« June 2010 | Main | August 2010 »
July 29, 2010
Redemption
On Monday, Edelman’s US operations moved onto a new Global Financial System (GFS). Four thousand separate transactions were recorded, from time sheets to expenses. Bills are scheduled to go out early next week to clients. A pretty boring blog post is in store, you might think. Well think again.
In 1998, in my second year as CEO, Edelman was growing quickly and becoming increasingly global. We recruited a new chief financial officer from a division of a Fortune 500 company. She concluded that our home-made financial reporting system based on spread sheets and manually produced bills was antiquated. Since we had PeopleSoft as a client in Silicon Valley we engaged them to install the financial backbone that would carry us into the 21st century. I was content with the salesperson’s pitch, promising immediate access to profitability by client, outstanding receivables by client, productivity of each operating unit. I went back to my day job, counseling clients, managing people, winning new business.
What I failed to recognize was that PeopleSoft hadn’t fully evolved from a human resources package. It needed a partner software vendor to offer a complete financial solution. That partner was a small Midwestern operation called Proamics, which “specialized” in professional services firms in law and accounting. Time and expenses were collected in Proamics, but the accounts payable interface from Peoplesoft to Proamics was so bad, out-of-pocket expenses couldn’t be billed. The Edelman financial team assured me that everything was going well in the test phase, so we shut down the legacy system and moved onto the new platform.
All seemed to be going well, as we sent out our bills to retainer clients. Then the system came up with bizarre bills for hourly clients, which the account teams rightly refused to approve. Within the month, it became obvious that the Proamics and PeopleSoft interface was flawed. We were a ship with a crippled rudder, unable to bill clients correctly and incapable of processing expenses. We could go neither backward to the legacy system nor forward to a dysfunctional new system.
In short order, I concluded that I had a full-blown, company-at-risk crisis at hand. I wrote down a list of action items, from finding a new CFO to bringing in programming assistance from our audit firm to meeting with our accounting staff to tell them we would have to go to manual processing of bills for a period of time to calling our bank to inform them that we would need to tap our credit line to notifying Proamics that they were in breach of contract to calling clients personally to tell them what was happening. I put a time line together and gave myself a deadline for each action.
So in order, I found a new CFO and fired the incumbent. We gave Deloitte sixty days to fix the system by disabling Proamics and enabling manual bill producing functionality. I called our account leaders twice a week to update them. Our internal financial team worked like Trojans to get bills out in consultation with the staff and clients (who were understanding and paid upon presentation of accurate bills). After running our credit line up from zero to several million, we stabilized the ship and paid it back over the course of the next twelve months. Nothing like a near-death experience to prepare you for running a company!
Fast forward a decade, with Edelman’s revenues more than $400 million and our PeopleSoft system now so obsolete that Oracle says it will no longer provide support for the version we have. We began the process of selecting a software vendor and implementing a new system. Hearing the presentations by the sales people, I heard, “This is going to be a piece of cake. It will take only six months to install. We have a full offering now. There will be no customization. Just talk to our customers who are so satisfied.” On and on the palaver was endless. We stayed with PeopleSoft.
This time I was a lot more cautious. We would not go live on the new system without a way to retreat (keep the old system on line just in case). We would test the system in a smaller unit than the massive US division—in Edelman Canada as it turned out. We would hire PWC as outside counsel from the start, with the senior partner reporting to me each month on progress. We would not have a specific budget nor commit to a timeline to complete the installation. The cake would be baked when it was ready, not a minute before.
