1. Read. Keeping up with the breakneck speed of news is a crucial activity that is easily pushed aside by more urgent tasks. Reading the newspaper for general news or a trade journal for a particular industry can be postponed repeatedly without immediate consequences, but do it enough and your results will begin to show a lack of preparation. Abraham Lincoln once said, “Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe.” Great ideas are mined from a wealth of knowledge. Forget to read and you’ll have a very shallow mine.

2. Prioritize. I was reminded at a recent lecture here at Cookerly PR about how easy it is to delay important tasks and focus instead on easy or more enjoyable responsibilities, such as responding to email. If you don’t rank the importance of your to-do list, you’ll end up doing what you find easiest while delaying what could be more consequential. Disorganization and lack of deliberation produce stress and mistakes; prioritizing is the answer.

3. Assess. Assessing what did not get done on your list is just as important as making the list in the first place. Throughout the workday – and especially before heading out for the evening – evaluate your progress. For me, having a clear picture of what needs to get done before the end of the day or week puts my mind at ease; I know there won’t be any unwelcome surprises that I could have prevented.

4. Work out. Okay, this one may be aspirational. Making time for a daily workout is difficult, especially if you’re married, have children or a long commute. But, like reading, neglect it and your work will likely suffer. Nothing loosens up writers block like a rush of endorphins from a good workout. If you can’t exercise every day, do it as much as you can. I promise you’ll notice a difference.

5. Contribute. Look for ways to improve your agency. Admittedly, this does not come as naturally to me as it should. I like seeing my to-do list shrink too much; it makes me feel productive. However, investing time in a project for the collective good is a fundamental element of teamwork. Whether you launch a company-wide fitness contest or share a really good pitch, think about how you can help your colleagues do their jobs better. You’ll help yourself in the process.

What would you add to this list? Leave a comment below and share your “must-do” daily activity.

Don’t worry, you’re still reading a public relations blog, not an excerpt from Foreign Policy. The Rice/Benghazi affair is an instructive example of how the news cycle often works. The story originated with a newsworthy event, erupted as a result of a communications miscalculation and then was fueled by skeptics capitalizing on the missteps. Below is a rundown of what happened.

Wednesday, Nov. 14: At about 9 a.m., Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham were interviewed at the Washington Ideas Forum, a two-day event in D.C. featuring various government and business leaders. During the interview, they revealed their intent to block Susan Rice’s confirmation if she is nominated secretary of state by President Obama.

Later in the day, the president vigorously defended Rice at a White House news conference: “If Senator McCain and Senator Graham, and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I’m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.”

After Obama’s press conference, Senator Graham showed no signs of backing down: “Mr. President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi. I think you failed as commander in chief before, during and after the attack. Given what I know now, I have no intention of promoting anyone who is up to their eyeballs in the Benghazi debacle.”

After this opening volley, Rice began a concerted effort to defend her reputation and save her appointment.

Nov. 22: In a statement to reporters at the United Nations, Rice explained her comments after the Benghazi attack: “I relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community. I made clear that the information was preliminary and that our investigations would give us the definitive answers.”

Nov. 25: Advantage Rice; McCain appeared to back off his threat. On Fox News Sunday, McCain said he would “be glad to have the opportunity to discuss these issues with her.”

This was Rice’s chance to reverse the tide of criticism. If she could convince McCain and his colleagues that their concerns with her are undeserved, she would probably have an office in Foggy Bottom.

Nov. 27: Rice met with Senators McCain, Graham and Kelly Ayotte, Republican from New Hampshire. The meeting did not go well for Rice. Senator Ayotte spoke with media immediately afterwards: “When you’re ambassador to the United Nations you go well beyond unclassified talking points in your daily preparation responsibilities for that job and that’s troubling to me as well.” McCain and Graham said they were even more concerned than before their meeting.

There are many lessons the Rice/Benghazi situation can teach, including how high the stakes can be for individuals and organizations when making statements to the media. Rice worked her entire career for the top diplomatic job in the nation, but a few poorly planned interviews may cost her that opportunity.

Below are a few more lessons we can take from this story.

Know the facts. Rarely is the need to make a statement to the press so urgent that you cannot take the time to gather facts beforehand. Even if a publication is going to press, don’t tell them what you think is true before it is substantiated; let them know you are looking into the matter and will report back as soon as you can. Issue a placeholder statement instead, relating your commitment to uncovering the truth.

