PR Straight Talk

Super Tuesday, with Hillary Clinton winning New York, California and Massachusetts (the latter in spite of Senator Kennedy’s Obama endorsement) clearly shows that she would be a strong candidate in a national election.  Nonetheless, the struggle for delegates was about even, with Obama having edged out smaller States that were Caucus-run.

The next crop of States lean towards Obama, but States like Ohio and Texas after that are fair game for Clinton.  Nonetheless, Obama as the evident favorite of many younger Internet savvy voters, has won him (so far) stronger financial support through that medium - with Clinton accumulating dollars among middle-aged and older, wealthier voters - but with fewer cumulative dollars than gathered by Obama.

The campaign for the Democratic nomination ensues, as yet undecided, and it’s too close to foresee the winner.  Obama has momentum, but Clinton’s appeal is powerful and should not be underestimated.

If I were counseling either candidate, I would urge Senator Clinton to have more television appeal ads produced, focusing on warm “fireside” chats from her living room, with the warm side of her personality highlighted, with strong message-driven content that also shows her firmness on tough issues.  These “warm” ads gain her points and counter her not entirely earned reputation as cold.  She needs to show her toughness on issues, but her warmth as a personality - not only in ads, but in future debates too (she did a great job in projecting both sides in the California debate).   

I would also advise her to reflect that toughness when it comes to pronouncements about dealing with harsh international adversaries; and hitting Obama on his statements about meeting with enemies before preconditions have been set.  There is even a place here to cite the terrible mistake made just prior to WW II by Britain’s Prime Minister Chamberlain in making deals with Hitler, only to have had them broken some short time after.

If I were counseling Senator Obama, I would advise that he continue with his inspirational messages, but combine them with more specific messages on issues.   He needs to assure the American people that his willingness to bring opposing sides together does not make him naive or weak, and that there is a solid foundation of strength and a firmness in standing up for principles at the foundation of his willingness to explore dialogue.  He needs to establish that he is not an ignorer of the lessons of history, and that there is a fine but nonetheless clear line of demarcation between the wisdom gained in having learned those lessons - and the wisdom and courage taken in allowing for a movement towards a new paradigm that seeks to find the common bonds between us rather than that which divides us.

On the Republican side, Senator McCain is close to victory as the Republican nominee, but Huckabee, with his wins in the South and today in Kansas, seems aimed at winning Conservative votes to the perception of McCain as a moderate.   McCain is very strong on the pro-Iraq/pro surge issue.  Huckabee is strong on the issue of tax cuts and pro-Life.  It is more than likely that Huckabee is vying for the Veep spot in a ticket that would reach both moderates and Conservatives. 

Yet there seems to be an opening for an independent like New York’s Mayor Bloomberg to insert himself as a Third Party candidate, pointing to fiscal Conservatism and social progressivism as a viable alternative to both the Democratic and Republican positions.  While at the moment an unlikely development, it is not out of the realm of possibility.  

The American people are looking for reassurance that we are safe from terrorists, safe with decent health care, safe in our environment, and that the future is hopeful with the promise of jobs, economic security,  and opportunities for human development.    How each candidate brings his or her individual messages which reinforce both sides of that equation can earn them additional support and votes.

So let us stay tuned.

Two postings ago, I wrote about the importance of being perceived as “real” and how this realness is conveyed through a candidate’s connection with his or her values and beliefs, and how “personality” is the prism through which  voters perceive not only the more superficial persona but these deeper attributes of self.

I also wrote that while I cannot teach a person how to be “real” - I can help facilitate a greater confidence about staying true to one’s core values.  This is true not only for political candidates, but anyone preparing for a media interview. 

The complication factor comes in when someone is preparing to act as spokesperson for his or her company or non-profit organization.  Here, they are not speaking solely for themselves, but for their organization.

Most media training workshops relate primarily to messaging.  The better ones help participants identify and learn to communicate essential communications objectives clearly, effectively and proactively.

In my 20 years of training executives about how to get their messages across, the one key area that has been more challenging to teach concerns presentational style, and more specifically, the “likeability” factor.

So…if you’re not a political candidate, but instead are speaking for your organization, are there tools you can use to enhance your likeability among viewers?  What if you are concerned you may not come across well?

While it is true that personality traits are inherent in the individual and not always conducive to pliability, the effects of the worst traits can be mitigated, at least in structured settings such as debates or television interviews.  Here are some points to consider:

“THE BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE…”

Most human beings consist of both light and shadow.  Those of us who’ve done some work on ourselves have learned about our darker sides.  Often stemming from negative belief systems and unresolved conflict formulated in our formative years, tools are available to begin the process of healing these more negative aspects of our emotions.

