Griffin Strategies Blog

Remember when Americans got their news from the morning paper, a crackling radio report, or Walter Cronkite’s familiar face on the TV set? Back then, Americans got most of their information straight from the mouths of the well-respected news media.

Fast forward a few decades.  How do you get your information?  Are you more likely to get the scoop from a newspaper or the nightly news, or do you hear it hours earlier from someone’s post on Facebook or Twitter?

For a growing number of Americans, the answer is the latter. 

The world of communication is changing rapidly, thrusting credit union marketing and PR professionals into a quandary: do we keep reaching out to people in the traditional ways or do we move to an entirely new approach?

The answer? Both.

More Americans rely on digital news sources

According to a 2010 Pew survey, sixty-one percent of Americans seek out news online, and three-quarters said they get news forwarded via email or posts on social network sites.

Meanwhile, a 2010 Gallup poll found that only one in four Americans said they have “a lot of confidence” in the mainstream media.    

Perhaps most compelling us communicators, 37 percent of the Pew respondents said they themselves have reported news, commented on an online story or shared stories on social media sites.

The news experience has changed from a one-way delivery of information by journalists to an increasingly interactive information-sharing experience.  In other words, your members don’t want to be talked “to,” they want to be talked “with.”

Or at least most of your members.

The Communicator’s Quandary: Part I

With limited resources of both time and money, is it possible to strike a balance between traditional media and new media?

Absolutely.

Though traditional outlets are losing ground to social media news delivery, Pew did find something very compelling.  Some 80 percent of all social media links originate with traditional media sources.  Journalists continue to serve as the backbone of news, which means they cannot and should not be ignored. 

Credit unions must continue to pursue traditional media to help tell your compelling story about the first-generation college student helped by the credit union’s financial literacy program because it is likely to spread far beyond the original media outlet where it appeared. 

And of course, you’ll also gain appreciation for the credit union story among all the Texans who still love their favorite news anchors and the feeling of a newspaper in their hands.

The Communicator’s Quandary: Part II   

Interestingly, the Pew study found a significant difference in how news topics gleaned attention in traditional media vs. social media … and even within the social media category itself.

Whereas traditional media invest more time covering politics and government, health and medicine, and the economy, Twitter users tend to post more stories related to technology.  YouTube viewers share a lot of videos about foreign events, while blogs focus on stories that elicit emotion or involve individual or group rights.

In other words, the same news stories did not garner the same amount of attention across the various news channels.

So how do you tell your credit union’s story in all these different media channels?

Tailoring the Story

As credit union communicators, the job of figuring out where and how to tell your story is an art that requires creativity and experimentation:

1. Seek traditional media coverage for your credit union’s story. Remember, the more self-serving your story, the less likely it is to garner coverage. Focus on stories about how your credit union is helping real people, particularly a struggling family or a group of children.
2. Identify bloggers with an interest in consumer or education news. They tend to cover those topics twice as often as traditional media, and you also may gain more traction if you position your story as part of a larger trend.  
3. Talk technology for Twitter. Share news about consumer-friendly tech updates or tips to help people protect themselves from cyber criminals, for example.
4. Turn on the creativity for YouTube.  Show how your credit union serves people from all walks with a “day in the life of a teller” video. Or create a financial literacy video with some of the cute children your team is educating. (Be sure you have the right permissions and security guidelines in place, of course!)
5. Cross-promote your news on Facebook or use it to offer interactive challenges to drive your members to your website or the nearest branch.

In today’s rapidly-changing environment, credit unions have more opportunities to tell their story.  Measure your results and don’t be afraid to experiment. Invest time to identify your target media, tailor your approach and push out your story in tandem among the various media channels to connect the credit union story to those who ought to be members.

Allison Griffin is the president of communications consulting firm, Griffin Strategies, Inc., and a co-founder of SocialRise, a social media strategy and software firm. This article was published recently in LoneStar Perspectives magazine, a publication of the Texas Credit Union League.

