Gullibility… media is thy name

The stunt worked and that’s what’s so pathetic

Face it. We all got sucked into the drama last week played out on the nation’s TV screens. Those at home paused to listen or watch. Those at work were interrupted by co-workers either attuned to breaking alerts on the Internet or an office television. But we all paid attention…even if just momentarily. We all paid attention. Why? It was a hot breaking news story with all the elements that we’ve learned make our senses prick up. It had a child in terrible, immanent danger. It had distraught parents. It was highly visual and perfect for television. And, it had gained the instant gravitas of CNN and Fox, with the other networks soon to follow. Perfect!

Except for one minor problem… it wasn’t true.

Then, of course, came the backlash of what Frank Rich in Sunday’s NY Times (In Defense of the ‘Balloon Boy’ Dad) referred to as, “a warm bath of moral superiority. No matter our own faults, we could never top Richard Heene, who mercilessly exploited his child for fame and profit. Nor as craven as the news media…”

I don’t believe the broadcast news media to be that craven. Gullible, sloppy, and driven above all else for the scoop in this age of the 24/7 news cycle, yes. Open to exactly this kind of a misfortunate publicity stunt by the same kind of individuals that are pathetic in this instance (and yes, smart) enough to feed off their kids to satisfy their and the media’s needs, yes. But I do agree with Rich in his Times piece, that we in the watching audience must share in that gullibility. Did we all suspend all sense or common sense while watching that over-sized Jiffy Pop floating over Colorado? The answer to that is also, yes. And it’s that secret knowledge of our own gullibility that adds to our outrage. “A massive fraud!” so thundered Bill O’Reilly.

However we in the business of publicity must also applaud…no, not the sad use of one’s own kid to exploit for fame and profit…but the execution of the stunt to gain the incredible primary coverage as well as the secondary and continuing coverage. This story has great legs…not in spite of its falsehood, but now because of it. Amazing! The media can’t help itself.

“They put on a very good show for us, and we bought it,” the local sheriff said last weekend.

And, we are continuing to do so.

Is it blessed to receive?

From random fax-spam to blogger freebies …

There’s something strangely comforting about still receiving faxes in the age of the Internet and email…even if the faxes are solicitations of the absurd. My favorite this week was from Presidential Who’s Who, addressed to “Dear Company Owner” and exclaiming that “my information had been reviewed and accepted for inclusion in the 2010 edition.” Hot Damn! After forty some years I am finally being recognized for “outstanding business and professional achievements.” Well ok…it’s about time.


But wait. It then went on to ask me to fill out and return an attached form that asked my name and title, my company’s name, its industry, our principal product or service, and personal specialty. Hmmmm…just a random thought, but if my company and me have “reached the distinguished level of success in my chosen profession,” as stipulated, and I’ve already been reviewed and accepted to be in this fine edition, why ask? On further review, I choose to continue in anonymity.


Of far greater import than my personal recognition in yet another bogus edition of Who’s Who, was the piece in the New York Times Ad and Media section this week, "Soon Bloggers Must Give Full Disclosure", that the FTC has decided to crack down on bloggers plugging products sent to them by companies hoping for a favorable review. The FTC rules governing endorsements and testimonials in advertisements are going to be studied and possibly expanded to cover bloggers and social media like Facebook and Twitter. This kind of “freebie spam” has been a stable of marketing for just about forever; and certainly long before the invention of the Internet or social media. According to the Times, “For bloggers who review products, this means that the days of an unimpeded flow of giveaways may be over. More broadly, the move suggests that the government is intent on bringing to bear on the Internet the same sorts of regulations that have governed other forms of media, like television or print."

We all know that one of the beauties and really cool things about social media and blogging in particular, is the freedom of everyman or every woman to express themselves without the impediment of commercial or organizational restrictions…other than their sense of good taste and social mores. But all the FTC is now institutionalizing is what we’ve all known for some time was destined…that the Internet and social media have become tools for enterprise. Yes, on a macro level it’s still a great new way to communicate, share, and expand our worlds, and without doubt the phenomenal transforming tool of at least the early Century. All well and good…but it’s also a great way to push diapers or a cell phone. And it’s probably time to recognize that as well.

As one mommy blogger said, “I think that bloggers definitely need to be held accountable. I think there is a certain level of trust that bloggers have with readers, and readers deserve to know the whole truth.”

Accountable….there’s that word again.

So, where’s the value?

PR is worth real dollars, but only if it’s accountable …

I recently read an interesting blog post by Chris Brogan titled, "The Audacity of Free", wherein he expounds on the notion that in today’s tough economy, many people behave as if “free” is the watchword of the day. That the imparting of knowledge and information… in his example, it’s through conferences… somehow is often expected to be given away. “The sense of walking into somewhere and listening to sage words doesn’t seem like it should cost money….” But he argues, and rightly so, to, “Never apologize that something costs money if you’ve determined the value of it.” And, to not “ever feel embarrassed to charge for value.”

Well normally you won’t hear me do much supporting of something that seems to be closely related to charging for pure consulting, which can lead to hourly fees, which in my opinion can lead to nothing but mischief. But Mr. Brogan makes a point about what appears to be a trend in companies today believing that they and not the vendor (another term I dislike almost as much as hourly fee) are the sole arbiter of whether a service should have a charge attached, i.e., they determine the cost based upon their interpretation of value received. While I understand why today’s dreary economy and years of malfeasance and overcharging have brought us to this point, it is still a frightening thought… the inmates in control of the asylum? If only clients determined the price of our services, oh what a scary world this would be.

Or would it be? Maybe we deserve to have the moneychangers driven from the temple so that clients can once more believe that the cost of PR is directly related to value received. And most importantly, that this perceived value be determined on tangible results and not smoke and mirrors or spoken words alone. That kind of accountability leads not to mischief, but to a compensation model that is credible and just.

That is not to say that the clients determine the price of such compensation. I haven’t given total leave to my senses or control of the asylum. I agree again with Mr. Brogan when he says, “it’s not your buyers who decide this, no matter what we like to think in social media kumbaya-ville” We in PR must not be embarrassed to charge real dollars for the services we provide. But make sure these services are tied to the tangible, measurable results that our clients desire…not just our words. If we’re going to charge for “knowledge” be willing to demonstrate just how that knowledge provides such results. Once again to paraphrase Mr. Brogan with a modicum of literary license… “Free is beautiful, and costs are part of life.” But please… based on accountability.