Tag: PR

Leadership In Crisis: The Crowdstrike PR Response

Posted on by Dorothy Crenshaw

In the high-stakes cybersecurity sector, even the most robust systems can experience sudden disruptions — often with serious, but temporary PR implications for the companies involved. But few expected that a routine update at Crowdstrike, a leader in endpoint security, could provoke the disaster that resulted last Friday. The Windows OS crash triggered by the faulty update disrupted airline reservation systems, financial institutions, and even hospital care. It was then up to Crowdstrike CEO George Kurtz to respond to the crisis.

Swift acknowledgment and ownership of the crisis is key

Crowdstrike’s response came as a status post on X.  The post identified the problem, making it clear that it was not the result of a cyberattack or security breach. It referred customers to a support portal for updates and assured them that Crowdstrike was mobilized to ensure “security and stability” for customers. In my view, it was a swift, effective, and relatively transparent first step in engaging with key customers.

Many criticized Kurtz harshly for the lack of apology after the incident. But in the moments after such an outage, customers aren’t looking for an apology. They’re looking for the fix. And while that’s happening, they need to know what’s behind the incident (and what’s not behind it) and, most of all, what to do. Those boxes were checked.

Language matters

Fast acknowledgment is critical in crisis management, as it helps to mitigate speculation and rumors, giving key stakeholders a clear account of the situation. So is language. Words and phrases must be chosen with utmost thoughtfulness, even under pressure. Within hours of the outage, Kurtz took to multiple media platforms, acknowledging the incident and expressing regret for… “the inconvenience.”

Now, “inconvenience” is a terrible word. It’s what the recording says when you’re on hold with the pharmacy, or what the airlines say when the flight is delayed. It’s not what you say after your technology strands thousands of travelers and potentially places surgical patients at risk. To his credit, Kurtz seemed to realize this and quickly began using words like “disruption” and “impact.”

Overall, Kurtz handled his media interviews with calm (notwithstanding the distraction of his exquisitely gelled hairstyle.) He used accessible language rather than tech jargon. He took responsibility. In broadcast engagements he provided a reasonably detailed explanation of what went wrong while managing to highlight the complexities involved in managing large-scale cybersecurity systems.

An apology takes sincerity and accountability

The Crowdstrike apology was late, but it did come, and with a reasonable degree of accountability. My motto when it comes to the perfect public apology is this — explain, but don’t excuse. Accountability is essential to win public approval, but it can be very tricky in a crisis situation that exposes a business to legal liability.

To his credit, after the initial statement, Kurtz took a flurry of media interviews where he told a national TV audience that Crowdstrike was “deeply sorry for the impact that we’ve caused to customers, to travelers, to anyone affected by this, including our company.” His Chief Security Officer Shawn Henry went even further. “On Friday, we failed you, and for that I’m deeply sorry,” Henry said Monday in a LinkedIn post. Both seemed to have internalize another key maxim of the public apology, which is to focus on those harmed. It’s not about you.

A customer-focused approach helps

That customer-focused approach was the strongest aspect of Crowdstrike’s response. Kurtz and Henry reassured customers that their security and operational continuity were top priorities, announcing that all necessary resources were mobilzed to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. This type of outreach doesn’t ensure forgiveness, but it does let the most important audience segment know that the top guy is on the case and will not relent until it’s fixed.

Prevention matters after the fact

A key element in any crisis recovery, especially a situation that brings harm, is future prevention. Here, Crowdstrike has pledged to include additional validation checks and a stronger error handling mechanism to make sure errors from problematic content are “managed gracefully.” These and other steps will be intensely scrutinized, of course, but a proactive stance is the only way to regain customer trust and manage subsequent investigations.

Crowdstrike’s not out of the woods

Crowdstrike’s stock plummeted by 35% in value since the outage. And Kurtz is likely to be called to testify in front of Congress as it investigates the debacle and its ramifications. So, its potential rebound is just beginning, and there are many obstacles to a full recovery. But as Kurtz has seen, a serious crisis can be an opportunity to show how effective leadership can turn a terrible event into an opportunity for growth and trust-building. Watch this space.

No, DEI Isn’t Dead. But No One Wants To Talk About It.

Posted on by Dorothy Crenshaw

Much of the recent news surrounding Diversity, Equity and Inclusion of late is negative. DEI programs have been banned in states like Texas, and the backlash hasn’t stopped there. Axios reports that businesses have “backed away from DEI programs over the past two years in the wake of widespread attacks from lawmakers, high-profile rich guys and conservative activists.” 

