Perception = reality

Bailout tactic #1: ‘at personal title’

Kalle Siebring — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 08:11:00 GMT

Once in a while public figures come under attack because of a comment that they have made in the media. Usually they have said something that is not in line with their organization’s or political party’s official statement. Time for bailout tactic #1!

An example: recently Ms. Jet Bussemaker, Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport for the Netherlands, publicly called it ‘a major disaster’ if Barack Obama would not be elected President of the United States. This comment resulted in serious criticism from her own party, stating that this could seriously harm the Netherlands’ reputation. Like many have done before, Bussemaker used a popular bailout tactic: she said that the comment was made ‘at personal title’. This is too easy and naive.

Too easy, because Ministers and other high-ranked individuals are not being invited by radio and TV programs because of ‘their friendly personalities’ or because they have ‘such nice blue eyes’. They are being invited because of the position they hold and the organization that they represent. Naïve, because you simply cannot expect the public to discern personal and work-related comments from each other. With the increasing amount of information that organizations fire at us, should we also make distinctions between personal and work-related opinions?

Naturally these people can still have a personal opinion, which they should be allowed to express. But power comes with responsibility. By accepting a public function, they should realize that their personal opinion is not personal anymore – by definition. Everything they say and do will be placed under a magnifying glass, also after they close the office doors 5 pm.

Alike making off-the-record comments to journalists: if you do not want them to be published, don’t make the comment. Simple as that.

Thou should blend!

Kalle Siebring — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 19:55:00 GMT

From a Chuck Norris puppet to golf balls, and from credit cards to the iPhone... Tom Dickson, founder of blending machines producer Blendtec, attempts to demonstrate the power of his blender by (trying to) blend almost anything. Yes, the founder indeed. In an absurd, Brainiac-style kind of way.

To me this is a great example of 'making' a C-level executive to do something else, to get him out of the boardroom. But when does it start to become ridiculous? When do CEOs, founders, politicians and other high-ranked people start to lose credibility?

To give you one example: the Netherlands' Prime Minister J.P. Balkenende performed as a presenter in daily gossip TV show RTL Boulevard, while campaigning for his re-election... now THAT was definitely too much.

Looking forward to hearing more bad (or good) examples.

P.S. Don't try this at home. Yeah right.

Google News and the speed of commenting

Kalle Siebring — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:51:00 GMT

Sometimes you read a rather simple news fact, but one that really hits you due to its potential impact. Do you know that feeling? Well, that's what I had last week when the news on Google News came to me.

Google News USA has started an experiment whereby people or organizations who were actual participants in the story in question can add their comment to the news story. After confirming the real identity of the person these comments will then be posted next to the story. Click here for (a screenshot of an) example.

You, as PR professional, were probably already monitoring Google News for coverage on your company or certain subjects. And if a newspaper or magazine writes a negative and/or factual incorrect article on your employer, you will most likely contact the editor and send him a letter with your side of the story. At least that's what I'd recommend.

But you'd better speed up that process and keep an extra eye on Google News, because here's your chance to get your story across - not just in tomorrow's newspaper but now. Grab that opportunity!

Tell me SEC, how mature are social media?

Kalle Siebring — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:23:00 GMT

Last year I published a post about a former accountant at Dutch retailer Ahold, on how he posted news on his weblog. At that point I argued that he should not have posted a newsworthy fact on his weblog, because they are not considered public places. As Ahold is a listed company, it would potentially breach the Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure). This regulation reads “when an issuer, or person acting on its behalf, discloses material nonpublic information to certain enumerated persons (…) it must make public disclosure of that information.”

Now Chris Gidez, a colleague from Hill & Knowlton in the USA, wrote his first post (welcome Chris) on the posting behavior of Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, and whether he has broken any securities laws or regulations.

What’s the case?

Under a nickname Mackey has made more than 1,200 posts on the Whole Foods (Yahoo finance) message board and a competitor’s message board, between 1999 and 2006. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is expected to look into whether the postings violated fair disclosure rules or securities laws.

In his post Chris ask why Mackey posted messages in the first place and whether he has considered the potential risks of doing so. Fair questions, but what strikes me about this issue is the SEC’s research. One of the things the SEC has to determine is whether message boards are considered public places. I am very eager to hear the outcome.

I doubt it will be, but if the message board is considered public, the Whole Foods CEO might be out of trouble (though it’s not that simple, more issues must be researched by the SEC). But it would also mean something else: one of the most serious and influential financial authorities recognizing the reach and impact of social media… now THAT would be something!

Oh no... not another press release!!

Kalle Siebring — Fri, 04 May 2007 17:09:00 GMT

A while ago I have called for a ban on bad press releases. Still there are times when a press release is a valid option. Fine, no problem, but let's agree on words and phrases that should never (NEVER!) be used in releases anymore.

Here is my top 10 of words/phrases to be banned from every press release, as they are being used way too often and easily:

Delighted to announce
Leading supplier of
State-of-the-art
Unique
Solutions provider
Groundbreaking
Enable
Innovative
Business-critical
Best of breed

And some that have just fallen out of the top 10:

World-class
Competitive advantage
Revolutionary

Agree? Looking forward to hearing your additions...

Bullsh*t bingo

Kalle Siebring — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:17:00 GMT

It’s Friday afternoon, the perfect time to play some bullshit bingo.

