When words alone do not cut it anymore

When it comes to news releases, words alone just don’t do it anymore. With thousands of press releases being distributed every day, communication staff is constantly looking for opportunities to cut through the information overload and reach a broader audience.

Today, organisations can use the online channel to create visual storytelling, a critical pillar in any effective communication strategy. According to a study by PR Newswire, multimedia embeds can increase traffic by up to 77%. Researches also looked at how 200 multimedia news releases (including photos, audio, video or infographics) fared against 10,000 text-only pieces. They found that readers were 3.5 times more likely to share the multimedia, thereby spreading a release’s main message even further.

Multimedia often offers the extra ¨sizzle¨ that journalists are looking for and can even become stories in their own right. Taking risks and experimenting with new formats should be part of what communicators do today in the multimedia space, for example, offering readers a pathway that unfolds before them as they travel through the story.

Here are some tips suggested by PR Newser to make your multimedia press releases thrive:

1. Make multimedia easy to reshare. For example, embed images in releases to be displayed on popular websites, such as Yahoo!, with links to full-size files for easy reposting.
2. Get creative with video. Bring your news to life by embedding video directly within the releases. Videos should be short, compelling and share-worthy. At the same time, remember that quality video can be created without investing thousands and thousands of dollars in production. Now, there is the opportunity to get creative with short videos that reinforce our messages and increase the likelihood of social sharing.
3. Bring quotes to life. Add some personality with a short video or audio file. While reporters typically like to conduct their own interviews, they’ll also grab a quote from a release if they’re under a time crunch. Make your sound bite of choice even more appealing to reporters/bloggers by giving them a video file to embed with their article.
4. Embed content with crossover appeal.  When creating multimedia content, think about content that will serve multiple purposes in different forums. If your most loyal online advocates are entrenched in YouTube, then it certainly makes sense to include video in news releases that can be repurposed on your YouTube channel as well. But if your audience spends more time on Pinterest, then you want to create “pinnable” content (images or video). Likewise, if you’ve built up a strong Tumblr following, include multimedia in the release that can be effectively tumbled.

Marian Hens, MediaTrain Director

 

The Child Dilemma

UNICEF, the UN children’s agency, is naturally very keen that journalists should produce stories that promote children’s welfare.  It matters for basic areas such as pre-school care, primary education, health care, internet access and the like. But it’s also important for the more headline-grabbing areas of child protection, such as physical and sexual abuse, trafficking and exploitation.  Publicity is the oxygen that breathes funds, activism and official action into its programmes. 

Lurid stories on newspages and websites, and breathless radio reports, have an impact. But nothing beats television. Film of a cringing child “domestic slave”, a doe-eyed camel jockey, a bruised and beaten victim of family brutality, a swollen-bellied malnourished infant – these are the messages that strike home.  There is no better way to get the general public reaching for its wallet, angry activists launching campaigns or politicians drafting legislation.

And, as everyone knows, television is about images and individual examples. You don’t have to show a thousand children to make the point, graphic shots of just one will do.  The on-camera suffering of little Mary, Natasha or Mohammed represents the sufferings of dozens, thousands, even millions of their peers. The detailed example illustrates the general. 

And here’s the rub. Before you can say “Action”, UNICEF and its partner organisations are crying “Cut! – No clear images of suffering children, children as victims, or children committing crimes can be shown”.  Not only might it expose the depicted child to ridicule, prejudice or even danger, but it perpetuates a negative image of children, we are told.

In a globalised world increasingly linked by social media, there is no way the anonymity of a child can be preserved, except perhaps in the very poorest of remote areas. Someone will recognise the child and post his or her identity online.  Such at least is the danger. 

It’s the same for radio, the press and all the rest of the news media. Nothing must be published or broadcast which might conceivably identify a boy or girl under the age of 16, no name, no home address, not even a school.  So no graphic photos to light up the writing media’s prose either. And that goes for the parents and other relations, even when they are guilty of abusing the child. 

The same restriction applies to so-called child soldiers. You cannot publish a straightforward photo of one, however powerful the image. These unfortunate children are being re-integrated into their societies by UNICEF and others and to identify them might certainly expose them to retaliation.