NPR, which ramped up diversity efforts to combat Covid-era viewership decline, is facing a double-whammy of stagnant business results and criticism over its own DEI moves. Chief Diversity Officer, once one of the hottest job titles, is today more likely a ticket to early burnout, according to a recent Harvard Business Review piece.

Diversity isn’t dead; but it may be hiding

So it was refreshing to see the results of a new study conducted by Chief, the private executive network for women, showing that fully 80% of C-suite executives remain committed to DEI initiatives and will continue to invest in them. Only 20 percent of the 600 leaders surveyed said they plan to cut back on DEI in 2024. Most strikingly, 44 percent say they plan to increase existing DEI initiatives or create new ones. Forty percent view understanding and promoting diversity and inclusion as among the most important leadership attributes for those in their position.

They just don’t want to talk about it.

Many C-suite leaders fear backlash in 2024

That’s right, what might interest PR and communications execs is that, while the majority of C-level leaders are committed to diversity and inclusion, they fear that a public stand on potentially divisive issues poses more risk than staying quiet. In an age where the country’s best-selling beer can see its market leadership evaporate over an influencer promotion, it’s hard to stick your neck out. So, corporate leaders are now less likely to use acronyms like DEI, or, heaven forbid, ESG. Some corporate programs targeted to Black communities or women have changed their language to ward off anti-DEI litigation. It’s hard to know if these are merely “lawyerly tweaks” or something more substantive.

A cause for quiet optimism?

It’s a mixed bag for sure. On the one hand, it’s discouraging that business leaders feel they need to hold back or risk criticism. But I choose to look at the Chief study more optimistically. The commitment at the top is the most important thing; the PR is secondary. As Cinnamon Clark of Goodwork Sustainability, a DEI consulting firm, said, “Companies are really starting to look at other ways to do the work without saying that they’re doing the work.”

Diversity isn’t going away. The U.S. in particular is diversifying rapidly, and rising generations have high expectations for inclusion and social purpose. With so much performative purpose-driven rhetoric in corporate communications, I’m hopeful that C-level leaders are resolving to focus on less talk and more action – in the form of real, measurable diversity initiatives that go beyond press releases and annual reports.

How To Take Control Of A Media Interview

Posted on by Dorothy Crenshaw

The headlines, social posts and PR takes were fascinating.

“Guyana president blasts journalist when discussing country’s oil reserves”

“Stop Lecturing Me’: Indian-Origin Guyana Pres. Shuts Down BBC Journalist, Exposes West’s Hypocrisy”

“BBC journalist humbled by Guyana’s president…”

Last week international communications expert (and my friend) Bob Pickard posted an extraordinary”train wreck” excerpt of an exchange between Guyanese President Irfaan Ali and Stephen Sackur of BBC World News. Mr. Sackur interviewed Mr. Ali about his country’s vast oil reserves and their impact on both the country and the climate. The full exchange is well worth a look, but the two-minute portion that has gone viral is a must-watch example of how to turn the tables in an adversarial media interview.

The excerpted video has special significance given its geopolitical context. Historically, Guyana has been a net importer of oil whose citizens mostly live below the poverty line. But the discovery of huge reserves of high-quality, oil-bearing sandstone off its coast may transform the former British colony into one of the richest countries on the globe. There will be $150 billion worth of oil and gas extracted from its waters, which will create enormous wealth, and in doing so, release a huge amount of carbon emissions.

How to push back – from the start

The social takes were one thing, but the full interview between the two men is far more nuanced. The BBC’s Sackur puts President Ali on the defensive when he points out that his country may have lost as much as $55 billion in potential revenue by giving away too much to large international petroleum companies. There’s also an ugly border dispute with Venezuela, which has tried to lay claim to some of the oil profits, to which President Ali has no real answers.

But Ali uses some time-honored PR techniques to turn things in his favor. The situation offers real learnings for PR and communications professionals, especially those who specialize in media training.

Lead with your strongest moments

This one’s obvious, but its success in this case is absolutely stunning. The great majority of those aware of President Ali’s interview will only have seen the two-minute clip that circulated on social media. In the attention age, the sound bites and short clips will always get the most attention. There’s no time for lengthy analyses or room for subtle distinctions. Like any political leader, Ali surely knows this, and he knows how to take advantage of it. The viral clip was irresistible to mainstream media and opinion leaders precisely because of the historical, racial, and geopolitical undercurrents.

