More Boiling Over, or Would You Strip Naked for a Cause?

This morning activists in Winnipeg took advantage ofthe city’s boil-water advisory to highlight the plight of Aboriginal communities where clean, drinkable water is an ongoing problem.

How did they do it? With a stunt.

In this case, the stunt was handing out bottled water to people in Winnipeg’s downtown. 

Each bottle contained a message about residents of one First Nation, Shoal Lake, have to boil their water every day.

"By us handing out bottles, for those who aren't aware of the fact that this disparity exists, it's possible people will think a bit more and realize that there is a bit of an irony there," said one of the activists.

The stunt worked. The group got the media coverage it was seeking. If they had just sent out a press release about their concern, likely nothing would have happened.

Stunts like this are a way for non-profit groups—which usually have few resources and less money—to get media attention.

For the media, which is always looking for some new way to tell a story, a stunt or gimmick can be very attractive.

This is especially true for TV news, which constantly needs fresh and interesting images to tell a story.

One of the most successful groups when it comes to stunts and gimmicks is Greenpeace. 

Whether it’s scaling buildings, putting fake polar bears on a fake ice flow in the River Thames, or sponsoring naked bike rides—a sure-fire way to get media attention—they are one of the best.

Meantime, a group of Christians in Perth, Australia stripped down to their underwear in January to show their concern for refugees in that country.

It worked; they got local and international coverage. It may have helped their group included a pastor and former missionary who promised to take off their clothes. 

Before your group rushes out to do a stunt, there are few things to keep in mind.

First, make sure that the stunt doesn’t overwhelm your message. You could sponsor a naked bike ride, but what would people remember? The cause, of people being naked? 

Second, make sure that the stunt or gimmick matches your group’s message. 

It might make sense for food bank to bake the world's largest pizza to illustrate there’s enough food available, but distribution and access is a problem. But it might make no sense for a local arts group to do the same thing—what does pizza have to do with art? 

Third, be aware that stunts can backfire. That’s what happened when Greenpeace activists were accused of causing damage to anancient etching in Peru when they tried to share an environmental message. 

Instead of starting a message about climate change, the story ended up being about Greenpeace’s cultural insensitivity and accusations of cover-up against the group.

The same thing happened to PETA when they used the Holocaust to communicate their message about animals being killed for food. 

Instead of a discussion about whether or not animals should be used for food, the campaign, titled Holocaust on Your Plate, generated a lot of negative reaction from Holocaust survivors and the Jewish community at large.

Other stunts that went wrong included when the U.S. Department of Defense decided to fly a large plane low over New York after 9/11, or when the Cartoon Network put metal devices that looked like characters in one of its shows—but like bombs to others—around Boston after the Boston Marathon bombing.

Those were very bad ideas.

Done well, a stunt can grab the attention of the media. But stunts can go wrong, too. Make sure you think carefully through the idea before deciding to do one.

You don't want to spend precious time in the media spotlight apologizing or defending your actions, instead of talking about the issue that you sought attention for in the first place.

Gimmicks

A gimmick differs from a stunt in that it usually doesn’t involve physical action. It can be a play or words, or a creative pitch to the media, like a group I know that sent their press release to the media wrapped around a bottle of beer.

Since finding ways to have your press release stand out from the pack is a goal of media relations, a gimmick can help you get noticed.

But like with stunts, these can backfire, too. What if the press release wrapped around the bottle of beer was sent to a recovering alcoholic? Or a Muslim, who doesn’t drink alcohol?

It could also arrive in the newsroom the same day someone is killed by a drunk driver.

The result? Instead of being about the cause or issue being promoted, the story could be about how some groups are insensitive to the suffering of others—and maybe even contributing to the problem.

There's an axiom in advertising that says that, when it comes to humour, 25 percent of people never get the joke. 

Most will just let it go, but others could be offended. You never know what will work or what will backfire. So you need to be careful when using gimmicks.

The same goes for me. I used a gimmick for this post, putting the word “naked” in the title. If you read it because of that, hey—it worked!

If you were offended, I’m sorry.

However you felt, I just hope you remember the rest of what I said.

Read the original Boiling Over post here.

