Uncategorized

Feb 03 2010

Why Turning Down PR is GOOD for Business

A major news outlet called me, Dave, last week and wanted to ask me some questions. I said “No.”

Before you call me a wacko and say that I should have said yes because it would have been TREMENDOUS positioning for me, Area 224 and our Real SMM launch, here’s the backstory.

Back in the day — circa 2006 until early 2009, ages ago in Internet speak — I ran a business called U Sphere. We were in the college admissions portal business; it was a great learning experience, we made a little noise, blah blah blah.

As part and parcel of that business, I got out there as an expert on college admissions: the process, how families can navigate through it, what schools are up-and-coming, all those fun things.

Well, a reporter with Smart Money got ahold of my name, gave me a call, explained what she was working on. Could I help? She was on deadline and it had to happen like, this morning.

I said no…but it was a qualified no…and that’s what’s good for business.

My qualified no was pretty simple — U Sphere was no longer operating, and I know someone who would be dynamite for her interview.

So I gave her the name and number of my friend in the admissions world, Paul Lloyd Hemphill, and said that he’s the right guy, he’d be happy to help her, go ahead and give him a call, and say that you know me.

The result? Well, here’s a link to the full college admission article from SmartMoney.com.

Could I have done the interview? Absolutely, operating under the theory of having forgotten more than most people will ever know about that subject. But that would have been a bad idea, and pretty arrogant of me. So here’s why the next step was GOOD for business.

It scored points with the reporter. Reporters like helpful people, even if you are not their eventual interview subject. Your honesty will help big time — “I’m not the right person, but [so and so] is.”
It allowed someone else to be positioned as an expert — good for him, good for the reporter, good for the story.
It did NOT take Area 224 off the 8-ball. We don’t play in the college admissions game; why waste everyone’s valuable time?
It solidified a working relationship — Paul now knows for a fact that we have him “on the shelf of the mind” when anyone needs college admissions advice. We are now his go-to for PR and marketing advice and counsel.

So, peanut gallery — did Dave from Area 224 do the right thing?

Jan 11 2010

The Art & Science of Twitter Success

We have often told folks that Twitter is a large combination of Art & Science.

There’s a science to following, followers, messaging, how often, what to automate, all that fun stuff.

There’s an art, too…to authenticity that you can’t fake, to real-life interactions, to speaking your mind, to asking the right questions.

Witness this: an Area 224 Tweet that became HGTV’s Tweet of the Week.

SO, what’s the point here, besides Area 224 tooting its own horn?

Let me break it down a little for you:

Science: Spending SOME time on Twitter, interacting with people.

Art: Showing your personality – asking questions of others – reacting to their answers.

Science: Automating (using free tools like SocialOomph and Refollow) the process of finding and following people, and allowing those tools to send out some of your tweets for you, at times when you wouldn’t be at your desk.

Art: Being sometimes off the cuff.

Science: Digging into the metrics behind links, followers, time spent on Twitter, and whether or not you got any leads/sold any widgets/maximized your time spent.

Art: Realizing that the things you WANT to get the most publicity out of (read: your blog, your business, etc.) will often be trumped by a random occurrence such as someone from HGTV reading your Tweet and asking you if they could use it.

Does anyone have it all figured out? Neither do we.

BTW, you can find HGTV on Twitter at @HGTVOfficial.

Dec 10 2009

Tiger Woods vs. David Letterman

Ever since the Tiger Woods story broke, we’ve been watching it from a communications perspective: How Tiger communicates, what he says when, and whether or not he’s handling this crisis right. We blogged about it last week (you can see that post here).

And, since it broke, we’ve also noticed something really eerie: for someone who talks to the press a lot, who relies on his public image for income (endorsements, public appearances, things outside of golf) — Tiger Woods has really bungled this crisis.

Then there’s David Letterman.

Remember his admission of guilt — for what would appear to be similar “transgressions” — on his TV show?

We reached out to some of our smart contacts in the Communications world to ask why David Letterman emerged from his story relatively unscathed — and Tiger’s story appears to keep going and going, putting his endorsement deals and his status as the first “Billion-Dollar Athlete” in serious jeopardy.

An About-Face of Character?

