldberg probably thought that all the flack about posting was over, Damon Darlin of The New York Times decides to rehash the 20-some day old news. The article is titled "A Boss Takes to His Blog to Deny, Then Confirm," which pinpoints the original problem for those few who still don't get it. No, it wasn't that he had a blog or writes about foodie sites. It wasn't about whether his "handlers" check his posts or that sometimes he considers capital letters optional. It was all about hinting at the inevitable when it was clearly the wrong thing to do.

The reason I say this is unfortunate is because a lot of people in the recruiting industry seemed excited about Jobster's new features. Forty-one people voted for his write-up covering the Jobster's new features at Recruiting.com. I was one of them, mostly because I've been covering Jobster for a few weeks now and secretly hope, er, not-so-secretly hope, that it can patch up the hull of its ship and sail on to better things.

But unfortunately, it seems some journalists have different ideas, preferring instead to make Goldberg the poster CEO for inappropriate posts in contrast to Jonathan I. Schwartz at Sun Microsystems. Darlin even cited Goldberg's own words as to why this has come up once again: "It’s the nature of Web 2.0 and new media that if you don’t embrace openness, it will come back and bite you.”

Ouch. Shakespeare could not have written a better foreshadow.

As Jobster remains a living case study, I'll post some notes on "moving beyond bad news" when you actually have some good news ahead (this Friday). I mean, Exxon got over it. And while the handling of Jobster's layoffs were deplorable, they were nowhere near as bad as Valdez. Unless you were laid off, I suppose.

Personally, I'm starting to think Goldberg should take his own advice and hire a public relations professional from his job bank. It seems to me they need someone on the inside who really knows this stuff, inside and out.

Not everybody needs someone inside. For many, a consultant or outside firm is perfect. For Jobster, a company that relies so heavily on daily blog posts as a preferred method of communication, inside could very well be a "must have." Besides, his current public relations team couldn't even get The New York Times to write up something nice in between Darlin's post show commentary. Post show? Right, we're saving that one for after the Superbowl.

Breaking All The Rules: AdAge

As the 20th century was coming to a close, Advertising Age (AdAge) launched a major chronicle, the history of the era's advertising industry. It's a remarkable piece of work that can be seen online and contains the top 100 ad campaigns and people, along with the top 10 jingles, slogans, and icons.

I have shared segments of it in my public relations class for several years, under the auspices that public relations needs to work hand-in-hand with advertising (or vice versa if you prefer). The other reason I share it is simple. I like to show public relations professionals what they miss out on because for all the "rules" they have to follow, the best in advertising does not.

No, I am not talking about "rules" like whether or not there needs to be a call to action (although, I suppose, maybe there doesn't need to be). I'm talking about rules like those parodied in a Communication Arts classic article "Nine Ways To Improve A Volkswagen Ad," which, not coincidentally, targets the very ad that AdAge calls the best in history.

Here's an example: rule Number One from the classic parody touts the idea that we must always "think positive" in advertising. Applying this rule to the Volkswagen ad is easy enough: instead of the headline "Think Small," the headline should be "Think Big." And so on goes the list of rules, until one of the best campaigns in advertising history is nothing more than a shell of its former glory because it ends up looking like everyone else. In a previous post I link to the 2006 version of the Volkswagen parody, which uses Apple and Microsoft. The idea is the same.

I guess it's for this reason, my background in advertising, I also prefer the term "process" to "formula" with the distinction being that one guides you through strategic thinking (like a core message) while the other is nothing but a bunch of rules. The net result is that my favorite answer to most broad communication questions is "it depends." Because it really does depend.

For me, everything becomes more clear when it is applied to a single case study, because the answers are frequently different in one case study than another. Blogs, for example, are much like that. Lots of people are trying to invent formulas as to what makes the best blogs better than average blogs. The answer is actually pretty simple: the best blogs have a strategy. Everything else, whether it's online chat or cluster maps or anonymous comments, depends entirely on each specific blog.

If you don't believe me, perhaps you'll believe Bill Bernbach (1911-1982). Bernbach never read a blog, but there's a reason he emerged as No. 1 on AdAge's 20th century honor roll of advertising's most influential people. "Rules are what the artist breaks; the memorable never emerged from a formula," he said.

That's good enough for me. But just in case it's not good enough for you, take a look at all 100 campaigns featured by AdAge. They all have one thing in common. They all broke whatever rules were being enforced at the time. The same holds true for businesses in general, I suppose. The biggest success stories always seem to be innovate ideas no one else is doing.

Counting Web Pages: Tootsie Rolls

We were (are) playing with the idea of robust site for Copywrite, Ink., but then we started asking ourselves a few crazy questions like “how many clicks does it take to get to the center of a ...?"

Fortunately for me, Tootsie Roll Industries has a story board featuring the classic Tootsie Fable "How Many Licks" commercial. And that's where I found the answer.

Of course, for everyone else — how many pages does it take to make a Website — it depends on the company. But for us, for now at least, we defer to Mr. Owl.

Lacking A Message: SCO

As an investor, you might think twice about a tech company that seems to spend more on legal counsel than on research and development. In the communication world, we might wonder too, when the only news to offset the company’s continued losses is an audio postcard for mobile phones.

I’m not saying an audio postcard isn’t interesting (though I don’t think I’m in the target audience), it’s just not enough to offset what amounts to a net deficit in good news vs. bad news. (I sincerely hope they get something else off the drawing board).

You see, while I don’t enjoy reading about companies in trouble, there seems to be growing cause for coverage from Slashdot and Groklaw that suggests SCO is in deep trouble, with the company saying very little to correct the idea. (Although there is one denial, reported by CNET reporter Graeme Wearden.)

What is odd about SCO's lack of a message is that it has a history of correcting people, an entire page of its Website is dedicated to “recent” media corrections (most pertain to events in 2004). The page makes me wonder about the public relations logic in making media corrections a permanent part of their communication strategy, doubly so because they called it “recent,” as if to allude that more corrections were expected.

Sure, some might give the company kudos for correcting flawed reporting, and in some cases, I might be one of them. However, if erroneous reporting seems to be the rule as opposed to the exception, it’s time to start asking if "you" might be part of the problem.

When assessing what the media says about you or your client, here are a few questions to ask: 1. What did I say (or not say) that might have contributed to the inaccuracy? 2. Was the story fair, given the context and depth of the story, allowing for opinions from both sides? 3. Did the media give the story appropriate time and space and, if not, why was I unable to make my case that certain points were critical to the story?

These are just a few from a longer list, but suffice to say that when the media gets it wrong, spokespeople and public relations professionals have to accept some of the responsibility. Why? Because the truth is that most spokespeople are unprepared for interviews and few have any objectives outlined before they take the call. In fact, almost no one tries to correct what they said immediately after an interview (probably because they don't remember what they said anyway).

That's too bad because if you do listen to what you are saying, there might be time to follow up. You never know when a quick post interview e-mail to a reporter might be readily welcomed. Most reporters just want to get the story right.

While I am not sure that a few bad interviews started the communication problems at SCO, it does seem safe to say that there is an abundance of miscommunication surrounding the company and that miscommunication has irreparably damaged its brand.