The rules are simple. When in a meeting, draw a matrix of 5 by 5 squares. Fill in the squares with words that are sooooo overly used that no one exactly knows its meaning. Agree on the words (or use the example below) and start the meeting.

When players hear any of their bullshitwords spoken in the meeting, they cross it off their cards. Card full? Shout “Bullshit!!” as loud as you can and claim your prize, whatever that may be.

So what’s the link with PR? My point is that we as PR professionals have the tendency to use the same, often meaningless, words over and over again. Does anyone believe you when you use phrases such as state-of-the-art, leading supplier of…, and unique?

Soon to follow, my top-XX of words that should be banned from every press release or document.

I want to thank…

Kalle Siebring — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:01:00 GMT

… my parents for buying me a computer some 10 years ago;

… my management for hiring me and giving me access to Internet;

… my girlfriend for introducing me to VoIP;

… my housemates for installing the broadband Internet line at my Amsterdam flat;

… all web site owners for providing so much interesting content.

… the Thai people for building so many Internet shops around their country;

… the inventers of Collective Conversation for creating such a great platform allowing me to express my views;

… the builders of CC for making it possible;

… my colleagues for giving me inspiration for my (bi-) weekly rants;

Thank you all for making me into the active Internet user and content generator that I have become. Thanks to you I have become the Time Person of the Year 2006.

Finally I want to congratulate You, You, You and You for sharing this title with me.

Thank you.

The future of media... Some vision, please. Anyone?

Kalle Siebring — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:24:00 GMT

In 2008 Google and Amazon will have merged into Googlezon;

In 2010 Microsoft and Googlezon are fighting the News Wars;

And in 2014 the New York Times has gone offline and become a print newspaper for the elite only.

In short that’s what Robin Sloan and Matt Thompson believed (in November 2004) how the future of media would look like ten years from then. Watch the original EPIC 2014 video, or the updated January 2005 EPIC 2015 version.

Correct? Not sure

Disturbing? Somewhat

Interesting? Definitely!

In any case this is an admirable and well-executed effort to describe the future of social and mainstream media.

In contradiction, at a mini-seminar on blogging that I visited yesterday, I was surprised by the lack of vision that was being projected. Renowned companies were merely trying to describe the trend that’s called social media and how to start incorporating it in their (PR) strategy. Even the monitoring of blogs was considered to be revolutionary by most. Come on, we can do better than that!

Is the corporate world still underestimating the impact of social media on their business? Why aren’t we all listening in on the the biggest coffeehouse on Earth?Didn’t we read and learn from the great Business Week articles on blogging one-and-a-half or even two years ago? Shouldn’t we by now all know exactly what RSS is?

And why are we – as PR consultants – hesitant to formulate and disseminate a visionary outlook on the future of media, while we should lead the way?

Or am I just too pessimistic and are we on par with social media...?

I doubt it...

The end of PR by press release... okay?

Kalle Siebring — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:43:00 GMT

Question: How old is the press release?

Answer: 100 years and one month...

On the 28^th of October 1906 Ivy Lee – considered by some to be the founder of modern PR – wrote the first ever press release. Lee’s agency was working with the Pennsylvania Railroad when a serious train accident happened in Atlantic City. Besides inviting reporters to visit the accident scene by themselves, he also distributed a release to the media. The New York Times applauded this unusual opennes of the company and published it literally, without modifications. (Now that’s coverage!)

His next release was for anthracite coal operators whose employees were striking. This time he received a lot of criticism as he was said to manipulate the news.

100 years on PR by press release is everso popular...

Since e-mail has become commonplace, the physical threshold to issue a release has been reduced to one mouse click. Now anybody with one finger and a computer can write a release.

“Got news? Press release!”

“Not such major news? Never mind, still a press release!”

Let’s stop this. We all know that editorial staff are being overloaded by releases that contain no news. Journalists are getting fed-up by yet another company claiming to be the leading provider of a life changing product blablabla...

Next time you start writing a release: stop typing. Get yourself a coffee and take a few minutes to rethink your decision. Isn’t there a better option? Have you thought about offering (exclusive) interviews? Factsheets? An infographic maybe?

Let’s do this and leave the release to the real important stuff. Perhaps you will make it into the New York times then.

Election time... time to switch off the TV

Kalle Siebring — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:18:00 GMT

Election time in the Netherlands…

Trying to find my way through the dozens of Dutch TV channels, it’s hard to find a programme without a politician in it. Not only do they appear in almost every talk show or news programme (as you would expect), but also in entertainment shows and even kiddy programmes. Really, would 5-year-olds influence their parents’ voting decision?

Last week - in a public debate broadcast live on television - right-wing party leader Rutte called his left-wing opponent Marijnissen anti-social. A few days earlier Ruling PM Balkenende (Christian democrats) calls his labour-opponent Bos a fidget.

Both times newspapers and TV shows pick it up and in the following days both politicians repeat their verbal attack several times.

A perception has been created.

Whether these allegations are true or not (I will not broadcast political opinions here) it once again shows the power of the media and how easily many people believe in what they say, almost without thinking for themselves.

More than ever political standpoints have been reduced to one-liners, parties have been replaced by one, maximum two faces (does anybody know the number three of the socialist party?), and spin doctors dictate the headlines.

Or as John Mayer sings in ‘Waiting for the world to change':

‘And when you trust your television

What you get is what you got

Cause when they own the information, oh

They can bend it all they want’

This Wednesday we will find out who has the best political agenda. Or should I say the best media trainer?