Wednesday, February 28, 2018

Tightrope Walk

Never let it be said media spokespeople have it easy. Their job is carried out in public. How well they do their job is constantly under the microscope. This is why those men and women who do this for a living must do their utmost to be beyond reproach. A classic challenge they face revolves around what, on the surface, may appear to be a simple matter: to whom and/or what are they loyal. Are they loyal to their client or to the truth? One may assume they should do all they can to defend or speak well of the one who signs their pay check. But in doing that, what happens if that runs counter to the truth?

Should that public spokesperson lie? Should they choose being supportive of their boss over being truthful with the public and media? To some, this can be a tough choice, particularly when their boss demands loyalty above all else and, on top of that, pays well. Currently, we are watching this dilemma play out in the form of the communication professionals working for President Trump. To them, it seems they are made their choice - loyalty to Trump. Recently, his chief communication person - Hope Hicks - confessed that tells "little white lies" on behalf of her boss. In other words, to her, truth or being honest with the public is less important than making her boss look good.

Yes, as employees, loyalty to one's boss is important. At the same time, particularly when it comes to public service, truth is vital. In the pecking order, it must come first even if it means risking employment. For a public spokesperson to be effective, they must be credible. They must have the confidence of those to whom they communicate. In disclosing what she does, Hicks has said that she cannot always be believed. Not only has she now compromised her own professional standing, but she has done a great disservice to the person to whom she is supposed to be loyal. She and her team represent Trump. Their dishonesty is also his. They must get off that tightrope.

Saturday, February 24, 2018

Building on Moments

All of us live in the moment. Where we are is always right-now. As I write this, no matter how much thinking I am doing about the future does not magically wisk me away there. This applies to communication. In attempting to connect with others, even when with an eye on the future, the best we can do is build on what has been said or communicated in the past. The reality of this blog entry, though designed to help others with their future efforts to communicate effectively, for example, serves only as a suggestion as to how to do that. Readers will hopefully apply this entry in the present to move seamlessly to the next present.

Everyday conversations are a perfect example. We speak with another. A statement is made and we add to it with a question or statement of our own. The other person then does the same. The exchange, regardless of its length, is a series of verbal building blocks. Even if when conversing with another we have specific things we wish to discuss with them, how well we get to those points depends upon how effectively we build or add to each moment. How well do we move from one moment to the next? Do questions we may pose logically touch on what was just said? At the same time, do they serve as a means by which persons can move from one moment to the next?

Good reporters can do this. So, too, can competent lawyers. At the same time, can us everyday folks in our everyday moments with others. It begins with how we view each communication exchange. Ideally, they are "in the moment" actions designed to enable people to transition from where they are to where they are headed. It is as if we are creating a road map as we go along. No question such an effort represents an interesting challenge. This is why communicating effectively is rarely as easy or simple as it may seem. Each of us in each of our moments is trying to build upon our moments as best we can.






Wednesday, February 21, 2018

A Few Thoughts on Speech Making

Speeches are a unique form of communication. They represent a special brand of declaration that is different than, say, a written piece. Please do not misunderstand, words put down on paper have been known to have tremendous impact. The power of that kind of communication form is not to be minimized in any way. But my focus in this entry is on the spoken word. Specifically, I speak of remarks made before an audience. Historically, such a way to communicate was the primary manner in which leaders of the day made know their positions and/or declarations. Philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle were among the pioneers.

When one gives a speech, they do so with the intent of not hiding behind any other. "Here I am and this is what I think" is the direct message of the speech maker. Audiences see the face and hear the voice of that person and from that moment forward associate him or her with whatever comes out of their mouth. With such a reality, it is no wonder the come with any speech is pressure. The speech maker stands at the podium and seconds before letting out with the first word becomes very aware that what they are about to say had better be coherent, logical and understandable. If the attention of the audience is to be retained, then the text of the speech must ring-true.