Challenge the negative premise

A skilled respondent is prepared to challenge a question whose underlying assumption contradicts his message. As Sackur leads into a query about the climate impact of Guyana’s oil extraction plan, President Ali pushes back – literally. He holds up his hand in the “halt” gesture. He raises his voice and says, “Let me stop you right there.” The two men then talk over one another for a few seconds, but Ali does not give ground. He makes it clear that he does not accept Sackur’s premise and begins to turn the discussion around by recounting the reasons in a single uninterrupted flow.

Insist on having your say

In the age of cable news, interrupting the host or interviewer can be a tricky proposition. Many discussions devolve into an on-air argument where both parties look like squabbling children. In this case, President Ali is successful because he refuses to be interrupted and appears well prepared with facts, statistics, and an audible degree of righteous indignation. He does not shout, but the emotion in his voice lends weight and dignity to his argument. Sackur, to his credit, holds his own and presses the zero-emissions issue, but Ali is unrelenting. Sackur’s prepared and informed approach is no match for Ali’s passionate defense of his country’s right to chart its own course and profit from its prized resources.

Reject hypotheticals

When asked about the potential repercussions of Guyana’s oil extraction, Ali counters with facts about the current situation. He is firmly focused on the here and now, not the predictions for 2035 and beyond. He staunchly defends his country’s plan with facts about its biodiversity, low deforestation rate, and responsible stewardship of its resources. Most of all, he goes on the offensive. When it comes to oil extraction and climate impact, he reasons, there’s plenty of blame to go around. Why should Guyana be held responsible when so many affluent countries have failed to follow their own rules?

Take the offensive

The most powerful part of the interview, and the portion that went viral, was Ali’s charge of hypocrisy on the part of Sackur, the BBC, and the West. In a classic DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) pivot, Ali seizes on the colonial history of his country and attacks the BBC, and by proxy, Europe and the developed world. He turns the tables and vehemently responds, “does that give you the right to lecture us on climate change? I am going to lecture you on climate change.”

The world in the last 50 years has lost 65 per cent of all its biodiversity. We have kept our biodiversity, are you valuing it?

Are you ready to pay for it? When is this developed world going to pay for it or are you in the pockets… of those who have damaged the environment? Are you in the pockets… you and your system in the pockets of those who destroyed the environment through the industrial revolution and now lecturing us?

The words are powerful, but the visual image may be even more so. Fair or not, it is one of an older (white) man from a faded colonial power attempting to school the youthful leader of an emerging and diverse nation. It has resulted in enormous positive PR for President Ali as well as mainstream editorials advocating for Caribbean leaders to stand up to the “condescending” West.

The fact is, Guyana’s President Ali faces some tough questions and real challenges. But based on his handling of the BBC interview, you’d never know it.

Kate Middleton And The Palace’s PR Problems

Posted on by Dorothy Crenshaw

PR and Royal-watchers were shocked – and chastened – to learn of Kate Middleton’s cancer diagnosis late last week. In a beautifully simple video message delivered as she sat on a bench against a spring backdrop, the Princess of Wales explained why she’d been out of the public eye. She shared that after tests showed the presence of cancer following her abdominal surgery in January, she was undertaking “preventative chemotherapy” on the advice of her medical team.

The heartfelt video statement instantly quelled the furious conspiracy-mongering that had consumed coverage of the Royal Family – at least for the time being. It also unleashed a wave of support for the Waleses from around the globe. Shortly after the video’s release, Kensington Palace posted a statement thanking the public for its response to her diagnosis and “the understanding of their request for privacy at this time.”

The Princess’s actions contrast with The Firm’s

The Princess clearly has the moral authority in this situation. And her statement was nearly perfect – candid, touching, yet deft, dignified and other-centered. Most moving, she ended the video by encouraging all whose lives are touched by cancer (and whose aren’t?) to not “lose faith or hope. You are not alone.” It was a powerful message of solidarity, and it resonated. The global community has rallied to the side of the Princess, and rightly so.

Yet the interlude was only a pause in the struggle between the Royal Family’s PR operation and the rumors and backlash that have dogged its nearly every move. “The Firm” has unfortunately made many self-inflicted wounds even as many sympathize with its travails.

One problem? The Palace seems to have ignored some simple tenets of PR and communications, as well as the reality of being royal.

Do not expect privacy

The harsh truth about being a member of the Royal Family is that you can’t expect any privacy. And by now, the Palace surely knows that the tabloid press can’t and won’t play fair. This is particularly true a scant 18 months after the death of its longest-reigning monarch, and in the wake of the news that her heir, King Charles, also has cancer.