So here is what happened. I was told it would take six to eight months to complete the work, then two months to test in Canada. In fact it took over a year and a half to customize the system, then a year of testing in Canada where it became clear that there were system processes that didn’t meet our needs. Here is one example: if one senior person disapproved time of a junior staffer, then the whole time sheet went back to the start, requiring re-approval by each senior person, holding up billing. The software consulting firm recommended by PeopleSoft was disappointing at best, with a constantly changing cast of temper-prone experts. Half way through the project, one of them told me to scrap the whole thing. Over time, we brought more of the expertise in-house. I spoke with account people in the Canadian office, went up to Toronto to see how it was being used and why certain executives just would not enter time. At Christmas, I had to make a decision about whether to delay the implementation four more months to install “bundles” of improvements which PeopleSoft programmers had made to the 9.0 version given customer complaints but enduring the higher consulting costs necessary (I opted for the safety of installing the bundles).
Here are the lessons for all of you considering a comparable voyage across the river into the unknown. Put yourself in a position to make informed decisions, not just to approve recommendations by your CFO or your outside accountant. Go into a test phase that is live production of bills and paychecks, not just a simulation. Take the financial estimates provided and double them—this is just like renovation of your home—it will take twice as long and cost twice as much. Make sure that you have a path out of the forest if the worst happens. Get personally involved with your account people, particularly the squeaky wheels who may overstate their complaints but will offer critical kernels of truth. I want to thank all of those at Edelman who have gone on this adventure for the past three years (Vic, Derek, Barb, John, Kristin, Paul, Anna and Gene) and our consultants at PWC. Dogged persistence and commitment to excellence is the Edelman way. And for me, getting a second chance as CEO to do it right has been a blessing.
Posted by Edelman at 4:15 PM |
Comments
Wow, not a boring post at all. I recently realized that this will be the third time entry system I've used at Edelman (my 10-year anniversary is in December). While I am one of our new financial systems "change champs," I'm being completely honest when I say how exciting this launch week has been. I'm glad we waited to get it right, but knowing the story behind it shows how it really was the best decision.
Posted by: Bree Flammini at July 30, 2010 12:43 PM
"Everyone makes mistakes. The key is to not make the same mistake twice."
Richard, you learned your lesson well the first time, and knew just what to do to avoid a full-blown catastrophe the second 'go round.
Of course, there were things that happened that are very difficult to plan for. As you said, you eventually learn to plan for things costing twice as much as they should. You learn to listen to the sometimes 'overstated' complaints for the grains of truth scattered between.
And isn't it nice that this potential headache has finally come to rest? Glad to know the US operations are now on a new fully-functional GFS.
Great takeaway points here, Richard.
Posted by: Robert Burns, II at August 1, 2010 1:00 AM
An experience, very well written.
There are so many who go through the same experience.
A lesson for consultants who need to strive and make life easier for USERS by first understanding that USERS know their processes best.
I had recently visited your GURGAON office.
Rgds
Posted by: Anil Jain at August 14, 2010 2:40 AM
Great post. It seems by the amount of time it takes to implement some systems, they are virtually obselete before they are even used.. just my opinion though.
Posted by: Trakai at October 10, 2010 7:56 AM
Post a comment
| TrackBackJuly 20, 2010
Liespotting
Did you know that the average person is lied to 25-200 times per day? One study discovered that lies were detected in 37% of phone calls, 27% of face to face meetings, 21 percent of IM chats and 14% of emails. Liespotting, (on store shelves today) a book by Pam Meyer (disclosure: a friend) gives us a way to fight back.
Research indicates that Americans are particularly gullible because of a “truth bias—as a nation we grew up with the George Washington legend of saying that he never told a lie even though he chopped down the cherry tree.” Ms. Meyer told me that “deception is a cooperative act. A lie does not have power by its utterance, its power lies in someone agreeing to believe it. Self deception is where it starts—you are a lot less likely to be duped if you know yourself well.”
Who lies? Extroverted, unmarried men are the worst offenders. Unmarried people lie 70% more to their partners than married people and men tell eight times more lies than women. I can attest to one whopper. On my second date with my now wife, I proudly showed off my new apartment. I walked into the bedroom and to my horror, discovered that the bed was still not assembled. I lamely tried to explain that the cleaning lady had done this and got the retort, “Don’t ever lie to me.” I have lived in mortal terror of home spun spin ever since.
