Language Doesn’t Just Frame the Argument. Sometimes it Decides It.

What are you for? What are you against?

The words used to ask the question can go a long way to framing your perception of the question, and the position to which you commit.

Last month, evil genius public relations consultant & researcher Frank Luntz circulated a memo to his clients on how to frame – and ultimately derail – financial reform legislation in the United States Congress.

No matter how you feel about Lutz’s political position (or that of his clients), you have to appreciate the methodology.

You can praise or curse the effectiveness at your leisure.

Essentially what Luntz and his company Word Doctors are doing is identifying the Dominant Narrative and plugging their clients’ preferred narrative into them.

It’s like dipping your toe into the stream and then deciding which way you’d like to paddle.

And it just might work.

And I Shall Smite Them with My Social Media Hammer of Justice

The second great narrative about PR is the shiny tool. In the last two decades there has been an endless supply of new tactics and applications that have changed the profession forEVAH.

Seriously.

Many of them have to a degree: at least in the sense that where practitioners spend most of their time – at least as a team – has changed dramatically. For example, PR pros very rarely walk into a newsroom and sit next to a journo’s desk to pitch a story anymore. When was the last time you ran 400 copies of a news release? Or licked a stamp?

Yeah, it’s like that.

Today the shiny new (NEW!1!) tool is something called … wait for it … social media. Social media will bring on the golden age of public relations. Or, social media will destroy and/or replace public relations as a business discipline.

Or something.

Todd Defren touched on a little bit of this several weeks ago. What Todd misses is that many organizations will accept the “PR is soo over” narrative and shoot themselves in the foot. While he and I have to let good people go write crappy blogs like this one.

See? Nobody wins.

We can’t worry too much about what propeller-heads think about what we do. Historically the people who create technology either vastly overestimate or underestimate its impact.

Short version: They have no idea.

The point here, is that if the value you deliver to your clients or your employer can be changed radically by a new a technology …

wait …

If YOU have changed radically the way you support or advise your clients or your employer because of changes in technology, be afraid.

Be very afraid.


Fear change because you are using a distribution model. Channels of distribution for information always have evolved. Right now, we’re picking up the pace. If you or your agency sees public relations as a tactical exercise, you’re … well … screwed.

You’re focused on HOW.

Public relations is about WHAT.

The other Ws (who, when, where, why) remain. This is where you live because it’s the basis of your relationship with all the audiences that influence your mission.

Because I get angry emails I’m compelled to point out that I’m one of the organizers of something called Cincy Social Media. I don’t hate the technology, I embrace it. But while technology changes, the basics do not.

These are simple truths:

People trust people more than they trust organizations.

People are social animals: they like to be with a crowd of folks that seem to be like them whether for support or affirmation.

Sharing is fun: Everybody likes to feel smart, whether they’re teaching the neighbor kid how to grip a slider or telling a co-worker about the hot new club.

Face-to-face interaction trumps any electronic interaction. That’s why in the face of iPhones and MySpace we still have MeetUps and TweetUps.

There are plenty more, but they come down to this: Real life matters.

But what matters most in real life is your message. And your message had better be based on What. You. Do.

Public Relations is absolutely not (just) about Telling Your Story. Neither is it remotely related to how many people follow your Tweets. Or fan your FaceBook page.




Image Cred: ripped from Ross Training who actually offers cool ideas on how to work out on the cheap. No kidding.

A Conditional Apology …

… is not really an apology at all.

I think that’s what conditions are.

We’ve all heard them. Almost all of us have used them.

“I’m sorry if my calling you a d!@& hurt your feelings, but what I really meant by that was …”

Anybody who’s ever been married … or in any kind of relationship lasting beyond appetizers … has heard this dodge. If you work in public relations, you should strike it from your vocabulary.

Here’s why:

1. You actually meant what you said but were surprised that you got in trouble for saying it.

2. You worded awkwardly something you meant to say and it could be understood in more than one manner.

3. ... there really is no 3


Here’s my public relations advice. This one you get free. Next time the meter’s running.

If you meant to say it, you meant it (presumably) for a reason. Unless you’ve changed your mind, don’t apologize. Ever. [see Murtha, John] If you live in such a fragile world that your honest opinion can get you into trouble, perhaps you should just, y’know … shut up. Nobody will believe your mea culpa anyway. You empower your opponents and demoralize your allies.

Seriously, STFU.

If you really misspoke, that should be clear from the context.

Or the situation (more context). It should not require a lot of explanation. Just say you’re sorry. [this is very rare]

If, however, you said something really fu({1n9 stupid, and you really need to apologize, at least have the decency to do the 15 seconds of research to sound the least bit, y’know, sincere.

Like spelling the names right.

Which brings us to our featured guest, the junior senator from the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Completely misunderstanding the reach of modern technology, the former Phillies hurler demonstrated for once and all that the muscles between his shoulder and wrist far outmatch those between his ears.

From NBC's Ken Strickland and Mark Murray
In a written statement today, Kentucky GOP Sen. Jim Bunning apologized for remarks he made about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in which he predicted that she would pass away in nine months.

"I apologize if my comments offended Justice Ginsberg," Bunning said. "That certainly was not my intent. It is great to see her back at the Supreme Court today and I hope she recovers quickly. My thoughts and prayers are with her and her family."

Note: Bunning's office misspelled Ginsburg's last name.


No. Really. Not like that.

Rule: Don't Make Your Opponent's Case for Him

Awhile back, I mentioned the clever guys at the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity’s “Clean Coal” campaign. With the caveat that so-called clean coal is not a product but a term d’art for a collection of technologies, I admired the campaign for its simplicity and appeal to the self interests of the audience.

Now comes The Reality Coalition with a response campaign. This is the spot currently burning up my cable news shout-fests:




It’s very clever and very well done. And it won’t change a single mind.

First, it uses the coal industry’s own language to make its point. How many times does the script repeat the phrase “clean coal?”

But what’s worse is the inside language and imagery. There’s the desert landscape, one assumes an allusion to a globally warmed future, but a good percentage of the presumed audience (including your humble correspondent) sees not the Great Plains of Al Gore’s nightmares, but a desert ecosystem that might just be under threat, too.

Finally, the coalition itself. It calls itself the Reality Coalition. Reality is a magical word for those with a certain shared political philosophy. The word Reality is a dog whistle.

Problem is, the ones who hear that particular whistle don’t really need the message.


Oh, yeah: they also don't let you embed the vid from their Web site.



Save This Page