Whether that healing process is well underway or less so, we can use our intelligence to keep them contained, at least in a debate or interview setting.  Some careful introspection and feedback from family and friends will allow us to identify the more extreme negative emotional patterns, and to consciously counter them with more positive substitutes.

For example, if one is an interrupter, the common-sense solution is not to interrupt.  Here, during the training session, work must be focused on the art of listening.  If we consciously intend to listen to the interviewer, or to the debate opponent, waiting for this person to complete his or her thought before responding, allows us to be perceived as considerate.

If volatility and extreme reactivity is part of our nature, learning the art of unattachment from another person’s positionality, allows us to address the opposing point-of-view without being perceived as hostile, or uncentered.  Opposing points-of-view must be addressed with rational and intelligent argument, explaining their lack of common sense, workability and potential adverse impact on human lives. 

On all counts, avoid insults or invectives.  If your interviewer or debate opponent insults you or your organization, you can simply reply, “I take exception to the way you’ve characterized me, my intentions and my company.  Then, go on to explain your good intentions and actions, and the positive trackrecord of your company.  This way, you’ve put the spotlight on the other person’s poor behavior, and highlighted yourself as a person who takes the high road.

Equally important – never get personal with the interviewer or your debate opponent.  Deal with issues, with arguments, with the validity and sense of the statement put to you – but never hurtle diatribes at the person him or herself.  You simply will be seen as an ogre, and unlikable.

Humanize yourself and your organization.  People don’t want to hear cold statistics or facts with the simultaneous absence of expressions of humanness.  Use statistics sparingly only to emphasize the strength of the point you’re making.  Make more use of anecdotes.  Tell a story.  Make the story human.  If you’re illustrating the work of your company, talk about people, about your customers, and about your employees.  Cite examples.  Let the audience know about your work within the community, about charities you support, and why you support them.

A smile is worth a thousand words, and remember to smile when appropriate.  Also, use the first name of your interviewer, or opponent.  When you transmit a smile, or use someone’s first name, you’re energizing the empathic cord between you and your audience.  You become more likeable.

Use humor when appropriate.  Humor instantly can relieve the heaviness of a moment, and illustrate to others that you can lighten up and put things into perspective.  However, for some of us, humor doesn’t come naturally, so don’t apply it if it isn’t natural for you to do so.

Admit mistakes.  If you or your organization has done a misdeed, ‘fess up.  Admit the mistake.  Apologize for it. If someone has been hurt, express remorse.  Let your audience know you or your organization will learn from the mistake and never repeat it.   Many people are inclined to forgive, if given the opportunity.  Give it to them.  You’ll be seen as a better person for so doing.

Remember, you’re not really talking to your interviewer or debate opponent.  They’re just vehicles for your message.  You’re really talking to the thousands or millions of viewers or listeners on the other side of the television set or radio.  Remember that before you begin. 

Be yourself, but be your best self.  If you’re smart, don’t come across like a know-it-all.  If you’re impetuous, slow down and learn to think before you speak.  If you’re not a warm person, be conscious of ways to project more humanness.  Smile.  Use first names.  Use anecdotes.  If you’ve made a mistake, admit it and apologize.  Don’t overreact, and don’t get volatile. 

Think of someone you love or respect.   As you’re talking to an interviewer, think of someone you’ve been close to who you love and care about.  The interviewer will feel that positive emotion.  If you’re in a debate situation, think of someone you respect.  That respect will be felt by the debater, and possibly lessen the intensity of his or her opposition.  Most of all, the energy will be picked up by the audience – the people you’re really trying to reach.

Be strong, but allow some of the vulnerability you’ve been afraid to reveal, to present itself.  People will like you better for it.

I am outraged.  I am a registered Democrat (though I will from time to time vote Republican or Third Party if I believe in the candidate).  I voted in the Florida Primary; and I voted for a Democrat.  But my vote fell flat, since the Democratic Party punished its fellow Democrats and Florida for having changed the date of the primary by removing the right to assign delegates to the winner.

Hillary Clinton won the Florida Democratic Primary decisively, but she takes with her not one delegate - just a psychological victory.

This is an outrage!  This is unAmerican!  This is a sapping of the power and rights of the voter!  I would say this irrespective of who the winner was in Florida.

The Democratic Party must restore the delegate count to the Florida Primary.  It must do so forthwith.   If necessary, Florida Democratic voters should appeal this decision in the Courts.  The matter could go to the Supreme Court for a final determination - though given what the Supreme Court did in the 2000 election, disrespecting the electoral system which should have awarded Florida to Al Gore - I have my doubts that this highest body would come to the rescue given its clear political bias.

Let us hope that the Democratic Party itself, upon appeal by the Clinton campaign - and all fair-minded Democrats - will correct itself and give to Senator Clinton the delegates she earned and deserves! 