Only stories which show children in a positive light can be properly illustrated – smiling pupils in a new school, a prize-winner in a competition, sporting champions or a child charity fund-raiser. Even then, there are those who think this should be discouraged as it might attract paedophiles and somehow endanger the child.

It’s hard to show an effective image of a person – the emotions, the personality, all the elements which make powerful viewing – if you cannot show the face. So what is the solution?

I wish I had one. However frustrating it is, UNICEF’s concerns have to be taken seriously. Television journalists have to be as creative as they can with one hand tied behind their backs.  Pixellated images, back-of-head shots, words spoken by actors – these and other devices go some way to compensating. And print journalists can find ways round anonymity, using pseudonyms and leaving out detail.

Perhaps common sense is the best guide. UNICEF’s guidelines are absolute and all-embracing, as they must be. The careful journalist, cameraman or producer can usually tell where there is potential harm and know when to exercise restraint. A little flexibility can perhaps be allowed. A story which may strike outsiders as “negative” may be seen in the village as turning a local child into something of a movie star.  The important thing is to be aware of the dangers and act in a considered and responsible manner. The child’s interests must always come first.

I have less sympathy about the wider concerns of the overall portrayal of children in a negative light. The public are too sensible to be overly swayed by what they see on The News, we all know it focuses on crises and drama, not on the humdrum. And most of us have children of our own, sooner or later. That all-embracing experience is far more likely to influence our general attitude towards children than anything we see on television.  

Oliver Wates, MediaTrain consultant   

In the Eye of the Beholder

Coverage of the new Somali parliament in Britain’s main left-wing newspapers makes for an amusing case study.  The Independent and The Guardian are both anti-establishment, relentlessly “Third-Worldist” in their international perspective and instinctively critical of the West.  But their correspondents, despite both being apparently in Mogadishu, might have been reporting from different planets on August 19 and 20 in their versions of what is happening in Somalia.

From the headline to the last full stop, The Independent – under the byeline of Daniel Howden – is sipping from a glass that is half empty.  “Few signs of progress as Somalia’s new MPs are sworn in”, the main headline reads, followed by the equally discouraging sub-header “Parliamentary placemen are set to pick president in campaign dogged by violence and corruption”.

The negative tone is relentless. Anything that could be construed as positive is followed immediately by a “but”, stressing a negative angle.  The vocabulary supports the hostile view: the MPs are a “batch” or “roster” or “placemen”, “selected” by a “cast of traditional elders”.  For the Independent reader, it was all a manoeuvre of traditional power-brokers, fuelled by bribery and corruption and most unlikely to stave off violence and the threat of a descent back to all-out civil war.

The Guardian’s glass is definitely half-full. It has two, more featurish, reports under the byeline of David Smith.  “Somalia wakes up to a different picture, a new sense of optimism”, coos the headline in one, about artists who creep out at night and place large artworks calling for justice and security, in public places. “In Mogadishu, artists are back on the streets, a symbol of a new hope, born from a new constitution, a new dawn”.

“Somalis planning on a better future” proclaims another, followed by the sub-header: “David Smith talks to some of the extraordinary characters who believe 2012 will be remembered as the year that Somalia, finally, turned the corner”.

This time the texts are peppered with positive words and images: “rebuilding”, “mission”, “restore”, “heritage”, “popular”, “advantage”, “regeneration”. Examples of optimistic exiles returning to set up businesses follow one after another.  The city “hums” with traffic.  No naysayers are quoted. For the Guardian, Somalis are sensing a real chance that the cycles of violence may be broken and the world’s best-known “failed state” might finally be coming back to life and some form of civilised existence.

What conclusion can we draw from this?  Both versions can probably be defended as “right”, you could back up both with supporting evidence. But it does illustrate starkly that how each media outlet portrays a situation, independent of its editorial stance, will depend on how the individual journalist sees it.

And the same will apply to your business, organisation or aid operation. Some blinkered reporters will have fixed views by the time they first come to talk to you. Others will have more open minds and you can help your cause by serving them strong facts, gripping anecdotes and compelling quotes. You may not turn them into uncritical supporters, but no journalist likes to turn down good material, and you are more likely to get at least a balanced portrayal.

