We counted 30 commercials that aired during the third and fourth quarters of Game 6. We put each commercial into one of four categories:  humor, straightforward, cool, emotion.

We categorized 43% of the commercials as straightforward. They may have included briefs moments related to the other categories, but the ads mostly delivered straightforward facts about their services.

We categorized 27% of the commercials as humorous.

We categorized another 27% of the commercials as attempting to attach their products or services in an image of being cool.

That’s leave 3%, which represents the one commercial that tapped into our emotions. The video in Apple’s ad tapped our emotions by showing, for example, families benefiting and learning from their products. The narration included lines such as “Will it make life better?” and “… enhances each life it touches.”

Why do we consider this stunning? Because using emotion in video is one of the best ways to build a connection between your business and potential customers. And out of 30 commercials in the second half, only one went above and beyond to make that emotional connection.

Critics would have us believe Apple’s best days might be behind them. Competitors are hammering Apple with clever commercials that take shots at the iPad maker. But for one half of basketball, Apple still showed why the company “gets it” and separates itself from the competition.

Here are some other insights:

• We planned on a fifth category:  sexy. But we didn’t see any second half commercials we considered truly sexy. KFC aired an ad in which a woman’s mouth is watering over a man who tricks people into believing he can bar-b-cue. But we believe this commercial was truly striving for humor, not turning us on. However, we do recall a very sexy commercial during the first half. Woman were dancing and holding a product that put the I in innuendo. But we can’t remember what company aired the ad. The fact more companies didn’t try sex appeal, especially during a sporting event, surprises us.
• Toyota is the only company that tried two approaches. We put two of its commercials in the straightforward category and two in the cool category.

When I moved to Phoenix, I worked the nightshift. I often covered breaking news. Because the station had already assigned dayshift reporters to other stories, it called me in early or sent me out the door immediately to cover breaking news that reared its ugly head. I didn’t often cover light feature stories when working the nightsift.

When I moved to the dayshift, I spent more time in morning editorial meetings deciding with producers what stories to cover for the day. I more often covered feature stories. I often had more time to invest in these stories.

Knowing a reporter’s shift is important. A reporter pitched one of our story ideas, but her producers declined to cover it. A different reporter later told us she may have had more success pitching the same idea. Why? The first reporter who pitched the story apparently worked the nightsift. She covered “harder” stories. The second reporter who worked the dayshift told us she can “get away with more.”

We lost track of the reporters’ shifts. We believed both reporters worked the same shift, so we didn’t see the advantage of picking one reporter over the other for that reason alone. Reporters’ shifts change. To complicate matters, some reporters work both dayshifts and nightshifts depending on the day of the week. Sometimes reporters fill in for shifts they do not normally work. Keeping track of reporters’ shifts is not always easy but try when possible. Something so simple can sidetrack your story pitch.

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.

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.

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.

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.

]]> http://www.theflipsidecommunications.com/2013/06/keith-stands-near-boat-rocked-by-hurricane/feed/ 0 http://www.theflipsidecommunications.com/2013/06/media-outlets-sometimes-screw-you/ http://www.theflipsidecommunications.com/2013/06/media-outlets-sometimes-screw-you/#comments Wed, 12 Jun 2013 07:05:32 +0000 Loren http://www.theflipsidecommunications.com/?p=4872

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.

1. Because of them, you regret reading your timeline.
2. Reading their posts is like taking a bitter pill.
3. They remind you of attending a family party full of annoying relatives.
4. When others congratulate you, their post instead smells of someone out for blood.
5. They regularly imply something negative about you.
6. They often reek with a condescending tone.
7. They try to start debates but providing them with information worthy of a congressional hearing wouldn’t ever change their minds.
8. They never truly appear interested in your life.
9. They appear to always want to rationalize an agenda.
10. You haven’t seen these annoying people face to face for years.
11. They are socially awkward in person and they have no idea social media makes them seem even more strange.
12. 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—–!”

Under a “What We Do” tab on the company’s website, you can click on about 30 options. The company provides “management and technology consulting services to the US government in defense, intelligence, and civil markets, and to major corporations, institutions, and not-for profit organizations.”  It is a public company with about 25,000 employees and $5.86 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2012. And one of those employees is 29-year-old Edward Snowden, the man who, according to media reports, leaked the information that led to our national debate on government surveillance of the Internet and phone calls.

A company press release stated, “Booz Allen can confirm that Edward Snowden, 29, has been an employee of our firm for less than 3 months, assigned to a team in Hawaii. News reports that this individual has claimed to have leaked classified information are shocking, and if accurate, this action represents a grave violation of the code of conduct and core values of our firm. We will work closely with our clients and authorities in their investigation of this matter.”

Edwin G. Booz was an entrepreneur. In 1914, he graduated with a master’s degree from Northwestern University, where we graduated 80 years later. After graduation, he started The Business Research Service, a consulting firm headquartered in Chicago. His first major client was the Illinois State Railroad. According to the company’s website, in 1940 “Secretary of Navy Frank Knox asks firm to help prepare US Navy for war.” By 1947, company sales exceeded two million dollars.

So after writing a 75-word press release, now what? Our 11 recommendations for crisis communications:

1. Devise a strategy to talk to the media beyond the initial press release. The company hopefully has already established strong relationships with journalists they trust and who they can now turn to discuss this issue.
2. Talk to the media. The company’s media contacts page leads us to believe it has learned of ways to discuss sensitive topics publicly without violating confidentiality.
3. Ensure none of its representatives intentionally or unintentionally mislead the media when under increasing pressure to quickly answer questions or provide details. Be as transparent as possible.
4. Ensure those assigned to speak to the media sound genuine and not robotic.
5. Share its story without allowing the media to simply characterize it as a behemoth company that makes tons of money. The company obviously identifies with its story and appreciates its history. The website includes a timeline outlining its history decade by decade.
6. Avoid using lingo and speak in everyday language when it talks to the media.
7. Focus on three key messages, repeat them and don’t delve into unnecessary details that will dilute their key messages.
8. Brace for tough questions, practice for the worst and be ready to take the high road with their answers without getting angry.
9. Identify several phrases it should use instead of “no comment” when facing questions it cannot answer.
10. Talk with employees, help them understand what happened and share key messages with them.
11. Don’t leave out social media. Within the first few hours of this news breaking, people are already hammering the company on its Facebook page. Someone needs to develop a strategy to respond to some of these comments.