Editor’s Note: This is the sixth in an ongoing series of readers sharing what they’ve learned as media spokespersons. Click here to learn how to submit your own piece. Today’s post comes from John Barnett, a senior communications analyst for Vox Optima.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I’ve only been a spokesperson a few times. The majority of my career has been prepping the spokespeople and media reps to do their jobs well. I’m the wizard behind the curtain.
But in my [mumble-cough-mumble] years of working with media and spokespeople, I can say 90 percent of my media encounters were positive, effective and balanced. But the real secret to helping your spokesperson work effectively with reporters isn’t magic, just simplicity.
Deliver what you promise.
PR pro John Barnett
Here’s what I mean: A few years back (names and places are changed to protect the … well, me) my media team was involved with a large project of intense local, national and international media interest. Smartly so, headquarters created media ground rules supporting transparency, organizational messaging, interviewing opportunities and reasonably unhindered media access. So all’s right with the Universe, right?
Uh, no. Not even close.
Enter our local bosses packing deep-seated distrust of the media and directing entirely different media ground rules. We’ll call them anti-media ground rules.
Watching our spokesperson in the first reporter meeting being forced to tell the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, et al, we were reneging on the ground rules was painful. And a first-year rookie could expect what came next. We got our butts handed to us during the first wave of reporting. And our local leadership got animated phone calls and personal visits from their bosses as reminders of what rules to follow.
Safe to say a new direction was implemented rather quickly, followed by an improved reporting tone and style as we returned to the original ground rules. We just had to deliver. And deliver we did.
Based on that experience (and others), here are six things you should remember when working with the media:
1. Provide Access as Promised. Few instances justify going back on your word.
2. Offer Relevant Subject Matter Experts/Spokespeople: They should be lined up and ready to go, on time as promised. That means prepping with media training, providing messaging and background notes, practicing with mock interviews, all without excuses for a late, ill-prepared spokesperson.
3. Anticipate Media Needs. Prepare digital/hard copy press kits, hold thorough press briefings, and set up reliable communications, connectivity and other support facilities if it’s a long-term event.
4. Be Flexible. Always build in scheduling cushion for the unknown, running long, etc. That gives the media enough time to “get it right.”
5. Be Respectful. Remember smaller outlets and new media reporters deserve a fair shake like “the big guys.” Two-way respect is always appreciated, and it doesn’t make you a doormat.
6. Be Transparent. “No comment” is not in a spokesperson’s vocabulary. Even “I don’t know, but will get the answer” is better; just make sure you follow-up.
With an effective team anticipating needs and backing up the public face, your expectation of media reporting should be relatively accurate and fair. But as I experienced, going into a media situation from the adversarial position will never work. As Brad quoted in a previous post, “never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel.”
It just makes for a bigger story you don’t want.
John Barnett, a senior communications analyst for the national telework public relations company, Vox Optima, has more than 27 years of expertise in public relations consulting, media relations and training, and social media management. John can be reached on Twitter, LinkedIn and by email at john.barnett@voxoptima.com.
Read the five previous entries in this series by John Fitzpatrick, Philip Connolly, Starr Million Baker, Justin Cole, and Julia Stewart. Or better yet, contribute your own piece! Submission rules here.
Many public speakers are reluctant to offer an overt “call to action” at the end of their speeches. For whatever reason, many speakers feel uncomfortable telling the audience precisely what they want them to do after their speeches end.
I’ve heard people tell me that they don’t want to come across as an overly-aggressive salesperson, while others insist they don’t need to offer a call to action, since they’re confident that the audience will be able to infer what they should do next.
That’s a mistake.
Some estimates suggest that the average person is exposed to as many as 3,000 marketing messages per day. If you don’t tell people exactly what you want them to do, you can safely assume they won’t do it. So lose your self-consciousness about being overt. You can be assured that your competitors or opponents aren’t being shy about issuing calls to action, meaning you’ll lose if you insist upon subtlety.
Below are a few examples of calls to action. You might ask your audience to:
- · Sign a petition
- · Buy your product
- · Volunteer their time
- · Visit a website
- · Read a news article
- · Call their legislators
- · Visit their member of Congress
- · Vote for your preferred candidate
- · Support your position
Good calls to action are framed in the context of the audience’s needs, fears, hopes, and desires – not yours.
A bad (speaker-focused) call to action might be:
“We really need your help, or we may not be able to stop this project. Please help us by calling your state representative and telling him or her that you oppose it.”
