05/16

Throughout history there have been periods when the earth has slipped into a disaster cycle.  We're in one now, and psychology has a great deal to do with it.   If we fear, we look at everything with a sense of paranoia.  However, we have good reason for fears.  The bombing in Saudi Arabia two days ago showed that terrorists are alive and potent.  The death toll from SARS is higher than forecasted and the possibility of a vaccine is years away.  Unemployment is up. Consumer spending is down.  One industry after another has stalled and shows no signs of recovering growth.

To make matters worse, we know these conditions can last for years.   The Great Depression started in late 1929 and lasted until 1941.  Japan has been in the dumps for 13 years with no signs of improvement.  Countries like Argentina plunge from one disaster to another. 

Why am I gloomy?  Good question for a PR practitioner who is supposed to be "up."  I'm trying to view the world objectively and to spot good signs among bad ones.  I haven't been successful.  There are interesting technologies like WiFi, but there is no life-changing technology like the Internet or personal computer.  There are many bio-tech medicines under development but none that will change the dismal state of the health care system.  There is positive political change in countries like Iraq, but the task of rooting democracy will take years.  World commerce has paused for breath after running vigorously for years.  Industry realizes it is going to walk until it is capable of running again but no knows when that is.  Go-go CEOs of just three years ago are girding their companies for a long haul and are happy when they make a profit rather than a loss.

Throughout all this, PR must keep communicating.  We'll change our tune because we have to do so, but our messages are still important to key audiences, if they are honest.  Honesty begins with recognizing there are not many good signs about.
 

05/15

Microsoft Corp. is experiencing such a meltdown now.   The worst part is that the company created the nightmare and perpetuated it through dumb PR moves.  Microsoft made a basic error.  It didn't know the facts before it spoke.

I'm sure you know what I'm referring to, but in case you don't, here is the story.  A much-publicized press release came from the Microsoft's UK unit on April 30 that announced Microsoft was developing a high-tech portable toilet -- the iLoo.  There was a graphic of the proposed toilet with a release.  The iLoo included adjustable screen, keyboard and internet connections.  The picture of the portable toilet received worldwide coverage and many snide remarks.

On Monday of this week, Microsoft announced to the world that the iLoo release was a hoax perpetrated by its UK unit.  The company apologized profusely.  Then, yesterday, Microsoft announced yet again that it was NOT a hoax.  The iLoo project had been real but the company had now cancelled it.

Helen Jung, the Associated Press business writer, who reported the confused story had her way with it.  She documented every person she interviewed and the backing and forthing.  Microsoft looked like an idiot, which was Jung's intention, I'm sure. 

It turns out iLoo was apparently a Microsoft PR stunt intended for a summer festival in the UK.   Someone forgot to inform Microsoft PR what the UK unit was doing. Worse, someone also forgot to tell a UK spokesperson who was Microsoft's internal source that the story was a hoax.  Apparently, several US managers called the UK and were told by this same person that the story was not true.  The UK person, in turn, failed to check whether the story was real by asking internally about it, thereby misleading everyone.  It was only after Microsoft's PR people in the US asked others in the UK, AFTER the hoax apologies went out, that the company discovered the story was true. Got all that?

Errors cascaded and cost Microsoft face and credibility.  Many were asking, "Who's in charge?"  It was clear headquarters wasn't.  Headquarters was scrambling to catch up with the story and falling further behind.  It is an understatement to report that Microsoft is reviewing PR procedures and processes.  I wouldn't be surprised if someone gets walking papers. 

Remember, even internally a two-source rule is important for verifying facts.  Never trust one person's knowledge.  Microsoft did. 
 

05/14

Apparently the fellow did.  He also engaged in fraudulent activities to cover his tracks.  Obviously, it didn't work.   He is paying back all that he took plus interest, but he isn't admitting or denying allegations against him. 

If spamming is so inexpensive to do that one can afford to send 9 million e-mails for a pittance, what will happen to pending anti-spam laws?  People will navigate around them quickly from offshore locations beyond the reach of the law. 

