Lerbinger O. Corporate Public Affairs. Interacting with Interest Groups, Media, and Government

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

respondents said one or more senior executives in their company had

participated in a broadcast news interview during the preceding 18

months.

Now the practice is so widespread that media training has be

come an accepted part of management training, reports Retail Week.

Corporations typically choose spokespersons with high rank in the

company—chairman, CEO, president, chief financial officer—or some

one with expertise in a particular area. Corporate spokespersons say

their executives are treated “‘fairly’ in almost all interviews,” and two in

five respondents likewise reported receiving fair treatment in every in

terview, which suggests that spokespersons feel they are in reasonable

control of their performance. It is not that news organizations have

mellowed, said John A. Higgins, public relations director of Brouillard.

“Instead, we think more and more top corporate executives have learned

what their rights are in a news interview situation and are using this in

formation to their advantage.”

Media Training and Skills

For decades now, corporate executives have been flocking to a variety of

media training programs that teach them to face a hostile newscaster, to

become aware of nonverbal cues, and to respond correctly. These train-

ing programs have been offered by advertising agencies, public relations

firms, universities, and specialized training organizations. For example,

Rowan & Blewitt claims it is one of the largest media training companies

in the United States, providing more than 500 training sessions a year to

half of the top 50 Fortune 500 companies.

In typical training sessions,

executives’ performances are often taped so they can observe them-

selves and make any improvements.

PR Week reported in April 2000 that media training had become a hot

market. As Virgil Scudder, CEO of Virgil Scudder & Associates, a New

York City training firm states, “Few top executives go before the televi

sion cameras or face notebook-wielding reporters without spending

time with a media trainer.”

Because so many business executives

deeply distrust the media, an understanding of how journalists work

lessens their tendency to dodge reporters. Scudder believes that at a min

imum, a training program should accomplish these objectives:

• Increase the skill and confidence of the executive(s) being trained.

• Test and refine your organization’s message points.

• Identify the most difficult questions your company is likely to en

counter and formulate answers for them.

• Give the executive a better understanding of how the media work.

Burson-Marsteller reported in 2000 that it quadrupled its media

training revenues in the previous 2 years, and The Heminway Media

Group doubled its revenues. Burson-Marsteller charged $7,500 for a

142 I CHAPTER 5

half-day session for up to three people or $9,500 for a full-day session

for up to five people. The sessions cover a variety of situations—pre

paringforcrisissituationsaswellasclientpresentations.Sessionsalso

vary in topics included. Burson-Marsteller offers sessions in media

training, presentation skills training, communication and leadership

skills, specialized communication settings, and communicating diffi

cult issues.

The skills learned also vary. For example, the public relations firm Hill

& Knowlton uses realistic methods such as putting trainees through

“ambush interviews.” When least expected, glaring lights and a televi

sion camera confront a trainee while the reporter tries to use shock tac

tics such as interrupting an answer to get a story. “A few words and

some body language must convey everything,” says George Glazer, se

nior vice president at Hill & Knowlton.

Deciding Whether to Appear

Public relations professionals and others who are familiar with broad-

cast opportunities know the risks and benefits of various programs.

PBS’s News Hour with Jim Lehrer is a relatively low-risk venture with the

benefit of reaching relatively highly informed viewers, including law-

makers and government officials. However, a television magazine pro-

gram, such as 60 Minutes, is a high risk, partly because it is more an

entertainment than a news show. Some producers on these programs

tend to be highly skeptical, if not downright hostile, toward corpora-

tions. The danger also exists that a company spokesperson might be

sabotaged by previously undisclosed video footage or other deprecatory

information.

This risk was apparent to Reebok’s senior public relations director,

Dave Fogelson, when his company was asked to provide a company

spokesperson to go on camera for a live broadcast on CBS’s Eye to Eye

With Connie Chung on a story about child labor abuse in a Sialkot, Paki

stan, factory where Reebok’s soccer balls were produced. Fogelson ada

mantly declined the request but, not wanting to appear to be closing off

or avoiding the media, agreed to provide a written statement of Reebok’s

perception of the incident and assurance that the proper steps would be

taken to correct the situation.