Kate’s explanation that the family needed time to explain the situation to their children was very understandable — for any other family. It has made her extremely sympathetic as a mother of three. But the delay in explaining the Princess’s condition to the public had repercussions. A more timely disclosure could have prevented a couple of weeks of speculation about everything from extramarital affairs to plastic surgery.

Anticipate scrutiny

The much-discussed photoshopped image of the family that was released for UK Mother’s Day was an unforced error by the Palace. Was it a scandal that the Princess had touched up family images? No, but in this case, it was clumsy and poorly timed. Catherine seemed gracious in taking responsibility for it, but her admission only made things worse. To most observers it seemed that the Palace intended to hide something from the public, stoking existing suspicion. The public, and the press, naturally sensed that something wasn’t being shared, which only fueled more skepticism and fed rumors.

Be proactive, not reactive

The photoshopped image was released on March 10 by the Palace and “killed” by news agencies later that same day due to obvious alterations. The Princess’s apology came the next day, in response to the furor. Yet the full story wasn’t disclosed until March 24. Yes, it takes time to grapple with a public disclosure of personal health news, but two weeks is an unacceptably long time. Again, conspiracies that could have been nipped in the bud instead ran wild.

Consider the bigger picture

Despite the obvious bad faith of much of the British tabloid press, not to mention conspiracists on social media platforms, the Palace must look at the situation for what it is. Two members of the British Royal Family have been diagnosed with cancer. That’s a potential crisis, or at least it signals a period of serious uncertainty about the future.

Social chatter and tabloid culture will always fill a vacuum. This isn’t new, and the Palace surely knows it. What’s more, in uncertain times, people want reassurance. If total reassurance isn’t possible, they need verified information. In other words, when the stakes are high, offer the truth.

PR And SEO: Why They’re Better Together

Posted on by Anna Julow Roolf

As someone who started my career ghostwriting blogs at a PR agency, I’ve long been fascinated by the relationship between PR and search engine optimization (SEO).

While many see PR and SEO as two separate and unrelated disciplines, there are many places where the two overlap. In fact, brands can actually improve SEO with a thoughtful PR program.

What is SEO?

Moz, a leading SEO tool, defines SEO as “practices designed to improve the appearance, positioning, and usefulness of multiple types of content in the organic search results.” In other words, SEO is a technique to increase the likelihood that brand content will rank highly in organic search.

Gareth Cunningham, director of SEO at Mod Op – our parent company – and his team develop SEO strategies that take into account three pillars: technology, content and authority.

Technology – For a website to be successful in terms of SEO, it needs to be search-engine-friendly and technically sound.

Content – To see success with SEO, a brand needs to have focused content that holds relevant search intent.

Authority – The third pillar for SEO success requires authoritative inbound backlinks with a correct internal linking structure.

According to Gareth, PR has an outsized ability to positively impact the authority pillar. As he shared with me recently, “PR validates a lot of what every other [marketing] discipline provides or does. [From an SEO perspective] there are so many off-page strategies that work amazingly well if PR is involved.”

The good and bad of backlinks

In the world of SEO, there are lots of different backlinks, or hyperlinks that point back to a brand’s website. Some backlinks are good – increasing the likelihood a website will rank well in search. Some are bad – causing Google or other search engines to penalize content. The kind of backlinks most likely to be created by PR efforts are known as “editorial links.”

Editorial links are arguably the best kind of backlinks – Google considers them an example of a favorable linking strategy. These links exist on websites other than your brand’s and, as the name implies, are given editorially by other website owners.

As Moz explains, editorial links (especially the kind you don’t have to ask for) are hard to achieve. “Big brands can do it relatively easily, but that’s because they’re a big brand. To use an extreme example, Apple doesn’t have to ask for links when it releases a new iPhone. Journalists, writers, and bloggers will write about it and link to Apple because, well, it’s the iPhone.”

Can PR teams “earn” backlinks?

Many PR teams don’t work for brands like Apple. So if we want someone link back to a brand’s website, we have to give them a good reason. Earned media coverage lends itself well to editorial backlinks, because these articles ideally tell a story. When that earned coverage includes a narrative about a brand, the journalist may choose to link back to that brand’s website to provide more context or access (similar to the iPhone example). When the coverage presents expertise related to an industry, the journalist may opt to link back a resource on a brand’s website. We often generate this kind of backlink through our PR work when we release data from original research.

A word of caution: In PR, links aren’t guaranteed. And reputable PR professionals are wary of asking a journalist for a link unless they absolutely know it will bring the reader value. So, although it may be tempting to follow a PR strategy with the goal of improving SEO, link-building shouldn’t be the sole reason for investing in PR.

