Posts Tagged ‘tv news’
Social Media: When Cox Went Out, DirecTV Sent Me a Tweet
Friday, November 18th, 2011
People have little patience for their internet service going down. This is especially true when someone depends greatly on the internet for operating their small business.
I lost internet service two days in a row. Other people Tweeted about their internet going out. I also reported my internet outages on Twitter. I wanted Cox Communications to know this problem was greatly inconveniencing me. I was also curious if Cox would take advantage of social media to address my concern. The company did not respond to me on social media. To its credit, the company’s customer service reps were very polite both times I spoke with them on the phone. The second time a woman offered me a two-day credit for my trouble. The credit only amounts to $5.33 but I was grateful for the gesture. What struck me was a different response I received on Twitter. DirecTV, a Cox competitor, sent me a message. It said “@keithyaskin Is there anything we can do for you? Please send us a DM #thankyou.”
Many businesses still fear social media. They fear their customers taking part in a public conversation. Some businesses use social media but don’t monitor it for mentions of their company in order to better engage with customers. DirecTV takes the process a step further. I assume the satellite provider already monitors mentions of its name, but in this case, the company also monitored mentions of a competitor’s name.
I asked DirecTV about the Tweet. The company emailed back, “We’re always monitoring social media for anything that may have an impact on our business, or that would enable us to help our customers, as well as potential customers, who may be looking for a better TV experience.”
DirecTV has the right idea. When is a better time to attempt to steal away a competitor’s customer than when that customer is not getting the service he or she wants? This is taking action in real time. Plus DirecTV’s message to me was not tacky or overly aggressive. The message simply asked if they could help and even said thank you. Well done.
In the end, I did not contact DirecTV about my internet service. Overall, I’m happy with my internet service even though it’s not perfect. Although Cox did not respond to me on Twitter, they handled themselves well using the more traditional form of communication. Plus I’ve researched internet service in the past and have a lot of background information on pricing and speed. However, other customers might be more susceptible to wanting to make a switch. They might be prime for the pickings. And DirecTV offered us what often appears to be one of the few examples of a company using social media to promote and bolster its business in real time.
What similar experiences have you had?
Video: Why you shouldn’t fake it
Wednesday, November 16th, 2011
I’m meeting with clients brainstorming about producing a video for their website and social media channels. I stress the importance of making the video personal, ensuring it connects with viewers on an emotional level. Someone in the room suggests we hire actors to portray the type of testimonials the company wants to show. I immediately explain this is a bad idea. And my opinion has nothing to do with the added cost of hiring actors. You want authentic people in your video. You want real people that viewers and potential future clients can relate to.
If your business provides a service the public wants, your company should have a handful of clients happy to help and take part in something such as a video. Plus, imagine for a moment, posting this video on various forms of social media and inspiring the type of conversation companies can only hope for. What if people on social media learned your company hired actors? What if viewers learned the people in the video they made a connection with weren’t even real clients? How would a company explain they had to hire someone to speak positively about their business?
When working as a television reporter, I often heard businesses explain to me and provide many excuses why they couldn’t produce a client or a compelling testimonial. That’s exactly what they are. They’re excuses. Sure, it takes a little extra work to make some phone calls and find people who are willing to help and express the same passion you feel about your business. It can be done. As a TV reporter, I persuaded companies to find such clients within a couple hours under deadline. A company producing a video with a longer timeline can certainly achieve the same. Keeping it real is the best way to do it when using video to market your company.
The same applies for using video to communicate to your employees. I’ve seen companies use actors instead of real employees for their orientation videos. Using actors takes away credibility. It shouldn’t be difficult to find an employee who exemplifies passion and company values for videos.
We apply a similar concept to pictures uploaded for blogs. We take our own pictures for blogs. We don’t use stock photos. People often ask me where do you get stock photos for your blogs? We don’t get stock photos. You don’t need them. Just take some pictures. Most people can spot a stock photo a mile away. And because it’s a stock photo, it’s bland. It’s vanilla. And it certainly isn’t going to stir up any sort of emotional connection. Stock photos simply take up space. Produce your own photos. Find photos from your albums. You’d be surprised how many random pictures you’ve taken over your lifetime you can somehow work into a blog.
