The Obama administration, since the president’s historic election victory, has been hailed as the most PR-savvy political arm since Andrew Jackson created the modern presidency’s appeal to the “common man” in the 19th century.

So it is with deep concern that PR pros watch the administration stumble in its reaction to the consistent baiting by FOX news channel commentators like Glenn Beck. Media pundits are also worried. The New York Times media business columnist David Carr wrote this morning:

“Smiling and wearing beige even under the most withering news media assault is not only good manners, but also has generally been good politics. While there is undoubtedly a visceral thrill in finally setting out after your antagonists, the history of administrations that have successfully taken on the media and won is shorter than this sentence.”

The administration is mad at FOX. The problem is, it is mad at the commentators, the pundits, the folks who are paid to get into shouting matches and create “info-tainment” for the viewing public. So, White House communications director Anita Dunn has pronounced that there will be no more “access” – no administration representative will be interviewed by FOX news correspondents until the outlet is nicer. Oh, and they also want other media to give reporters who work for FOX a bad time about their choice of employment.

Please. To take a Denver analogy, that’s like the governor refusing to be interviewed by reporters at KOA 850 AM (the news talk radio outlet) until they remove Mike Rosen (the hugely popular commentator on from 9-11 am weekdays). And, in this day of reporters scrambling to keep the jobs they have, snobbery within the ranks is very, very poor taste.

KOA 850 AM in Denver is a big deal – thousands listen daily during their commutes and some make it their primary Denver news source. FOX is the same kind of big dog on a national scale. Its ratings are huge and not to be ignored. Whether the administration likes it or not, if Obama wants his messages heard, he has to over-rule Ms. Dunn and reach out to FOX.

The FOX audience is too large to be ignored. And, in ridiculing FOX and trying to marginalize it, the administration is succeeding in insulting its audience. Voters. Many, many independent voters. Voters in the so-called “red states” who could, potentially, be impressed by Obama actually living up to his speeches promising to listen to those who disagree with him.

It is surprising to me, too, that an industry trade group would put a group of reporters on a panel to advise business owners about public relations needs. It’s unfortunate that they gave the advice that they did, because it’s likely some of their audience will believe them.

I worked as a newspaper reporter for a total of seven years, in Nevada and Colorado, and I covered business. If you had asked me then, I would have told you I knew all about public relations. I received news releases and was called by PR people – usually at awkward times, such as deadline or shortly after a story about their competitor had run.

Now, I’ve been a professional in public relations for 12 years, and I can tell you – I didn’t know anything about public relations. The reporters and editors who hear from PR professionals don’t have a clue about the strategy and planning necessary to create a positive public relations program for a company.

There is much more to a program than media relations, for instance; but that’s the only aspect reporters and editors are generally aware of. Some understand that without the news releases in their in-boxes and calls from public relations staffers, it would be much harder to “find” the news. And every reporter I know wishes they could just pick up the phone and call the CEO of the biggest company in town without being fielded by a public relations professional. But just as the reporters are very, very busy, so is the CEO.

Reporters resent knowing that an interviewee was “media trained” – they think it means the subject was taught to be unresponsive, when in reality a good media trained interviewee will give clearer, better-thought-out answers that will make for a better overall interview.

I could go on and on. But the best example I can give is that of a former client. Through the agency I then worked for, she was introduced to a reporter at a respected, national-level business outlet (Forbes). After the article, she and the reporter actually became personal friends, and the reporter told her the money she was spending for professional PR was a waste. She could get her own stories! That year, the agency scored hits for this person in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, 60 Minutes, and hundreds of other outlets in newspapers across the country. When the contract was finished, she declined to re-up.

The next year, she showed up in press a whopping three times. Forbes was one. The others were regional newspapers. Hmmmm.

Here’s an article on the situation: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/business/18ghost.html?hpw

This has caused consternation, for good reason. If researchers are allowing marketers to write their material, medical realities can be skewed – if for no other reason, the marketers don’t understand the actual medical implications involved. The marketing writers may be told in broad strokes that a medicine is good for headaches, for instance, and write in glowing terms about it; but if they don’t know (and who would tell them) that there are side effects involving liver damage, how would that get in?

The researchers who allowed this are the unethical folks – not the writers, who are putting together what information they have.

I speak as a ghostwriter myself: writers are, as a whole, a pretty ethical bunch. We want to give the most complete picture, tell the full story, supply accurate information. This isn’t about advertising copy. This is about fulfilling an assignment for a medical journal.