Earned media coverage without backlinks

What about earned media coverage without a backlink? Does a great piece of coverage, including target keywords and messaging in a top-tier publication, do anything for SEO?

You might be surprised to learn that earned media coverage without a backlink still benefits SEO.

While it doesn’t substitute for the value of a backlink, earned media coverage that speaks to the specific keywords or larger messaging can help boost the visibility of a brand’s website for those keywords or related terms. As Gareth explains, “the search engine, in their move toward a semantic web, is now more intelligent than we would ever understand and can pick up on these things. A search engine allows specific value for brands that are identified as not manipulating search engine results in any way, shape or form. It will then portion authority and kudos to that piece of work.”

Yes, PR and SEO are two separate disciplines. But when it comes to authority, the overlap is clear. Like other areas of marketing, if you’re implementing both, it might be time to consider breaking down the silos between them and exploring the value they can bring one another.

Why CEO Visibility Still Counts

Posted on by Dorothy Crenshaw

Imagine Facebook without Mark Zuckerberg, or Tesla without Elon Musk. Even thinking about JPMorgan Chase without picturing Jamie Dimon is hard if you follow Chase even casually.

In today’s business and media landscape, the CEO role extends far beyond the traditional confines of boardrooms and executive suites. An analysis of articles written about current Fortune 100 CEOs and their companies shows a strong correlation with those CEOs who are quoted in the press and the position of their organizations.

It’s difficult to separate the cause from the effect here (large and successful companies are media magnets after all), but successful CEOs use various PR strategies and channels to engage with stakeholders, share insights, and shape narratives. The trend toward increased CEO visibility isn’t merely a matter of ego, or personal preference, though it certainly might feed their vanity. But at a corporate level it’s a strategic imperative with real implications for company reputation and even performance.

A visible leader is an engaged leader

Eleanor Hawkins of Axios highlights the growing prominence of CEOs in the Fortune 100, noting their heightened presence across social media platforms and in long-form media interviews. According to Paul Argenti, a professor of corporate communication at Dartmouth College, such visibility can be a critical component of effective strategy execution.

CEOs have a key role as conduits to various stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the press. By proactively engaging with them, business leaders can foster transparency, build trust, and shape perceptions of their companies. In particular, the C-level bully pulpit can be a powerful tool for amplifying corporate messaging and generating buzz around key initiatives.

But what exactly does CEO visibility entail, and why does it matter? An effective approach involves more than just making occasional public appearances or issuing carefully crafted statements. It’s about actively participating in conversations, sharing perspectives, and demonstrating leadership on issues that resonate with stakeholders.

Avoiding pitfalls isn’t that hard

What about the risks? It’s essential to strike the right balance. While being outspoken can garner attention, it also means thoughtful planning and a willingness to take some criticism—especially for leaders representing large brands with diverse customer bases.

Nevertheless, CEO visibility doesn’t have to mean provocative commentary or grandstanding. Instead, it’s about engaging authentically and meaningfully on relevant issues of the day.  The MuckRack analysis of CEO media coverage shows that while political comments or crisis response drove some stories, “most executives were simply weighing in on 2023 industry trends.” Whether it’s commenting on changes, addressing corporate challenges, or championing social causes, CEOs have a unique opportunity to shape narratives and influence perceptions.

Stakeholder engagement and success are correlated

The data speaks for itself. CEOs who embrace visibility and engage actively with stakeholders often enjoy greater corporate visibility and, by extension, enhanced business outcomes. Take Elon Musk, for example, whose prolific presence on social media has helped propel Tesla to the forefront of public awareness. His visibility on X, the social platform where he reigns as the de facto CEO despite lacking the title, by contrast, has not worked well, depending on what you think his goals are. But that’s because his most obvious role on X has been Chief Troll.

Other Fortune 100 CEOs, like Satya Nadella and Bob Iger, have done well by leveraging their visibility to drive corporate narratives and shape public discourse. By commenting on industry trends, sharing insights, and demonstrating thought leadership, they have solidified their positions as influential voices in their sectors.

In essence, CEO visibility isn’t just a vanity metric or a passing trend—it’s a strategic imperative with tangible benefits for companies and their stakeholders. By embracing transparency, authenticity, and proactive communication, CEOs can enhance corporate reputation, drive engagement, and ultimately, achieve sustainable business success. As Argenti puts it, “It’s really a shortcut for an organization to communicate their strategy.” So, to all the CEOs out there: It’s time to step into the spotlight and make your voices heard. Your stakeholders—and your bottom line—will be the better for it.