Avoid taking public positions from which you may need to back down. Senator McCain is known to be hot-headed, so it was not a surprise when he threatened to derail Rice’s nomination. Once Rice began defending herself, he was forced to soften his position and admit the possibility that she could satisfactorily explain her comments. When issuing public statements, you can be firm without drawing a line in the sand.

Finally, if you are about to make news – and McCain and Graham surely knew they would when they sat down with Jonathan Karl at the Washington Ideas Forum – take a moment to map out how the story could play out. Be honest with yourself about how your comments will be received by reporters, the public and your opponents. If you are starting an argument, there is no excuse for getting caught flat-footed by a fiery response from the opposition. Graham appeared fully prepared for the President’s firm defense of Rice.

Perhaps the most important takeaway from this story is a cautionary one: in public spats, there will always be a winner and a loser. Barney Frank offered this gem during the Washington Ideas Forum that surely applies: “Never write when you can talk, never talk when you can nod, never nod when you can wink.” Whether Rice or McCain end up the loser, perhaps both deserve some blame for talking too much.

The problem of measuring PR results is an old one. Chief executive officers, accustomed to looking at sales figures and revenue growth, are known to question the value of PR when they sign off on the budget, even while in the middle of a big public fight. They would rather pay attorneys because they guarantee a definitive event, whether through winning, losing or settling the case.

On the other hand, ask ten good PR executives how an issue might play out and you’re likely to get 20 (or more) different answers. Unless your agency has the resources to poll like a political campaign, it’s difficult to measure shifts in public perception over a short period of time. It takes time for news reports to crystallize and for ideas to become consistently held opinions.

The presidential election is the ultimate public relations campaign, but it provides the unique benefit of a reckoning at the end. On November 7, 2012, we will know who will reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for the next four years. For that reason, it may be the ultimate laboratory for understanding how public perceptions change. I grant you that everything is exaggerated in a political campaign – it plays out over a much shorter period of time – but that is how laboratories work. In hyperbole, we may find some modicum of truth.

The 2012 election is in full swing, so now is a good time for skeptical business executives to tune in if they want to understand how good or bad PR moves impact public perception. In all the chaos of political ads, speeches, bus tours and press conferences, there will be a moment or two that historians will point to years from now as critical junctures.

First, watch the polls. President Obama and Mitt Romney are currently neck-and-neck, but when those numbers begin to change, pay attention to the pundits and their analysis. It’s possible one event could change the race, and it may be something that neither campaign is anticipating. Consider 2008 when the economy tanked and McCain temporarily suspended his campaign. Most politicos argue that was the moment he began to lose.

Takeaway: External events you cannot control are a threat. Determine now what you can do to minimize their potential impact.

Second, did one candidate win the race or did the other lose it? In 2004, John Kerry went wind surfing, but George Bush sailed on to victory. While there were certainly other factors – including Bush’s general likability – the photo of Kerry windsurfing off Nantucket proved to be an iconic image from the campaign. The snapshot perfectly illustrated Kerry’s inability to connect with voters, driving home the argument his opponents had made for months.

Takeaway: Are you losing to a better opponent or beating yourself? When managing a PR crisis, the smallest details matter. An off-the-cuff remark can change public opinion overnight (think: “I just want my life back”).

Third, pay attention to the daily campaign volleys as accusations are dispatched and answered by the candidates. An over-eager defense can be viewed as a sign of desperation. For example, Romney lined up interviews with every major network news station after the Obama campaign launched a blistering attack on his tenure at Bain Capital. Some called it desperate.

Takeaway: Forceful when faced with an attack is good, but overreaction signals fear. Consider the tone and setting of your response. Flashy press conferences or angry interviews can overpower otherwise effective messaging.

The fact that public relations campaigns are complicated and results are difficult to measure does not mean they cannot be won through sound strategy and effective execution. Presidential campaigns prove that the public has a long memory and public relations missteps, strung together, eventually come to define a candidate.

Company reputations aren’t much different. It may be hard to point to a moment when everything changes, but there is usually a defining mistake that illustrates a deep suspicion the public was already beginning to believe. That’s the turning point. If you’re lucky, you’ll get to see one in the next two months.

Image Credit: National Park Service, Images of American Political History

The banking giant’s misstep has many facets and is already claiming casualties at the highest levels of Wall Street, but the most serious ramifications may be of the public relations variety. For a bank with a market cap of $142 billion, a $2 billion loss won’t be severely damaging. But it could spell big trouble if the bank loses profitable pieces of its business in the future as a result.

But you don’t need a recap from me. The Wall Street Journal has plenty of excellent coverage of the story. From a PR perspective, the most interesting thing will be how Mr. Dimon answers questions at the meeting. The Journal pointed out something that became abundantly clear in the wake of the crisis: “Dimon is not one to shy away from questions so be prepared for answers.”