A good (audience-focused) call to action might say:
“This new construction project will mean that our already crowded schools will get even more crowded, that our already congested roads will get even more congested, and that our already unreliable snow removal services will get even more unreliable. I know that many of you oppose this project, but merely feeling that way isn’t enough to change anything.
If you’ve ever been reluctant to get involved, this is the perfect moment to jump in. When you get home, please email your state representative. And tomorrow morning – before lunchtime – please call your representative to follow up. We have a handout of the names and numbers of all of your local representatives in the back of the room. You have the power to defeat this project – and I hope you will do your part to stop it.”
That call to action works better because it is specific (email tonight and call tomorrow), audience-focused (you’re concerned about crowded schools, congested roads, and unreliable snow removal), and user-friendly (handouts are available in the back of the room).
If you’ve given a great presentation, your audience will want to know what to do next. So help them by giving them a clear call to action.
Need a keynote speaker for your next annual conference or staff retreat? Brad Phillips, author of the Mr. Media Training Blog, has delivered well-received keynote addresses to thousands of people. Click here for more details, and click here to contact us.
Rep. Rick Berg, a candidate for North Dakota’s open Senate seat, was recently asked a straightforward question: “What’s the state’s minimum wage?” He didn’t know the answer – and he’s far from alone.
The Huffington Post points out that four candidates at a recent Senate debate in Missouri also didn’t know the minimum wage. And that’s surprising, considering that this is a perennial question that trips up candidates in virtually every election cycle.
So today, I’m offering all campaigns and candidates a free prep sheet to help them avoid these obvious errors.
Here are ten questions you should be prepared to answer during your race:
1. What’s the Minimum Wage? The federal minimum wage is $7.25. Some states are higher. The full list is here. Candidates should also be able to answer similar questions about their state’s unemployment and home foreclosure rates. Here’s Rep. Berg’s attempt at answering the minimum wage question:
2. What’s the Price of Milk? Reporters ask these types of questions to gauge how much a candidate understands the struggles of “real” Americans. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a gallon costs $3.50. (A handy list of other product costs is here.)
3. What’s the Price of Bread? The average price of a loaf of white bread is $1.40.
4. How Much Is a Gallon Of Gas? The national average for a gallon of unleaded regular gas is $3.87. That’s up from $3.55 last year, $2.78 in 2010, and $1.95 in 2009. Candidates can accurately say that the price has doubled in the past three years. Also know your state/local gas price averages.
5. Why Do You Want to Be a Congressman/Senator/Governor? You’d be surprised how many people blow this simple question. In fact, that very question derailed Ted Kennedy’s presidential bid in 1980.
6. What Mistake(s) Have You Made, And What Have You Learned From It (Them)? This question is sometimes intended as a “gotcha,” but can be a perfect opportunity for candidates to explain a position change.
7. Who Is Your Favorite Supreme Court Justice of All Time, and Why? Candidates should also be able to name a decision they agreed with and one they disagreed with. In recent years, these types of questions have tripped up both Christine O’Donnell and Sarah Palin.
8. When Is The Last Time The (Local Sports Team) Won The Championship/Pennant/World Series/Stanley Cup? During a Democratic debate for Massachusetts Senate late last year, four candidates, including Elizabeth Warren, couldn’t list the years their beloved Boston Red Sox had won the World Series in this century. Candidates should also have similar answers ready for local college teams, and should be able to name their favorite players, as well.
9. Who Is Your Personal Hero? This is a cliché question which typically elicits cliché answers. But unless Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, or Eleanor Roosevelt are really your personal heroes, try to come up with something more original – and more revealing about who you are and what moves you.
10. What Newspapers Do You Read? After Sarah Palin’s disastrous handling of this question from Katie Couric, other candidates can expect similar questions. Be ready to name your favorite journalists, newspapers, radio stations, news programs, and websites.
Have the best of the blog delivered to your inbox twice per month! Enter your name in the box on the upper right of the blog to join our mailing list.
It’s the single hardest media training question for spokespersons to answer.
Let’s say you’re a top executive from a not-for-profit association, a quasi-governmental organization, a membership group, or a utility company. You work for a group that depends on taxpayer funding, private donations, or middle-class ratepayers. You make $600,000 per year. Or $800,000 per year. Or $1.2 million per year. Here’s the killer question:
“How can you justify making $800,000 per year?
