08/08

So, it was interesting to read an Advertising Age story from Aug. 4 (Yes, I'm behind) that was titled "Ads rebound but jobs don't."  Key points in the article:

• U.S. ad agency employment is down 16.3% from the ad market's December 2000 peak -- and below where it stood in 1990.
• Prospects for advertising job growth are limited.
• Media companies show no desire to do significant hiring...
• Across the ad market, many lost jobs won't return.
• The rise in unemployment around March 2001- November 2001 was almost all permanent as companies made structural changes such as outsourcing, moving facilities offshore and deploying technology.

Why am I citing the advertising market?  Because the PR market is largely the same.  There is little chance for employment going forward, and many who were in the field won't be in it again.  Technology has made a giant difference in PR and allows practitioners to accomplish more in a day than they ever could since I joined the business long ago.  There just isn't the need for squads of juniors running around doing mundane tasks.  Between outsourcing and computerization, one practitioner can do the work of three or four.  And overall, agencies seem to run better than they once did.  At least ours does.

In the old days long ago in our agency, we had an eccentric fellow who could not buckle down to work until the late afternoon, then he and his staff would work late into the night.  What he did from early in the morning to late afternoon was a mystery to me and to his staff.  Fortunately, I didn't work for the guy.  We also had a  marketing department filled with young pups who bustled about all hours of the day and late into the evening getting press tours and other events ready.  It takes one -- or maybe two - people to do that now. 

None of us would like to return to the old days.  They weren't good.  However, it worries me that we aren't ready for the new days and we don't have skills we need as I wrote about earlier this week.  That could hurt us just as much in the end.

08/07

If I had a chance to talk to Jack, I would tell him three things:  1.  He has pursued PRSA for so long that he is not a credible critic.  2.  Who cares about the APR anyway?  3.  Who cares about the PRSA?

It's not that Jack is an inaccurate critic but he has complained for so long that the society, at least, stopped listening to him years ago.  His is a case in which lack of moderation has harmed the cause of reform. 

The APR certification isn't worth anything.  I know.  I had one, which I got when I was a full-time communications consultant about 13 years ago.  I let the certification lapse years ago.  I didn't learn much from the test, and studying didn't teach me much either.  I remember it as hours of writing sitting at a Wang Word processor in the offices of Ketchum PR.   I don't know why anyone would care about having an APR, whether professor or officeholder in the PRSA.  It strikes me that those who do are narrowly focused and probably not good for the PR business.

Finally, the PRSA itself is long past its usefulness.  I was a member for a number of years, and I did help the society out on several occasions.  I never got anything out of it, but I wasn't expecting much.  I used it as a way of networking with other members whom I cared about.  In the end that wasn't effective so I quit about five or so years ago.   I think I was the only one in my agency at the time who was a member, and I believe there is no one in our agency today who pays dues. 

My advice to Jack if I had the chance to talk to him.  Drop the complaints about the PRSA.  The society is not worth your time.  Focus instead on large conglomerates who run the PR business today.  That is where the industry will live or die, be relevant or become a commodity bought by the yard. 

But, why should Jack listen to me?

A moblog is a picture and/or text submitted to an online Weblog from a mobile phone with camera.  (A camera phone).  This is happening more overseas where cell phones with cameras are more common than in the U.S.  Someone snaps a digital photo of something  on the street, at home or elsewhere that interests the person then posts the photo into a blog with a few clicks.  It is easy to do and thousands moblog already.  Journalists predict direct applications for moblogging to newsgathering.  They can turn thousands of readers into instant news photographers with digital camera phones. 

If you want to get an idea of what people are doing, try here:  http://fotopages.com  or here:  http://hiptop.bedope.com or here to see Iraq in its post-war state:  http://geeinbaghdad.fotopages.com. 

It is no secret that digital camera phones are not that good yet, but they are improving quickly, and they will reach the 4 and 5 megapixel densities that approximate negative film stock.   Commentators say already that any big event will be moblogged by people who will flip open their phones to click and send.  You can understand how this can be an advantage to PR -- and how it can be abused if people are indiscreet about  what they photograph.