How To Measure The “Hidden” Value Of PR Work: Contextual Value

Posted on by Sasha Dookhoo

We’re in the middle of the first quarter, which for many PR and marketing teams can mean close budget scrutiny. But unlike marketing, where we can count whitepaper downloads, webinar attendees and inquiries from marketing content, proving the ROI of PR can be a little more obscure.

One of the biggest trends we’re seeing in PR is a focus on the innate value of PR – and not just in meeting KPIs. Numbers are helpful, but it’s the context behind those numbers that should truly make them resonate with brands. There are three simple ways to measure the value of PR this year.

Sentiment and tone make all the difference

We intuitively know if an article or interview is positive, but an analysis of sentiment and tone offers insights into the qualitative impact of PR efforts. This means evaluating whether brand mentions in the media and in social chatter are positive, negative, or neutral, and how this affects public perception. Advanced tools like Muck Rack, Critical Mention and Hootsuite can examine articles and social media posts to provide a sentiment score. The contextual value is higher when the coverage aligns with the organization’s desired image and messaging, even in the face of challenges or crises.

What placement? Where?

PR teams should consider how to evaluate the prestige and relevance of the publication to the brand’s target audience. A placement in a highly-respected, widely-read publication within the client’s industry can have significant contextual value. In some cases, while a Tier 1 win like a Wall Street Journal piece is great for the brand, the Tier 2 media placement in the Retail TouchPoints is the one that drives prospects and customers.

Where a brand appears in an article also affects the value of a placement. A mention at the beginning or within key sections can have more impact than a minor one that’s buried with industry competitors. PR teams should also evaluate whether the brand is featured as a primary subject of the article or merely mentioned in passing. The context in which the brand is discussed – for example, as a solution to a problem or as a market leader – clearly also impacts its value.

Does it reinforce the brand story?

Finally, evaluate how well the brand mention aligns with desired messaging and goals. The contextual value increases if the article communicates or supports specific messages, such as innovation or sustainability, or an origin story that makes the company stand out.

PR analyses should also consider the article’s reach and how likely it is that the desires audiences will see it, of course. This involves assessing the outlet’s circulation, online traffic, and social media sharing potential. High visibility in a context that aligns with the organization’s values and messaging boosts the placement’s relevance and value.

Considering the contextual value of earned media and social content offers a more holistic view of a strategic PR program, including its longer-term impact on brand reputation, awareness and customer retention.

Changing Content Consumption Trends And What They Mean For PR

Posted on by Brian LaRue

The way we consume media – in terms of formats, channels, platforms, and more – is in a state of constant evolution. For PR professionals, it’s not enough to be “on social,” “into video,” or “always on mobile.” PR teams need to note what’s driving trends in content consumption – whether it be convenience, price point, overall user experience, or anything else. Only then can we understand where brand conversations and messages make sense.

In the media business, we talk a lot about how brands can get into those conversations through advertising. But what about PR?  PR and other media professionals think in terms of paid versus earned media – but consumers don’t. They care about media that speaks to their interests. For an imaginative PR team, this opens up new avenues presented by current media consumption trends.

Mobile usage remains strong

Whether it’s earned or paid, more people are reading and viewing content on their mobile devices than ever before. Account Supervisor Alysha Duff expanded on this phenomenon in a recent post. Mobile ecommerce is booming, with 54% of millennial and 55% of GenZ shoppers saying social is their preferred channel for discovering brands. So for PR, there are opportunities to connect with relevant influencers, or to place branded content, or, where applicable, to take advantage of the growing popularity of click-to-buy mobile ecommerce.

But beyond that, PR teams need to step back for a moment and think about mobile UX on the media outlets they’re targeting, and to consider what the mobile experience means for overall quality of media. How does the outlet’s content render on mobile? Do its pages load quickly? Do ads or permissions interfere with the content? Media must be visually appealing on mobile, and that stands whether a PR team is strategizing for TikTok or Instagram, or for trade publications. As we all know, seamless UX just isn’t a given across all the industry publications where B2B brands want to be heard.