Acting is for Hollywood. When marketing your business, even when the camera is rolling or the shutter is clicking away, keep it real. No one likes a faker.
Public Relations For My Socks
Tuesday, November 15th, 2011
In the sixth grade, my class took a field trip to a beach. A girl named Lisa said my legs were so pale, she thought I was still wearing white socks.
In junior high school, I wore socks nearly up to my knees to cover my pale shins and a big, surgical scar. Friends mocked me instead for wearing socks nearly up to my knees.
When I buy a nice, new pair of socks, I feel a brief sense of satisfaction that I bought the last accessory needed to complete a sophisticated look. But any love affair I might share with socks typically ends before the sock drawer opens.
When trying to remove the thin piece of plastic holding together a new pair of socks, I accidentally cut the socks themselves. When trying to pull off sticky paper pressing together a new pair, the paper rips, leaving small pieces of stickiness stuck to the socks.
I tried to make a real effort to properly match my socks to my slacks. A health magazine taught me the importance of this. I woke up, grabbed a pair of socks, which appeared to match, and tried to confirm my choice my placing the socks on the windowsill in a sliver of morning light.
But the morning light often deceived me, meaning I learned I was wearing mismatched socks while later sitting in a meeting.
When the recession hit, I tried to save money by no longer buying Banana Republic’s beautiful socks. But really cheap socks often don’t stand the test of time. I ripped them by pulling them up my pale shins. Other times, my big toe poked through, touching the inside of my shoe.
I bought socks with bold patterns to help me match them. But that strategy doesn’t work if one of the socks is nowhere to be found.
I tried to buy socks all the same color to ensure all socks matched each other. But if you look closely, those socks have slightly different patterns or thickness.
I waste so much time trying to match socks. Do people really look anyway? If I pick two gray socks, will someone really frown if the shades slightly differ? I could stop wearing socks but would look like a nerd trying to pass myself off as a hip California salesman. And no socks means showing off my shining, pale feet.
I emptied my sock drawer this weekend. I was committed to matching all the singles searching for long lost partners. I matched several pairs and enjoyed rolling them up and tossing them into a drawer. But most of the socks ended the day lined up across the carpet. A kaleidoscope of colors and patterns that eventually exhausted my patience and made me sweat. I scooped them up and stuffed them in a small, cardboard box.
I probably unfairly punish some socks by prematurely using them to shine shoes. It’s not me. It’s them. They need a public relations strategist to stitch together the perception they are nothing more than stinkers trying to foul up our mornings. If you’re a PR pro who wants to represent my socks, please tread carefully. To work, it must be a perfect match.
Public Relations: Did The School Screw Up?
Monday, November 7th, 2011
A parent asks why a construction crew is blocking one of the entranceways to her child’s school. The school explains a cell phone company is upgrading its tower on school property. Cell phone tower? Since when did the school campus include a cell phone tower?
The parent did not know the flagpole without a flag in front of the school contained a cell phone tower. One mother, upon learning the situation, turned angry and withdrew her kid from school. Was that a prudent or extreme decision? Was the old cell phone tower a safety risk to students? Will the new, bigger tower pose a threat? Were parents consulted on any decisions? Did the school ignore potential concerns because it didn’t want to lose the monthly payment it receives from the cell phone company?
(The school explained the green tower pictured above was the cell phone company’s temporary tower until it finished installing the new one, which is supposed to look like a palm tree.)
This blog is not about the debate over cell phone tower safety. This blog is about how the school handled the conversation.
Take the perspective of one father in particular. No one mentioned the cell phone tower to him when he first visited the school. He assumes the school didn’t want to scare him away, but isn’t his child’s safety the most important factor? If the school worries mentioning the tower will push prospective families somewhere else, why did it allow the cell phone company to install it? No one told the father the cell phone company was now upgrading the tower. No one told him if the Board of Directors gave parents an opportunity to express their opinions.