SunTrust’s CEO Bill Rogers echoed the same sentiments in a Bloomberg television interview. (In the interest of full disclosure, SunTrust is a client of mine). In response to a question from the Bloomberg reporter, and after remarking light-heartedly that Dimon probably doesn’t need his advice, Rogers said that the CEO met the crisis “head on and I think that is what CEOs are supposed to do.”

I find it refreshing when top executives meet challenges boldly and with candor. Watch the proceedings in Tampa closely and measure Dimon’s responses against the Journal’s prediction that attendees will get real answers to their questions. My detractors might argue that the mistake was so big that he had to be candid, but I disagree. I’ve seen too many executives try to sugar coat irrefutably bad news.

In my opinion, Dimon knows that he’s talking to a smart audience and knows better than to talk down to them. Whether or not J.P. Morgan ultimately wins the regulatory fight in Washington, D.C., Dimon’s approach is a wise one and will earn him – and his bank – respect.

Do you think Dimon could have handled the crisis any better? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Well now they’re playing catch-up. If 2009 was the year the newspaper died, as a Business Insider article proclaimed, now is the era of picking up the pieces.

I haven’t met anybody who thinks newspapers have figured out how to deliver good journalism and get paid adequately for it, but the mindset among reporters and editors I’ve talked with has shifted from incredulous at the industry’s steep decline to acceptance of what their audience now wants.

And what consumers (yep, consumers, not readers) want is diverse, stimulating online content, from long-form journalism to video interviews and interesting photos. Newspapers are still catching up to the technological capabilities of the web, and it’s not an easy or inexpensive task.

In the last three months, I’ve had more reporters talk about the need for video than in all of 2011. Even in the midst of downsizing and tight budgets, reporters are looking for ways to enrich the user experience. Their new content needs present a real opportunity for PR practitioners and companies seeking coverage.

Below are three adjustments the communications profession should consider, whether at the agency or corporate level.

1.    At minimum, know what resources are at your disposal in case a reporter asks about video. Do you have a videographer on staff? Is your spokesperson media trained and capable of executing an on-camera interview?

2.    Offer video content in your initial pitch to reporters. Develop concepts that are easy to execute and quick to turn around, and then use the ideas to help sell reporters on story ideas.

3.    Consider learning about video content creation. In a landscape where successful bloggers post videos shot at an airport before boarding a flight to Hong Kong, it behooves PR professionals to know the basics of producing video content – even if it’s on a Mac or iPhone.

PR will change with the media industry, and successful practitioners will realize their job is much broader than pitching stories to newspapers and bloggers. We purveyors of ideas will increasingly become producers of content as reporters confront more budget and time-constraints. We should begin adjusting now to that reality or, like newspapers, we’ll be catching up to the innovators who saw the changes coming and adapted early.

Top executives at public companies are in the unenviable position of knowing that private views, improperly displayed, can seriously damage their company’s reputation. Navigating the complicated relationship between private convictions and public relations involves matters of both conscience and business calculation. The goal of a listed company is to maximize shareholder value, yet business schools are also recognizing that business cannot be conducted in a vacuum and every issue that crosses an executive’s desk cannot be answered by analyzing its impact on the bottom line.

Whether Blankfein did the right thing is beyond the scope of this blog entry. (Lloyd and I differ on the relative merits of disclosing views on social issues while wearing our company hats). I will, however, ask three questions raised by Blankfein’s commercial debut.

1.    If Blankfein deserves praise for publicly supporting something he feels is ethically the right thing to do, should every CEO be encouraged to pick sides in politically charged issues where matters of conscience are involved for them?

2.    Should public pronouncements on controversial topics be reserved for times when taking a stand can accrue public relations benefits for the company, or should companies consider taking bolder positions on issues important to them, even if they carry the risk of backlash?

3.    Will Blankfein’s strategy of reaching out to groups typically ignored by Wall Street – like the gay community – reap business or political benefits for the firm? Or will it hurt the company’s standing among traditional allies and cause more harm than good?

Answering any of these questions would be a blog post – or more – by itself. They are important questions and I predict more companies will have to tackle them as opinionated younger generations, used to sharing their views freely over social media, begin to take over the C-suite.

What’s your view? Please take a moment to share your thoughts.

I’ve had a few interactions on Twitter recently that have caused me to ask whether tweeting, in some situations, is a better tactic for contacting reporters than emailing or even the phone.