The just-held debate between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles was a gem.  The two remaining Democratic candidates obviously decided to part from contentiousness at a personal level, and stick to the issues. 

When politicians debate the issues and stay away from personal invectives, especially in a presidential contest, they serve the American electorate at the highest level, enabling voters to comprehend where they stand on policy, how they contrast with their opponent’s positions, and allowing each voter to ultimately make a clearer decision in the voting booth.

But voters are of course also persuaded by personality, especially in consideration of how a candidate would relate to people, relate to his or her own staff, to Congress, to leaders of other countries (both allies and adversaries), and to crisis. 

“Personality” is not just the outward persona showcasing a person’s style of behavior.  It is a mirror of the deeper self - reflective of such words as character, intelligence, compassion, resilience, toughness,  and realness.

In the many media interview training workshops I give throughout the country, “realness” is something I cannot teach.   A person is either real, or he or she isn’t.  However, what I do encourage my students to “get” is that to the degree they are less attached to worrying about what others may think of them, and more connected to their true values and beliefs, then they are consequently going to project more of their real self, and less of the phony, concocted self which most people see through quite quickly.  After all, every human is intuitive - and every human has the capacity to perceive another person’s genuineness…or lack thereof.

Prior to Iowa, Hillary was not terribly in touch with her feeling self; or that was my perception.  She wanted to convey strength and knowledgeability - but since she is already a strong and knowledgeable person - she didn’t have to “work” on projecting those attributes.  Her fear, in my opinion, was in showing her softer, more vulnerable feminine side, seeing that as something voters, especially men, would disrespect as weakness.  Ironically, without showing her vulnerability, she also suffered from a certain lack of likeability, and this is a huge problem in a presidential campaign.

After her loss in Iowa, however, an extraordinary moment came.  She saw that she could lose - and what came up for her was her long history of fighting for those issues and causes she believed in, and that she might not attain the presidency and come into a position of truly achieving her Dreams in a way that capturing the White House could realize for her.   In other words, the loss brought her into contact with what she was fighting for, what she valued and believed in, and that it could all come to an end.  The loss brought her into greater touch with her real self, and what she described as “my voice.”

This brought up great emotion, great vulnerability and  a great lesson:  Senator Clinton had to balance her self-evident strength and knowledgeability with her humanness.

Back in 2000, when Al Gore debated George Bush, he lost points because he came across, to many people’s surprise, as arrogant.  His vulnerability did not show up - though his intelligence and knowledgeability did.   He suffered from a loss of likeability.  He may well have suffered at the ballot box because of this faux pas as well, though other forces seemed to have colluded against him besides his own over-confidence.

I think to a large degree Senator Clinton’s Iowa defeat may have saved her from the same self-wounding - and that showed through in the California debate with Senator Obama.  She was centered.  She allowed her caring, vulnerable side to show itself, along with her knowledgeability, intelligence and toughness.

Senator Obama, who always comes across as extraordinarily articulate, high-minded and intelligent, evidenced those attributes.  Ironically, I think he could have benefited from a touch more of toughness in his point-counterpoint with Senator Clinton.

For this reason, and from my perception, Senator Clinton edged out Senator Obama in the debate.  We’ll have to wait for the outcome on Super Tuesday to discover if voters around the country give her the lead as the Democratic presidential nominee ultimately emerges.  If she prevails, even slightly, it’s clear that at least in part it is because she did indeed find her real voice after Iowa, and connected, or reconnected, with her deeper self and the beliefs and values that have driven her all these many years.

If she prevails as the Democratic presidential nominee, Iowa will have served her well.  If she does not, she is nonetheless a more compelling figure both in terms of her political stature and her human capacity to reach the people.

Television again showed its power and impact after the winners of the Iowa Caucus were announced, and the leading candidates made their election-results speeches.   All major cable and broadcast networks covered the speeches of Senator Obama and Senator Huckabee, the Democratic and Republic winners, respectively, and in that instant, they became nationally known as never before.

As a regular follower of C-Span, I am following the more extensive and in-depth pronouncements and remarks of all the candidates, so I had been aware of Senator Obama’s gifts of oration and inspiration.  C-Span, however, reaches a more limited, politically focused audience - and does not impact upon the national electorate in the way of the combined power of all the commercial news networks.

In one instant, Obama and Huckabee were on the national stage as never before - and became national celebrities as never before.

It made me realize, once again, the power of television - and the power it has not only to raise awareness, but the potential power to act as a force for raising consciousness.

See my earlier post, “Why We Need to Transform Television,” to get my fuller view in this area:  http://www.prstraighttalk.com/why-we-need-to-transform-television/

In my previous posting, written days before the Iowa Caucus, I wrote about “That Vision Thing” - and acknowledged Senator Obama for his gift to inspire and unite.  It appears a plurality of the electorate in Iowa felt something too - and put him over the top.

