No message, just some thoughts

I'm sure there will be many, many postings today talking about the events of eight years ago. Some will argue we're safer, others, not so much.

The truth is, I have no clue.

I was in my car, waiting to enter a parking lot in midtown Manhattan, listening to Howard Stern on 92.3 FM. Robin interrupted the bit and reported that an airplane had crashed into one of the Twin Towers. There was speculation: was it a small plane? an accident?

I walked the few blocks to the office and spent most of the morning doing no work at all. Some people immediately left work. Others, like me, stuck around to see what would happen. Reports were unclear as to whether or not I'd be able to even drive out of the city.

We all huddled around televisions, watching the extraordinary jobs the local news reporters were doing reporting the story that would define a generation. It's worth remembering that, for many hours, the real, on-scene reporting wasn't coming from the network stars. It was the local stations - both radio and television - that carried the day. Even on music radio stations, formats immediately changed to all talk with no interruption. Howard stayed on the air for much of the day, if I recall correctly, and my other favorite station, 104.3 FM, also opened the phone lines, cut the commercials, and went to a surreal mix of call-in, reportage and talk.

Later I would learn of two people I knew who were killed that day. Suria Clarke, a former Edelman coworker who had just moved to eSpeed (part of Cantor Fitzgerald), and Danny Lewin, a former client, who was on American flight #11. (Some believe Danny was the "businessman" who, according to one flight attendant who was on the phone with someone on the ground, tried in vain to intervene.)

I suppose I ought to have a brilliant and memorable thought to close this. But I don't. And, perhaps that, in itself, is the message.

"I may not agree with what you say..."

If you know who said that - without Googling it - you win a prize.

Interesting happening last night during the President' speech. He was heckled. No one can seem to recall the last time a President was yelled at during an address to a joint session of Congress.

A couple of questions, though. (1) Was this a planned move by Joe Wilson, Republican of South Carolina, or spur-of-the-moment? (2) Should we care about the outburst?

First, I don't think this was a planned event. The New York Times reports that Wilson immediately bolted from the room when the President finished. Further, such outbursts, in such high-profile events, are always seen as, well, loopy. By all estimates, Wilson did nothing to advance the Republican Party cause.

Second, yes, we should care about such a breach of protocol, but perhaps not for the reason you think. Protocol exists to maintain order, to ensure no one offends anyone else, and so on. (Is anyone else thinking of Goldie Hawn right now?) But, times are changing. The rules of communication are changing. Conversations don't take place any more; shouting matches do. If you don't believe me, take a look at what passes for "news" these days: two talking heads talking over each other with a smirking host who adds nothing.

So, yes, we should care about the outburst, in my opinion, because I think it's a harbinger of more change coming to Washington, the country and the world, in the way we communicate with one another.

"The __ Rules you Need to Follow to Succeed at _____"

I get a lot of email, partly because I subscribe to email lists and newsletters, or because I'm in several LinkedIn groups. On the whole, much of what I get is plain annoying, but every once in a while, I find a nugget that is helpful to me, either by clearly demonstrating what to do or, in some cases, what NOT to do.

Today, it's the latter.

As a PR pro, I often use the tactic of having a client draw up a list of 10, seven or five items that can be pushed to media as a "tip sheet." It usually helps generate some publicity in a needed outlet and everyone is happy.

Here's what I never do: send out a list that says something like: "Ten tips that ensure Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn/SEO Success." Or, what I find personally offensive: "All you Need to Know to Succeed in PR for your Company."

Simply put, there aren't five or 10 tips that ensure success in anything. If there were, people like me - or the publishers of such lists - wouldn't be in business. If it was THAT easy, everyone would be enjoying success. (What would be more honest would be to entitle the list, "Here are 10 important points to know about _____ and what I'm really hoping is that you will be impressed by my knowledge and call me."

Sure, there are certain general rules one ought to follow. In PR, for example, one must know the outlet before pitching. One must know how to write properly in whatever language it is s/he is operating. One must understand how various media outlets operate, when they are on deadline and what constitutes relevant news for that outlet.

But every client is different. Every one is in a slightly different position. I don't think my clients would want me to take a cookie-cutter approach and simply swap their name for the previous client's.

Moral of the story: be wary of lists that over-simplify. Read with a critical eye and take advice from people you trust.

Funny Phone Number

I often get a kick out of products and services that are named in a funny way, especially when so much money and time are invested in hiring experts, etc.

But what about phone numbers?

Well, when I switched to the current toll-free number, I had a list to choose from and, in the end, went with the current 888-771-1515. I examined the keypad to try and figure out if the number spells any obscenities. (Go ahead. I know you want to check for yourself. I'll wait.) Other than that, I was good to go.

Last week, I was accessing my voice mail and, instead of the 888 prefix, I used 800. (Old habits die hard.) I was surprised when, instead of hearing the usual greeting, I heard a man promising me that I could speak to women from all over the country, if I hung up and dialed another. (Go ahead. I know you want to check for yourself. I'll wait.)

No lesson here that I can think of. I just think it's funny.

Jon Stewart Let me Down

I'm a big fan of The Daily Show. Or, more accurately, I should say that I enjoy watching it. The show is smart, funny and often addresses issues far better than any of the "legitimate" news programs.

A few weeks ago, Stewart had Bill Kristol, a well-known conservative, on. If you watch the video of the interview, you'll note that after the 7:00 mark, Stewart goes from interviewer to grandstander and attacker. Of course, Kristol could have - and should have - stopped him with a simple, "Jon, you asked me a good question. Please let me answer it without constant interruption."

Here's the interview:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Bill Kristol
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

Kristol's a smart guy, but he needs media training.

Talking off-the-cuff. Not such a good idea.

It's been a while since I posted. Maybe you see that as a lack of commitment. In fact, I recently read a posting about just that. Something along the lines of, if you don't post regularly, it shows lack of commitment. People who read you are then led to think, "What else is he not committed to?"

I don't see it that way. In fact, my feeling is just the opposite.

Why post if you have nothing to say? Posting for posting's sake is kind of like that annoying kid in class who would ask a question just to insert him/herself further up the teacher's butt. Or, the annoying bigger kid in a meeting who will speak but add nothing other than an over-complicated summary of what everyone else just said...

So, I don't post for posting's sake.

Shifting gears, sort of...

Question: When does it make sense for the President of the United States (Yes, always capitalized.) to comment on a local police matter?

Answer: Never.

I was shocked that President Obama found it necessary to comment at all about the arrest of Harvard Professor Louis Henry Gates. (Capitalized because it's a title, as opposed to Louis Henry Gates, a Harvard professor.) To me, it seemed like the President acted stupidly. Perhaps, because Gates is Obama's friend, the President wanted to stick up for him. Nonetheless, one would think the President would have the wherewithal to say something like, "I'm not sure of all the facts and I have every confidence the Boston PD will work it out. Next question." But he didn't. And now, there's another thing on the President's plate that will take him away from real work he should be doing.

In public relations it's equally important to know when to keep your mouth shut.

More on naming

For me, the name "Bing" will forever be associated with the last column in Fortune magazine. Microsoft chose that name for its new search engine.

As reported in a recent issue of BusinessWeek, the amount of effort that went into the naming process notwithstanding, the good folks in Redmond could have done more vetting.

What does all this mean? No matter how much prep you do, at some point you're going to have to hold your breath and jump right in.

Same holds true for public relations. By its very nature, it's impossible to guarantee anything. We plan, strategize and consider and, eventually, we just go to it. And, no matter how much we plan, there's always an unforeseen outcome.