How to uncover a lie? If you are in person, Ms. Meyer advises the BASIC interview technique: Baseline Behavior (laugh, voice, posture or even looking you in the eye too often—people telling the truth only look you in the eye 60% of the time); Ask Open Ended Questions (if somebody repeats a question in full, this is stalling tactic); Study the Clusters (Non verbal clusters such as grooming gestures where even asymmetrical smiles or shrugs are telltale and verbal clusters such as short clipped answers); Intuit the Gaps (logic or behavior gaps); Confirmation (ask the same fact seeking questions repeatedly but in different ways). If you are not in person, use statement analysis, in particular overly specific or excessively formal language, to detect lies.
Why does this matter? The financial impact of deception is significant – from fraud in the workplace to undermining the firm’s fundamental license to operate during times of crisis, an estimated $994 billion a year cost to business. With the number of platforms used to communicate, the opportunity for lying has expanded geometrically.
Ms. Meyer is a technology entrepreneur and has used many PR firms over the years, including Edelman. She said, “Trust accelerates business while deception gums up the gears.” PR pros need to advance transparency – being committed to openly communicating results, failures and successes alike. We must push for the truth-- to cross check what clients are telling us. We should avoid hype which corrodes belief and hinders ability to recover in tough times.
Posted by Edelman at 3:55 PM |
Comments
Richard,
An exceptional post, which flashed me back to a “Speed of Trust” workshop I attended in 2008. From your post, some Liespotting - Speed of Trust, parallels follow:
Self deception – Self trust is where it starts.
Deception gums up the gears – no trust or distrust acts as a trust tax.
The truth bias contributes to Americans’ gullible – From the “Smart Trust Matrix”, blind trust (high propensity to trust accompanied by low analysis)
Not surprisingly, a Kindle search of Liespotting indicates the word trust was used as many as 143 times.
Liespotting and attempting to assess integrity go hand-in-hand, which leads me to the following Warren Buffett quote:
“Somebody once said that in looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if they don't have the first, the other two will kill you.”
Posted by: Hugh Campbell at July 22, 2010 9:53 AM
Post a comment
| TrackBackJuly 14, 2010
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
I am off to Atlanta on Friday to sit with the board of the PR Society of America. On the docket is the proposal tabled by Art Stevens and Bill Doescher, both former PRSA leaders, to eliminate the APR accreditation as a requirement for national office. I was asked to sign the petition early this summer and asked Stevens to get us a face-to-face meeting with present board members.
Why am I going? I am not APR. I am not involved with PRSA. Neither are the vast majority of Edelman employees in the US. And therein lies the problem.
PRSA in my father’s era was the counselors’ primary convening place. I spoke to him last night at dinner about his time as chapter chair in Chicago. “It was an important part of my life. I saw my competitors, and we discussed issues ranging from mark-up on expenses to poaching of staff from each other. Edelman people such as Betsy Plank were very involved in the education of future generations, with the PRSSA chapters at universities and with novice practitioners. It was our way of giving back,” Dan Edelman said.
Now the national leadership that represents the broadest swath of public relations practitioners has made itself unrepresentative. Of the 21,000 members of PRSA (I am one), there are only 5,000 accredited. Only 900 have become accredited in the past six years. At the PRSA annual meeting in November, 2009, the Assembly voted to continue to require accreditation for leadership roles, but 70% of those voting on the measure were accredited. In short, the leadership of PRSA has conflated two issues: professional standard and governance.
