Media Training: Businesses Should Keep Stats Simple
June 17th, 2013
We read an article in The New York Times about a poll. The second paragraph read, “A majority, 57 percent, said that …”
The third paragraph included, “nearly 6 in 10 Americans said they disapproved of …”
The next sentence explained, “However, three-quarters said they approved of the …”
The article began by describing the poll results using three different methods. But we believe businesses should stay consistent and stick with one way in communicating statistics to the media. During media training, we watch clients want to share powerful statistics to help hammer home a key message. But statistics also can confuse an audience and lose significance. We understand someone may want to avoid repeatedly using the word “percentage.” But comparing, for example, 50% to 75% instead of comparing 50% to three-quarters simply seems more effective. Why force your audience to do any extra math? Keep it simple.
Does Your Video Speak My Language?
June 16th, 2013
A client asked us to translate a lengthy training video from English into Spanish. Someone transcribed the video and we recorded the translation.
The editing process can be tedious. Especially for an employee training video, you want to ensure the second language matches the video’s images, graphics and in some cases even a speaker’s hand gestures. In this particular case, the company recognized the training video was equally important to employees who spoke English and those who spoke Spanish.
This consideration should go beyond training videos. Many companies and organizations already recognize they have built-in audiences who speak more than one language. Other companies are not fully considering this and may be missing an important target audience.
Video should not be considered simply as a bonus or extra tool in the marketing arsenal. Video is a crucial and visual way of communicating. If an organization has a budget, it should not dismiss the possibility of presenting its well-produced, lively, educational and entertaining videos to audiences of more than one language.
Nine Ways For Hospitals To Slow The PR Bleeding
June 15th, 2013
This is personal. We recently ended a six-month saga related to a hospital bill. The negative experience ended on a positive note with a nearly two hour meeting with a hospital senior director. The senior director was genuine and transparent. But everyone will not withstand the rigors of hospital billing to always reach someone like her. Our trust in the billing process additionally eroded after numerous negative stories recently in the media about hospital charges. One of the most important steps to building public relations is building strong communications with patients, who perhaps more than any other group, discuss a medical facility’s actions with friends, colleagues and on social media. We shared most of the following suggestions with the senior director on how to improve the communication between hospitals and patients during the billing process. Some hospitals may already take the following steps.
1. Do not force patients to request itemized bills. Many in the public believe hospitals do not automatically offer itemized bills in hopes it will increase the chances of patients not questioning charges. Due to insurance, many patients may not be motivated to request these itemized bills. Hospitals may not believe they have an incentive in this area to spend the time and money to somehow provide automatically itemized bills to patients. But due to changes in the healthcare system, our understanding is more patients will want to know how each penny was spent. Hospitals should build cost-effective patient portals on their websites to ensure patients can easily review itemized bills.
2. Automatically audit patient bills. Our bill went through two reviews. The hospital removed charges in each case. Hospital billing and personnel are very complex. Mistakes happen. Hospitals should acknowledge this aspect of their industry and take an extra step to ensure no one pays for something they should not.
3. Employ software that will translate medical codes and bills into language patients can understand. This is easier said than done but very important. Geniuses should stop trying to build the next Facebook and should focus their talents on something of the sort.
4. Find methods to educate patients that not everyone providing treatment actually works for the hospital. Many patients do not realize that physicians from outside contracted medical groups are providing treatment. This confuses patients when the outside medical group sends patients a bill. Hospital should assign someone to explain this to patients during their hospital stays or at least outline these relationships in writing.
5. Allow patients to make appointments with people who are well educated on explaining invoices. This responsibility cannot be left to members of a call center, who often cannot answer questions other than the basic ones.
6. Some people in finance excel in numbers but not personality. Employees falling under this description should not be in contact with patients. Communication with patients stretches beyond numbers. Hospitals must show compassion and a genuine understanding that the billing process is confusing. Hospitals should bestow this responsibility to people who are skilled in translating medical lingo into a language other than what we call “hospitaleze.”