The program, aired on April 6, 1995,

showed films of children as young as 6 years old making soccer balls for

Adidas or Reebok for a few dollars a day. It also said that as many as

25,000 children labored in Sialkot workshops. Reebok was spared fur

ther unfavorable mention; an Associated Press news story on the CBS

show said Reebok, along with Adidas, first learned of the practice from

CBS and was working to halt it.

Herb Schmertz, former vice president of public affairs and a member

of the board of directors for Mobil Oil, states the game is fixed in pro

grams such as 60 Minutes; it is they who are in control. However, there

are ways to reduce uncertainty.

GAINING SEMICONTROL OVER THE MEDIA I 143

• Schmertz recommends that, when first contacted by a show, you

do some research before deciding to participate.

• Ask the producer such questions as, “Exactly what is the segment

about? What is its thesis? Whom do you want to interview from

our organization, and why?”

• Call a meeting of the top people in the organization to decide

whether the person they want to interview is effective on TV,

whether the segment could be done without your participation

and what the consequences would be, and, finally, what your re

sponse will be. In the process, review the work of the producer

and journalists who are working on the particular segment.

• Explore various requests and options with the producer. Ask for

copies of documents and sources of any negative statements they

plan to question you about. Say you want the interview un-

edited. Even though the request will be denied, it shows you’re

wise to their tricks, says Schmertz. Offer the possibility of an off-

camera background briefing by your technical people if the sub-

ject is complex.

How to Handle the Interview

Your goal is not to compete with the stars—the program’s network will

never allow its stars to look bad—but to make the audience think well of

you and your views. In preparation, try to avoid plowing through

mountains of material.

Do the following:

• Take a clean sheet of paper and write down the essential points.

Keep rewriting until they are crisp, clear, and colorful.

• Decide to make three points on the show regardless of what ques-

tions are asked.

• Rehearse your answers in at least two mock interviews with both

inside and outside experts.

• Avoid the advice to “be yourself” on TV; try to be a bit of an actor.

• Use a makeup person, and on the day of the interview, go for a

swim or long walk, take a nap, or get a massage or facial.

• Play your comments in the direction of a conversation because the

listening audience sees itself as eavesdropping.

• Repeat your main points because only a small portion of the inter

view will actually be aired.

Media coach Lori Robertson, who started her own consulting business

in media training after 13 years as a radio and TV reporter, explains what

reporters do and offers advice on how to respond to reporter questions:

• Speak in sound bites—10- to 12-second statements

144 I CHAPTER 5

• Be honest; don’t lie.

• Never accept a false premise. The interview has the right to correct

the record first.

• Stay on point with whatever message you try to convey.

• Avoid the “Paul Harvey trap.” Matt Lundy, a former media coach,

says, “Harvey often has long pauses, and in an interview people

tend to rush into an answer rather than wallow in the silence. By

doing so,” Lundy says, “you’re probably going to go down a road

you don’t want to go.”

Another consideration: Reporters don’t always like to deal with people

who are coached—“they’re not giving their real responses”; they’re

acting.

Impressions Count

Marshall McLuhan wrote in his well-known book, Understanding Me-

dia, that television is a cool medium, meaning the viewing audience

highly participates in forming a complete image of what is broadcast.

Intuitively, Ronald Reagan used television for both its impression-creat-

ing quality and intimacy. He demonstrated his skill in the famous de-

bate with Jimmy Carter in which he successfully presented himself as a

likeable and capable person who would not embroil the nation in war.

When Carter turned on Reagan, the latter undercut Carter’s image of

personal decency—which was one of Carter’s few remaining campaign

assets—by turning to his opponent and saying, “There you go again,”

thereby reinforcing his own air of gentle reason. Reagan knew that im-

pressions count.

Handling Trick Questions

Peter Hannaford in Talking Back to the Media gives many examples of

how to identify and handle trick questions. How should Coors handle

this question containing a loaded preface: “Your business is slipping,

there’s an effective national boycott against you, people say you’re

antiblack, antiwoman. How can you expect to survive?” The correct re

sponse, said Shirley Richard, former head of corporate communications

for Coors, is, “I don’t agree with your statements, but we will survive

because we brew a unique quality beer.”