I regularly pitch personal finance topics. Although many reporters cover this beat, a lot of PR practitioners are angling for their attention. I rarely get a reply to an email when trying to get to know a new reporter, at least not without consistent follow-up. Actually securing interest in the spokesperson I’m pitching and getting an interview is even more difficult. I don’t fault the reporter; they get hundreds of emails a day and can’t reply to everybody.

It often takes more than a good email pitch to get noticed. I worked with one national personal finance reporter who stopped replying to emails after I had some initial success. At one point, she apologized and said she gets hundreds of messages and couldn’t reply to each one. Instead of continuing the email onslaught, I followed her on Twitter. When I had a topic to pitch, I crammed it into 140 characters and sent it her way. I got a reply the same day.

Just recently I had a similarly successful Twitter conversation. I tweeted a nationally known author to pass along an article I thought would be interesting to him. He replied within the hour. Imagine if I had tried email – I’d still be waiting for a reply.

Customer service via Twitter – where it’s offered – is also one of the best-kept social media secrets. I traveled to London this past summer and discovered on the day of my departure that my wife and I weren’t seated together. I was in the middle of a workday and didn’t have time to spend an hour on the phone with the airline, so I tweeted their customer service account and asked them to fix it. We had adjacent seats within 30 minutes. (Thanks, @DeltaAssist!).

I’ve thought about the reasons people and companies pay closer attention to their Twitter feed than emails and calls. I came up with two major ones.

First, it’s a volume and curiosity issue, especially for individuals. I don’t stop what I’m doing every time a new email pops up in my Outlook inbox. It’s likely spam anyway. There’s no excitement when I get an email. I get hundreds of those a day. When I’m mentioned on Twitter, however, I’m immediately curious. I generally only get a few of those each week, and they’re never spam.

Second, mentions on Twitter have an audience. I know that other people can see what’s being said when I’m mentioned. There’s a public conversation going on that involves me. There is a sense of urgency that applies to these mentions that does not apply to, say, a voicemail message of which only I’m aware. The audience factor is especially important for companies that value and want to protect their online reputation.

What remains to be seen is whether Twitter will continue to be an effective way to get noticed. I used to respond to Facebook messages within hours. Now it sometimes takes me days or weeks to reply – it’s just like email. The same thing will happen to Twitter if more people use it in place of email. I joked with somebody last week about a Twitter “busy” signal next time I contact my airline – an auto @reply that says they’ll get back to me within 24 hours. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but I think it will.

Ironically, this blog post is likely counterproductive if I want to continue using Twitter the way I have been. The more people use it in place of email or the phone, the less effective it will be. I’d ask you not to tweet this article to your 100k followers, but the director of social media at Cookerly PR would object. You can also mention me (@mattcochran) in your tweet, but keep in mind that if I start getting too many messages through @replies, I may stop replying as quickly.

You have to broadly define public relations to include the communication strategy of Augustus. But why not study methods of persuasion through the ages and draw lessons from them? Strategic communication and the reputation it builds is as ancient a practice as politics. For example, Augustus said that his legitimacy was derived from the consent of the Senate and the people. He cultivated a reputation in order to secure and maintain that consent. One way he did that was by protecting private homes from demolition in Rome, even though that meant the Roman Forum wouldn’t be perfectly symmetrical. The resulting good publicity helped him win the loyalty of the people.

If reputation was important for Augustus, it is exponentially more crucial in a world with intense government and public scrutiny, as well as a democratized media landscape that offers everybody a megaphone – social media, blogs, etc. – to participate in the conversation.

So if even Augustus was engaged in PR, how can we succinctly define the term? If I polled the patrons of the café where I’m writing this blog I’d likely get a different answer from each person. The PR banner is claimed by everybody: Purveyors of slimy strip clubs who push cards into your hand on Las Vegas Boulevard, mommy bloggers, event planners and, of course, APR’s who have the textbook definition of PR memorized.

Perhaps it’s the elastic nature of PR that has academics and agency practitioners eager to develop a more descriptive, narrow term for the field. “Strategic communication” was popular among IHPRC attendees. Still, public relations is the most widely recognized term and maybe it would be better to refine that definition in the public’s mind. I guess you could say PR has a PR problem. How ironic.

In thinking about the future of PR as a discipline, or whatever we end up calling it, I concluded that debate was best left in the hands of academics for now. As a young practitioner, my task is to move the craft itself forward. However, since I did spend two days in Bournemouth wrestling with terms and definitions, let me at least explain what PR means at my agency, Cookerly Public Relations.