Last week, I asked you to weigh in with your suggestions for how to answer that question. You had some great ideas, as you’ll see below (my reaction to each comment follows in italics).
Comment 1: Melissa Agnes: “The utility company (assuming you mean IT or something of the sorts): something about them working hard and being fortunate to be in such a position???”
I really like the second part of your answer about being fortunate to be in such a position. I’d be careful with “working hard,” since it can make people who make less but also work hard bristle.
Comment 2: Hastings Fredrickson: “In any organisation, it’s not what you spend that matters – it’s what you bring in – whether “it” is the person in the mail room providing a fantastic service or myself in the job that I do, bringing in new business, future vision and leadership that will steer the company to profit or above and beyond where we are now….I think any reasonable person can see that at this level, there are decisions requiring skill and experience that has been acquired over many years…My salary package is something I make transparent at all company meetings and it’s decided by the shareholders and freely discussed at all levels of the company.”
I like your pledge for transparency and focus on return on investment. But I’d stay away from phrases such as “Any reasonable person can see,” since it’s dismissive of the reasonable people who disagree with you.
Comment 3: Christine: “I think it’s really, really important that the CEO acknowledge that achieving his/her position is a combination of hard work AND good luck … because many many people work 18-hour days and make minimum wage. He or she can acknowledge the importance of a good education, having a plan, etc. … but don’t say that it was all hard work, because he/she would offend soooo many people!”
Great point, Christine.
Comment 4: Jeff: “I would also focus on the fact that “I have many years of experience that allow me to make strategic decisions for the company on a daily basis that affect each and every employee and the future of our business.”
That’s an important point, but I’d focus the benefits less on the “future of our business” and more on the benefits to donors, ratepayers, or members.
Comment 5: Chris Floore: “A government agency such as a city or school district could easily be a community’s top employer. You want to set the pay for the CEO (Commissioner, Mayor, CAO, Superintendent, etc.) in such a way that it reflects the level of skill and expertise needed to effectively manage an organization that has deep and long-lasting impacts on the community…The pay can easily stand on its own by showing what the agency does and who it impacts.”
I like this answer and it includes great elements. I’d still be concerned about the inevitable follow-up: “But do you really have to siphon $800,000 away from the taxpayers each year to do your work? You could do the same work for half of that, which would allow you to respect taxpayers while still making a lot of money. Why do you refuse to do that?”
Comment 6: J. Noble: “To answer your question directly: Advise the client to cite stats showing their salary is in line with other CEOs in the same space and with the same size organization (apples to apples comparison)-assuming that is true. That said, there is no strong or good answer when the UN Sec General makes $237k and you as a CEO of a significantly less important, less complicated and smaller non-profit make $800k.”
Fair point, and that’s the trickiest part of this question – many people inherently don’t believe that executives deserve to make so much money. The second part of your answer, about comparing salaries, is a good approach.
My Approach
My approach borrows from pieces of the commenters above. In an ideal world, the organization that is paying high salaries uses an outside “benchmarking” firm to establish what comparable wages are. If that’s true – and if the executive is paid something close to the median, I prefer this response:
“You’re right that I’m fortunate to be paid well for my work. I agree that we owe it to our members to be fiscally responsible, which is why no executive in our company makes more than the average for other executives in comparable positions. We think the 50 percent mark is perfect – it’s high enough to attract top talent who can serve our members well, but low enough to respect the contributions generously provided by our members.”
Thanks to the readers above for weighing in! What do you think? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.
When I attended Robert Frost Middle School in Rockville, Maryland in the mid-1980s, there was a girl who always wore a bandana around her head. I was a smartass teenager, and she looked different than everybody else – so one day when I passed her in the hall, I quipped, “Nice hat.”
A few months later, the principal announced over the loud speaker that she had died.
I don’t remember her name, but I wince every time I think of that story. I didn’t know she was dying of cancer, but how stupid was I to make fun of her, to add to the pain she was going through?
So this morning’s report that Mitt Romney bullied a few kids as a high school student didn’t surprise me. Many people did stupid things as kids, and few of them disqualify a person for political office.
Mitt Romney as a student in the 1960s
According to The Washington Post:
“John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.
‘He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!’ an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.
A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.”
Romney wasn’t disciplined for the incident; Mr. Lauber was later kicked out of school for smoking a cigarette. He died in 2004 after spending some time in a psychiatric facility. In a separate incident, the Post reported that:
“Gary Hummel, who was a closeted gay student at the time, recalled that his efforts to speak out in class were punctuated with Romney shouting, ‘Atta girl!’”