One other point. Few will be surprised to learn that newspapers select their facts and vocabulary to conform to the image they have decided to project, downgrading, dismissing or even ignoring aspects that do not fit.  We may not like it, but we cannot dispute the journalist’s right to select facts and angles as he or she sees fit.

But we should perhaps be aware of the different roles that different journalists fulfil. The Guardian and Independent are both excellent British newspapers, but they are competing in one of the most crowded information markets in the world. Any story which is not well-written and does not grip the reader’s attention will be failing in its duty; it must entertain as well as inform.  Too much standing back or leaden counter-balancing views would weigh the story down.

Giving interviews to newspaper journalists can bring high rewards. But if you want to play it safe, go for one of the respected international news agencies – you know who they are – whose reporters imbibe “balance” with their mothers’ milk. Their copy may lack the impact that a cheerleading newspaper article will have, but at least you should get your views included somewhere.

Oliver Wates, MediaTrain Director

What is the Communications Officer’s most important asset?

Are you a Communications Officer?

Which of the following would be your single most important asset?

1)    Thorough knowledge of your organisation’s goals.

2)    Thorough knowledge of your organisation’s staff.

3)    Thorough knowledge of all the challenges your organisation faces.

4)    Good, easy-going manner, authoritative but approachable.

5)    Ample entertainment budget.

6)    Quality digital communications set-up.

7)    Total confidence of all staff in head office.

8)    Ability to write compellingly and movingly, when needed.

9)    Availability at all times, day or night.

10) Thick, well-leafed contacts book.

Suggestions on MediaTrain’s Facebook page.

Andy Hill, MediaTrain Director

My word is my bond – unless it’s “political”

It’s all a bit obsessive – a U.S. reporter who’s been dead for 49 years wins an “apology” from the employer who had fired him 18 years earlier! Who cares? Actually there’s an important principle at stake here.

Associated Press (AP) wire reporter Ed Kennedy broke the embargo on the news of the German surrender in 1945. He and 16 other reporters were allowed to witness the occasion on condition that they hold the story for what turned out to be 36 hours.

The other 16 kept their promises. Kennedy broke his and issued the story; he was first reprimanded and then fired, by general manager Kent Cooper.  Now, 67 years later, the AP has decided that Kennedy acted correctly. He “did everything just right”, according to AP chief executive Tom Curley.

Woah! Wait a minute!

Every war correspondent accepts that information must be withheld or delayed if its publication might endanger the troops who are protecting you.  But in this case the delay was for “political” reasons, so that the Red Army could stage a similar surrender in Berlin.

According to Tom Curley, if it’s “political”, it’s up to the judgement of the individual reporter whether to respect conditions imposed by whoever is issuing privileged information. Promises can be broken at will, it seems, if you judge it to be in the public interest.

Oh, and if it gives you a worldwide “scoop”, makes you a hero with your editors and all your rivals look stupid, then that is purely incidental.  None of these factors, of course, can play any part in the honest reporter’s decision as to whether to honour a commitment or not.

(And, to declare an interest, as a former Reuters correspondent, I can share the anger of my distant predecessor at Kennedy’s treachery.)

It’s not actually the job of people like Ed Kennedy to decide whether keeping the Soviets sweet in 1945 is a valid cause – and given the 45 years of communist dictatorship imposed subsequently on tens of millions of East Europeans it is clear that the stakes were high.

But leaving that aside, there is a more important point. One of the reasons journalists are so often held in contempt is their perceived arrogance. Reporters who happily break promises fuel the perception that they have, to borrow the words of British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, “power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot through the ages”.

The honourable journalist keeps his or her word. It encourages people to talk to you and serves the common good. There is, sadly, a certain machismo in the profession that keeping promises is for wimps; there’s rarely any comeback so long as you get a scoop for the editor.

It’s something worth considering for those who have dealings with the press.  You have to choose carefully when you share a confidence with a journalist.  And next time an Associated Press reporter promises to respect an embargo, remember Tom Curley’s words. But I think Kent Cooper got it right.

Oliver Wates, MediaTrain director

Asking to be ignored

There are plenty of questions that just should not be answered directly.  And I’m not talking about the “Where did you spend last night?” domestic variety.

These are questions in media interviews or panels where there is no direct answer which will not prove disastrous.  The good media trainer will encourage you to “bridge” as smoothly as possible to more friendly terrain, but sometimes this just will not do; it would be too blunt, too damaging, too obvious that you are refusing to answer.