Boiling Over to Get Media Coverage During Winnipeg's Boil-Water Advisory

Most non-profit groups don’t have the resources or the stature to make the news—to capture the media’s attention and set the news agenda for the day.

That’s why they need to be alert to what’s happening in the news, and find ways to piggy-back on the day’s events. 

By hooking their agenda to what the media is already talking about, they have a chance of being caught in the current.

That’s what’s happening right now in Winnipeg, where I live.

The city is under a boil-water advisory, due to a test that revealed e-coli in the water system.

It’s an inconvenience to most residents. At most, the advisory will last a couple of days.

Activists and organizations who advocate on behalf of Aboriginals in Canada who have to boil their water every day have seized this opportunity to make their case.

Specifically, a group that is agitating for the residents of Shoal Lake First Nation will hold a rally in the city to underscore the severity of the crisis facing people in that community. (Which is also located on the source of Winnipeg’s drinking water.)

"While this city has been inconvenienced by a 1-2 day E. coli scare, we thought it was important to publicly highlight the irony of the boil water advisory Shoal Lake #40 First Nation has had for over 17 years," a spokesperson was quoted as saying in the Winnipeg Free Press. 

Their efforts underscore a few things.

First, non-profit groups need to pay attention to the news agenda. Trying to force your issue into an agenda that is already crowded with other things is not a good strategy.

Second, by tagging along with the news of the day, groups can get pulled along and use it to highlight their own concerns.

Third, the media likes it when groups do this. A major story can have a number of angles, but the obvious ones are quickly exhausted. If the media wants to keep the story alive, they will need fresh perspectives. 

Offering new angles—including ones the media may never thought of—can earn you the gratitude of a busy and harried reporter who needs to produce something different by deadline.

In the case of the group advocating for people in Shoal Lake, it got them an advancer to get people out to the rally, and will probably get them coverage of the rally itself. 

Preston Manning, former leader of Canada’s Reform Party, offered some wise words about this issue when talking about climate change and the environment.

Too many groups, he said, start with the big affects of climate change out there, and then wonder why the public is so indifferent.

“In selling an unfamiliar concept or policy solution, start where the public’s head is, not where yours is,” he wrote in the Globe and Mail. 

“‘Think global, act local,’  many environmentalists say. But few Canadians get up in the morning thinking globally; local thinking guides local action.”

For groups trying to draw attention to the water woes facing many Aboriginal reserves in Canada, Winnipeg’s boil-water advisory was a great opportunity to create empathy and understanding—to think local.

It’s a great way to get media attention, too.

Time To Get Rid of the Term "Non-Profit?"

Is it time to get rid of the term “non-profit?”

That’s what my friend Mike Duerksen asks in a post on his website.

For Mike, a savvy marketer and communicator based in Manitoba, the phrase sounds negative.

It doesn’t describe what he does for a living, or how he also—like someone in business—seeks to maximize the return from every dollar his organization is given, how he rigorously measures impact, sets goals and holds himself accountable.

While businesspeople answer to shareholders looking for the highest return, he answers to “donors looking for the greatest impact for their philanthropic dollar.”

By using the word “non-profit,” he says, “we are defining ourselves by what we are not.”

Just because non-profit is a legal structure “doesn’t mean it should define us,” he says. “It strips our work of its value—and it’s just plain bad marketing.”

As for what might be used instead, he proffers a few ideas such as “for-purpose” or “for-impact.”

Mike has a point. By using “non-profit” we define ourselves by what we don’t make—a profit. But the case could be made that we do make a lot of “profit.” But our “profits” aren’t the kind that can be counted the way a business counts profit.

Our profit isn't money, but lives saved and changed, health improved, people fed and educated, the environment preserved, water cleaned, and more.

Which is a pretty amazing bottom line, when you think of it.

What do you think? Is “non-profit” a good or bad way to describe our sector? Is there a better word? Would the public be more interested in donating to our groups if they viewed it not as charity, but as investment?

It sounds like a worthwhile conversation to me.

George Orwell's Tips for Good Writing

Good communicators need to be good writers. Press releases have a better chance of attracting media attention if they are well-written.

