Rob Ford is on his way to becoming a one-term mayor. And one of the biggest reasons he'll lose any future election bid is his staggeringly awful handing of the media. Mayor Ford has shown on numerous occasions that he has little time or respect for the media (outside...
Read MoreLove it or hate it, American Idol has introduced the music-buying public to some very talented performers that, but for the show, might have remained in obscurity forever. At the same time, however, the popular show has served as a venue for some of the most hideous, offensive musical disasters ever to be seen on television...
Read More
What's your 'must-have' tool when preparing yourself or a client for an important media interview? A laptop? iPad? BlackBerry? Skype? Video camera? As much as I love gadgets (and I do love my gadgets), I would gladly forsake all of these for the lowly index card...
Read MoreYou've finally lined up a media interview with that influential reporter you've been after for months. Rather than doing the interview over the phone, however, one of you suggests meeting for lunch (I've seen both clients and journalists initiate this idea). Great idea, right?
Read MoreMany spokespeople treat a media interview like a job interview. They sit there passively like a job applicant while the reporter asks question after question after question. The person being interviewed is like a human piñata, getting whacked with questions for 10, 15, even 20 minutes at a time. The result?
Read More
One of the more popular stories from our newsletter this month is about Christine O'Donnell, the Republican candidate in Delaware's general election Senate race. Leading up to the election, O'Donnell's campaign was dogged by speculation about her involvement in witchcraft (speculation fueled by comments O'Donnell herself made during a 1999 TV interview). In an attempt at damage control, O'Donnell issued a 30-second TV spot aimed at convincing the public she's an ordinary person, "just like you". In a shockingly poor attempt at addressing the issue head-on, however, a smiling O'Donnell begins her ad with the following four words: "I'm not a witch." You can view the ad here.The Lesson: There are two lessons here. The first one relates to the 1999 interview in which she referred to "dabbling into witchcraft". Even if you don't aspire to hold public office one day, this probably isn't the kind of life experience to bring up in a network TV interview. The other lesson is about not repeating negative language. The TV ad would have been more effective (or at least less damaging) without the phrase "I'm not a witch." Even though she's refuting the claim, her statement has the opposite effect, serving as fodder for her opponents, critics and the media. In the end, O'Donnell lost her election bid.
Note: This story is taken from our 'Manage your Message' e-newsletter. To get your own copy sent to your inbox each month, sign up here.
In our media training sessions, we tell participants that 90% of the success of a media interview is determined before the reporter asks their first question. It's in the homework you do to prepare for the interview. It's finding out the focus of the interview, researching the reporter's past stories on the topic, developing strong key messages and anticipating the questions you'll be asked (especially the 2-3 nightmare questions you hope you never get asked).
Recently, we told you about the social media campaign we started to get former NHL
coach Pat Burns inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 2010 (Burns has
terminal lung cancer). Over the course of a few weeks, more than 70,000
people joined the group, helping to generate extensive media coverage
for the cause.
A big thanks goes out to all of the reporters across North America who supported this campaign from its earliest days and who took the HHOF to task for this bewildering error in judgment. I owe each of you a cold beer. Email me if you'd like to collect.
Burns
will be inducted some day. But instead of making the speech himself, it
will likely be his wife or one of his children. That's a shame. The HHOF missed a great opportunity to do the
right thing for one of their own. Here's hoping the former coach is
still with us in 2011 when we try again.
* * *
Note: This story is taken from our 'Manage your Message' e-newsletter. To get your own copy sent to your inbox each month, sign up here.
Preparation is the key to success for any media interview - whether you're being interviewed by Peter Mansbridge or the kid next door. Recently, high school student Keith Wagner interviewed Arizona State Senator John Huppenthal. During the interview...
Reebok Canada has offered a $10,000 reward (no questions asked) for the return of the stick and gloves Sidney Crosby used to score the gold medal winning goal at the Olympics...
The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) faced a PR challenge last month after a cellphone picture of a sleeping worker went viral on the Internet. For the TTC...
A Toronto brain surgeon has used a tried and true PR technique to get his story on the front page of one of Canada's national newspapers. And good for him. But you can rest assured the other shoe will drop this Saturday night.
On A1 of the National Post, there's a story titled 'A shot at Don Cherry'. At its core, this is a story about hits to the head and concussions in the game of hockey. In this case, the messenger is Dr. Charles Tator. His story is an important one. He's calling for the sport to better protect its players from hits to the head, which may lead to devastating long-term health effects.
And while the story might be important, it's also boring. Few journalists will feel compelled to write a story about something that has been happening in a sport for decades, and which may cause negative health effects years down the road.
