Moving Forward: How To Manage Criticism

Lauren Vargas, principal of 12Comm Public Relations, calls them killer bees or "jackals feeding off the blood and weakness of others." Valeria Maltoni, who writes the Conversation Agent (among other things), calls them seagulls — those who fly in, make a mess, and fly out again. And Umesh Sharma, clinical psychologist, includes not being a critic among his secrets for a stress-free life. Critics are like needles in a balloon factory, he said.

There is certainly some wisdom in their words. Seagulls and bees or needles and jackals don't make the most pleasant company. However, as Vargas points out and Maltoni has too, constructive criticism is not only welcomed, it's needed.

That leaves some communicators in a quandary. How do you tell the bees from butterflies and seagulls from eagles?

After all, very few people really like criticism, but everyone offers it from time to time. In fact, our aversion to it tends to be a prominent social media discussion point any time I speak with business people. "What if someone says something bad about us?" they ask.

I generally muse that people probably are already saying something bad about them, they just don't know it.

After all, the most common question after a dinner, show, movie, book, product, new car, etc. is "How did (or do) you like it?" or "What did you think?" One of the benefits — or setbacks — of social media is that it amplifies these criticisms from private conversations to public discourse. In some cases, it can even cause a crisis.

Personally, I consider it a benefit, but not all people do. So regardless of how you feel, what's a communicator to do?

1. Recognize the difference between critics and cynics. Critics strive to be open, objective, and offer suggestions for improvement or make an effort to understand various points of view. Cynics generally are closed, biased, and reject that any merit exists or tend to promote their point of view while dismissing the validity of any other. They deserve different approaches.

2. Distinguish criticism about something and criticism about someone. Valid criticism, even if you do not agree with it, tends to focus on the situation, work, or action. The worst criticism presents judgements about specific people. Care what people think, but don't care so much about what they think about you.

3. Consider the intent of constructive criticism and negative feedback. The intent of negative feedback, even if it appears offensive, or constructive criticism, which is generally non-confrontational, is to provide guidance. Even when comments seem inappropriate, focus more on the message and not the delivery.

4. Distinguish the difference between communication and diatribe. Someone opening up a conversation that makes us feel uncomfortable might even be an asset. Diatribe, on the other hand, does not promote conversation or communication. It aims to shout the other person down (sometimes by encouraging others to do it).

5. Recognize that cynicism communicates more about them than you. While criticism can sting if it is well presented, cynicism says more about them than it does you. Even when real time situations seem to favor emotional aggressors, post- event analysis tends to favor a steady hand. How you respond will always overshadow what is being critiqued.

If you don't manage the message, the message will manage you.

Communicators have to accept that we cannot control what other people say or do. We can only manage what we say or do, even when we are responding to what others have said. Planned action is always better than unplanned reaction. In fact, in preparing for such instances, the first person we need to consider is ourself. Are we oversensitive to criticism?

While I'm not a fan of psychological self-tests, I did vet one at Psychology Today for this post. It asks: Are you sensitive to criticism? Can you handle negative feedback or do you find you have to resist the urge to bite your critic's head off? Try it out. (The summary is free; the full analysis, which didn't seem necessary, carries a fee.) The exercise itself might be eye-opening.

Once you do, then consider the closing quote from author William Arthur Ward. Because if he were alive today, he might artfully remind people that how one receives and interprets criticism or cynicism is the key to being an effective communicator. He might also note that even the most practiced communicators, when confronted with criticism, tend to respond (or encourage others to respond on their behalf) much like the critics they profess to dislike.

"In the face of unjust criticism, we can become bitter or better; upset or understanding; hostile or humble; furious or forgiving." — William Arthur Ward

Endorsing Content: Mayo Clinic

Nowadays, blog launches are hardly news. But when the organization is the Mayo Clinic, it piques our interest.

Sure, blogs aren't new for the Mayo Clinic. It has several, covering topics that range from Alzheimer's and Depression to Genetics and Safe Sex. It also has social media initiatives on YouTube and FaceBook.

The newest blog, however, presents something else entirely. Sharing Mayo Clinic "provides an online site for patients and employees to share their stories about what makes Mayo Clinic unique."

While the concept is grounded in the theory that organizations should give social media message control over to consumers (which may or may not be prudent), those few words of intent place the blog somewhere in the middle of virtue and vice. Is the blog about patients sharing their experiences or is it a media rich endorsement page? The mixed intent comes across in a statement as well.

"Rather than our patients just being able to talk with the people they see every day, these platforms allow them to share their experiences with people all over the world -- some of whom they know personally, and many they do not," says Lee Aase, Mayo Clinic's manager of social media and syndication. "We also see Sharing Mayo Clinic as an opportunity to provide glimpses into the lives and motivations of Mayo employees who are dedicated to working together in teams to provide the best care to every patient, every day."