This week, National Public Radio fired one of its longtime pundits, News Analyst Juan Williams, proportedly because he uttered a personal opinion while appearing on another network.  Was it justified?  Or was it just that polarizing political undercurrents in the media finally bubbled to the surface?

When I was in journalism school, my professors certainly hammered us on the need for journalists to play the role of neutral observers and mere reporters of the facts.  Journalists, we were taught, are held to a higher standard. 

The public, by and large, shared that idealistic sentiment of the profession.  Of course, it was back when David Brinkley still graced ABC, Paul Harvey's distinctive quips were eagerly awaited by millions of radio listeners each day, and Walter Cronkite's legacy as "the most trusted man in America" still loomed large over the field of journalism.

There is no question that the landscape has changed since that time.  Dramatically.  With the rise of 24-hour cable news programming, news magazine shows, talk radio, and of course, the internet and blogosphere, the definition of "journalist" has become blurry.

Today, even as many journalists strive to uphold the traditional standards of their profession, their reliable reporting is drowned out by the plethora of "news" shows hosted by stand-up-comedians-turned-sardonic-commentators, former politicians/philanderers-turned-pundits, and paparazzi gossip reporters. Add to that the thousands of bloggers whose opinionated diatribes are being cross-polinated with straight journalism, and the media world is increasingly confusing.

Which brings me back to the firing of Juan Williams.  As a news analyst, Williams -- like other analysts and commentators -- for years has offered his opinions about politics, policy and public discourse.  That is in the job description of pundits. 

So what was the real motivation?  Was it because of what Williams opined -- the very politically-incorrect admission that he sometimes feels nervous on an airplane when he sees a Muslim in full traditional garb?  Or was it because of where he opined -- on the Fox News Channel?

Regardless of the motivation, the decision by the taxpayer-supported NPR to suddenly hold one journalist to some "higher standard" may achieve the opposite effect, instead serving to further polarize the public and add to their growing distrust of the media. 

As a public relations consultant, I sometimes face an internal struggle between my professional need to scour all types of media coverage and my personal need to shield myself from what can seem like a never-ending stream of bad news.

 

With 2010 rapidly approaching, it has been interesting to read the myriad predictions about business, the economy and public policy (not to mention public health, public education, and public menaces). Though reporters relay glum predictions about prospects for the coming year, I choose not to participate in the pessimism.

 

Nope.  For me, at least, the new year is going to be better.  Here’s why:

1)      Lessons learned.  After several years of smooth sailing, I – like many people – admittedly got a little too comfortable.  While comfort is nice, it can trick us into growing complacent and taking good times for granted.  If nothing else, I know 2009 has provided an injection of reality and a dose of humility that surely will benefit my long-term health and well being.

2)      Priorities intact.  Another risk of comfort and complacency is to lose sight of what’s important.  While other sources of “security” may fall short, my real priorities – family, friends and faith – remain intact.

3)      Ambition restored.  Success can make us soft, while tough times can restore the grit that made us successful in the first place.  I am starting 2010 with a renewed sense of ambition about the prospects that lie ahead.  I’m prepared, focused and energized to make it a great year, for my clients, my business, my family and friends.

 

Pessimism for 2010?  Bah humbug.  Choose not to participate.

Today, as I watched big fluffy snowflakes falling from the skies over Dallas, I thought about global warming and the flurry of fallacies surrounding it.

 

The recent revelation of manipulation and cover-ups by some of the scientists most responsible for fanning the global warming flames raises serious questions about a theory that has been widely accepted by the media and some government leaders as “truth.”

 

The discovery of deceitful internal emails, coupled with the deletion of data upon which global warming “truths” are based, is quite inconvenient, particularly for those pushing sweeping and punitive “Cap and Trade” environmental legislation on Capitol Hill.