If a minister is asked, in the context of rumours of petrol shortages, whether the public should panic about ensuring regular supplies, neither Yes nor No will do. In many parts of the world, the sound of a minister saying “there is no need to panic” will send cynical motorists rushing to fill up their cars before the pumps run dry. And if there wasn’t a shortage before, there certainly will be now.

“Do you have full confidence in Mr X?” can be just as bad. The sound of some prime minister, chief executive or team coach saying that they have full confidence in Mr X immediately raises doubts – you don’t have to be an arch-cynic to think there must be some reason why he might not have full confidence or he wouldn’t be saying he did. And Mr X’s position is promptly undermined.

Sometimes a Yes answer will offend half your listeners, and a No answer the other half. As in “Do you support the Israeli government’s security policy?”.  You simply may not be able to afford to answer either way.

The solution, and it is far from being either simple or straightforward, is to ignore the actual wording of the question, but to address the issue in your own words. “There is no reason for motorists to behave in any way but normally.” “The government/executive/team is functioning efficiently and effectively towards our goals of….” “We support both Israel’s right to defend itself and the Palestinians’ right to their own state within secure borders.” And then straight on to what you want to say.

Whether you will get away with it is another matter and will depend on the interviewer and the style and tone of the programme or media organisation.

It is normally best to avoid openly challenging the question in tricky cases as this draws attention to it. It is also likely to rile the journalist who may be tempted to defend it and become more stubborn in demanding an answer. But if necessary you may have to.

The best option is “I would put it this way…”. If that doesn’t work, try “We don’t see the question like that, we see it as…”.  Tougher is “Let me phrase the question in a different way…” or “It’s not a matter of X versus Y, it’s a question of …”.  The nuclear option is along the lines of “I cannot accept your formulation. The reality is …” which is more combative and unlikely to end there.

Straight demands to answer “Yes” or “No” are simpler. Just respond to the questioner: “Have you stopped beating your wife/cheating on your husband, yes or no?”

That should shut them up.

Oliver Wates, MediaTrain consultant

Sound Bites – the Art of Memorable Précis

Sound bites get a bad press. Politicians are often accused of “talking in sound bites” instead of giving clear and honest answers.

So what is this animal?:

Wikipedia says: A sound bite is a short clip of speech or music extracted from a longer piece of audio. It is often used to promote or exemplify the full length piece. Before the actual term “sound bite” had been coined, Mark Twain described the concept as “a minimum of sound to a maximum of sense.” It is characterised by a short phrase or sentence that deftly captures the essence of what the speaker is trying to say. Such key moments in dialogue (or monologue) stand out more strongly in the audience’s memory and thus become the best “taste” of the larger message or conversation.

In essence a sound bite is a deft bit of précis that stays in the memory and illustrates a much more complex subject without getting bogged down in long chains of words.

This is not to be confused with a cliché. Wikipedia: A cliche or cliché is an expression, idea, or element of an artistic work which has been overused to the point of losing its original meaning or effect, especially when at some earlier time it was considered meaningful or novel. In phraseology, the term has taken on a more technical meaning, referring to any expression imposed by conventionalised linguistic usage. The term is frequently used in modern culture for an action or idea which is expected or predictable, based on a prior event.

MediaTrain works with its clients to craft sound bites that convey meaning memorably and can change minds, attitudes or perceptions. Properly handled, they are the “message” distilled to its essence. And they do not sound rehearsed or borrowed or routine, as clichés do.

Here’s an example that illustrates the difference. President Barack Obama might have said, in reference to the killing of Afghan civilians by a U.S. soldier:

“We deeply regret the loss of life. We will leave no stone unturned in our investigation.”

This is what he actually said and it’s a couple of sound bites so powerful that they were used by the media the world over within minutes:

“The United States takes this as seriously as if it was our own citizens, and our children, who were murdered. We’re heartbroken over the loss of innocent life,” Obama said.

“I’ve directed the Pentagon to make sure that we spare no effort in conducting a full investigation. We will follow the facts wherever they lead us and we will make sure that anybody who is involved is held fully accountable with the full force of the law.”