The first half of the quote is intuitive and empathetic. The second half of the quote is marketing.

There isn't anything wrong with that; and I'm a fan of everything the Mayo Clinic is attempting to do in terms of bridging the communication gap between medical professionals and people. (Check out Aase's sincere interview on YouTube. It's solid.)

However, if it wasn't for the brand equity of the Mayo Clinic, it seems to me that this new venture might be mistaken for astroturf — a series of endorsements leveraged by miracles of modern medicine (e.g. If UCLA Medical asked me to do the same after our daughter's visit, you can bet the personal review would be glowing.)

That's not to say this first step doesn't have potential. If Mayo Clinic employees and patients are willing to share their stories (perhaps in real time on occasion) and the Mayo Clinic cross references those stories with its other social media initiatives in support, Sharing Mayo Clinic might be a real breakthrough in social media as well as medicine.

You see, there is difference between telling people some time and showing people something. Rather than place the emphasis on stories that make Mayo Clinic unique, the Mayo Clinic only needs to share stories that make its patients and employees unique. With a simple shift in intent, the benefits become self-evident.

Wearing Verbs: The Future Of PR

When Bill Sledzik, associate professor for the School of Journalism & Mass Communication at Kent State University (Kent State), first posted how his school hopes to raise the bar for public relations, I flagged his post. (I flag many of his posts, enough so I'm glad he doesn't post daily.) At the moment, I only have one more bullet to add to his already excellent post.

How Do You Raise The Bar In Public Relations Education? 10. Teach public relations students to think.

Public relations is changing. And with each passing year, it's changing at an accelerated pace.

In 2005, I could sum up what it might take to be a good public relations professional with just three bullet points.

• Think like a journalist
• Act like a business professional
• Write with the passion of a novelist

In 2007, I added three more.

• Dig deeper than a lead investigator
• Speak with the conviction of a communicator
• Exhibit empathy like a public service advocate

This year, I've added a seventh.

• Demonstrate authenticity like a social media evangelist

Next year, I'm planning to add number eight. All I need to do is settle in on a professional comparison for adaptability, which will require tomorrow's public relations professionals to think. They will have to know how to think, because as the velocity of communication accelerates and the tactics we employ to do so change, public relations professionals and other communicators will no longer be able to rely on "how to" hot lists that become obsolete the day after publishing.

Communication is situational. Adapt or die.

Two student questions reminded me just how much emphasis needs to be placed on thinking. One question, which came after class in an e-mail, asked me how I expected students to complete the assignment when I hadn't given them "how to" instructions.

The assignment is to write their own obituary (10-60 years from now) as a journalist. (While there are several objectives, one is to pay homage to journalists who used to start with assignments just like that.)

My response was simple enough. I can no more endorse a "how to write an obit" for an undefined subject than I could outline "how to write an advertisement" for an undefined product. There are too many variables. So I reiterated what I said in class. Read some real obits: Ricardo Montalban, Heath Ledger, Gerald Ford, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, etc. Then, think it through.

The other question, asked in class, wondered how I could wear both the public relations hat and the journalism hat from time to time (everybody wears lots of hats nowadays; just search "wearing many hats" and you'll see). What might have been a better answer, however, would have gone much further in emphasizing adaptability for future public relations professionals.

When defining hats, it's best to think in terms of verbs instead of nouns.

Doubling Features: Veronica Mars, Jericho

It took two years, but the entertainment industry is taking action. When audiences are engaged, ratings alone don't measure. Backed by two loyal and impassioned fan bases, two television shows are setting sights on the big screen.

Passive viewers are active consumers.

Rob Thomas, creator of Veronica Mars, recently confirmed rumors: there will be a Veronica Mars movie. He said it will pick up a few days before Veronica Mars' graduation from Hearst College. Kristen Bell is confirmed; Thomas says he has spoken with Jason Dohring and Enrico Colantoni. Why? Fans.

Jon Turteltaub, executive producer of Jericho, broke the news: there will be a big screen treatment for Jericho. While the movie will go beyond the small town setting in Kansas, Turteltaub said that the original cast is all in, including Skeet Ulrich and Ashley Scott. Why? Fans.

The Internet has changed entertainment. Expect surprises.

At a presentation held at the Sundance Film Festival, panelists — Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, YouTube CEO Chad Hurley, and Hulu CEO Jason Kilar — may have shared slightly different visions for the future of entertainment, but all of them agreed on one thing. Fans are in control.

It only makes sense. Ask the next generation when their favorite television shows air, and many of them don't know. The shows are available whenever and wherever they want. It doesn't even matter when they were produced.