7. Find ways to overcome privacy concerns and proactively push positive stories to the media. Too many hospitals are only reactive and simply play defense.
8. Maintain an ongoing list of patients who are willing to share their positive experiences. Hospitals should request these patients share their stories in videos, blogs and the media.
9. Build relationships with a certain number of journalists they can trust in good times and bad. Some hospitals complain they are victims of untrustworthy reporters who seek nothing but sensational stories. Turning to an established list of veteran reporters can help open an honest channel of communication during times of crises.
We Get Caught In Media Relations Threesome
June 14th, 2013
10:42am: A morning producer loves a story idea we pitch. Due to a slew of business, our client can not drive to the TV studio for a morning live appearance in two days. I ask the producer if she can send a live truck to the client’s business or schedule him another day. The producer says let’s plan on sending a live truck. She will double check her available crews the following day.
2:13pm: A reporter from the same station emails, saying she is about to head into her afternoon meeting. She asks if there’s a chance our client would be available that day for the same story. I respond the morning producer wants our client live in two days.
2:27pm: The reporter says her news director believes the story will be old in two days. The news director would love to air the story that day during the evening newscasts.
2:37pm: After the morning producer doesn’t answer her phone, I text her. I explain I told a reporter at her station that we scheduled the story for two days later. But the reporter says the news director believes the story will be old in two days. I ask the producer, “What do you want me to do?” I didn’t receive a response.
3:23pm: I confirm our client is available for the media that day. After not hearing back from the morning producer, I contact the reporter, saying the client is available and asking her to ensure everything is cool with the producer. I explain I’ve been unable to reach the producer by phone or text.
3:28pm: The reporter writes, “I think we’re good!” and plans to head toward our client’s office. She says she will try to get in touch with the morning producer ASAP.
3:42pm: I text the morning producer again, explaing the reporter is heading to our client’s office. I explain I asked the reporter to contact her. I explain I told the reporter I don’t want to upset the producer. I don’t receive a response.
5:23pm: The reporter says she did not hear back from the producer, but our client was a wonderful interview. The reporter believes the live morning appearance in two days should still hold because the newscasts include totally different demographics.
3:16am the next day: The morning producer texts me. She got my texts the night before. She cancels the morning live appearance. She requests in the furture, I don’t pitch stories to more than one person at the station. She requests if one show turns down the pitch, I should then try another show afterward.
9:06am: I text the morning produer I understand. I explain I will pitch her first at the station and wait to hear back. I also explain reporters and produers sometimes don’t respond to our pitches for a day or two or don’t respond at all. I ask how long I should wait for a response until I pitch someone else. I explain if I wait too long to pitch the story to someone else, a timely story such as this one might quickly be considered old news. I also point out reporters call us to put them in touch with clients and other experts we know. But after reaching those clients or experts and confirming their availability, reporters sometimes have already found someone else to interview. Reporters do not always feel they can wait until we get back to them before also searching elsewhere for interviews. The morning producer did not respond.
Media Relations: Grounded
June 13th, 2013While reporting, Keith stands near a boat rocked by a hurricane circa 1996.
Media Outlets Sometimes Screw You
June 12th, 2013
A reporter called, asking if she could interview Loren and me that same day about a topic. We said yes. I rearranged my schedule. Loren rearranged her schedule. Others provided us assistance in making available a third party location appropriate for the interview. After providing the interview, I persuaded another person to also talk to the reporter.
More than a week later, I asked the editor/producer if he knew when the story would air. He said he did not. Later that day, I had a conversation with the other person the reporter interviewed for the story. The other person said she was under the impression the media outlet decided not to move forward with the story. Her understanding was the outlet had decided a conflict of interest presented itself in this situation.
I contacted the same editor/producer again and asked if this information was true. He confirmed his boss killed the story after deciding a conflict of interest might exist. I asked him when he had planned to tell me about this decision. He said “eventually” and was hoping to take me to lunch. He apologized and took blame for the turn of events.