“Heartbroken”, in the context of a sentence saying the United States feels Afghan grief as deeply as it would the loss of its own children, is a powerful word little-used by politicians, that elevates an expression of regret from a formality into the real world of feelings.

“Follow the facts wherever they lead us” is an ingenious and memorable way of saying there will be no cover up.

And no cliché in either sentence.

Avoid clichés like the plague.

Andy Hill, MediaTrain

The Whole World’s Watching

Back in 1968 at the Democratic Party Convention, the Chicago police gained widespread infamy by wading with unnecessary and gratuitous brutality into a crowd of radical demonstrators outside the conference centre, under the gaze of the tv cameras. A recording of the crowd’s chants of “The Whole World’s Watching” was soon used on an album of the much under-rated rock band Chicago.

Of course the whole world wasn’t watching. Quite a few people in the United States and western Europe were, but most of the world saw nothing at all, or a carefully edited version to suit the political motives of their authoritarian governments.

Nowadays, the internet has brought the concept of a truly global campaign much closer.  Every day more and more people gain access to the internet and, filtering by Chinese and other governments notwithstanding, they have more and more freedom to roam at will and watch what takes their fancy.

Which is another way of saying that more and more people are exposed to the slick marketing campaigns of clever activists.  And none has been more successful than Kony 2012, a 30-minute video fronted by Californian Jason Russell about a brutal rebel movement in East and Central Africa.

Seventy million people – more than one percent of the world’s population – supposedly watched the video, or part of it, in the first week as it went “viral” on YouTube.  In 30 minutes it did what billions of dollars, two armies, US military advisers, several books, the churches, a phalanx of NGOs and several governments had failed to do – to turn rebel leader Joseph Kony into a global hate figure.

Leaving aside the question of whether problems like this rebellion are really solvable by an outbreak of worldwide enthusiasm, the success of the video has exposed some of the difficulties of campaigns of this type. The film is undoubtedly slick: beautifully shot and edited, tight headshots, short soundbites, it has all the panache and brilliance of California media at its best.

But not everyone will feel that the cutesie footage of Russell’s adorable blonde young son is the best way to publicise atrocities in the heart of Africa, or that wristbands and posters do justice to the tribal and social complexities.

So while the video’s viewing numbers are huge, it has also attracted a veritable gale of criticism.  It has been called naïve, misleading and patronising;  commentators and a kaleidoscope of activist organisations have queued up to pick holes in it.

The campaign is aimed overwhelmingly at the US government, pushing it to intervene more forcefully to bring Kony, to justice. And that is where the problem lies.  If it were only distributed in California, it would probably chime with the local culture.  It is hip, populist and empowering.

But the internet knows no boundaries and campaigning is done differently in different parts of the world; California-style activism can have a negative effect elsewhere, however well-intentioned.  It is a lesson for all communicators: the internet is global, not local; your messages need to be too.

Oliver Wates, MediaTrain consultant

Writing Press Releases that have Impact

At a recent MediaTrain workshop in Manila, participants discussed and practised how to write Press Releases that have impact. One of the examples they worked on is below, an Oxfam/Save the Children press release about the East African drought.

We all agreed that the closer a Press Release comes to looking and sounding like a news story, the better chance it stands of being used and making impact.

We agreed a basic framework for a Press Release that included a snappy headline, attention-grabbing introductory first para of no more than 35 words, and a quote, preferably a telling one, in the second or third paragraph.

Look at the Guardian story in the link below to see how the Press Release intro gets replicated, almost, in the newspaper story.

But look also at the quotes by Barbara Stocking and Justin Forsyth in the fifth and sixth paragraphs of the release, and ask yourself: how much more impact would this have made if the quotes, which have drama and controversy, were in the second or third paragraph?

And how much more impact would these statements have made on the Guardian writer if they had been presented a little closer to the headline which they support and illustrate? In the newspaper story they are consigned to the 11^th paragraph, way too low down the story to make the impact they deserve. 

Headline, intro, quote: the Manila workshop participants agreed, that was the way to make a splash.

                                                      .   .   .   .   .

Thousands of lives and millions of pounds lost due to late response to food crisis in East Africa

January 18th, 2012 at 12.34 am.