Organizations, whether they are schools or corporations, must realize the days of releasing information on a need-to-know basis are over. When parents or employees learn about controversial decisions indirectly, trust is broken. People feel, accurately or not, someone was hiding something. In this case, the livid mother who pulled her kid from school shared her facts about cell phone towers. She talked about taking her story to the media. The father, not sure what to believe, started researching the issue, called his pediatrician and touched base with health experts. At his recommendation, the school later sent out a letter, but it addressed construction of the new tower, not any possible safety concerns. Meanwhile, while Dad did research, he shared it on social media in an effort to solicit other helpful opinions. And while all this was circulating, the school lost control of the conversation by not being proactive.
- Be forthcoming with your employees (or in this case, your parents)
- Ask them for their opinions.
- Explain the process.
- Provide research and facts to prevent the rumor mill and social media frenzy from starting.
- Address points critics may raise because if you don’t, the critics will, meaning you lost control of the conversation.
If companies worry simply starting open conversations and asking for feedback will torpedo their projects, then maybe those projects are bad ideas. Businesses can try to keep their plans on the down low, but that only works for so long. People will figure things out. And when they do, social media will allow them to quickly spread information and rumors. Nearly every day on the news, we hear about someone or some company trying to address questions about information that got out. Yes, the school might argue the cell phone tower was not a secret. But the school didn’t appear to offer up the information to parents in general.
I know. Many modern-day organizations still approach public relations with an old school approach. And they will only realize they are behind the times when the bottom falls out and they are forced to face a tower of uncomfortable questions.
How do you think the school should have handled the case of the cell phone tower?
Media Relations: Is Bridging A Jedi Mind Trick?
Sunday, November 6th, 2011
During interviews, people often didn’t answer my questions directly. Some people tried to engage in “bridging.” The technique refers to when a reporter asks a question and someone tries to redirect the conversation to a key talking point without actually answering the question.
As a reporter, I didn’t like bridging. I considered bridging someone’s attempt to trick me into not giving a real answer to my question. I often repeated the question over and over until the interview turned awkward. Sometimes I simply said, “You’re not answering the question.” I saw nothing wrong with someone instead preparing ahead of time for my hard questions and speaking honestly, even if speaking honestly meant explaining why you couldn’t answer a question. Now I’m a media trainer. People want me to teach them bridging.
Someone Tweeted politicians are excellent at bridging. They often end with a beautifully crafted answer that has little connection to the question. But I replied to the Tweet, “If politicians bridge well during debates, why do many people appear to complain politicians are full of BS during debates?”
I wore makeup as a TV reporter and someone once advised me makeup is best when others can’t tell you’re wearing it. Does bridging really work if reporters, viewers, readers and listeners all realize you’re full of it and avoiding the question?
I’m confident bridging rarely worked on me. My ego prevented me from letting someone get away with it. But I bet bridging often works for several reasons. Some reporters are lazy and won’t strike back with a follow-up question. Some reporters don’t care and prefer to eat lunch than continue the interview. Some reporters, believe it or not, don’t like face-to-face confrontations and prefer to avoid awkward and contentious interviews. In each of these examples, reporters often include the person’s key message in their story. Playing bridge worked.
Some viewers, readers and listeners let themselves be bridged. Imagine the viewer in love with a political candidate. A reporter asks a tough question and the candidate bridges to a well-crafted, unrelated answer. The viewer is a big supporter of the candidate and will sooner criticize the media for an unfair question than admit the candidate danced around the issue.
So to make a long story short, bridging works because people let it work. Yes, some bridgers are smoother and slicker than others. But the real success of bridging lies with the listener.
Consider the Jedi mind trick in Star Wars. Jedis could control some people’s minds. But when Luke tried to apply his Jedi mind trick on Jabba the Hutt, Jabba laughed at the attempt. Jabba is not an attractive creature, but I relate to him on this issue. I laughed inside at people who tried to use bridging as a Jedi mind trick on me. But Luke and his mentor Obi-Wan continued using the force because most of the time it worked, especially on storm troopers.
Honestly, I wanted to write about Star Wars all along. So if your question was about media training, I bridged to what I really want to talk about. The real question is will you let me get away with it?
Internal Communications: It Shouldn’t Be A One-Night Stand
Saturday, October 29th, 2011
All she wants is something quick and good looking. Something glossy, pretty with a ‘wow’ factor. I’m thinking she’s into the juice, something meaty.