Here are some rules to follow in television interviews:

• Never repeat your accuser’s allegations. Instead, be positive. Nixon’s

statement “I am not a crook” should have been “I’m honest.”

• Have a SOCO—a single overriding communications objective.

(Hannaford quotes Anne Ready, a Los Angeles-based media consul

tant, who says the biggest mistake people make is “waiting for the

GAINING SEMICONTROL OVER THE MEDIA I 145

right questions and not remembering their objective.” She sug

gests that once a question is asked, acknowledge it and then

“bridge” to the answer that furthers your objective.)

• Focus on what you want to tell. Don’t be afraid to cover some

thing. Don’t feel compelled to respond to every question if it’s not

in your interest.

• Remember the advice of Paul Bender, Boeing’s public relations di

rector: You can control any interview.

Learning How to “Speak TV”

Because television is a mass medium, many people who appear forget

that they’re having a conversation, not making a speech or a state

ment, says Clarence Jones in How to Speak TV.

You have to think of

the TV audience as one or two people sitting in their living room

about 6 or 7 feet away. Talk to the camera, but if you’re being inter

viewed, people expect you to look at the reporter who asked the ques

tion and not at them.

More than 10,000 people are interviewed each day for television

news, says Jones. If you are one of them, he offers these formulas for

improving your performance:

1. Condense, condense, condense. Dealing with electronic journal-

ism requires a completely different mind-set than dealing with print

media. Time is the master. Most stories run 30 seconds or less and a

major story only 90 seconds. Story forms are dictated by findings

that the attention span of most adults is 20 to 30 seconds. One exer-

cise, therefore, is to try to say in one sentence everything you feel or

know about a difficult subject. Then pad it out to make 20 or 30 sec-

onds. One-liners are guaranteed to air!

2. Apply the FACE formula. F is for feels. When you’re on camera,

reciting facts or figures is out. Tell it with graphs and charts instead.

Or use analogies such as “The money we spend treating this disease

would buy everybody in the state a new Cadillac this year.” What

television is interested in is having you say how something feels. But

beware: Don’t lose your temper on camera, particularly with a

young reporter or employee. People expect leaders to be patient.

A is for analysis. You’re the expert, so give people your opinion on a

subject., but do it in short, simple sentences. Avoid parenthetical

thoughts and phrases (e.g., “As I said earlier”) that make a sentence

too long for television.

C is for revolving your story around one of six broad catego

ries—the compelling Cs: catastrophe, crisis, conflict, crime, corrup

tion, and color (the television term for human interest). For example,

a school board member might say at a budget hearing, “Looks to me

like the school superintendent has sold out [corruption] to the real

146 I CHAPTER 5

tors who are fighting this tax increase [conflict]. If this tax is not ap

proved, we may have to shut down some of our schools [crisis].”

E is for energy. You must project that you truly believe what you’re

saying.

Keeping a message simple and attention getting is key. Hannaford

tells us to avoid the jargon of your own business or profession. For ex

ample, don’t, as an educator once did, use the term “primarily modular

learning environment” when what is really meant is classroom.

In the

preparation of statements for broadcast, Michael M. Klepper teaches

how to rephrase statements into an abbreviated, attention-grabbing

opening. Instead of saying, “George Ellis, chairman of the XYZ Plastics

Corporation, has just returned from Europe where, he says, plastics are

easily burned in clean, modern incinerators,” he suggests saying, “Plas

tics! How can we dispose of them? Some say we can’t. George Ellis says

we can.”

Looking Your Best on TV

Hannaford and others give the following advice about looking your best

on television:

• Wear blues, grays, and pastels. Avoid wearing anything black or

white; bright reds may also be a problem. Other solids or clothing

with small patterns are safest; herringbone patterns, plaids,

checks, or stripes create a lot of visual activity in the scene.

• Wear socks that are long enough to reach under your pants.

• Women should wear simple, small pieces of jewelry and should

avoid wearing sparkling, glittery jewelry or noisy bracelets. Also

avoid dangling earrings that distract the audience. Men should

avoid giant, glistening gold tie clasps.

