What to do if your company keeps getting shafted by media

I have been talking to a Big Media journalist about blogs over the last few days, and some interesting viewpoints have emerged from the conversation. We started out talking about how blogs and journalism differ from and complement one another, and ended up talking about why that is relevant to corporations and other organisations.

In journalism, you have a large number of generalists trying to produce authoritative, extremely reliable content about subjects that may be incredibly complicated. Some of them can manage it; many of them cannot. If our interests are in an educated public as a result of journalists producing the most informative and accurate reporting possible, then the tendency of many journalists to misinform - despite what may be the purest of intentions - cannot be ignored as simply "how journalism is".

This is why blogs as a PR/crisis PR tool can be so crucial to so many organisations and businesses: There are a large selection who know that they rarely, if ever, get a fair hearing in the soundbite culture. If your argument is more complicated than "4 legs good, 2 legs bad," forget it. Companies that deal in serious and complex issues - especially scientific or economic ones - usually do not fare well in mainstream media representation. If the argument cannot be summed up in simplistic terms that require only scant knowledge of the industry, then regardless of the fact that your organisation is right and the other side is shamefully misinformed (and possibly actively seeking to misinform people), you lose the debate in the public's eyes.

This is what happens when you rely on other peoples' media to disseminate your message. Especially when your message is not simplistic enough for supposedly informed journalists to grasp, let alone the audience, you do not get a proper hearing. The business case for using your own medium - a blog - that allows for rapid and widespread distribution of your message, to say what you need to say, how you need to say it, is hugely compelling. The fact that blogs allow you to work inside the news cycle makes it even better.

By the way, I can think of one example of this off the top of my head: British Gas has been raked over the coals recently for increasing prices, but I know for a fact (a trusted business associate of mine is quite close to one of the higher ups) that British Gas has been doing everything it could for the last two years to keep prices down for its customers, and have their backs against the wall on this one. But hey, that angle might take a bit more knowledge and understanding than the usual "Big company hates its customers, eats babies at shareholders' meetings" reporting, so it doesn't get told. That's not the kind of journalism we need.

And it's not the kind of journalism these corporations need. But they cannot just wait for journalism to reform itself. They need to employ their own medium, their own blog, to explain themselves and foster an understanding of where they are coming from, how they got there, and where they are going next. Relying on traditional media to act as an intermediary between your organisation and the public has never worked as companies have hoped it would - the control has always resided with one party (hint: not the party that had to do four years of j-school just to learn how to report). Companies now have a new way of circumventing that process to spread their message much more effectively than ever. As Sun Microsystems' COO Jonathan Schwartz has said:

There's no fundamental difference between giving a keynote speech in Shanghai in front of 30,000 people and doing a blog read by several million people.

There is a fundamental difference between sending out hundreds of press releases and doing a blog: People will actually read your blog. They will then most likely pass the link on to others, getting more people to read your blog.

As crisis PR firm Sitrick & Company's strapline says: If you don't tell your story, someone else will tell it for you. Instead of only having your say in media that belong to other people - and other interests - take your message to the people.

Make the most of a cutting-edge technology that allows you to reach a network that cannot be ignored.

Let the members of that network spread your message for you.

Make it easy for them.

Blog.

Comments

[Alec Saunders]

I think you've made a good case for blogging, in the general case. I don't believe it's a substitute for effective media relations, though. Pathological journalists are more rare, in my opinion, than most people think. More often than not, a negative story in the press is due to inept media relations, in my opinion. Most companies need to pay more attention to the media element of their communications strategy, before blaming the reporter.

[Jackie Danicki]

Alec, I think blogging can be complimentary to traditional media activities - by no means was this a suggestion of only blogging. And actually, this type of blogging is especially relevant and valuable for businesses that are under attack constantly (companies like Wal-Mart, biotech companies, fast food companies, etc).

For instance, I saw that McDonalds put loads of ads in London papers to defend itself when Super Size Me was coming out here - which of course the film distributors answered with ads of their own, saying how flattered they were to get the publicity. It was a limp, baldly
frantic attempt at damage control that may have actually done them more harm than good. But if they had someone (or multiple someones) from inside the company, blogging on a McDonalds blog, they could much more effectively communicate their business and why they do
the things they do - with the big boon being the way that information (in the form of permalinks to blog posts) are passed around the vast network (4 million and growing) of blogs. For the money they spent on
one full-page ad in the London Evening Standard, they could have paid to learn how to blog and address their customers and detractors, and done so happily from here to eternity.

[Laurent bervas]

Bravo jackie :)) very interesting.

I think there will be, in the near futur, companies with or without "blog attitude" (like old/new economy).

But I don't belive that Microsoft, Nike, Marlboro or McDonalds will experience real blogs.

That kind of "old fashion" companies have build an image putting a lot of money into adds.
The problem is : Their image doesn't reflect the reality.

The blog is too dangerous, too subversive.

[jeff]

I'm interested in getting some media coverage. It's tough if you don't know someone from the inside. Of course, the major media companies always follow the heard. They only knock on your doors after you are successful.

[Jackie Danicki]

Jeff, blogging really does make a huge difference. Yesterday, our company was heavily featured in an article in The Times (London) and I got a call last night from a Wall Street Journal reporter. We've also been in other Big Media publications. Why? Because we have used our blog to establish our credibility, to show that we know our stuff and to make a name for ourselves. It works!

[Adriana Cronin-Lukas]

Yes, it does. It is a concerted and consistent effort, does not happen overnight but blogging gives you the chance to be your own media. You can always put your story better than anyone else. And if you can't, well, how will you promote your business anyway? Do you think PR and media relations understands your business better? I am always amazed at the willingness of companies to have someone else to represent them to the external world. It's like sending a proxy to a party, they may be polished, well-dressed and well-spoken but they ain't you.

[Laurent bervas]

> You can always put your story better than anyone else.
> And if you can't, well, how will you promote
> your business anyway?

100 % d'accord.

I remember my father speaking :
"You are the best salesman of your company".
"Go ahead, don't be shy".

4 me, Blogging is a natural evolution of the permission marketing. A way to be in direct contact with your customers.
I have nothing to hide. ;)

[Pierre]

I think that the situation is different in every country. I don't know in US or in rest of Europe but in France, a journalist doesn't earn a lot of money. Then he has to "work" very quickly to egt enough money (one page = 300-400 euros). The first source is .. other newspapers and becomes now Internet and Internet IS Google. Then journalist will takes more info from Google. If there is a blog in the first results of the search, he will take infos from this blogs .. A blog is not very different from a site; A blog IS a site (cheaper, more interactive and more powerfull on Google then a usual site) A blog is only the second generation of "site".. nothing more , no ? Remember attitude of journalists at the beginning of Web.internet revolution.. It's the same now with the blogs.