 

That legislation is on the fast track, in spite of questions about hundreds of new federal regulations and mandates it would spawn and their effect on the nation’s weak economy.  Critics say the new government burdens will raise energy prices for consumers, hurt home and car sales, and send the last remaining America-based energy companies -- and all those jobs they provide – overseas.

 

If these economic concerns aren’t enough to give pause to the politicians in Washington, will this revelation of environmental evidence tampering make them think twice?

 

Even amid the flurry of fallacies, I fear the truth is too inconvenient to derail a done deal.

 

It’s a chilling thought.

A friend of mine recently wrote a book that has me thinking.  Thinking HUGE, actually.

 

Mark Arnold, senior vice president at a Dallas-based credit union, released the book Think Huge to share inspirational stories and motivate people to succeed in business and personal life.

 

The response has been very positive, with invitations for Mark to speak to groups around the nation about his book.  My own positive response has been surprising, because I’m admittedly skeptical about all the theoretical self-help and “get rich quick” books that line the shelves at bookstores. 

 

In Think Huge, Mark has figured out a way to blend the theoretical with well-researched, real-life success stories.  And he offers tangible action steps that people can latch onto.   

 

The book, which began as a memo to his staff, is built around several characteristics shared by the successful people he’s studied:

 

Vision: knowing where you want to go and how to bring your ideas to life

People: involving and surrounding yourself with the right people

Passion: finding and doing something you love

Time: committing your limited time to what’s important

Perseverance: staying the course even when obstacles threaten your dream

Learning: continuing to seek knowledge and life-long education

 

I can’t help but think about these areas of focus when I think about people who are truly successful, and of course, my own shortcomings. 

The ‘Think Huge’ ideas have made a noticeable difference in my mindset these last few weeks, for which I am grateful. 

When I was traveling earlier this month, I gave my copy to the cab driver who had told me about his struggles to build a new life for his children after the recent death of his wife.  He has moved to a new community with strong public schools, begun classes at the local community college, and taken a second job (driving a cab) to create a good life.  Just before handing him my book, I commended him for his vision and perseverance.  For his commitment to his family, faith and lifelong learning.  For ‘Thinking Huge.’

Makes you cringe, doesn’t it?

Imagine if someone had broadcast some of the off-hand comments you’ve made to a close friend or colleague over the years. Yikes. Fortunately for you, the mic wasn’t on.

Unfortunately for some very high-profile people lately, the microphone was on and their comments were broadcast loud and clear across the nation, making millions of us cringe. (Think: California Assemblyman Mike Duvall. Former Obama Administration official Van Jones. Congressman Joe Wilson. Kanye West – though he actually grabbed the mic on purpose.)

Whether out of arrogance or sheer stupidity, public figures – particularly politicians –seem to have forgotten some important cardinal rules of public life: “Someone is always listening.” And, “If your grandmother would gasp, you probably shouldn’t say it.” It’s a point I drive home with clients, especially the high-profile ones.

But this PR advice isn’t reserved for the famous and powerful. Even people who aren’t in public life should take these cardinal rules of communication to heart.

Think about the inquisitive ears of children and the things they’ll repeat on the playground.

Think of your colleague who may secretly deplore the casual way you talk about your intimate life.

Think about the inappropriate email you sent and where it got forwarded (with your name still attached).

Or think of that risqué photo your teenager texted to her boyfriend that somehow ended up all over the school and Internet. (BIG cringe.)

In the words of Lyle Lovett, “I realize there are things you say and do that you can never take back.” Yep. Once it’s out there, it’s out there.

When it comes to communication -- whether verbal, written or electronic -- use your brain. Don’t create a public relations crisis for yourself. If the words or images would make your grandmother cringe, refrain from saying or sending it. And ALWAYS ASSUME THE MIC IS ON.

This week, Brett Favre shocked and amazed the sports world by announcing his un-retirement from football. Again.