The problem is that many commentators don’t understand the term ghostwriting. I’ve written white papers and journal articles on behalf of clients who were contracted to provide material but didn’t have the time or writing capability to do it. For instance, for a journal for professional nurses I’ve ghostwritten educational articles about best practices and the use of technology like Electronic Medical Records. However, I have never – and never would – write some fiction or skewed marketing piece about a pharma product and place it as though it came from a scientist. The very idea is offensive and I think potentially dangerous.

I hope the medical editors don’t issue some kind of blanket ban on ghostwriters but instead create a realistic and ethical policy.

The half who believe that charging for content will work also report believing that readers will not be able to access the material elsewhere. Here’s the breakdown, supplied by Media Buyer/Planner this morning:

• 58% of publishers said they are considering charging for content
• 49% said they have no timetable in mind for how that will play out
• 12% said they plan to charge for content by the end of the year
• 18% said they will do so in the first quarter of 2010
• 10% said they would begin charging by the beginning of next summer
• 10% currently charge for some portion of the web content
According to the study:
• 38% of the respondents say they will limit full access to stories to monthly subscribers
• 28% say they will likely offer monthly subscriptions as well as micropayments for individual articles
• 15% expect to offer monthly subscriptions, micropayments, and “day passes”
• 19% expect news articles to remain free but that they will produce content specifically for the website which would be behind a pay wall
• 9% say they may adopt a system which would make visitors pay separately for each story they want to read
(Thank you, Media Buyer/Planer!)

You can see the original report here: http://www.slideshare.net/NiemanLab/api-itz-belden-revenue-initiatives-survey?src=embed

What does this mean for Public Relations?

It means that posting news releases to free sites such as PR Web will become more and more necessary in order to ensure online searchers will find your information.

I believe that the publishers planning to charge for content are either deluding themselves or they have outlets such as the Wall Street Journal – in other words, truly exclusive material and news. General newspapers and other news sites, which are essentially aggregates, will be skipped over by the vast majority of readers who will expect they can find the headlines elsewhere. It’s a cynical view, perhaps, but I think a realistic one.

Online news outlets desperately need to find a business model that works, as the print outlets are dying quickly and the model of having advertisements cover the overhead costs of newsroom, reporter’s salaries, technology, etc., is fading fast. Advertisers used to pay top dollar for newspaper ads because newspapers were the only way to reach people in large numbers, right on their doorstep, where the paper was delivered.

Today, fewer are willing to turn pages and get ink on their hands. They want to scroll through the headlines on the web. Advertisers have many more options to reach the audience and aren’t willing to pay inflated rates. It’s a conundrum for publishers, and as a former newspaper reporter, it’s hard for me to watch. But that’s reality and we have to roll with it.

Perhaps we are moving toward a time when online media outlets really will offer exclusive content, that people are willing to pay for. That means – the news release of old is just as dead as the three-inch-thick newspaper at the stoop.

Here’s a link to the article: http://tinyurl.com/lbjrcd

Media Post is a great resource to anyone in public relations, marketing and sales. Today’s review of the needs of business web sites may be stating the obvious: such sites are rarely well-written and often allowed to go stale. But it’s a good reminder.

In today’s world, very few people buy without checking out a web site first. Whether it’s business services or software, or anything in between, a web site is a front-line sales portal.

Well, doesn’t that make one feel better?

Even Paul Klugman, Nobel laureate economist, admits to mystification at Gibbs’ comment, so don’t feel that it’s you. What it is, is bad Messaging.

Messaging can never be ignored. It matters how a statement is worded. While I am a firm believer in authenticity and honesty in all communications, that doesn’t mean comments shouldn’t be thought out in advance.

Write them down. Develop a Messaging Document with your PR counsel and remember that it is a living document that requires constant updating as things change.

It’s worth the time and investment to make sure what is said to the press is exactly what you mean. You can avoid:

• “Bambi” statements: Nixon’s famous “I am not a crook”, Clinton’s “I did not have sex with that woman”

• Blurting that sounds, well, stupid: “So what’s wrong with a stimulus? The government can print more money.” (anonymous because there’s no need to be mean, here)

• Obfuscation when you meant to clarify: see Gibbs, above

Thinking through Messages doesn’t take long, and it’s always worth it.

This is the beginning of a fresh blog, YouNeedASpark, associated with Spark PR Marketing. I’m Lee Ann Fleming, APR, author, PR and marketing pro. A dear friend named my business and thus this blog – he told me, “You’re a spark – you come up with creative, constructive ideas constantly. You spark up the conversation!”

I hope, through this blog, to spark many a conversation. Please feel free to comment and know that I will access and read every one. What fun we’re going to have!

With faith in the future – Lee Ann

YouNeedASpark!