This is the challenge of the public communicator. What they say must be credible. If not, particularly if this person communicates publically on a regular basis, then their credibility will be tarnished and, ultimately, lost. Once that happens, then such a reputation is nearly impossible to reverse. The speech maker and their speech are judged as one-in-the-same. Thus, in terms of actually giving a speech, sincerity ranks higher than "performance." Yes, speakers should project, make eye contact with the audience, and even be articulate, but if they are viewed as not being sincere or honest, then no amount of performance will help.  

Saturday, February 17, 2018

South Korea Follows Tradition

Relations between public relations types and the press have always been interesting. Before there was  social media, the press very much had the upper hand. Newspapers decided what they wanted to cover with little coaxing from outside sources such as publicists. Those press agent folks needed reporters for the simple reason they had very few outlets at their disposal to contact a wide audience. This put the press very much in the driver's seat. Even with the efforts of creative communicators as Edward Bernays, the press had the final word as what they would give attention to. It was an uneven relationship.

The Internet changed everything. This provided publicists with the means to reach the public without having to use the traditional press such as newspapers and television and radio. A key result was that it made reporters much more receptive to what public relations professionals brought to their attention, thus giving greater balance to the dynamic between the two. Generally, this is how the relationship stands today, particularly in Western cultures such as the United States. Working with both the media and public relations agencies here in South Korea as I do these days, however, the dynamic is similar but with a slight variation.

Despite the obvious fact the Internet is alive and well in South Korea, public relations agencies continue going out of their way to court reporters far beyond what their counterparts in the U.S. do. For example, often when publicists plan a press conference for a client, part of the itinerary is providing reporters with a formal lunch. Not just coffee and - maybe - doughnuts, but a sit-down lunch with silverware and catered food. It is as nice as it is expected. Why go to such trouble and expense when the press can easily be bypassed? In South Korea, it is a matter of tradition. The press expects to be courted and public relations professionals seem to be content with courting them.

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

A Very Broad Term

"What does communication look like to you?" It was and is an excellent question. The question was raised at a staff meeting of mid-level managers that I attended recently. The meeting was held in response to concerns raised by the managers that communication within the organization was not as good as it should be. Communication, the chief executive officer noted, is such a broad term that it is not always clear what exactly is meant when it is used. For instance, is one talking about how information is shared? Are you referring to the channels used to pass along information? Or is this a comment on how well people are allowed to voice their views?

Listening to the discussion, I was struck by the realization at how often many of us are, in fact, unclear when discussing such an important topic. We say the word "communication" and assume everyone knows what we are talking about. Yes and no. The fact is people do have their own perspectives on it simply because their communication needs vary. The CEO, for example, may feel it refers to how clearly his or her directives are being understood by those within the organization. The staff, on the other hand, may be more concerned with the opportunities they are given to be heard  or have meaningful input.

"What does communication look like to you?" How would a classroom teacher answer that? What would their students say? What about the patient? Or their doctor? Different people in different positions with different communication needs and goals. Without question, communication is an important conversation to have regardless of the location or group dynamic. At the time, for it to be fruitful, a clear understanding of what is meant by it must be established. Otherwise, there will be miscommunication about communication. That may sound funny, but the reality of such an occurrence is anything but that.


Saturday, February 10, 2018

Press Relations

Quick. What does it mean when February and March arrive? For those of you said "It's the beginning of a new baseball season," then go to the head of the class. You are right. Spring training is now underway as the players report for duty to prepare for another season of over 160 games and lots of travel. The season officially begins in early April, but between now and then the players will be getting back into the groove, vieing for starting positions and once again return to the attention of their fans and media scrutiny. There are many sports, of course, but none quite like baseball, a game that has been with us for nearly 200 years.