• Men should use a little powder or natural base makeup to cover the

blue outline of their beards. Women should use normal makeup but

avoid dark reds or maroons because they are accented by the camera.

• When sitting in a chair in television appearances, sit in the front

part of the chair and lean forward because this shows involvement

and interest.

• Don’t look too slick; audiences respond to someone they can relate to.

• Use hands to gesture, up to a point. Avoid such body language and

habits as wriggling in your seat or putting hands in your pocket.

• Maintain eye contact with the interviewer; do not look at the cam

era. Looking at another guest who is speaking is permissible, but

afterward look at the interviewer.

• Smile whenever possible, except when it would be considered in

sensitive.

GAINING SEMICONTROL OVER THE MEDIA I 147

CONCLUSIONS

By observing the techniques of successful broadcast appearances, cor

porate executives can greatly enhance the amount of control they have

in conveying their messages to radio and television audiences. Semi

control is an apt term for this process. There is never complete control,

but a skilled communicator can operate somewhere in the range of 50%

to 80% percent control.

ENDNOTES

1. Larry King, with Mark Stencel, On the Line: The New Road to the White House

(New York: Harcourt Brace, 1993), p. 147.

2. Ibid., p. 96.

3. Ibid., p. 73.

4. John A. Bace, “Broadcast Media Relations,” in The Handbook of Strategic Public

Relations & Integrated Communications, ed. Clarke L. Caywood (New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1977), p. 78.

5. James E. Grunig and Todd Hunt, Managing Public Relations (New York: Holt,

Rinehart & Winston, 1984), p. 149. The authors credit Herbert E. Krugman

for this concept. See “The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning Without

Involvement,” Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 29, 1965, pp. 349–345, and,

with Eugene L. Hartley, “Passive Learning From Television,” Public Opinion

Quarterly, Vol. 34, 1970, pp. 184–190.

6. Robert Kubrey and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, “Television Addiction Is No Mere

Metaphor,” Scientific American, No. 286, February 2002, pp. 74–80.

7. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Dirty Politics: Deception, Distraction, and Democracy

(New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 9–10.

8. Ibid., p. 60.

9. Ibid., p. 53.

10. Ibid., p. 17.

11. Ibid., pp. 18–19.

12. Ibid., p. 216.

13. Ibid., p. 206.

14. Ibid., p. 209.

15. Ibid., p. 216.

16. Federal Communications Commission, News Media Information: “Broad

cast Station Total as of September 30, 2002,” November 6, 2002.

17. Rene A. Henry, Jr., Marketing Public Relations: The Hows That Make It Work

(Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1995), p. 104.

18. Timothy Egan, “Triumph Leaves No Targets for Conservative Talk Shows,”

New York Times, January 1, 1995, p. 1.

19. Rebecca Pirto, “Why Radio Thrives,” American Demographics, Vol. 16, May

1994, p. 42.

20. Egan, op. cit., p. 1.

21. “Of All Media, the Most Powerful Are Talk Show Hosts Because They’re the

Most Personal,” pr reporter, Vol. 35, June 8, 1992, p. 3.

22. Egan, op. cit., p. 1.

23. Ibid., p. 22.

148 I CHAPTER 5

24. Joe Conason, Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Dis

torts the Truth (New York: St. Martin’s, 2003), p. 47.

25. Mark Preston, “On the Air in ’04: A Liberal Voice,” Roll Call, October 27,

2003. Internet.

26. Howard Fineman, “The Power of Talk,” Newsweek, February 8, 1993, p. 24.

27. Allen R. Myerson, “Are Fallen Barons Victims of Their Press Clippings?” New

York Times, February, 7, 1993, p. F7.

28. Ibid.

29. Timothy Egan, “Talk Radio or Hate Radio? Critics Assail Some Hosts,” New

York Times, January 1, 1995, p. 22.

30. Ibid.

31. The study was conducted by Richard Manville, Inc., for Brouillard Commu

nications, a division of J. Walter Thompson Company, 420 Lexington Ave.,

New York, NY 10017. See news release dated October 5, 1981. The very

largest companies—those with $1 billion or more in annual sales—showed

the highest rate (74%) of participation. Seventy-two percent favored using

broadcast interviews to communicate company policy; only 15% were op

posed. More than 60 companies moved to this proactive policy during the

preceding 5 years.