New shows benefit from the acceleration of online content delivery and old shows are resurrected as if they were produced last week. Many of them benefit from consumer marketing efforts created by brand evangelists.

Not only do these fans want to see the story lines continue, but they want the depth of material expanded as well. Even if that means picking up where networks and film studios leave off, many of them are more than ready to do it.

Measuring Communication: ROI Meets ROC

There has been considerable time and effort invested by hundreds of people in attempting to demonstrate a return on investment for communication — advertising, marketing, public relations, and social media. It began as far back as, well, since someone first realized it might be measurable. In fact, any search on the subject will turn up any number of efforts, with some providing better explanations than others.

For my own part, I've been working, on and off, to refine a measurement formula for the better part of two years. My hypothesis is simple: the return on investment is related to the intent of the communication and the outcome it produces.

I | O = ROI

However, since last year, there have been several people who have noted that ROI means something different to business. In finance, for example, ROI means the ratio of money gained or lost (realized or unrealized) on an investment relative to the amount of money invested. When considering that definition, it becomes reasonably clear that ROI might be the wrong term for communication measurement, especially because not all communication produces outcomes that yield direct returns.

While this doesn't change the hypothesis, it does place a greater emphasis on establishing the connection between direct and indirect results because if we narrow the definition to only recognize direct returns, the greater portion of any communication plan will be diminished and working professionals will continue to misidentify incidentals such as conversations outcomes. Instead, I propose the real measure of communication is exactly that — the return on communication or ROC.

[(B • I) (m+s • r)/d] / [O/(b + t + e)] = ROC

For the next several Mondays, I will be writing a series about the above formula as illustrated within a free 5-page abstract, Measure: I | O = ROC a.k.a. The ROC, which defines a revised formula for communication measurement across advertising, marketing, public relations, internal communication, and social media. It has already been proven effective in measuring individual communication and ongoing campaigns.

Polarizing Futures: Apple, Facebook, Everyone

When Amazon first launched Kindle, it seemed to me that no matter how anyone felt about the product, the technology behind it represented crossroads with potentially polarizing effects.

It represented an opportunity to educate everyone on the planet (once there was a price point drop), giving them access to the best books ever written. And, it also represented an opportunity to enslave humankind by filtering future content and killing the last refuge of reader privacy at the same time. Some responses were expected...

"Enslave humankind"? I can imagine a few scenarios, but what did you have in mind?

Facebook Sacrifices Burger King

Burger King posted a Facebook application in early January that promised users a free Whopper if they publicly sacrificed 10 friends. Facebook disabled the campaign after 233,906 friendships were sacrificed, claiming the application did not meet users' expectations and the campaign was singling out users for ridicule.

Crispin Porter & Bogusky has since move to its third attempt to force feed a viral campaign in the last couple months. You can now send someone an Angry-Gram.

Apple Becomes Editor-In-Chief

Tom Krazit, a staff writer for CNET, recently outlined the details between the e-book author David Carnoy and Apple. Apparently, Apple rejected Carnoy's e-book for containing "objectionable content," which appeared to be a couple of uses of that four-letter word that starts with F.

Carnoy succumbed, saying the changes didn't impact the book. Apple has since approved the e-book now that the author removed the words that Apple considered objectionable.

Mack Collier Questions Listenership

Mack Collier, a social media purist for whom I have ample respect, questioned my interest in the 'Real-Time Communications Conference' because it was led by Pfizer Vice President Ray Kerins, someone who is virtually unknown in social media circles. Pfizer has been using social media internally.

Collier made the case that listening to people who were outside the circle might not be worth listening to. I'll be sharing some notes from the conference, which was broadcast live in real time, next week. There is ample content that is useful for businesses, students, and social media consultants alike.

Some of the discussion goes a long way in bridging the gap between business marketing and social media enthusiasts. Bringing very different ideas from different people, companies, and industries is a passion of mine.

Stanford University Was Right

While I might be an instructor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, I still have a passion for learning. And since I am geographically challenged in pursuing my education, I make ample use of multiple sources, including the content rich Stanford University section of iTunes.

I'll be writing more in-depth about these programs soon, but for now there is a thought that seems especially appropriate. As much as the Internet and social media have contributed to making more information and commentary from a greater number of sources available, it also allows participants to pick and choose their own content to such a degree that each participant can effectively select their own set of facts and create their own reality.

In other words, it might even be said we run the risk of self-isolating ourselves from knowledge that makes us feel uncomfortable. So I wonder, no matter if it is the smallest examples of gatekeeper censorship such as Facebook and Apple or even self-selected, what are people doing to ensure they continue to challenge themselves — even if it means listening to opposing viewpoints or taking the risk of being offended — in order to grow? What are your thoughts? I'd love to know.