I’m not sure what you’re thinking about, but I’m referring to communications strategy. The nuts and bolts, the glue, the big picture. I’m meeting with a VP of HR. I show her a recruiting brochure sample from my portfolio. Her eyes widen and she asks me to explain the process of getting something like this produced.
The HR VP is new in her position, and I’m starting to sense she’s eager to make a splash with “collateral candy” as I like to call it. I start to explain about how I partnered with my internal client, determined key messages, wrote the copy, partnered with creative services to produce a branded piece.
I quickly stop myself. I tell her let’s take a step back and think about the whole picture. This brochure was just one piece of a puzzle. It was part of a whole communications strategy for recruiting. I explain my process for creating a communications strategy. She seems to get it. I see a light bulb. Now, we’re going somewhere. She knows she needs HR communications help. This is refreshing to me. That’s why I’m talking to her about contract work. I’m excited about the possibility of helping a growing company with something I’m passionate about. She seems eager to get started but needs help figuring out where to begin. An overall HR strategy would be helpful. I rub my hands in anticipation.
The following week, I get an email. She’s changed her mind. She wants a graphic designer/writer. Does this exist? I love writing and can do some graphic design, but an expert in both? Hmmmm…. Then I realize, she’s looking for the one night-stand approach to communications. Collateral candy. <Sigh.> If you’re a communicator, you know what I’m talking about. We’ve all had those one-off requests for a brochure or other communications piece that has to look good but no one took the time to think about how it will be used, what the goal is, who the audience is. I like to follow the old rule: form should follow function.
The HR VP gets credit for wanting more of a branded, unified look to HR communications, but sadly, she seems to value look and feel more than strategy. Don’t call us, we’ll call you. It’s not you, it’s me. I just can’t commit to any serious communications right now.
Have you experienced anything similar? Are companies investing in internal communications or do they still need education on the value it brings to the bottom line?
Subscribe via email to our blog, join us on Facebook & follow us on Twitter.
Should Your Social Media Get Nasty?
Thursday, September 15th, 2011
Via Twitter, a former TV newsman sent me a link, asking if I had seen it. The link showed a TV reporter at a door asking for comment for a story. The man’s answer on the other side of the door included an F bomb. That was only the beginning.
The man left the building and confronted the TV crew. The F bombs continued to flow along with other words that turned this into an episode better suited for HBO. He placed his hand up to cover the camera’s lens. And he threatened to make the experience more than a verbal lashing. Someone behind the camera said he assumed this man wasn’t from public relations.
I’m a big advocate of compelling video. I also believe in making a name for yourself by providing interesting content. The video provided raw emotion and an example of one of the worst ways of handling the media. Should I post a link to the video on my social media accounts?
Bad words don’t usually offend me unless they are directed toward me in anger. People curse in public (which I’m against). Others I just met often aren’t afraid to get foul even though we don’t know each other well. And social media is full of people who don’t seem to care their bad words are forever in writing.
Post the link would be the edgy thing to do. It would be taking a risk. People might retweet it over and over, leading to more eyes on my services. I could post the link with a warning.
On the other hand, people who might not be as outspoken appreciate an effort to keep our language clean. The video might turn away as many as it might intrigue. And would the video serve as a first impression for those just getting to know me?
In the end, my answer boiled down to branding. Posting the video might offer some pluses, but my brand is not linking myself to content that requires 20,000 bleeps. In the future, I can still achieve edginess and take risks without my content blurting out every nasty word known to man and woman. In fact, I often find clever content more impressive than social media that tries too hard to shock.
Businesses should always consider their brand when choosing content. The case might not involve cursing. It might simply be a matter of quality. For example, if you’re a prestigious doctor with a sleek office and reputation, should the video describing your services appear to be shot by your uncle? Do you really want to comment on that certain political debate? If your brand is sophisticated, is cheesy humor just going to be a joke on you?
If Apple equals innovation and Volvo equals safety, what is your brand all about? And how best to represent that brand? I decided not to represent The Flip Side with some fouled-mouth guy flipping people off.