There are many tips for good writing, and over time I’ll share some on this blog. But some of the best come from English writer George Orwell.

In his 1946 essay, Politics and the English Language,  he shared the following tips.

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. (To that I would add: Avoid clichés like the plague!)

2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. (Shorter sentences are better than long ones.)

4. Never use the passive where you can use the active. (Not “he said,” but “he says.”)

5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. (Keep it Simple, Stupid!)

6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. (This Get-Out-Jail-Free card means if it sounds better when you break a rule, go ahead and break it.)

Since many of use learned or honed our writing in university, where we were taught that big words, long sentences, fulsome jargon and a certain cool-distance from the subject were signs of intelligence, these tips can be hard to accept and apply.

But they are absolutely essential for good day-to-day communication with the public and the media.

The Inverted Pyramid, or Why Everything You Learned About Writing in University is Wrong

When I speak to university students who want to learn to do media relations, the first thing I tell them is: Everything you learned in university about writing you need to forget.

Anyone who has learned to write essays in university knows what I am talking about.

For a university essay, you are supposed to start by stating your thesis, go on to describe your methodology, detail the different options, and then add in supporting material.

Finally, you come to the big reveal—the conclusion.

That may get you a passing grade in university, but in the world of media relations there is only one word for it: Failure.

When writing a press release to catch the attention of the media, you have to do the opposite of what you learned in university.

You need to start with the most important information (the conclusion), then add the rest of the material as filler.

This style of writing is known as the inverted pyramid style. The most important information is at the top, the less important information is at the bottom.

Some say this style of writing originated with the telegraph. In its earliest days, the telegraph was not always reliable; the transmission could cut out before the reporter got to the end of his report.

The inverted pyramid style ensured that the most important info was always transmitted.

And what is the most important information? 

Who is involved, what it is about, when and where it happens and—importantly—why the reporter should care. (The five Ws of news.)

For busy reporters (and they are all busy), the inverted pyramid style helps them quickly decide if the press release is worth reading, and keeping.

The fact of the matter is that most reporters will only read the header, sub-head and opening paragraph or two of most press releases—about 30 seconds worth of time, or as much information might fit into a standard e-mail reading pane.

If you haven’t grabbed them by then, too bad. 

So make sure your conclusion—the news in the news release—isn’t buried at the bottom.

That may get you an A from a professor, but a failing grade from the media.

The Communications Ladder

One of the biggest challenges facing non-profit groups is remembering that not everyone knows as much about your issue or cause as you do.

We tend to want to make people drink from a fire hose—give them all the information we think they should have in one big gulp.

Almost nobody can process information that way. We have to start small, and let people take it in small, incremental bite-size pieces.

This process is called the Communications Ladder. The ladder looks like this:

• Committed

• Active

• Interested

• Aware

• Unaware

The rule of the ladder is simple: People can be moved up one rung at a time.

For example, if they have never heard of your group before, they move from unaware to aware.

If they decide to visit your website, or attend an event you are holding, they move to interested.

If they decide to make a donation or sign a petition, they move to active.

If they become a monthly donor or sign up as a volunteer, they are committed.

(In the business world, this ladder is called the five-stage adoption process.)

For those of you familiar with the New Testament, the Apostle Paul screwed this up completely by going from aware to committed in one step on the road to Damascus—but he had a vision of Jesus to help him do that. 

Few of us are so lucky.

Rules The Media Live By

Like any other workplace, the media has rules that guide how it  works.  Knowing these rules will prepare non-profit groups—which are often unfamiliar with how reporters do their jobs—to deal better with the media.

1. The Media Strives To Be Impartial.

The media’s greatest asset is the perception that it is impartial. This is different that saying a reporter is “objective”—that he or she has no opinion on an issue. Often, they do. But their task is to keep that opinion out of the story.

They do this by making sure to report both sides of a story, thereby inviting the reader, viewer or listener to arrive at his or her own independent conclusion.

2. The Media Won’t Take Your Word for It.

If your group is critical of a government policy, the reporter will note your point of view. Then the reporter will ask someone in the government for a response—someone who may refute your opinion or dispute your facts.