No wonder a number of commentators are worried about the pending Federal  laws.  They are desperate to stop the tidal wave of spam that is costing Internet Service Providers and users millions annually, and they don't want a law that fails to do the job right.

From a PR perspective, the situation is interesting.  Public relations has no meaning to those who would earn money in any way possible.  In fact, spammers would look upon PR principles as elitist because they don't  apply to the real world of hard-driving sales. 

And, the spammers are right.  PR is meant for organizations that plan to be here tomorrow and the day after.  It is not meant for firms that sell penis-extenders and substitutes for Viagra.  In fact, PR should be in the forefront of battling business like this.  It isn't, as far as I can tell.  Practitioners are leaving it to the geeks to lead the charge.  It seems to me PR is missing a chance to make a mark. 

For those who claim that spamming is covered under First Amendment rights, and we can't do anything about it, I beg to differ.  Anyone selling fraudulent products is not covered by Free Speech rights and one who uses another's property without paying for it also is not covered.  Spammers do both those things. 

I'll get off my soapbox.  I've been on it too much over the issue of spam.  But we need a change.

05/13

It isn't and I'm worried.  The problem is facts.  I've got to boil many facts into the article without making it seem like a book of statistics.  To get facts, I've got to dig them up.  I have many but I may need much more than what I have.  Once I get the facts, I will need an organizing principle.  Sometimes, a theme springs to mind immediately,  With this company, it doesn't,  not because there isn't a theme.  There are too many themes.  I can go several ways to reach the end and tell the tale.  The question is which way is best.  I don't know yet.  I assume by piling facts, I will find a thread that I can use to sew everything together. 

So I have a case of jitters.  This is usual and helpful.  A touch of fear helps me concentrate on the task and pushes me to look  deeper than I would if I thought I knew the company and its story.

I'm not going to be original with this white paper.  Much has been written about the company.  The question is how to position the business correctly to show off its strategy to best advantage.  That means at some point I'm going to pare down the facts to a critical few.   That's Ok.  The best writing teacher I ever had once told us that one should always collect seven times more material than one uses because that is the only way to write with authority.   He was against writers who dump the contents of their notebooks into stories and articles. 

It took me years to learn this fellow was right.  I'm the kind of author who loves to show off all that I collected and thereby, bore an audience that wants to get on with it.  Some can write in great detail and hold one's interest.  I don't count myself among them.  Wish me luck.
 

05/12

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,58765,00.html/wn_ascii

This is technology searching for a customer.  Sure, the new electronic paper bends, roles and folds and still displays text crisply on a sheet not much thicker than a human hair,  but would it be any good for a newspaper?  Some dream it would be, and it is clear why they do.  From a cost point of view, an electronic paper that can download stories wirelessly any time of day or night is a huge cost advantage over presses, newsprint rolls, binding operations and logistics that get papers from plant to doorstep each morning.  A newspaper would remove the single largest overhead item it has and reduce the cost of operations to a fraction of what it is now.  Who wouldn't want that? 

Unfortunately, dreamers forget how people read newspapers and what they expect from them.  We read newspapers because they are fixed.  We would rather not have a story change each time we turn a page.  Print is a permanent record that can be left overnight and read the next day or on the weekend, or clipped and sent to someone or researched years from now in archives.  The idea that news would slip on and off a page of electronic paper means newspapers would have to retrain readers and invent new ways of publishing to provide the same usefulness that a permanent record on newsprint does today.  

All in all, electronic paper is a great idea.  It has been tested in stores where it is easy to change promotional items from a central source with a few clicks of a mouse than to walk the store pulling cards and replacing them with new cards.  It is most useful where the is no expectation of permanence.

I would think online news sites have more of a chance of success than electronic paper.  Online news operations database stories and the daily record of events is clicks away from the reader.  Why would one want it in the form of electronic paper except for the portability it provides?  With the emergence of WiFi and cellular links to the web, portability is a non-issue.  One can check headlines on a phone, a laptop, a PDA or other device. 

I hope the inventors are successful with electronic paper, but I don't see The Wall Street Journal adopting it anytime soon.