Gary Unger, Creative Genius, @garyunger on Twitter, says that when image doesn’t match reality, reporters and the public look for more:

“My initial thoughts are that Letterman has been known to be an @ss throughout the years. Recently his rants on Sarah Palin showed him to be ‘not very nice’ as far as continuing to pick on someone who lost. Not good form for the most part. (But now that Palin is back in the spotlight I think she’s fair game). And previously with Bush, Misc. sports stars, some movie stars. But more notably he was called out years ago for his philandering. I believe his wife now was his live in girlfriend for about 10 years. And he had multiple girlfriends at the same time. So Letterman’s character is ‘old news.’

Now Woods is a different story, he’s been projecting this squeaky clean image all these years. Great relationship with his dad and mom. Wasn’t photographed at strip clubs, buying drugs, or even having temper tantrums. And then all of a sudden this accident and some ‘weird’ parts to the story. Then Woods went into hiding. Not a good idea since reporters can smell the ‘weird’ and want to reconcile the weird part of the story to reality. Woods who is likely at base character a nice guy did what nice guys do, they try to stay out of the spotlight when they do something embarrassing and see that they went off the path and want to get back on the correct path.

The difference between the two: Letterman came right out and said it to America and that took the initial sting out of the issue. Reporters don’t have the ‘scoop’ and now can only report, not ‘find.’ Woods gave the sharks what they live for, the scoop. Not only that Woods is not talking, Letterman talked to whoever wanted to talk about it.

Letterman: ‘I’m an @ss, what are you going to do about it’

Woods: ‘uh….'”

Avoid the Phrase “No Comment” at All Costs

Rachel Kay (@rachelakay on Twitter), from Rachel Kay Public Relations (whose blog is called CommuniKaytrix), on Tiger’s “no comment,” thoughts she first shared right after the story broke:

“When we take clients through media training, one of the first rules we teach is to never say ‘no comment.’ The idea is that ‘no comment’ is essentially an admission of guilt. Whether or not it really is, ‘no comment’ can leave people feeling like they are uninformed, misinformed or that a concern is being disregarded. As the investigation into the accident heats up, what was concern for Tiger seems to be shifting to a feeling of what is Tiger not telling us?”

Get Out in Front, NOW.

Gini Dietrich, CEO of Arment Dietrich Public Relations, and author of the Spin Sucks blog:

“David Letterman got out in front of his ‘situation,’ he told people what happened, what he did, and he made it a non-story. Media talked it about it maybe two days and then got bored with the story because there wasnâ€™t any dirt to dig up. With Tiger, just like what you blogged about last week, if heâ€™d gotten out in front of the story (even 24 hours later) and was honest, no one would be digging up all of his mistresses.

This is crisis PR 101. Describe the situation, be honest, apologize, say what youâ€™re going to do to fix it, and live your life. When it becomes a story is when you lie, when you avert questions, and when there clearly is something people want to find out to bring you down.”

So, we ask you, fair readers: how should Tiger communicate from here on out?

Nov 30 2009

How Tiger Can Get Past the Crisis – Hint: Social Media Can Help

Area 224 Managing Principal Dave Van de Walle has been part of crisis communications teams at Aon Corp., TransUnion and U Sphere. He was also Sports Information Director at Chicago State University in the mid-1990s. Here are his thoughts on the Tiger Woods accident and the aftermath:

If you think this is a complex crisis communications problem – the one being faced by Tiger Woods, uber-golfer, the first billion-dollar athlete, spokesperson for Gillette, and multi-ethnic role model of epic proportions – you might be under-estimating how complex it is.

There used to be a maxim about crisis communications: “tell it all, tell it early, tell it honestly.” These are organizational communications rules – but not personal brand management communications rules. BIG difference, and one that Tiger must confront head-on.

He’s his own team.

Seriously, as much as you might THINK he and his caddie (Steve Wiliams) are a team, or he and his wife, Elin, are a team – the reality here is it’s just Tiger Woods.

Now that everyone has a theory, what’s the world’s most famous athlete to do?

Tiger issued a statement asking for space, saying that “my family and I deserve some privacy.” Given the fact that golf reporters respect the guy for his class and dignity and how he treats them, I’d be inclined to cut him some slack.

Let’s borrow rather liberally from the playbook of another World-Class Athlete, Michael Phelps. Remember him? When he won all those gold medals, he grew a large Facebook following. VERY LARGE. 2,800,000+. He engaged with them as much as an athlete of his stature can – not a ton, but you felt like he was at least spending some time interacting.