The reporter has not done this to harm you, but rather to prevent the newspaper, radio or TV station from looking like it is one-sided and unbalanced.

A reporter may personally support the aims of your organization, but he or she must avoid looking like he or she is advocating for you or for your point of view. For the media, balance is an important goal.

3. Positive Coverage Doesn’t Mean No Negative Coverage

Just because the media did a great positive report on your organization doesn’t mean they won’t show up some day to do a report about misuse of funds or a complaint about service. That’s all part of being fair and balanced.

4. The Media Assumes That The Public Has A Right To Know.

Reporters work on the assumption that the public has a right to know things about your organization. It is the reporter's job to get this information.

This does not mean that the media is constantly monitoring your group and its activities—there’s far too much going on in the world, and far too few reporters, to do that.

But when the situation arises, they will pursue a story about your group, in the belief that the public has a right to know what you are doing.

This is particularly true if your group receives government funding, is involved in issues that relate to public policy, if it works with children, seniors or members of any vulnerable group.

5. You Can’t Check An Item Before It Is Published Or Broadcast.

The media will not let you read an article before they print it, or hear or see a report before they air it. Don't even think of asking.

If you are not comfortable with this, don't send out press releases and don’t agree to be interviewed.

6. You Are Always On The Record.

When reporters call you, they do not believe they have to say “I’m going to take notes for an article” at the outset of the conversation.

All they have to say is their name, what they do and who they work for—that’s all the notice you get.

After that, anything you say is on the record.

If a TV crew or radio reporter shows up, you know you are on the record. But phone calls are tricky. Is the reporter interviewing you, or just getting some off-the-record background?

If you want to be sure, ask if the conversation is on the record or just for their own background information. That way you will know what’s happening—and what you should say, not say. 

Thoughts About Brands

What is a brand?

There are probably as many answers to that question as there are brands and people and companies engaged in branding.

For me, a brand is an impression in our brains that can help us remember what we think and how we feel about a company, a product—or a non-profit organization.

It’s a form of shorthand, in other words.

A brand eliminates the need to Google or do research to help us know what we think of Walmart, Toyota, the Toronto Maple Leafs or World Vision.

For each of those names above, you felt something. It might be positive or negative, or even just neutral.

Whatever it was, it came immediately, without having to work or think about it.

For companies, arts groups, sports teams, churches, non-profit groups and many others, creating a positive brand impression is the goal.

It’s hard work. It’s like a train. It takes a lot of energy to get a brand, or a train, rolling.

Once it is rolling, it requires constant effort to keep it going. If you unhitch the locomotive, the cars will keep rolling for a while. But eventually the train, and a brand, will roll to a stop.

(While a brand takes hard work to get and keep going, it can be derailed very quickly—think Tiger Woods, Bill Cosby or Jian Ghomeshi.)

If it was just a matter of catching the attention of your target audience, it would be easier. 

But everyone and everything else is trying to catch their attention, too.

MikeTennant is a brand expert. He is also co-author of the book The Age of Persuasion, with Terry O’Reilly, and worked with Terry on the CBC Radio One show of the same name. 

Mike and Terry tried to figure out how many ads the typical Canadian might be exposed to in a day (TV, radio, print, billboards, the sides of busses, websites, etc.)

If you Google that question, you will get answers ranging from 250 to 5,000. Mike and Terry figured it was about 600 a day.

If that’s the case, that means we see 219,150 ads a year, or 18 million in a lifetime.

And of those 600 ads we see each day, Mike says, we might retain six and remember two.

Into that blizzard of information is your tiny non-profit group, with no money for advertising, which is trying to catch the attention of potential supporters.

What this means, as Mike put it, “is that while your brand looks like a beautiful snowflake to you, it is part of a blizzard to the rest of the world.”

In my line of work—international relief and development—there are 1,600 competing brands, all trying to create a positive impression in the minds of potential donors.

But I’m just not competing against other development groups. My agency is competing against every other product, company, issue, cause, political party, entertainment option and much, much more that is trying to catch the attention of Canadians.

Making an impression is hard work, in other words. Which doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. 