The intent of the APR is noble; there should be an examination of professional skills. But the current test is a three-hour multiple choice exercise that covers research, ethics, management skills, history of the industry and media relations. Nowhere is there a writing test or an examination of counseling skills. Contrast that with the Institute of Management Consultants which strongly suggests CMC certification as evidence of commitment to the profession. To secure the CMC basic level (they have 3) one needs three years of experience, details from five clients on engagements, an application which requires a written response to a case study, both written and oral exams, and exam on ethics. One needs to be IMC certified to serve on the Board of Directors but some committees are open to non-certified members. The IMC is more relevant as a comparable voluntary association than the legal or accounting professions where one must pass the bar examination to practice.
Now more than ever, the PR industry needs a voice on important issues. We must establish a bright orange line between PR (paid advocates) and journalism, since anyone can publish anything online at a time when the media industry is under siege from economic stresses. Yet the cacophony only grows, with a seeming wave of centrifugal behavior leading to ever more disparate groups claiming to represent the profession’s interests. Why should the PRSA yield its position to the Council of PR Firms when in fact PRSA represents a much broader swath of the business? I opted out of the Council three years ago because it failed to stand up to a controversy that impugned the integrity of the entire industry; PRSA, by contrast, took a very strong stance. We must welcome the profession’s best and brightest to advance PRSA, including new media pioneers (such as Steve Rubel) to help evolve our standards.
So I fly to Atlanta to discuss two items:
1. Open up national leadership roles to any practitioner who will join PRSA.
2. Work along a parallel path to strengthen the accreditation process and make APR relevant.
I would appreciate your views on this matter.
Posted by Edelman at 3:07 PM |
Comments
Finally--a principled stand backed with sound rationale from a the head of the nation's largest independent PR firm. Possibly uniquely qualified to serve as a bridge between the past and the extremely troubled present.
Well done and good luck on Friday.
Bill Huey
Strategic Communications
Atlanta
Posted by: Bill Huey at July 14, 2010 4:20 PM
Good luck in Atlanta. I have not renewed my membership in PRSA because I have not, for a long time, received any sort of help useful to me. The Washington area chapter, however, has indeed been an asset.
I am something of a rarity -- someone who was grandfathered into APR -- automatically. I have never used it personally or professionally because I felt my record spoke for itself.
As president of the National Association of Government Communicators, I launched the Institute for Government Public Information Research at The American University. I believe PRSA should have more involved academically and hope that you will be able to broach that notion during your conference. proposed
Posted by: Wes Pedersen at July 14, 2010 4:44 PM
There are so many skills that are needed for a PR professional that I think one certification might be too broad. Instead maybe there should be a number of different areas that one can get certified in within the overall umbrella. These could include new media, measurement and analytics, writing skills, market research, strategy development etc.
To have one exam does not begin to explore the breadth of skills that you need to be a success in this profession anymore.
Posted by: John Whitcomb at July 14, 2010 5:19 PM
Thanks for taking these first steps in what is sure to be an uphill battle. I was an accredited member of PRSA until I opted to take a "vacation" from the organization after 27 years. I'm also a member of College of Fellows.
I don't know that the APR leadership issue had anything to do with my disenchantment. But like you, I've seen the membership mix of PRSA change into something I don't recognize as representative of the business. And in social-media circles -- somewhere you and I both spend a fair amount of time -- organizations like PRSA are becoming irrelevant.
Accreditation is a wonderful professional development exercise, and I encourage my grads to pursue it early in their careers. But it should not be an obstacle to involvement and leadership in this profession.
More of my thoughts here: http://et.kent.edu/toughsledding/?p=5622
Posted by: Bill Sledzik at July 14, 2010 6:14 PM
Welcome (back) to Atlanta!
I concur the APR exam process needs to move toward more public engagement criteria/questions, though not suggesting a change to the acronym to reflect this change (the unfortunate result, APE, is not where the industry should go).
Comprehensive social media skills should be infused with media relations or other tactical skills for the test. In addition to, or in lieu of, and oral exam, perhaps APR applicants could opt to provide this portion of their response in the form of a multimedia presentation that could be reviewed online by judges (might work as another manner for the applicant to demonstrate their tech savvy that is part of daily business in the industry).