When Michael Phelps had a problem, Â he confronted it head-on, through Facebook friends. Apologizing for letting them down. Then he went back to business, and his support kept growing.

He took control of the story, sure; but he engaged the masses where they were. He worked with the Groundswell. Not against it.

[Remember: after Michael Phelps did all this public apology and sorry I let you down stuff, he had a minor fender-bender? He got out in front of that story, too. On Facebook.]

Meantime, back to Tiger. His site is one-way — comment on the site, but don’t talk with Tiger. In fact, the one-way nature of his site is part of the problem: his is a brand, and it’s personal, but it’s not, well, personal. You feel like you’re interacting with a corporation. Which you are.

Not a regular guy who dominates but doesn’t have too much time for the little people.

How to confront this head-on? Through social media? Some advice for Tiger:

Engage. The masses, the little people, your favorite reporter, another golfer. Someone.

Comment back. Please, give us a token “hey Bob129, thanks for your support! Elin and I are doing well, we’re both a little jarred by the accident.”

Tweet. Seriously, Twitter got out in front of this story and it took on a life of its own. You can start taking it back through a verified account, a little interaction, and some honesty. Even if all you want to say is “my face hurts.”

Tiger, I’m with you on the respect for privacy stuff. I’m sorta with you on the “I’m human” stuff. I’d really like to believe your story — when and if you share it. So long as you start talking with the gallery.

The gallery is out here, on Social Media.

Nov 23 2009

What’s All This About Retweeting?

We love Twitter. But sometimes we all need to take a step back and talk about the basics in a non-threatening, out-of-the-bubble way.

Remember: for every football fan who wants to talk about Cover-2, there’s another who likes the Cowboys for their pretty helmets. The NFL welcomes all with open arms.

Same goes for Twitter — some people are addicted to it, some people don’t get it, and some people are somewhere in-between.

If you are not an addict, first, watch this video from Belgian supergroup K’s Choice. Then, enjoy our mini-guide to “Retweeting.”

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cklb7L0OA1c

Retweeting: What You Need to Know.

If you spend any time on Twitter, you’ve seen the letters “RT.” And you may have asked yourself, “Self, who is this RT person?”

It’s not a person, but that’s okay. It’s an abbreviation for “Retweet” – re-sending someone else’s tweet (message on Twitter) and paying them homage, or respect, for saying something or sharing something cool.

In an ideal world — where everyone uses Twitter to maximum benefit, lawyers hold hands with dancing puppies while singing “Kumbaya,” stuff like that — an RT would look like this:

Step one: someone tweets something interesting:

Sample Original Tweet — Original Tweet, please follow along

Next, the original was thought to be “RT-worthy,” and so it was Retweeted. Like so:

Vincent's RT — Vincent likes Marie's Tweet

So what if there’s a possibility that these two are either related, married, or part of The White Stripes? Vincent liked what Marie said, it’s a cool quote, and he Retweeted it. Good on ya, mate!

But wait, what’s all this about a Twitter “Retweet Button?”

Good question! If you use the Twitter Retweet button, the RT will look different — and some people may not even see it. For instance, here’s a RT using the Twitter button that was visible by Area 224 ONLY when logging in at Twitter.com:

This is NOT ideal. Give Twitter some time to work out the kinks of this new “system,” but don’t forget the magic letters RT. Which some “clients” – like TweetDeck – automatically put into your Tweets when you RT, and into your Twitter stream when others do.

This is what an RT looks like when sent on TweetDeck:

More homage: comment BEFORE the original tweet.

Let’s say you want to add a comment. Where do you do it? BEFORE. Using TweetDeck it’s easy:

Final bit of advice: try to keep the text intact as best you can. In order to facilitate this happening, your original tweet should be NO MORE THAN 120 characters.

And, if you are the one doing the Retweeting, try to use as much of the original quote when retweeting.

For instance, here’s an outbound tweet from Area 224:

The RT in response looked like this:

What could have made this back-and-forth better? Well, it was probably NOT RT worthy – in that it was more of a response to my original post. And it was not clear what “them” Area 224 was referring to, since the original tweet was changed.

What’s Next?

Well, if you’re learning all of this Twitter stuff, that’s okay. Thanks to some of the changes, we’re all re-learning some new things — like where we should be RTing from.

Love to get your thoughts on the best and worst RT habits. Keep on Tweeting!