To make a story like this appealing to a reporter, Dr. Tator had to hang it on one (or more) of the three drivers of news: change, controversy or human interest. He chose controversy, opting to attack one of hockey's most recognizable personalities, Don Cherry.
"I think he (Don Cherry) is a negative influence because he applauds aggressive hockey," Dr. Tator is quoted as saying in the article.
The tactic worked. A story pitch that should have ended up in the 'deleted items' file instead wound up on the front page and will surely generate coverage in radio and TV throughout Canada this week. Given that he is a brain surgeon (let's face it, there's a certain degree of intelligence implied), Dr. Tator is undoubtedly aware that he will be in Mr. Cherry's crosshairs at approximately 8:00 pm this Saturday night during Cherry's 'Coach's Corner' segment on Hockey Night in Canada.
Don Cherry does like aggressive hockey. But he also preaches the need for a return to the type of respect that players had for one another in the good ol' days. Cherry has long been a supporter of safe play in the game of hockey. He is the driving force behind the 'STOP' decal program that gets young children to think twice before hitting another player from behind.
Dr. Tator refers to these efforts as "window-dressing" that won't lead to a cultural shift.
If the good doctor wanted to truly effect change in the way the game is played, he might have been better served to call NHL commissioner Gary Bettman to the carpet. In this case, however, he simply wanted to get his story on the front page. And by taking a pot shot at one of Canada's most popular and beloved senior citizens, he has succeeded. But there is a price to pay for draping your boring story in controversy at someone else's expense. We'll just have to tune in to Coach's Corner this Saturday Night to see what that price is.
Read MoreIn his column in the Globe and Mail this morning, Rick Salutin reveals a serious bias against the PR industry. What's that, you say? A reporter who's got an axe to grind against PR?
Everyone (particularly a newspaper columnist, who's paid to fan the flames of controversy) is entitled to his/her opinion. On that note, here's mine. This column is an unwarranted cheap shot at the PR profession.
Salutin uses the Michael Bryant affair as his platform (the recent case in which a former Ontario politician, in the car with his wife, was involved in an altercation with a bike courier which resulted in the courier's death). After noting that the media coverage of the event has served the public well, Salutin writes, "But there's one element that irritates me severely. It's the presence, since very early, of a public-relations firm aiding Mr. Bryant."
The rest of the column doesn't seem to have a clear point. It just rehashes journalism's old disdain for PR. He also suggests that the other problem at play is that many journalism grads end up in public relations. And that a "depressing quantity of news stories, especially in areas such as medicine, now come from well-produced PR packages sent on behalf of pharmaceutical firms and the like."
He bemoans the fact that PR people "may put words in client's mouths, vet their ideas and advise on whether to speak at all".
Is this guy for real? Salutin has been at this game a long time. His feigned naivete on the role of PR comes off more like a columnist's device than genuine concern. If a prominent public figure gets tangled up in a situation like Bryant did recently, their first two phone calls should be to their lawyer and a PR firm. The man's career, reputation and freedom are on the line. And given the media's love of 'David versus Goliath' stories, the bicycle courier starts out as the clear favourite in the court of public opinion, even though the truth has yet to emerge. Bryant likely has a million things going through his mind. Hiring experienced professionals for council on how to handle his one shot when the TV cameras are shoved in his face is not shocking, insulting, or devious. It's common sense. And if Salutin happened to be the unfortunate individual in the car that night, I'll bet he would have the Globe and Mail's PR firm (that's right, the Globe and Mail has a PR firm) on speed dial - pronto.
Read MoreInternal communications often gets the short end of the stick.
Employees are arguably an organization's most important audience. They're the lifeblood of any company. They need to be the first audience you communicate with and the message needs to be clear, honest and free of B.S.
Read More
"It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question." He then went on to say that there was "just one thing I was thinking about as I was getting on the copter. I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn't under me that we started buying a bunch of shares in banks. It wasn't on my watch. And it wasn't on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement -- the prescription drug plan -- without a source of funding. And so I think it's important just to note when you start hearing folks throw these words around that we've actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word 'socialist' around can't say the same."
I like this proactive call by the President. While reflecting about the interview earlier in the day, he pinpointed something that he thought might become a larger issue in the paper the following day. Instead of waiting to do damage control after the fact, he called the journalist personally to eliminate any confusion about his response and pre-empt a negative story characterizing him as a socialist.
This unorthodox call also serves another purpose. It puts the media on notice that the President is paying attention and that he will vigorously defend himself and his administration in the press if he feels they're crossing the line. I would bet that as a result of this call, more than a few White House reporters will be thinking of that phone call while they're putting the finishing touches on their daily stories.
If you want to check out the original coverage of this story, it's here.
Read More