32. “Retail People—Media Training,” Retail Week, November 9, 2002, p. 43.

33. Ibid.

34. From an announcement of an April 11 and 12, 1994, event by the National

Media Relations Forum, P.O. Box 2189, Berkely, Calif. 94702.

35. Virgil Scudder, “Media Training—Getting It Right,” Public Relations Tactics,

May 2003, p. 14.

36. Ibid.

37. “The Media Training Mavens,” PR Week, April 5, 2000, p. 21.

38. Edith Terry and Bradley Hitchings, “Learning to Shine in the Limelight,”

BusinessWeek, July 18, 1986, p. 88.

39. Based on a report by Karen Carney in a crisis communication class at Boston

University’s College of Communication, October 5, 1999

40. Associated Press, “Pakistani Child Labor Used on UNICEF Tools, CBS Says,”

Seattle Post-Intelligencer [Online], April 6, 1995.

41. Herb Schmertz, with William Novak, Good-Bye to the Low Profile: The Art of

Creative Confrontation (Boston: Little, Brown, 1986), pp. 102–117.

42. Herb Schmertz, “Talking Back to Mike Ambush and Harry Reasonable,”

Across the Board, Vol. 23, June 1986, pp. 60–66. Also see Edith Terry and

Bradley Hitching, “Learning to Shine in the Limelight,” BusinessWeek, July 7,

1986, pp. 88–89.

43. Lori Robertson, “The Art of Self-Defense,” American Journalism Review, Vol.

24, April 2002, pp. 46–51.

44. Marshall McLuhan, “Media Hot and Cold,” in Understanding Media: The Ex

tensions of Man (New York: New American Library, 1964), pp. 36–45.

45. Peter Hannaford, Talking Back to the Media (New York: Facts on File, 1986),

pp. 46–47.

46. Ibid., p. 59.

47. Ibid., p. 60.

48. “There Are Only 2 Reasons to Meet the Press,” pr reporter, Vol. 32, January

23, 1989, p. 4.

49. Clarence Jones, How to Speak TV (Marathon, Fla.: Video Consultants, 1983),

p. 22.

50. Ibid., pp. 23–25.

GAINING SEMICONTROL OVER THE MEDIA I 149

51. Hannaford, op. cit., p. 43.

52. Michael M. Klepper, Getting Your Message Out: How to Get, Use, and Survive

Radio and Television Air Time (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1984), p.

70.

53. Hannaford, op. cit.; also “Survive the Interview,” PR Week, June 18, 2004, p.

29.

150 I CHAPTER 5

Chapter 6

Gaining Complete Control Over

the Media: Advocacy Advertising

It is important to have complete control over a message when it carries

serious legal implications, when the media have distorted facts and your

views, and when you want to be on record. Advocacy advertising—also

known as issues advertising—allows almost total control over when

and how a message reaches the public through the mass media.

With advocacy advertising, an organization can take its case to the

people and decide on the exact wording of the message, its style, tim-

ing,frequencyofappearance,and,onoccasion,itspositioninapubli-

cation (e.g., on the op-ed page of a newspaper). Furthermore, says

Marc Rosenberg, advocacy ads are an “unavoidable part of the infor-

mation stream and can themselves make news.… And an ad campaign

can keep your message in front of the public long after the novelty

valueofyournewsstoryhasfaded.”

As suggested by the term advocacy, an advocacy ad states one’s views

and position on a controversial matter. S. Prakash Sethi, author of Advo

cacy Advertising and Large Corporations, says advocacy advertising is

“concerned with the propagation of ideas and elucidation of controver

sial social issues of public importance in a manner that supports the po

sition and interests of the sponsor while expressly denying the accuracy

of fact and downgrading the sponsor’s opponents.”

Advocacy advertising falls under the larger heading of corporate ad

vertising, which is defined by the Association of National Advertisers as

“aimed at improving consumer and investor perceptions of a company

rather than directly selling its products or services.”

Included in corpo

rate advertising is institutional advertising—also called image advertis

ing—that portrays an organization in a favorable fashion so as to win

151