In an earlier posting, I acknowledged Senator Huckabee for my perception that he was a man of character.  It appears that Iowans felt the decency of the man too.  It’s also understood that some Conservatives, and Evangelical Christians in particular, have been looking for a candidate they can embrace in this campaign.

Clearly, both Obama and Huckabee speak to a deep desire for change in the country - in Obama’s case a change that represents a truly new paradigm envisioning a less divisive, confrontative approach with respect to both domestic and international issues; and in Huckabee’s case, it appears his call is for a return to truer Conservative values combined with “heart” for the needs of the common man, that also speaks to a disaffection with Bush-Republican policies as we’ve known them.  

John Edwards speaks to this populist agenda, though in a more progressive vein.  Hillary Clinton will probably now emphasize herself more as a change agent, and if she’s smart, also speak more to the needs of people and less about what “I” will do.  She’s immensely talented and intelligent - as is her husband - and she still has plenty of determination in her.  It will be interesting to see if she can gain the momentum again.

I was a bit saddened to see that Senator Biden had to pull out.  He’s a man of enormous intelligence, wisdom and experience - and hopefully he will be called upon to serve the country by a smart next president, whoever he or she is.

But for now, the momentum is with Senator Obama - and Senator Huckabee - the former a man of true vision, and the latter a man of perceived character and someone able to connect with the people.  Their politics and political philosophies are very different though, and there is plenty of work for the American voter in the days, weeks and months ahead.

Happy New Year everyone!  May 2008 bring you closer to the realization of your Dreams!

As our planet continues its journey around the Sun, and as humanity continues to evolve, we must pray that the evolution of consciousness (Spirit, Heart, Wisdom and Awareness) keeps up with the evolution of technology.  As I’ve written, the danger for the latter to outpace the former raises profound concerns, especially with the dangers of our weaponry and the harshness of certain ideologies in different places.

Every now and then, champions surface to the fore who uphold humanity’s highest and noblest values:  Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Robert F. Kennedy, Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II, the Dalai Lama…and, a shining star whose Light was just recently dimmed on the physical plane - Mrs. Benazir Butto.   She was a true champion of democracy, and her courage in the face of danger was of the stuff true martyrs to higher purpose are made.  It deeply saddened me to learn of her assassination, and hopefully her death will find redemption in the struggle she fought for - to bring the voice of expression and power to the people.

The only strong voice I heard among politicians in this country regarding Mrs. Butto’s murder, was that of Senator Joseph Biden.  He called for the resignation of President Pervez Musharraf, and the appointment of an interim coalition government that would pave the way for meaningful and honest elections in Pakistan.   That was a strong statement, and it reflects the views of a strong democrat (small “d”) whose experience in international affairs combined with a deep appreciation for democratic values shines through.

Every candidate has particular assets.  With Joe Biden it is deep experience in international affairs.  With Senator Hillary Clinton it is broad legislative experience and considerable experience with domestic and international issues based on her White House years as First Lady.  With Rudy Guiliani it is finely honed and effective management skills as the once-Mayor of New York, and a steadfast focus on the issue of Islamic terrorism.  With Senator Barack Obama it is “the vision thing.”

Listening to Obama on the stump, I’m frequently in awe of his amazing ability to inspire, to see the larger picture, to articulate a vision that contextualizes where as a democracy we come from, what we’ve inherited in vision and values from our Founding Fathers, how our struggle to achieve the ideals of the Declaration has evolved and must be ever-perfecting, and how our commitment as a nation to these values - the values of civil and human rights, freedom of expression,  and unity in community, demands continuing commitment.

Obama, it seems to me, has captured some of the hopefulness of the late Senator Robert Kennedy, whose articulation of the vision of the American story as evolving and perfecting based on its founding principles, was truly inspirational.  Senator Kennedy reminded us of who we were and who we can become - and his greatness, it seems to me, was forged out of tragedy (the deaths of his brother and Reverend King).

Obama carries that inspiration in his message, in his own unique and profoundly articulate way.  I think only a few presidents have used the bully pupit of the Presidency as an inspirational pupit in such a way, to capture in energy the Spirit and potential of the Republic - Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan.  Whether one agrees with their politics or not, these men came in at points in time where the American public needed a certain “reminder” of who we are, where we come from and where we’re going.   And they each articulated their messages in unique ways, and sometimes via a new paradigm of seeing.  Senator Obama has that gift - and through the prism of a paradigm that is fresh, he seems to view political reality in a way that offers new approaches to old problems.  This way includes a willingness to deal with our “enemies” with fresh eyes and an openness for dialogue.

I watched C-Span the other night, where Bill Clinton delivered a speech to Iowans in support of his wife Hillary as presidential material.   The former president spoke extemporaneously for about an hour, without notes. 