Podcasting is still huge for PR

Digital audio listenership only continues to trend upward, with nearly 75% of US consumers listening on digital channels in 2023. A lot of that growth is driven by podcasts – and the intimate nature of the medium, plus the trust audiences place in their favorite podcasters. That engagement presents prime opportunities for branding and thought leadership. PR teams are naturally intrigued by how precisely podcasts target audiences, and how varied they are in subject matter, tone, and length. And in PR, it’s always important to look beyond the most famous podcasters to understand which personalities have celebrity status within their sectors. Choose an industry, and you’ll find it has its own stars. Often, they’ve built their audience through a distinct voice and ability to speak authoritatively. That’s true even if they’re not the most senior professionals in the industry – or, in the case of someone like AdTechGod, even if their real-life identity is secret.

Where’s that “replacement Twitter” we asked for, anyway?

PR professionals and journalists alike are still grappling with what to do when a platform that had been a central conduit for information becomes a minefield of brand-unsafe content and unreliable narrators. It’s even more urgent when the platform keeps losing the users PR teams want to engage. In the case of X, formerly Twitter, no single social platform has emerged where PR pros can simply port over and replicate their Twitter strategies. PR leaders need to grapple with a digital landscape where media interactions take place on a platform that may not look like Twitter. This is actually an opportunity to shift PR/editorial interactions to a platform engineered to facilitate those interactions. Patrice Gamble, Director, Public Relations, recently told us about how platforms like Discord and Media.com give PR teams the means to meet on equal ground, and to work together to build shared trust and elevate storytelling.

Tracking trends in media consumption means we’ll recognize where messages can contribute to the conversation organically and intuitively. It takes dedication and imagination, but that understanding is necessary to successfully adapt PR strategy for the way people consume media today.

The Risky Landscape of Public Statements: When Silence Isn’t Golden

Posted on by Dorothy Crenshaw

In a recent piece published in New York Magazine, Just Stop Making Official Statements About The News, Jonathan Chait argues that organizations should “stop trying to settle our moral beliefs and instead establish rules of the road that let people peacefully coexist with their disagreements.”

He’s talking about statements by businesses, universities, and celebrities around the October 7 attacks in Israel. Many have sparked a severe backlash. It’s a good article that every corporate communications person should read and an interesting take to us who work in PR. We sometimes counsel clients to take a stand on social, cultural, or political developments, or press them to react to major news events. Some organizations feel their employees, customers, and stakeholders want them to speak out in a crisis situation.

But have things have gone too far? Even well-intentioned statements can fuel controversy or be seen as inadequate. Should PR and corp comm teams advise businesses to keep their own counsel and shut up when sensitive news breaks?

Moral clarity is rare

I’m biased, but I don’t think so. Chait argues that the murder of George Floyd had a “moral clarity” that lulled executives and others into speaking out about everything. He may be right, but it’s the precise lack of moral clarity around many events that can make public discourse by influential leaders valuable. Any organization must carefully consider when and how they speak out on such fraught issues. A shallow response to a current event is harmful, yes, but it’s also dangerous to generalize here.

The argument for taking a stand is well known. At a time when public trust in institutions has deteriorated, a strong social position can be a powerful differentiator. Some research suggests that customers want brands to take a position on the issues that matter to them. Younger demographics in particular — especially the prized 24-to-40 segment with years of spending ahead — are more likely to say they want brands to share their values. But other studies contradict that premise.

So, the evidence is mixed. For companies that see the expression of corporate values as a strategic advantage, there is a way to go about it that maximizes the upside potential and minimizes risk.

So, what’s an organization, and its PR team, to do?

First, they need to approach sensitive issues with a deep understanding of the history and context, an appreciation of their own stakeholders, and a commitment to informed dialogue, well after any statement or position is communicated. Here are my “rules of the road.”

Prioritize relevance

The first crucial aspect of a decision about a public statements is relevance. Organizations recognize that their stakeholders have diverse values, expectations, and geographic ties. A business with ties to Israel will naturally have stakeholders who expect the company to address a catastrophic event. Silence can be perceived as a lack of engagement or a disregard for the welfare or concerns of those affected. This doesn’t mean that organizations should make knee-jerk communications. Instead, they should carefully assess the relevance of an issue to their mission and stakeholders and make a statement that aligns with their responsibilities to those with ties to the company.

Know your audiences

This is easy if you’re a brand like Patagonia that has a history of activism and an engaged customer base. But most businesses serve a broader market. Knowing when to speak out takes a mix of market research and gut-level decision-making around both customers, employees, and partners. But in the end, it’s a question of company values. In my view that’s why Dick’s Sporting Goods announced it would stop selling assault-style weapons after the shooting in Parkland, Florida, despite likely knowing it would be targeted by opponents of its position. Over the long term, it didn’t hurt the company and may have helped its business.