Mitt Romney as a student at the Cranbrook School
In another incident, Romney allegedly laughed when a blind teacher was injured after walking into a door. When asked about the incidents earlier today, Mr. Romney used a somewhat dismissive tone:
"They talk about the fact that I played a lot of pranks in high school. And they describe some that you just say to yourself, back in high school I just did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended by it, obviously I apologize. I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks during high school and some might have gone too far and for that, I apologize.”
That’s an insufficient apology. I’ve written many times on this blog about the hedged “if you were offended, then I am sorry” type of apology, which places the action on the subject of the bullying. What’s missing from his “apology?” Any sort of genuine humanity.
The danger for Romney isn’t that he did something stupid as a kid in 1965, but that he risks coming across like that same bully 47 years later.
Here’s what he should have said:
“As a teenager in 1965, I wasn’t as mature as I should have been. Looking back, I’m horrified that I made another boy’s life more difficult. There’s no excuse for that, and I apologize for any damage that my actions caused. More than 45 years later, I understand just how long-lasting the damage of those types of childhood activities can be. I ask to be judged for the man I am today, not the boy I was in the 1960s.”
I think of that girl with cancer often, and am sad every time I do. If the public sees the same kind of legitimate regret from Romney, I can’t imagine this issue will dog him for long.
Editor’s Note: Some readers may question the timing of The Washington Post’s article, which ran shortly after President Obama announced his support for gay marriage. That’s a legitimate topic of conversation, but is outside the scope of this article, which is focusing on the PR fallout of that article.
If you enjoyed this article, would you please share it with your social networks? Share buttons are below. Thank you!
Ever think about padding your resume in an effort to make yourself look more appealing to an employer, potential clients, or the public? Two recent cases make clear that you might want to think again.
Scott Thompson, Yahoo’s new CEO (whose tenure began in January), is under fire for inflating his resume. According to CNNMoney:
“In a series of published biographical statements stretching back for years — including his bio on Yahoo’s website — Thompson has said that he "holds a Bachelor’s degree in accounting and computer science" from Stonehill College….But his degree is actually only in accounting.”
In fact, Stonehill College didn’t even issue computer science degrees until years after he graduated.
Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson
Yahoo initially defended Thompson, saying his false statements—which he also made to the Securities and Exchange Commission—”in no way alters that fact that Mr. Thompson is a highly qualified executive with a successful track record leading large consumer technology companies."
But CNN Money is now reporting that Yahoo is seemingly changing course:
“Yahoo’s board said also Tuesday that it has hired an outside counsel to conduct a review of the false statement. It appointed the company’s three independent directors to oversee the investigation.”
Mr. Thompson also issued a statement earlier this week, in which he said:
"I want you to know how deeply I regret how this issue has affected the company and all of you," Thompson said in a memo obtained by CNN. "We have all been working very hard to move the company forward, and this has had the opposite effect. For that, I take full responsibility, and I want to apologize to you."
That’s not exactly a full apology. It’s filled with distancing third person language, and fails to take full personal responsibility. For Mr. Thompson, I’m afraid this is a disqualifying event. A leader of a company that expects employees to act with integrity can’t lie to advance his own career and expect his employees to act differently. I suspect the Yahoo board will reach the same conclusion.
The second case of resume inflation belongs to conservative writer Jonah Goldberg, whose new book jacket (and National Review bio) claims he was “twice nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.” He wasn’t.
Someone paid $50 to submit his work to the Pulitzer board for consideration, but they didn’t nominate him. Given that anyone can send them $50 and claim a “nomination,” his claim is far-fetched. But Goldberg acted quickly to correct the error and blamed a third party for the error. I suspect his “crisis” will die down quickly.
Writer Jonah Goldberg
What You Should Do Now
Look at your resume or online bio. If anything is exaggerated or could be subject to misinterpretation, change it. Before writing this post, I did the same thing and made two changes. The original versions of both lines were true, but I decided to err on the side of caution and tweak a few words to remove any ambiguity.
I’d encourage you to go through the same exercise of viewing your resume as your worst critics might, and to make any necessary changes.
UPDATE: Sunday, May 13, 2012, 8:00pm: Scott Thompson has left Yahoo for “personal reasons.” It appears clear that he was unable to survive this scandal, and that it was creating too much of a distraction for Yahoo.