I was in awe of the man’s brilliance, his deep understanding and familiarity with the issues, his uncanny ability to present his knowledge in an almost folksy way - a way that reached people.   I thought, this man is a genius - in his breadth of knowledge of domestic and international issues, and in his ability to communicate.  He assured the audience that Hillary, in terms of her experience, her knowledge and her wisdom, was the best-equipped of the presidential candidates.

I came away listening to Mr. Clinton in true admiration for his knowledge and his communications skills.   If he was accurately describing Hillary in terms of ability and competence, he was certainly describing someone who could measure up in spades to the awesome task of the presidency.

The one thing that I did not feel in listening to Bill, however, was that “vision thing”.  I was deeply impressed with his ability, and his articulation of his wife’s ability, but I was not inspired to the extent that I have been by listening to Senator Obama.  I think Oprah is right - Obama has something special.

This is not to say that the Illinois Senator has a claim on victory as of this moment.  For the issue of his experience, or lack thereof, is one deserving debate and dialogue.

If only Mrs. Clinton can summon up a vision of equal force - or if only we the American public could benefit from a candidate who comprises both the adroitness of a Bill and Hillary Clinton, the experience of a Senator Joe Biden, the vision of a Senator Barack Obama - and perhaps a dash of the commanding focus and strength of Rudy Guiliani with respect to dealing with our adversaries.

If I were advising the Clintons, I would advise them to inspire more from a place of vision.  If I were advising Senator Obama, I’d counsel more of the same with respect to vision and inspiration, but balancing that with greater immersion in concrete issues.  Joe Biden, it seems to me, can benefit more with an articulation of the ”vision thing.”  And Rudy?  He ought to balance the bellicose stance with reminding us as Americans of who we are, and where we’re going. 

A people who know who they are and where they’re headed is the nation’s greatest source of strength.

Media placement is an art.  Practicing it often requires as much attention to approach and style as it does to the focus of your story.