One perception I always had, from those who took the APR exam, is the heavy recommended prep-time to take the exam (for me personally, a deterrent as there is always some other priority on deck), so perceptions of what the APR exam prep time may also be a consideration as changes are considered by PRSA.
Posted by: Nicholas Wolaver at July 14, 2010 8:40 PM
Hi, Richard. I am an APR -- or at least as long as I pay my PRSA dues. Having been a member of PRSA for almost a decade I decided to finally not renew in 2010. I also knew this meant I could no longer use the APR designation, which I earned 3 years ago. I don't think anyone at Edelman or any of my clients even noticed that the APR fell off my signature.
I was an active member pf PRSA for several years serving on the board while building my network of colleagues and professionals. It was rewarding for quite some time.
I believe the renewed focus on strengthening our industry and voice is exactly what the doctor ordered for PRSA.
Posted by: Lori Kifer at July 14, 2010 9:36 PM
With regard to process, you mention two extremes. In the middle is the IABC accreditation, which combines a written exam with a portfolio and oral exam (in fact, a simulated real-life, real-time work problem, where you have 15 minutes to study the "inbox" materials and to formulate a plan and 15 minutes to defend your choice to the examiners, who are role-playing the part of executives).
No system is perfect, but one of the criticisms I have heard levelled against accreditation that relies on case studies and such is that judging is subjective. I personally feel that peer review of real work and the skills developed through that process is valid and more useful/relevant than memorized answers to a multiple-choice exam, but I'd be interested to hear your views.
Posted by: Kristen Sukalac at July 15, 2010 4:59 AM
An important part of making the APR relevant is to articulate its significance beyond PRSA and the agency world. I've spent most of my 30-year career on the client side until joining Edelman 4 1/2 years ago. Not once was I ever asked if any certification in PR was even available, never mind whether I had achieved it. So, I've never seen any evidence that achieving the APR status would affect me one way or another. I once looked into it, but felt it wasn't "exclusive" enough to be worth the trouble. In other words, it seemed too easy to achieve and, therefore, not worthy of my time and energy. Until APR really means something - and that something is well understood by Corporate America - it's just not that valuable, IMHO. After all, don't we want any kind of certification to be a "stamp" that lets our clients (first) and colleagues (second) know we've gone above and beyond?
Posted by: Marilynn at July 15, 2010 12:55 PM
As someone who took the APR test some years back -- when the test was 8 hours, included both multiple choice and written responses to cases, and was followed by a one-hour interview by three APR contacts in my local area -- I am a bit surprised by how the distinction has diminished in scope. More surprising is the lack of value among most practitioners. Like every other profession, I agree that we must have some form of certification but, as you've pointed out, the metrics must be realistic and vigorous. But no matter what the format, the accreditation will never hold value until we, as professionals, start to appreciate the value of the title and demand it of our peers. We need to self-select, and no matter what the process, PRSA can only be as strong as we make it. As an aside, PRSA might consider moving to a portfolio-based model, as has IABC. Though less well-known, its process has some weight and requires a level of professional mettle before even attempted.
Posted by: Jeff Picarello at July 15, 2010 3:37 PM
Richard:
A very thoughtful post with valid and helpful POVs. The issue of APR, as you seem to understand well, was ruled on by the representative body of the Society, the Assembly. The board reports to the Assembly. That said, I look forward to seeing you on Friday.
Best regards,
Gerry
Posted by: Gerard Corbett at July 15, 2010 3:46 PM
As a member of PRSA's Health Academy Executive Committee (elected position within PRSA) I actually supported the idea of making the APR designation a requirement for serving higher office in PRSA even though I'm not an APR myself. I agree in principle with the idea that we should set appropriate standards for our profession. And while we all know the APR designation is not an end-all and be-all, it's a good step. There needs to be some reward for achieving this designation. I do not oppose any steps to improve the accreditation process, and I understand the controversy this has generated, but the APRs I know are all knowledgeable PR practitioners and good representatives of PRSA, and if APR is our standard, then our leadership should reflect that in their own qualifications.