Debates about conflict of interest are typically not black and white. I do not want to spark that conversation about this particular situation. The more important topic is analyzing how the media outlet handled this case.
I often warn clients who rearrange their schedules for media interviews that breaking news can cancel or postpone their appearances. In this case, breaking news was not a factor. Management should have engaged in a deeper discussion beforehand about whether a conflict of interest existed. New facts about the story did not present themselves after the interview. This is just an example of people not properly communicating beforehand. Finalizing that decision after interviewing us implies a lack of respect for our time. Someone also should have informed us of the decision in a more timely fashion. Not doing so implies the media, often depicted as tough, weren’t tough enough to deliver the truth. Unfortunately, I have seen very similar circumstances unfold many times over the years. I remember once setting up a story between a TV station and someone to be interviewed. The TV station never showed up to the interview and never called to say why.
I believe most people in the media would acknowledge the irony of how poorly some of their peers communicate among each other. But I have also witnessed a culture of media entitlement. You sometimes get the impression you should feel blessed if the media call for an interview while understanding the media dictate the terms. This is what I infer in some cases, not all.
The media, no different than any other industry, have its members which promote dysfunction. Getting news coverage can have great rewards. But with those rewards come risks. You risk making much effort to accommodate someone for no reason. And you risk someone in the media mishandling that situation. This does not mean avoid collaborating with the media. This means build strong relationships with journalists you can trust, journalists who will respect your time and see you as a person, not simply another story to fill a space or time slot. Looking back, we should’ve known better.
12 Reasons To Kick Facebook Friends To The Curb
June 11th, 2013
- Because of them, you regret reading your timeline.
- Reading their posts is like taking a bitter pill.
- They remind you of attending a family party full of annoying relatives.
- When others congratulate you, their post instead smells of someone out for blood.
- They regularly imply something negative about you.
- They often reek with a condescending tone.
- They try to start debates but providing them with information worthy of a congressional hearing wouldn’t ever change their minds.
- They never truly appear interested in your life.
- They appear to always want to rationalize an agenda.
- You haven’t seen these annoying people face to face for years.
- They are socially awkward in person and they have no idea social media makes them seem even more strange.
- Their posts remind you of the movie “Back To The Future Part III” when Biff dares Marty to exit the saloon and engage in their gunfight. Those in the saloon tell Marty if he doesn’t face Biff, the townsfolk will forever brand him a coward. Then Biff blurts out another ridiculous comment. Marty has a epiphany, turns to everyone and says, “He’s an a—–!”
We Applaud Internet Companies’ Statements, But …
June 9th, 2013
Some Americans and tech experts, despite what Internet and communications companies insist, believe those businesses cooperate with government reconnaissance such as the program PRISM more than they acknowledge. We also understand some companies issue statements that are cautiously formulated.
Too frequently, businesses delay commenting or send out vague comments that raise more questions and doubts. But we applaud the Internet companies that issued statements quickly and firmly.
On Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg explained:
- Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the US or any other government direct access to company servers.
- The company has never received a blanket request or court order from any government agency asking for information or metadata in bulk.
- If it did, the company would fight it aggressively.
- The company hadn’t heard of PRISM before.
- Facebook reviews each request carefully to make sure they always follow the correct processes and all applicable laws, and then only provide the information if is required by law.
- The company will continue fighting aggressively to keep your information safe and secure.
On Google’s official blog, in a post titled, “What the …?”, the company’s CEO and chief legal officer explained:
- Google has not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to its servers.
- The U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in its data centers.
- Google provides user data to governments only in accordance with the law.
- Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to its users’ data are false.
- Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about its users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false.
While we praise the approach, this is only the first step in media and public relations. Journalists can’t interview statements. Reporters want interviews to check for traces of loopholes in statements’ language. Quick and firm statements can later crumble if they twisted the truth. Companies can lose trust if they refuse to face tough questioning and ignore the skeptics on social media.
Media and public relations is often a long-term strategy. Starting off well does not promise a happy ending.