• Always tell the truth.  Make sure your product or service does what it says it does and your information is accurate.  If a question is put to you that you do not have an answer for, indicate to the reporter you’ll get back with the information.  If you don’t, the info will come from someone else–and not necessarily from a source that will help your organization.  Never “imagine” or “fudge” an answer.  Remember, candor equals credibility.  If your organization has taken an action that has reaped negative consequences, counsel your client to admit the mistake (unless the client is constrained from doing so by legal counsel).  Negativity can also be mitigated if you can anticipate a reporter’s tough question, and frame an answer that puts the action into historical perspective; or by developing a positioning statement that lessens the harshness implied in the question.  (For example, when a poisonous substance infiltrated Tylenol bottles, the company issued the statement that “we are victims too”).
• Know your outlet before you call.  Have you read the magazine or newspaper in advance?  Have you watched the tv program? Have you listened to the radio show?  With print media, do you know the specific beat of the editor or reporter you intend to make contact with?  Have you read his/her stories?  It’s fine to cold call but don’t cold call blindly (unless there really is vagueness about that person’s turf).
• Attitude.  There are some p.r. people whose emotional lives seem to count on an editor’s acceptance; and who feel like failures when the editor says “no.” “Unattachment” is the best attitude.  ”Unattachment” doesn’t mean “detachment” or “apathy.”  It means coming from a centered place, with self-confidence in yourself and your ability to communicate a story effectively - but without being attached to the outcome.  You’ll find this a liberating approach, one that disallows you from becoming intimidated by an editor or producer, and one that enables you to return to the same person in the future with no regrets. When an editor perceives that you are not overly emotionally invested in a story, you may actually get a better hearing.  Be warm & polite, professional…and clear.  See that individual as a peer and colleague.  If they’re brusque in the moment, they may be having a bad day.  Simply ask if there’s a better time to get back to them.
• That said, believe in your story and believe in yourself.  The best p.r. people see themselves as resources of news and information who work with journalists to fill valuable time & print space.
• Be more empathetic than sympathetic.  Being empathetic enables you to build on what was said and respond with alternate approaches.  Being sympathetic means you’ve agreed with the journalist’s conclusion and have foreclosed the possibility of an alternate approach.
• Get out of the reporter’s way.  When you’re providing a reporter, editor or producer information where the story is time-sensitive, relay the information and get out of the way. There’s a time for pitching an idea, and there’s a time for simply relaying information.  In the case of the latter, act like an editorial assistant. Do your job and get out.  You’ll earn the journalist’s respect when you do so.
• Don’t waste their time.  When you call, communicate in sharp and crystallized fashion, the essence of the story.  Keep it brief, respect deadlines and ask in advance if the moment is ok for that editor/ producer.  NEVER call when you know an editor is under deadline pressure.  Keep your message on-point and as brief as possible, but craft it in a compelling and creative way that will earn attention.
• Personalize.  I’ve seen too many impersonal, photocopied pitch letters, whether via e-mail or snail mail.  If you send something in advance to a call, or as a follow-up to a call, personalize.  Don’t be overly chummy (unless you’ve been on good terms with that journalist for a long time).  But keep sensitive to the fact that you’re a human being, and you’re communicating with another human being.  For e-mails, craft a provocative phrase in the “subject” area.  Too many e-mail messages get unread without a compelling lead.
• Get out from behind your desk.  If you’re in the same city as the journalist, take them out to breakfast, lunch or dinner, if they’re amenable.  If not, make sure you acknowledge them anytime they give your placement coverage - minimally by e-mail, best by snail mail card.  Occasionally, but sparingly, when you see them produce something not necessarily connected to your own client, but noteworthy, acknowledge them for the story as well.  Cultivate the relationship in a friendly and professional way - but do not inundate them or make yourself obnoxious.  Timing and tastefulness are key here.
• Listen to the editor.  It’s as important to listen as it is to talk.  Be sensitive to any verbal feedback, cues or clues that can assist you in fine-tuning your pitch.  Keep your antennae fully extended.
• Respect the ‘no’ and be prepared for it.  Ask quick, important questions: What is it about this story that doesn’t seem right for you?  Is there anyone else for whom this story might work better?  Suggest how the story can be adapted to the outlet’s needs.  Best of all, suggest three to five different angles in advance.  This reduces chances for rejection.
• But when you get your final no, let it go and release it.  YOU haven’t been rejected, just your story.  And if you’ve handled the approach professionally and cordially, you’ll always be able to come back with another story at another time.  Regard your list of cultivated contacts as resources and investments for the long-haul, not for quick fix purposes.
• Contact another editor with a different beat within the same outlet.  Sometimes, if you receive a “no” – you can pitch your story with another editor with a different beat at the same outlet, if the story you’re presenting has applicability to that person.
• Occasionally, pass along an item of interest that lies outside your own sphere of self-interest.  Be someone who’s not always out to get something.  Also, supply your most important contacts with your home phone number.
• Getting beyond voice mail.  I like to try to reach a producer or editor directly, live, on the phone.  If I’m able to reach them, I give myself less than 60 seconds to pitch the story.  Skill in encapsulating the story in very brief but provocative terms is essential.  Based on the feedback, if there is an opening, I then send an e-mail.  If I get voicemail, I leave the same succinct, provocative, targeted message, then follow-up with e-mail.  If I don’t hear from them in two days, I either send a forwarded e-mail back on top of the prior original e-mail pitch (“Tom:  did this story interest you?”) or I call early.  Sometimes I leave a message with an editorial assistant or colleague, live or by voicemail, and follow-up again in a day or two if the message was via voicemail. Call back that other person to learn if your message was received and if there’s a return message.  

Publicity is an important and often overlooked tool of creative selling; and a more cost-effective way of reaching your target audience than advertising. With the inherent third-party endorsement of the media implied in every editorial story, a news or feature article  in a newspaper, magazine, or on television or radio, is an infinitely more credibly-perceived communications message than an ad or commercial. Publicists less frequently are favored with hard news stories.  They are more often tasked with getting “softer” news and feature stories on-air or in print.  Here are some techniques involving creative conceptualization and application – what I call CREATIVE FORMATTING – and they work very effectively when carefully thought-through and constructed.

1 - Use News to Make News

When you prepare a press release or pitch letter, keep the following editorial criteria in mind:

*  Relevance (how valid and appropriate is this story?)

*  Impact (does this story affect a large number of people?)

* Timeliness/Immediacy (is the story current?)

* Novelty (does the story have an unusual or unique twist to it?)

Your topic should tie in with current news issues and/or subjects that concern the public. In my earlier p.r. days, I promoted one product by showing how it could be used to the advantage of a specific news item of the day. In this case, the issue was government waste. Revelations were surfacing that various federal agencies were buying products at absurd prices above retail: you may remember $500 toilet seats and $75 rulers. The American taxpayer was being seriously abused by bureaucratic waste.

Our client was a publishing house that had just come out with a directory for buyers at government agencies. The directory listed major manufacturers all over the country who were not in the business of ripping off Uncle Sam. The directory was distributed to the agencies free of charge. The publishing house made its money by selling ad pages to companies who wanted to attract the attention of these buying officials.

We attracted a significant amount of publicity by telling editors that the publishing company had come up with a partial solution to the problem of wasteful government spending. The story was picked up by the wire services and nationally syndicated TV newscasts.