What would you have done with the video? What similar situations have you faced in your industry?
Subscribe via email to our blog, join us on Facebook & follow us on Twitter.
With Video, Don’t Forget To Think Small
Monday, September 12th, 2011
I click on my favorite football team’s smart phone app. The screen offers nine options for me to click on. Information scrolls on the bottom of the screen as if this is CNN. I tap on video. The gear spins. Sometimes the video plays. Sometimes the video does not play and the app bounces me back to the previous screen no matter how many times I try.
Once upon a time, companies which made their content mobile friendly were ahead of the curve. Now those which don’t are behind. The web is flowing with information on the ever growing significance of mobile devices. Some of us refer to our tablets and smart phones even when sitting before a workhorse desktop.
Yet some organizations still view their mobile versions as footnotes. Sometimes the mobile content isn’t as exhaustive as the full version. And sometimes the mobile content doesn’t even work.
You can’t afford to make mobile technology an afterthought. If a TV news station offers me a stripped-down view of their content on my phone, I’ll turn the mobile channel. And if the video won’t play, I’ll only keep trying to tap for so long.
This applies even to websites without a mobile sibling. Smart phones will allow me to view your full website on my phone even if I’m required to squint to read the small font. If, for example, your video format only works on a desktop not attached to my hip, then you’re not thinking outside the computer screen box.
Sometimes thinking big is ensuring you’re also thinking small.
Subscribe via email to our blog, join us on Facebook & follow us on Twitter.
Media Relations: Why you shouldn’t dump the local news
Sunday, September 11th, 2011
Local stations include pockets of people still trying hard to deliver an intellectual look at issues that matter most.
On a regular basis, my friend and TV reporter Steve Krafft could make the morning news meeting laugh. When producers finished reading off the dreadful events from overnight that we might deem newsworthy, someone would ask for more story ideas. Almost with giddiness and a sarcastic smile, I anticipated a pause and then the moment Steve began his first few words.
Local news often skews toward crime and weather stories. Most managers won’t acknowledge this, but it is what it is. This is the chief complaint from viewers who abandoned local news years ago. But Steve never abandoned his passion for trying to inject the 5pm newscast with a jolt of politics. At that conference table in the morning news meeting, he might as well have been an ambassador for CSPAN or The New York Times.
So when Steve’s morning monologues began, the snickering often followed. I don’t think co-workers were laughing at him. They were laughing at the conventional wisdom that some of the world’s most important and intellectual issues often fall on deaf ears in our local newsrooms. Someone once told Steve one of his ideas was good but better suited for A20 of The New York Times.
Despite the obstacles, Steve always keeps plugging away at politics. This week, his persistence paid off by securing nearly a 10-minute, one-on-one interview with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. If you’re addicted to cable news, you may hear the press secretary on a regular basis and wonder why this type of interview impresses me. Well, this just in: A press secretary for the President of The United States just doesn’t give a local TV reporter 10 minutes of time, especially not one-on-one. This was not one of those stories a reporter turned in two hours without many phone calls and good ‘ole fashion, behind-the-scenes hard work.
Also, give credit where credit is due. The same managers we might wish to heckle for making the local news mundane often encourage reporters like Steve to think big. Someone behind-the-scenes sweats hard to ensure an interview between a Phoenix TV station and the White House press secretary airs smoothly both logistically and technically. And a series of show producers ultimately ensure the story airs.
I, as well as anyone, understand how the local news evokes its share of stereotypes that can make it resemble a Saturday Night Live skit. And sometimes the local news reminds me of a stubborn old man in how it insists on sticking with certain formats and coverage. And TV reporters such as Steve don’t always succeed. The day after he interviews a presidential press secretary, you might see him in front of a house fire in a neighborhood you couldn’t find on a map. But his passion and persistence have won him top-notch interviews and trips to cover presidential debates and campaigns. The New York Times once even quoted him. His efforts might also win him a few laughs, but he’s OK with that. As he would say, you’ve got to fight the fight. And when he wins, viewers win.
You can see Steve’s interview with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney here.
What are your thoughts about today’s local news? Please share them with me and leave a comment.