Posted by: Ben Garrett at July 16, 2010 1:01 PM
I have been a communicator for some 4 decades (10 as a journalist and 30 in agency, corporate and now academic work.) I have been a PRSA member since my days handling corporate PR at IBM. I am not APR and I know of few major peer practitioners who are. Like your dad, most of us look for ways to give back and ways to connect. Be it through IPR, Page or IABC, we work at making our profession better. PRSA has a serious opportuntiy to be part of that mix if it chooses to be relevant and chooses to lead. PRSA must open opportunites -- like national leadership -- so it truely joins the best youngs and olds. It should adopt an APR certification process that more fully recognizes career learnings and accomplishments. Fianlly, PRSA has to look at its own demographics and understand it can not continue to be so protective of the independent practitioner that it closes out participation by corporate and agency professionals.
Posted by: Tom Mattia at July 18, 2010 2:47 PM
There is no "market value" for the APR certification, and in fact, the best counselors in our business generally aren't accredited. I've been counseling cleints for 20 years, and none ever asked me if I had it.
We all discuss the importance of having a "seat at the table" - yet the accreditation doesn't make you a valuable player at the table.
Agencies are constantly needing to evolve and change with the times, and with our clients' needs. PRSA, if it wants to "have a seat at the table" needs to do the same. The way to do this is to attract the best and brightest in our business, and stop holding people hostage over the accreditation.
Posted by: Carreen Winters at July 20, 2010 11:10 AM
I'm a 20-year PR veteran who has looked into the APR on several occasions, but it has no appeal and seems to serve little purpose in boosting my career. It's designed around 20th century public relations and is largely irrelevant to the work I do every day.
Posted by: Lynn Clark at July 23, 2010 1:34 PM
Good points, Richard. Especially relevant in the 'digital age,' as you mentioned.
Being a recent college graduate going into the field of PR, I have put much thought into APR certification. But part of the issue with the low numbers of certified practitioners is the resources required to get it.
Having just paid an arm and a leg for a college education, only to do research on APR certification and find a new bookstore checklist waiting for me is just a bit upsetting.
I understand that the APR is 'icing on the cake,' so to speak, but therein lies the problem. For the new grad, it's simply that: icing on the cake.
Your perspective on the CMC and IMC is one I agree with as well; If I'm going to spend the time, energy, and resources to get the APR, then I believe the test should be relevant to today's PR professional's needs. It should thoroughly test writing skills and true client engagement. Currently, it does neither, and this has a real impact on whether it is valued.
Well, I hope some good came of your meeting, and I look forward to eventually becoming certified, however the test manifests itself down the line.
Posted by: Robert A. Burns, II at July 28, 2010 9:12 AM
Post a comment
| TrackBackJuly 8, 2010
Media Strikes Back
At Edelman’s fourth Annual New Media Academic Summit, we convened a superb group of senior media executives who offered insights into the future of the sector. They included Raju Narisetti, managing editor of the Washington Post; Greg Coleman, president of Huffington Post; Gerard Baker, deputy editor in chief of the Wall Street Journal; Jonah Bloom, CEO and editor in chief of Breaking Media; Mark Lukasiewicz, VP of NBC Digital Media; Mike Oreskes, senior managing editor of the Associated Press; David Carey who has just joined Hearst as President of the Magazine Unit; and Jon Miller, CEO of Digital Media at News Corp.
These media leaders are addressing challenges head-on, and are optimistic about their future. Here are a few of the most important insights:
- New Readers & Channels—David Carey, Conde Nast group president cited the incremental revenue and readers for its relaunched Gourmet food magazine and Wired’s completely reimaged iPad app. (they sold 95,000 digital copies at $4.99 each in June)., as only the beginning as people are willing to pay for mobility and engagement. Baker described the iPad as a potential game changer, noting that the WSJ has sold many subscriptions at $208 per year for this platform, and the Washington Post charges $1.99 for iPhone application for a year.