2 - Seasonal Tie-ins

News editors are always looking for feature stories that tie in with holiday or seasonal happenings. I remember a very successful campaign for a manufacturer of postage meter equipment. Eight weeks before Christmas, we convinced the manufacturer to designate a Holiday Consumer Affairs Specialist who could talk about “everything you wanted to know about mailing gifts for the holidays.”

Between Thanksgiving and Christmas, we arranged dozens of phone interviews with reporters at large radio stations in major markets. The company was plugged in every interview and the entire campaign tied-in with a major catalogue and in-store p.o.p. merchandising campaign. Sometimes, a creative p.r. idea can pave the way for a strategic marketing campaign.

Another successful campaign tied in with the advent of winter and escalating fuel prices due to an international oil crisis. One of our clients manufactured a draft sealer, a simple rubber plug that fit into electrical wall outlets. The sealer kept cold outside air from coming into the home and kept warm air inside from leaking out. Consumers could save money on their fuel bills. We convinced the Today Show to do a live five minute segment on a new energy-saving device for the home.

3 - Products Are Newsworthy When They Are Evolutionary or Revolutionary

On Sunday, May 29, 1994, we generated a story in the Business Section of the New York Times on a new kind of paper that changed color upon the touch of the hand. We knew the story had merit, because the product represents a revolutionary leap forward in paper goods.

Several years ago, a new product created by a camera manufacturer, an instant slide processor that develops slides in seconds, represented an evolutionary step up in instant photography. We offered Good Morning a first exclusive on the announcement, and we convinced the show’s producers to have host Joan Lunden demonstrate the product live in a five minute segment. The product sold out nationally.

4 - Anniversaries

If the product is vital to the American way of life, the media might click with a suggestion for a story on a major anniversary of the product. This includes biggies like television, radio, refrigerators and cars all the way to such mundane indispensables as zippers and toothpaste.

Other kinds of anniversaries work too. During the centennial celebrations for the Statue of Liberty, we convinced Kelloggs to sponsor a campaign that publicized the closest living relative to the man who designed and built Lady Liberty. This included the scripting and shooting of a video news feature story for television newscasts around the country, and our pickup was enormous–including some very nice positive image reinforcement for Kelloggs.

5. Controlled Messages

A controlled message is a message that you prepare in advance and place with various media as a finished product. When we promoted a book that turned into a major bestseller called Swim With the Sharks Without Being Eaten Alive by Harvey Mackay, we employed a number of techniques that come under this category.

Three examples of this technique are the video news feature, matted columns for suburban newspapers, and by-lined articles for specialized trade publications.

A video news feature is simply a 90-second to two-minute news piece that gets scripted, shot and distributed to newscasts around the country. The local newscast incorporates the piece as part of its news coverage, and the average viewer has no idea these stories are supplied by outside sources.

A matted column is simply a one-column or two-column story that is sent to suburban news weeklies as camera-ready copy. They don’t have to edit it or prepare it for print. The column usually offers some kind of consumer advice, with a discreet yet effective plug within the story.

Vertical trade publications are magazines that are published for a specific audience or industry. Hundreds of them are published each month. Years ago, we ghosted by-lined articles for the president of a company that analyzed utility rates for other companies, showing them how to save thousands of dollars every year. These articles were placed with dozens of magazines that catered to a variety of industries. This campaign was the company’s sole marketing vehicle for many years.

6 - Trends

When one of our clients, a major photography magazine, needed to increase its exposure, we designed a segment on The Today Show in which one of the magazine’s editors brought the very latest camera equipment to the program. For seven minutes, he demonstrated the most current camera technology to millions of viewers. He also achieved some substantial awareness for his magazine.

Another client, the Magazine Publishers Association, was interested in increasing recognition. They wanted to establish the fact that magazines are at the leading edge of creative advertising communication. We designed a segment on The Today Show that displayed the latest in pop-up ads in various magazines.

In another situation, a German beer company wanted to increase sales in the USA. The company turned to us, asking us to increase their name recognition with a publicity program instead of advertising. The built-in challenge was that very little can be done editorially for alcoholic beverages. The solution was to look for secondary uses which would nonetheless position the beer in a meaningful and positive way.

We convinced a well-known German restaurant to develop dishes prepared with beer as an ingredient. We invited the entire national food press to a Cooking With Beer Festival. The food writers for every major magazine and newspaper attended. Media coverage was staggering. Many products can be used in special publicity events. By promoting indirectly, sponsors can reap media coverage.

POSITIVE PUBLICITY SELLS. A creative publicity program can be a powerful tool for selling your product or service. Publicity efforts can be more cost-effective than traditional advertising. Plus, they pack more power because the publicity comes from recognized media sources instead of from your company. This increases consumer confidence and promotes a positive public image. The end result of creative publicity is an increased awareness that attracts potential customers.