Like our blog? Don’t go yet! Like us on Facebook here and follow us on Twitter here.
Yesterday, I wrote about The Chronicle of Higher Education’s decision to dismiss a blogger for a controversial and dismissive article she had written about academic “black studies” programs. If you missed yesterday’s post, you can click here to catch up.
I reached out to Liz McMillen, The Chronicle’s editor, yesterday afternoon. She didn’t reply yesterday, but she got in touch with me early this evening. We spoke for about 15 minutes, so I wanted to balance my original piece with this update.
First, Ms. McMillen said numerous times throughout our call that this incident “was a learning experience” and that “things were moving very quickly.”
She said that even though she originally supported the blog’s author (Naomi Schaefer Riley) with an editor’s note on May 3rd, she hadn’t yet seen Ms. Riley’s defiant defense of her original work, which McMillen says violated both academic and journalistic norms. That defiant defense, paired with reader response, ultimately resulted in asking Ms. Riley to leave The Chronicle.
Chronicle of Higher Education Editor Liz McMillen
In an email earlier this morning, Ms. Riley told me that she never received any blogging standards from The Chronicle. Ms. McMillen contradicted that claim tonight, telling me that Ms. Riley not only received the paper’s standards last February, but that she acknowledged receiving them via email.
However, Ms. McMillen refused to share the paper’s standards publicly, only mentioning that they included a rule about not committing libel. (I’m not sure anything in Ms. Riley’s article violated that standard). Without seeing that standards document, it’s impossible for me – or any other journalist or blogger – to assess whether Ms. Riley violated any of the paper’s requirements.
Ms. McMillen says that they will change a few things. First, they will issue more specific guidelines to bloggers. Second, they will begin reviewing outside content prior to posting it to their blog.
Crisis Communications
Ms. McMillen’s answers suggested that she hadn’t developed a crisis communications plan prior to this incident.
Had The Chronicle created a plan, they would have been able to react more quickly to this incident, responded to press calls more efficiently, and reduced the number of negative (and incorrect) media stories. A crisis communications workshop might have also revealed the need for a more specific standards document.
Crises aren’t always about the facts. They often run on perceptions, which spread in nanoseconds in the age of Twitter. Had Ms. McMillen or one of her representatives gone on the record with me yesterday, they could have blunted my original post and eliminated Fishbowl DC’s snarky second post – and likely other media stories, as well.
My hope for The Chronicle is that they invest time after this incident in developing a crisis plan and providing media training for all of their spokespersons. I’m unlikely to be hired for the gig. But I’d be happy to refer a few qualified professionals that can help.
What do you think? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.
I never thought I’d begin an article like this, but here goes: Barack Obama is finally as liberal as Dick Cheney on gay marriage.
As you’ve likely heard by now, President Obama announced his support for gay marriage earlier today. He’s not likely to push for legislation – the action is primarily in the courts and the states – but his announcement serves as a critically important step for supporters of gay marriage.
Pundits everywhere are confidently opining about what this decision means for Mr. Obama’s re-election bid. My recommendation to you? Don’t believe any of them. No one knows how this one is going to play out yet.
Even though we can’t predict the outcome, here are five things worth watching:
First, will this election still be about the economy? With the unemployment rate above eight percent, President Obama isn’t a sure bet to win re-election. Mitt Romney has already made President Obama’s handling of the economy the primary focus of his campaign. But will this move now make the 2012 election more about social issues than the economy? I’m betting that the President’s team hopes so and that they’ve seen polling numbers to give them confidence that this will help their effort. If that’s true, will Mitt Romney take the bait, or will he keep the focus on the economy?
Second, how will this play in swing states? North Carolina, Virginia, Arizona, Ohio, Florida, Colorado (and others) are considered swing states. How will voters in those states respond?
Third, how will this affect turnout? Will Democratic-leaning independents stay home? Will the President electrify younger voters who otherwise might have stayed home?
Fourth, how will this affect African Americans voters? As a group, African Americans – President Obama’s most reliable constituency – oppose gay marriage in disproportionate numbers. Will religious, church-going Democrats still show up? And will Democratic members of the clergy be as enthusiastic in their sermons and their get out the vote efforts, or will the President’s decision deflate them?
Fifth, how will this affect down ballot races? Will Democrats running in tight House and Senate races lose votes from voters who fear that Democrats will take Congressional action to push national gay marriage legislation?
What do you think? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.