It seems to me that crisis communications can use moblogs now.  It is easier for communicators to work when they have a stream of revealing photos from the scene of an accident, for example.  One doesn't have to rely on rushed and imprecise verbal descriptions of what is going on or worse, on a local news channel. 

One can also use a moblog immediately for any company event to report in real-time to employees.  Say, an annual meeting.  The Moblogger snaps photos and adds text as the meeting progresses and posts the results to a blog.   It provides a low-cost, you-are-there experience. 

We talked about applications here before for text and photos on blogs.  The digital camera phone only makes the idea more appealing and accessible.   Moblog.  Remember that term.  You'll see a lot more of it.
 

08/05

Multimedia Skills.  I have nattered in the past that PR practitioners must learn online skills as one more tool in their communications kit. 

So, it was heartening to read that a University of South Florida research team asked editors, news directors and reporters what skills are needed in news today.  The respondents said -- writing and multimedia production.   Web skills are multimedia skills.  

The story is here:  http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=56&aid=43187.   The article also cites another study in which two professors from Southern Methodist University found that nine out of 10 teachers and seven out of 10 news professionals want new hires to have cross-platform writing abilities. 

The day when a reporter could just write for newspapers or for TV or for radio are gone.  It is expected now that a reporter can write for them all.  Anyone who has worked in each of these media knows there are clear differences among them.

When I went to University of Missouri School of Journalism too long ago, reporter wannabes concentrated in newspapers or radio or TV.    Sure, we all practiced writing a basic news story, but it ended after that and we focused on our disciplines.  I would think today this must change, if it has not already.  That is, journalism students would cycle through newspaper, TV, radio and Web reporting, writing and editing.

Of course, writing skills are not the only ones editors want.  They want good news judgment too.  I'm not sure that can be taught, but PR practitioners need it as well, so they don't bother reporters with inconsequential story ideas.

I know I am criticized for harping too frequently on media relations, but it seems to me PR is going to harm itself if it fails to train practitioners to the same level as the publishing business. 

If I were to ask for a show of hands from those who are confident in their multimedia skills, how many would be recognized?  I wonder.

08/04

I began to think about this because last week we tried again for the "Manager's Journal" column of The Wall Street Journal.  For those of you who do not follow this column written by businesspeople, it is on the inside front page of the "B" section of the Journal every Tuesday.  It used to run on the editorial page.   The problem is that everyone wants to be in "Manager's Journal."  The column gets dozens of submissions a week for one slot a week.

Anyway, after submitting an opinion piece from two authors to the "Manager's Journal," one of them asked me what his chances are.  I was honest.  I said his chances are slim because everyone's chances are slim.  It is like playing the lottery.  One of the writers of the current piece has tried five times for "Manager's Journal" and has yet to succeed.    What makes me think it will be any different this time, even though the piece they wrote is topical and offers a message of hope to those out of work. 

It struck me during this back and forth that once again, I as a PR practitioner was called upon to make an estimate when key data is unknown.  I gave them my judgment based on a hunch and not statistical data.   I don't have precise numbers to know the answer.  I could not tell them that X percent of submissions appear, because I don't know how many submissions there are in a year.

Much of what we do in media relations is based on similar unknowns.  We research a reporter's articles.  We know the reporter is interested in a topic area, but we don't know if the reporter will be interested in our variation on  the topic.  We let the story idea fly and find out.   We don't get a second chance if the reporter says no. 

For disciplined marketers this kind of unknown is undesirable.  One should pretest before leaping into the unknown.  But, marketers work with large numbers of consumers.  We work with ones and twos.  Marketing research breaks down when one works with units rather than multiples.

So, we work on hunches rather than science.  And, I don't see that changing as long as we deal with reporters on a one-by-one basis, as we should.  What amuses me is that some marketers don't believe one can't pretest without giving away the story idea or biasing the outcome.  Try it yourself and see how you do.