This reminds of a guy named Ed Doherty. Doherty was a public relations manager who worked for the Boston Red Sox back in the late 1930s and into the 1940s. The team owner Tom Yawkey hired Doherty to improve relations with the press. Unfortunately, Doherty, as described by one observer, "considered the writers parasites and made no attempt to conceal his contempt for them." Given that, it is no surprise that relations between the Red Sox and those writers that covered it were quite poor. If that wasn't bad enough, Yawkey fired Doherty and replaced him with a guy named Larry Woodall who disliked reporters even more. Go figure. Needless to say, press relations did not improve.

A key aspect of any public relations worker's job involves interacting with reporters. While some reporters may not be all that much fun to work with, the fact is the great majority are a hard-working bunch who care much about about being good and credible communicators. Press or media relations are vital to the success of public relations. It helps if one has at least a healthy regard for the efforts of and even the role reporters play in society. Successful public relations practitioners should have a solid appreciation and understanding of the work required of reporters, particularly if they are going to have a respectful working relationship with them. The last thing any organization needs is a Doherty or Woodall.

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Against Human Nature

Public relations at its best goes against human nature. That is what makes it such a challenge. Let me explain. It is human nature to act in our best interest. Even with the best of intentions, all of us generally spend our days doing what is best for us. For instance, we work to make money so we can buy food we need to eat, help take care of people we care about, and support causes that we believe in. Depending upon the circumstances, some of us even hire public relations professionals to help us carry out those efforts. Those communicators then put together plans or strategies to enable us to carry out needs and meet our needs in the most successful way they can.

Such a scenario, even though it does involve others, is about us as individuals. Thirty-four years ago two communication scholars, James Grunig and Todd Hunt, identified another type of public relations designed to foster collaboration and/or more successful interaction between folks. They called it the asymmetrical model of public relations as opposed to the symmetrical model which pertains more to the needs or wishes of one person. The asymmetrical model calls for individuals to put aside their own priorities and replace them with the priorities of them and another. Another way to put this is "the greater good."

I am not suggesting that people generally are not interested in interacting with others to make the world a better place. I believe they are. At the same time, people tend to approach such a hope from their own perspective. This goes back to human nature. The asymmetrical model is designed to move folks from doing what comes naturally to taking a step away from that and giving the needs, interests and perspectives of others equal footing. Doing that on a sustained basis is not easy for any of us. Inevitably, the question "What about me?" pops into our psyche. This, then, points to the reality of how complex public relations can be. It is also not surprising to know that the symmetrical model is a much more popular practice than the asymmetrical model.


Saturday, February 3, 2018

Delivery is Important

What is the difference between a good speech and a speech that is good? Often the terms seem interchangeable. While I agree, on the surface, they seem to mean the same thing, there is a difference that speaks to how effectively or how well such public remarks come across. To say something is a "good speech" refers to the actual text, the words themselves. Are they coherent? Are they of substance or do they have weight? But a "speech that is good" refers more to how well it is delivered. There are words or bottom-line message versus how well they are communicated. In other words, a good speech is not necessarily a speech that is good.

Why is this important? Should not a good speech stand on its own? If a speech is good, then should not that fact come across even if it is delivered poorly? That is possible, of course, but not necessarily  guaranteed. "Over the Rainbow" is a great song but as I do not have a good voice and have never sung in public, if I were to sing it before an audience, then the chances are quite good the power of the tune would not nearly be as strong if delivered by a person with vocal talent and stage presence. This reality, then, does speak to the importance of delivery. In the context of communication, it speaks to the value of packaging.

A good speech needs proper delivery. Perhaps the most famous speech of all, "The Gettysburg Address" by Lincoln, was not really acclaimed for what it was at the time it was given. Lincoln's remarks did not really pick up steam until months after they were introduced. If we want words to have "pow," then often they must be showcased. This is why marriage proposals are often made in the context of, say, a moonlite night or candlelight dinner; a good speech packaged in a special way. "It's all in the delivery" is not necessarily a trivial statement. Proper showcasing is important. At the same time, however, it helps a great deal if what is being showcased also has substance.