Lessons learnt can help prevent future disasters and save lives

Thousands of needless deaths occurred and millions of extra pounds were spent because the international community failed to take decisive action on early warnings of a hunger crisis in East Africa, according to a new report by the international aid agencies Oxfam and Save the Children.

The report, A Dangerous Delay, says a culture of risk aversion caused a six month delay in the large-scale aid effort because humanitarian agencies and national governments were too slow to scale up their response to the crisis, and many donors wanted proof of a humanitarian catastrophe before acting to prevent one.

Sophisticated early warning systems first forecast a likely emergency as early as August 2010 but the full-scale response was not launched until July 2011 when malnutrition rates in parts of the region had gone far beyond the emergency threshold and there was high profile media coverage of the crisis.

Save the Children and Oxfam say more funding for food emergencies should be sought and released as soon as the crisis signs are clear, rather than the current system which funds large-scale emergency work only when hunger levels have reached tipping-point – by this time lives have already been lost and the cost of the response is much greater. The agencies are calling on governments to overhaul their response to food crises, as laid out in the Charter to End Extreme Hunger, a document that has already received backing from key international figures.

“We all bear responsibility for this dangerous delay that cost lives in East Africa and need to learn the lessons of the late response,” said Oxfam’s Chief Executive, Barbara Stocking. “It’s shocking that the poorest people are still bearing the brunt of a failure to respond swiftly and decisively. We know that acting early saves lives but collective risk aversion meant aid agencies were reluctant to spend money until they were certain there was a crisis.”

“We can no longer allow this grotesque situation to continue; where the world knows an emergency is coming but ignores it until confronted with TV pictures of desperately malnourished children.” said Save the Children’s Chief Executive, Justin Forsyth. “The warning signs were clear and with more money when it really mattered, the suffering of thousands of children would have been avoided. All governments should sign the Charter to End Extreme Hunger to help ensure a crisis like this can never happen again.” 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/18/east-africa-drought-disaster-report?INTCMP=SRCH

Andy Hill, MediaTrain

Interested Parties

Where does “the public interest” end and “what the public is interested in” begin?

Journalists from Britain’s now defunct News of the World used fake identities and a string of lies to expose three Pakistani cricketers for taking bribes to make deliberate mistakes in international matches. The end here certainly justified the means and exposure of the three was definitely “in the public interest”.

But it is hard to argue that it is in the interest of anyone for the public to know that Manchester United footballer Ryan Giggs – who earns his living kicking a ball around, not showcasing his perfect family life – once had an extra-marital fling. “Interesting”, perhaps, but it does nothing to improve our material well-being.

All this makes the ongoing Leveson inquiry into the skullduggery of the British tabloid press fascinating theatre for students of the media and media ethics.

At one extreme some admittedly self-interested tabloid grandees have been stretching “the public interest” argument; they claim we have a right to know about the financial affairs,  health, leisure pursuits and above all the sex lives of anyone who makes a living out of “being in the public eye”. That elastic category includes anyone in politics, religion, professional sport, the entertainment industry and, of course, the royal family.

Not many newspaper readers would go that far, however much we might enjoy the tittle-tattle. But nor would we accept the argument at the other extreme that – lawbreaking apart – anyone should have an automatic veto over which areas of their private life the tabloids can report.

Then there are the grey areas. If a singer allows a magazine to photograph her wedding, does that entitle tabloids to photograph her dancing in a nightclub three months later with someone else? If a sportsman gasps out his delight to a tv camera after crossing the finishing line, does that give any journalist the right to investigate his personal investments?

Few would deny that a free press is needed to keep our rulers honest, and as things stand, that means allowing journalists – even annoyingly self-important and hypocritical journalists – to decide what is in “the public interest”.

And whatever Leveson concludes, that situation is unlikely to change significantly. The alternative, some new form of legal restraint of the press, raises too many spectres of censorship and totalitarianism for the British political establishment.

Equally significant is that, while politicians huff and puff at actual law-breaking by journalists, too many of them have benefited from the tabloid press’s relentlessly populist agenda and will hope to go on doing so.  So expect a lot of noise about a more responsible and well-behaved press. Followed, after a pause, by business as usual.

Advice to potential targets: keep your trousers on and hire a media consultant.

Oliver Wates, MediaTrain consultant