Obviously, I’m being facetious. He did shock and amaze the sports world the first time he un-retired. This time, it fanned a series of searing stories focused on his credibility gap.

Favre, best known as the longtime quarterback for the Green Bay Packers, has enjoyed an immensely successful career in professional football, building a reputation both on and off the field as a man of character.
Unfortunately, his retirement-related flip-flops from the past few years put all that at risk.

It should come as no surprise that the media is gleefully covering the fact that Favre has contradicted himself. Reporters always cover contradictions or untruths. And they rarely cover it the way the person in question would have liked.

It offers every one of us a valuable lesson. Not matter what role you play in life, it’s important to say what you mean and mean what you say. And only talk about what you actually know.

Clearly, life’s situations change and none of us can predict the future with any certainty. But we can control how we portray our plans and our decisions.

In Brett Favre’s case, when he unequivocally told reporters in February that his retirement was for good this time, he boxed himself in. He could have said, “At this moment, I do not see myself returning to football” to reduce the future credibility gap should he change his mind. Unfortunately, he left himself open to charges of flip-flopping. Again.

In my PR 101 course, I recommend avoiding words like “Never” or “Always.” Do not fall into the trap of predicting the future or speculating about what lies ahead, a favorite tactic of reporters. Instead, talk about the current situation as you know it. Period. Smart decisions now will help you avoid falling into the credibility gap in the future.

I’m sure you’ve seen it by now. The You Tube footage of Larry King Live from Neverland Ranch. Somehow, my 9-year-old son heard that Michael Jackson’s ghost was in the background of a shot of Michael’s old bedroom at The Ranch. Like more than 8 million other people, my son and I drained the battery on my iPhone as we watched the shadowy specter of Michael Jackson again and again on You Tube.

You Tube, in fact, was dominated by all things Michael Jackson, with at least 11 of today’s top 15 favorite videos related to the King of Pop’s life … or death. And that was just for people who weren’t already getting enough through the wall-to-wall coverage by the cable news channels, live network broadcasts and Yahoo! News.

Forgive my insensitivity, but what happened to the real news? You know, news about sweeping new food safety regulations announced this week by the FDA? Stories about the unfortunate plunge in new home sales? Updates about Iran’s leader crushing his detractors?

Though those real news items received coverage, it was scant compared to the media’s attention to the Michael Jackson spectacle. According to the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, Michael Jackson dominated 17% of the overall news hole, with the economy ranking second at 10%. Interestingly, Michael Jackson was mentioned in the news about three times more often than President Barack Obama between June 29 and July 5.

As a PR professional who’s made a career out of working with the media, it raises some troubling questions. Do you have to create a spectacle to garner the media’s attention? Does real news warrant attention anymore? In spite of the jump in 24-hour television and online coverage, I’ve discovered in the past few years that it is becoming increasingly difficult to pitch news stories. Newspapers have let go of longtime beat reporters who had spent years developing their expertise and sources to get good stories. Fewer and fewer radio stations have locally-based news teams and talk show hosts. Television stations seem to spend far more time on crime blotter reports and stories about the quasi-celebrities on their network’s reality show, than they do on issues people care about. Or that people ought to care about.

That’s really what it boils down to.

Media have changed, but are they to blame? Or are we, as the consumers of information, at fault? Given the nearly 4 million You Tube views of ABC News’ Michael Jackson Memorial Service coverage, I think the answer is clear.

Celebrities, whether living or dead, are far more interesting than real news.

I suppose that next time one of my clients wants to make a major policy or business announcement, I can hire Britney Spears or Chastity Bono to be our spokesmodel. Can’t be sure either would stay on message, but at least the spectacle would bring out the media, as I quietly mourn the specter of real news.

Do you Tweet?  Are you Linked In with everyone you've ever met?  Do you have 200 BFFs on Facebook?

If you are like a rapidly-increasing number of Americans, your answer is probably yes.