When Opportunity International, a non-profit organization came to me in 1999, they had been in existence for nearly 30 years, rendering great humanitarian service in the developing world.  Yet, they were one of the world’s best-kept secrets, and the service they provided – microfinance – empowering poor men and women with low-interest business loans and training in basic business practices, which enabled them to become self-employed and freed from hunger and destitution, was virtually unheard-of by the media or the American public when I launched the campaign.

There are a wide variety of strategies I employ on behalf of clients, depending upon the nature of their services, products or issues.  For Opportunity International, I determined that the Op-Ed piece – the commentary articles which appear in major newspapers – was a powerful communications tool for this client. Not only would the appearance of an Op-Ed have an immediate impact upon a publication’s readership.  As thought pieces, the “reprint value” had perhaps even greater impact by leveraging the support of existing and potential donors and opinion leaders. 

In the four years I represented OI, I conceived, ghost-wrote and placed a large number of Op-Eds in major newspapers, and generated as well important stories about this NGO’s work in newspapers and magazines.  Virtually all of the Op-Eds were written on behalf of the two Chief Executive Officers I worked for during my tenure with Opportunity.

Not only did these placements generate significant donor support - they became the seeds for future major donor support, even after my tenure had elapsed.

The first Op-Ed listed, “Redeeming the Lives of the World’s Poorest Children,” was co-by-lined by television legend Art Linkletter, an acquaintance of mine and who I approached and who consented to enjoin his name with the CEO’s.  Such notables as General Claudia Kennedy (the highest ranking woman in the U.S.Army) [“Creating Wealth at Grass-Roots Level”], Jack Kemp [“Compassionate Capitalism”] and famed television evangelist Rev. Robert Schuller [“Small Loans Pay Off”], also participated in Op-Eds written for them and Opportunity’s CEO.

Here is the list of placements ghost-written for the CEOs, along with other placement in major newspapers:

Redeeming the Lives of the World’s Poorest Children, San-Diego Union-Tribune, November 27, 2003

Creating wealth at grass-roots level, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, October 31, 2003.

Compassionate capitalism, The Washington Times, August 27, 2003.

Nike helps empower the poor, The Oregonian, May 17, 2003.

Entrepreneur un-retires to head up micro-loan program, San Diego Business Journal, April 28, 2003

Overcoming the “Poverty of Dignity” with Microfinance, Monday Developments, April 14, 2003.

Giving a Lift, San Diego Magazine, April, 2003

Battling AIDS with trust, Chicago Tribune, March 12, 2003

More than a public relations payoff, San Jose Mercury News, January 2, 2003

The Payoff from Charitable Giving, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, December 27, 2002

Loans Ease Third World Poverty, Chicago Sun-Times, November 23, 2002

Aiding Mexico’s Poor with Microcredit, San Diego Union-Tribune, November 28, 2001

Program Recycles Trash Into Opportunity, Wall Street Journal, November 6, 2001

Poverty is Root Problem, The Chicago Sun-Times, October 10, 2001

Fighting for the Poor with Microenterprise Development, Assembly, West Point Academy Association of Graduates Magazine, June-July, 2001

Giving Credit Where Credit is Due, The Baltimore Sun, May 13, 2001

Saving the Planet — and Its Inhabitants, The Chicago Sun-Times, April 22, 2001

Microloans Yield Macro Help for World’s Poor, The Palm Beach Daily News, February 26, 2001

JFK and Jesse, Review and Outlook, The Wall Street Journal, January 19, 2001

Microenterprise: A Better Day for a Better World, Research News, January 2001

Small loans pay off, The Wall Street Journal (Europe Edition), September 14, 2000

Small loans can battle AIDS scourge in Africa, Chicago Sun Times, July 23, 2000

Microcredit for the Poor, Time Magazine, July 3, 2000

Microcredit: ending poverty on our planet . . . one poor person at a time, Vital Speeches of the Day, May 15, 2000

To fight global poverty, start at the grassroots, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, June 2000

Ministry makes small donations go a long way, Colorado Christian Chronicle, March 2000

Small Loans with Big Impact, Chicago Sun Times, December 1999

Building Blocks, Harvard International Review, Winter 1998/1999

Loans for Life, The Rotarian, November 1999 Aiming at a global gap with micro-credit, The Journal of Commerce, August 1999

Time Banks Gave Micro-Credit to the Poor, The Financial Times, August 1999

Little Loans go a Long Way in Third World, Chicago Tribune, March 14, 1999

Loans to the World’s Poor Can Enrich Everyone, International Herald Tribune, August 4, 1999

Oak Brook Agency Execs See Tragedy in Honduras, Chicago Tribune, November 26, 1998

Hey Big Lender, Lend a Little Sum to Me, Financial Times, June 28, 1998