Our agency works to help businesses – from startups to law firms and large public companies – manage, grow and protect their reputations. My colleagues are as dynamic as the field itself. When we sit across the boardroom table from a client, we bring a wealth of different backgrounds: Decades of experience in PR, marketing and broadcasting, as well as advanced degrees in business administration, government and public relations. My colleagues not only know the reporters that matter, they also have the creativity to fit the PR jigsaw puzzle together, matching client needs with publicity opportunities. That’s an art, not a science, and explains why the recipe for success in PR changes from one client and situation to the next. The dynamism of the field requires practitioners that are committed to staying one step ahead of PR and the media landscape. If somebody ever gets around to really defining PR and winning acceptance for a general theory, it may be obsolete as soon as it’s printed in the textbook. Good practitioners will already be asking themselves “but what’s next?” I’m proud to work with colleagues who ask that question consistently, day after day.

I’ll apologize in advance to readers who aren’t familiar with agency life. This may sound like a bit like Xs and Os on a chalkboard to you, pun intended.

The First Down

I approach my to-do list as if I were a quarterback on my own ten-yard line. Chances are I’m not going to get into the other end zone with one spectacular play. It’s going to require a long drive. Because I’m a procrastinator? Not at all. When you work with large corporate clients like I do, things take time and you’ve got to take it one well-executed play at a time. Need to secure a profile story about an executive who is raising awareness about corporate philanthropy efforts? Good luck taking that to the media without first making a game plan. Securing a good story will require a few first downs: Conference calls to get your facts straight, media pitches and collateral material, follow-up phone calls to reporters, talking points and a good interview. If you can get that done in one day, good for you. If you’re like me, you’ll take it one play at a time.

The Hail Mary

Sometimes you don’t have time to execute the perfect game plan. You’ve got the facts in your head and that editorial calendar topic is coming up fast. As much as you’d like to write the pitch-perfect email to your target reporter, you really don’t have time. Here’s when those interpersonal skills and reporter relationships are key. You scribble some notes on a Post-it and launch your Hail Mary with a cold call to the reporter. Under the right circumstances this can work better than any email. What it takes: A good story to tell the reporter and the enthusiasm to sell it. I recommend a strong cup of coffee before these types of calls. Reporters are busy and it helps when you’re talking fast.

The Slobber-Knocker

I’ve worked the issues side of public relations long enough to know that sometimes you need to get real candid with a reporter and hit them hard with the facts. I’m always respectful, but there are situations when I’ve had to let a reporter know that I’m not playing flag football anymore. When the game is on the line, I intend to win. I remember one conversation in particular that left a reporter stunned because I accused his newspaper of ignoring a significant news story with serious implications for the community. The result was positive for my client: The newspaper agreed to an interview they had previously denied.

I’m sure there are plenty of other sports and work analogies out there. If you have a good one to add to my lexicon, feel free to share by posting a comment or emailing me at matt@cookerly.com.

As a quasi-traditionalist, I don’t always acclimate easily to institutional change – especially when it involves a sacred cow like my coffee. But I also understand that brands need to evolve in order to grow and enter new markets. The Starbucks logo introduced in 1992 – the one I’m reluctant to give up now – replaced the brown, vintage-looking Siren that decorated the first store Starbucks opened in Seattle’s Pike Place Market. I’m sure the original customers who discovered the coffeehouse before its explosive growth were reluctant to see that logo retired as well. But people are resilient and coffee habits die hard.

Brands change – they have to in order to survive – but that doesn’t mean change for change’s sake is necessarily a positive development. Remember New Coke or Gap’s recent logo fiasco? Starbucks is all about the experience they deliver for customers – from the store ambiance to the service. Oh, and of course the coffee. People pick Starbucks because they feel better about themselves after they leave the store, not because it’s better than Dunkin’ Donuts. If people start feeling different, they may go elsewhere. It remains to be seen whether people will acclimate to the new, modern logo and feel the same about their $4 latte. If the experience feels too institutionalized, Starbucks may lose its edge.

Starbucks’ handling of the switch doesn’t bode well for the direction of the company. As far as I can see, it hasn’t responded to a single comment on Facebook, despite hundreds of respectfully negative feedback on the new logo. If top management is as out of touch as the person managing the Facebook page, then the coffeehouse may be losing its bearings.

I certainly hope that’s not the case. After all, I’m dependent on their wi-fi internet and caffeine. But you can’t build a business model on wi-fi and jitters; I think my local McDonalds has wi-fi and lattes now. But they can’t beat the Starbucks experience. At least for now.