According to a new nationwide survey* I read about last week, some 43% of online households use social media sites, including Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and Twitter (listed in order of popularity).  This is up from 27% just a year ago.  That's a staggering 60% jump in only 12 months' time!
 
And they tend to be regular users, with more than half logging in every day and usually several times a day.  Though we might assume that the vast majority of social networkers are under 35, the number of networkers over age 55 has tripled in the past year to 19%.  Yes, I've actually started receiving Facebook invitations from my parents' friends.
 
Besides using the social media sites to connect with old friends and classmates, the survey respondents said they would like more access and interaction with favorite companies and service providers through their social networks.
 
Yes, you heard that right.  Social networkers WANT to interact with favorite companies and service providers.
 
Which is why Griffin Strategies, Inc. is ramping up the use of social media tactics as part of a broader marketing or grassroots communications plan for our clients.  If handled right, social media provide an extremely valuable and cost-effective avenue for getting out your message to a wider audience.   If you haven't yet explored social media, now is the time to get connected, linked and followed! 

*The survey of 10,000 U.S.households was conducted by The Conference Board, a global membership and research association, in partnership with TNS, a global market insight and information group. 

This week, I began a three week crash course in global commerce and international trade law.

Not as a student, but as the teacher.

As a fourth-year Junior Achievement volunteer, I’ve been privileged to teach basic economic principles to kids from Kindergarten to third grade. It’s fun. And relatively simple.

But when they asked me to step up and teach sixth graders – many of whom are taller than I am – about international matters, I felt stress. Even a little queasiness.

The lessons and materials provided by Junior Achievement were terrific. We did a “treasure hunt” throughout the classroom to find out the countries of origin for many of the products the kids use every day. It was a great teaching opportunity for a business-minded public relations professional.

But when the discussion moved to international trade and the laws that govern it, I saw an even greater opportunity. The opportunity to relate these concepts to some of today’s real-life trade policy debates.

As we discussed some of the glossary words – tariffs, quotas, standards, sanctions and embargoes – I couldn’t help but seize the opportunity to point to recent headlines to help these kids understand that protectionist trade barriers generally cause more harm than good – even for those they are purportedly protecting.

As an example, I discussed the recent move by Congress to ban Mexico trucks from entering the U.S., even though cross-border transportation was part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) negotiated among the U.S., Mexico and Canada some 15 years ago when I worked in media relations on Capitol Hill.

“Why did our government do it?” I asked the students. I explained to them that some groups in our country had complained Mexican trucks were unsafe and that government leaders felt compelled to do something to address those complaints. (I resisted the urge to tell them the whole story that: a) those complaining were labor unions, who view Mexican truckers as a threat to their jobs and used their political influence with Congressional Democrats to compel bad policy; and b) some studies that compared short-haul Mexican trucks to short-haul U.S. trucks actually found the Mexican trucks to be safer.)

“What do you think happened after that?" I asked next.

“I’ll bet Mexico was mad and used a trade barrier to get back at us,” responded one wise girl. Yes, even the 12-year-olds recognize that every action has a reaction – usually more punitive than the initial one. I explained to them that in response to what they viewed as a violation of our mutual free trade agreement, Mexican leaders did in fact impose steep tariffs on some 90 products the U.S. exports to Mexico, including all kinds of produce grown by farmers across the nation and grapes grown mostly in California. (Again, I resisted the temptation to point out to these innocent young minds that Mexico’s tariffs on grapes and wine were a clear shot at Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who hails from California.)

“So do you think the trade barrier that our nation imposed on Mexico did more to help our country, or hurt it?” I asked.

“Hurt it!” was the overwhelming response from students, who understand that one protectionist act to shelter one special interest group can lead to a retaliatory protectionist reaction that winds up hurting a lot more people.

Hmm. Maybe it’s time to send some workbooks and stickers to Capitol Hill so our elected officials can get their own crash course on how global commerce and international trade really works.