- New Revenue Options—Bloom believes Media will integrate eCommerce directly into content so “media will sell stuff directly.” So, right beside a book review will be the option to buy the book. Access to the archives, conferences and direct access to journalists via email are also being considered viable premium paid options.
- The Pay Wall—Narisetti offered a strong defense of the Washington Post policy on free access to content. “Subscription revenue has always been a tiny part of the newspaper business model. We have 30 million unique visitors each month to our site.” Baker went the other direction describing the Wall Street Journal pay model, “In the beginning of the web, there was optimism that we could focus advertising so ad revenues would suffice. Now it is clear that we need other revenue streams.” News Corporation is bringing in paywalls for its British newspapers and Miller emphasized that will keep investing in quality content to get people to pay.
- Trust in Content—Baker noted that the decline in trust in establishment institutions (business, government) extends to mainstream media. “We often fail to properly represent the views of the majority of our readers.” He quoted Oscar Wilde, “The parts that were original were not true and that which was true was not original.” Jonah Bloom noted that “there is not enough originality in stories being tackled.” Lukasiewicz said that “transparency is the new objectivity. We will have a point of view in stories.” Oreskes took a strong position on “Journalism being distinguished by its higher standards for quality, not by ownership of the printing press.”
- Narrow-casting—Narisetti wants to get away from the single “front page approach” so that a reader can focus only on specific more narrow interest (politics or sports). “We need multiple front doors to the house, such as PostLocal.com, PostSports.com, PostPolitics.com.” He said that “we link to other sites on stories they break (Politico as example)—we need to offer everything that is relevant.”
- Value from Conversation—Coleman said that the Huffington Post gets three million comments from its users each month. “Our content model envisages 1/3 from each of bloggers, original reporting and aggregation.” Narisetti added, “Comments may reflect the market’s view but those who comment represent a narrow slice of readers—but we keep comments as open as possible because these are the most engaged readers.”
- New Measurement for Reporters—Narisetti said, “Newsrooms have never wanted to measure how they are performing—specifically how many readers look at each article. We now do a daily report to 120 editors, with page views, time spent, unique visitors, which photos are preferred—metrics that are key to the business.” He said that his reporters must use meta-data to be sure they use words that “help readers to find your story…people search for Republican Party, not GOP, so use that term in stories.” Bloom added that reporters must be able to market their stories via Twitter and Facebook.
- Power of Visuals—Oreskes noted that while the AP may have 50 reporters on the coverage of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the most powerful content has been visual. “People remember the pelican photo or the AP photographer donning scuba gear to get unique video.” He quoted Walter Lippmann, media pundit, “The world outside, the pictures in our head.” At our dinner, key note speaker, Tom Cibrowski, Good Morning America Executive Producer, ABC, also mentioned they are rapidly adopted new hi-def video cameras to reporters to report more quickly and cheaply with video.
- Importance of Local Market Dominance—The Washington Post reaches 45% of Washington area households. You need 30 ads on local TV or 60 ads on cable TV to achieve the same reach as one ad in the Washington Post. Of the 18-34 year olds in the area, 62% use the Washington Post on-line. This is group most easily monetized in advertising. Note that 86% of the Washington Post web traffic comes from outside of the DC area.
Those of us in PR would be wise to adapt our business model to reflect the new demands of immediacy, visualization, conversation and localization.
You can watch the discussion by going here.
Posted by Edelman at 2:16 PM |
Comments
Thanks so much for sharing these comments and words of wisdom. They are insightful and I commend you for being one of the few huge PR agency owners to blog. Thanks for sharing. Look fwd to seeing you soon.
Posted by: Ronn Torossian at July 10, 2010 8:21 PM