Tap into your expertise

Credibility also counts. When former president Trump cracked down on immigration tot he U.S., tech employers like Google and Apple objected publicly. They rely on a highly qualified workforce that includes immigrants and are credible opponents to such policies. Self-interest and expertise in these situations work well precisely because they go beyond “feelings.” I was surprised to see JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Diamond this week urge Democrats to support Nikki Haley’s presidential campaign as a way to stave off another Trump presidency. In the same conversation, he urged New Yorkers, especially liberals, to stop looking down on those with “ultra MAGA” sensibilities. It was an unusual use of reputation capital, but one backed by Dimon’s status and credibility and consistent with his track record of speaking out on key political and economic issues.

Prepare for pushback

This is where many companies stumble. Even a “balanced” statement can draw criticism. If a brand decides it must express outrage and sorrow about the attack on Israel or support for Palestinians fleeing their ruined homes, it should expect feedback. Too many companies flinch at the first sign of backlash and some give in to the temptation to modify their statements or stance. Often it’s better to respond to civil comments, ignore trolls, and weather the social storm.

In short, for any organization that sees itself as a category leader and good corporate citizen, it’s hard to avoid public dialogue. Smart businesses will weigh their options, set their course, take the temperature of their own employees, and align their marketing and communications with their values — before communicating anything externally.

2024 will bring another U.S. presidential election, and our divisions aren’t likely to heal any time soon. But in situations where ongoing news stories impact discourse and politics, businesses can show leadership by speaking out. History has shown that corporate influence can drive positive change. For instance, corporate support played a pivotal role in advancing LGBTQ rights and defeating discriminatory legislation like the bathroom bill.

Has there been backlash since then? Sure, just ask Bud Light. But I maintain that businesses and others can navigate uncertain terrain and contribute to the public discourse while building their own brand or corporate position.

How Public Relations Can Enhance AdTech Marketing

Posted on by Patrice Gamble

As adtech PR specialists, we know that the sector is increasingly crowded, with companies tackling similar issues across the digital advertising and marketing landscape. It’s a challenge to stand out as an adtech company, especially as a “vendor.” Just take a look at the LUMAscape above to get an idea of the adtech display category. And that’s just one of many; the folks at LUMA have similar graphics for CTV advertising, martech, ecommerce, mobile, and much more. The category is only getting more crowded, and the environment more fragmented.

For customers, this intense competition and the alphabet soup of acronyms and confusing claims can be overwhelming. The clutter makes it tough to determine which solutions will best suit their needs. Adtech brands must find creative ways to cut through the noise and highlight the value their particular technology brings to customers and the industry.

Despite best efforts, marketing alone isn’t enough for adtech companies to differentiate themselves from the competition and convert customers. So how can they stand out on a crowded playing field?

Enhancing adtech marketing efforts through PR

As adtech marketing becomes more difficult, public relations (PR) presents an opportunity to kick those efforts into hyperdrive.

Unlike marketing or advertising, PR is rooted in amplifying a company narrative and key differentiators through trusted, independent third-party sources. It allows companies to highlight their unique expertise, their capabilities, and even successful customer outcomes through compelling storytelling that shapes customer opinion and perception at scale.

Strategic PR delivers many benefits for adtech brands.

Earned media exposure drives credibility

Being featured in leading trade publications or recognized by industry awards gives adtech vendors third-party validation that goes a long way in demonstrating the value of their product to potential customers. This credibility elevates the brand beyond competitors who may only highlight their offerings through narrow, paid advertising and marketing channels.

Thought leadership elevates reputation

Amplifying commentary and insights from executives within your organization underscores brand expertise and drives a positioning of authority. Similarly, speaking engagements, contributed articles, and other thought leadership platforms are crucial to showcasing an adtech brand’s perspective on industry issues and trends.

The right narrative can differentiate an adtech “vendor”

With effective storytelling that spotlights a company’s culture, values, innovations, or customer outcomes, PR can set it apart from competitors—even those with similar services. It focuses less on products and more on their values as a business and a workplace.

PR helps build brand affinity

By shaping public opinion and perception, PR builds brand affinity and consideration to influence purchase decisions. It gives adtech brands a distinct edge in an overly commoditized marketplace.

Adtech companies striving to distinguish themselves from competitors should consider how PR can work within the marketing mix. With the right PR strategy or partner, adtech companies can propel their brand to the forefront, reaching the right audiences and setting themselves apart. In the face of evolving challenges in adtech marketing, PR has become a valuable tool for driving visibility and trust, and ultimately for securing a competitive advantage.