But it does mean you need to target your efforts, keep your message simple, and be realistic about what you can accomplish.

Things That Have Changed, Things That Haven't in the World of Media Relations

No more fax machines . . . 

When I started in media relations in the early 1980s, things were pretty simple. 

The media landscape was less cluttered. The only media I had to think about were newspapers, magazines, TV and radio. Nobody had heard of the Internet.

The news cycle was much slower. Nobody worried about covering things right this second. You had time to think about what you wanted to say.

Technology was simpler. We mailed press releases, and still got things to the media in time. If it was really urgent, we faxed it.

The audience wasn’t as fragmented as it is today. Almost everyone read a newspaper or listened to one of a few radio stations or watched the TV news. It was easy to reach lots of people with less effort.

Or, to put it another way, a long time ago there was a magazine called Life. Then came People, followed by Us. Today the most popular media channel is called Me.

These are huge changes. And change keeps happening. But some things have not changed in the world of media relations. This includes:

A nose for news.

How we send stories may have changed, but one thing that has not changed is knowing what makes for a good story.

You can be technologically savvy, but if you don’t send news to the media, your press releases won’t get used.

Curiosity.

If you are not curious, you will not be a good media relations practitioner.

This is sometimes called “thinking like a journalist.” Journalists are among the most curious people on the planet, always wanting to know how things work, how it happened, what makes people tick.

You need to be like that, too, so you can find the kinds of stories that will attract the media’s attention.

I like to tell workshops I lead that I can teach you to write, but I can’t teach you to be curious. You can do the job if you aren’t curious, but you won’t do it well. Curiosity is what separates the great communicators from those who are just good at their jobs.

The ability to tell a story.

When you get right down to it, the essence of media relations is being able to crisply, cleanly and briefly explain the who, what, when, where and why about an issue, cause, product, even or person.

This can be done over the phone, in an e-mail, or during a conversation with a reporter. But it is most commonly done through a press release.

However it's done, it has to catch the media's interest. And to that, you need to give them a good story.

Building relationships with reporters.

When it comes to media relations, the most important thing is the story—if your story sucks, it doesn’t matter if the editor is your best friend.

That said, it’s important to get to know who’s who in the media. Which reporters are interested in your issue? Which media outlet is partial to your kind of stories? Which one is hungrier for news?

When reporters learn to know you as a source of good, valuable information, you can see an increase in media coverage. Your calls and e-mails are less likely to be ignored.

There have been a lot of changes in the world of media relations and communications. And there will be more changes to come. But some things have not changed for those who want to make the news.

As famed CBS journalist Edward R. Murrow put: 

“The newest computer can merely compound, at speed, the oldest problem in the relations between human beings, and in the end the communicator will be confronted with the old problem, of what to say and how to say it.” 

Murrow said that in the 1960s. He was right then, and he's right now.

The Importance of Word of Mouth

Non-profit groups would love to get that big break and be in the Globe and Mail or CTV News or some other major media outlet.

That would be great, and working with the media should never be ignored. But neither should we ignore good-old fashioned word-of-mouth.

Friends commending products or groups to friends is as old as, well, friendship. And face-to-face is still important. But now we have social media, which helps spread the word even faster and farther.

That's the point being made by Ted Wright of Fizz, a word-of-mouth marketing company in the U.S. 

In an article in the Globe and Mail, he notes that broadcast media are declining in influence and being replaced by conversations between friends.

He cites studies that show that about 80 per cent of people don’t believe that companies tell the truth in advertising, but 70 percent believe their neighbours and friends. 

“We are living in an age of conversation," he says. "Marketers, for big companies and small, have to study that trend and need to create conversations.”

A Teenager's View of Social Media

What do teens think about social media? There are a lot of studies. But then one 19 year-old decided to write about the subject from the perspective of a teenager.

His conclusion?

Facebook: "It’s dead to us. Facebook is something we all got in middle school because it was cool but now is seen as an awkward family dinner party we can't really leave."

Instagram: "The most used social media outlet for my age group."

Twitter: "To be honest, a lot of us simply do not understand the point of Twitter."

Snapchat: "Quickly becoming the most used social media network."

The author goes on to describe the usefulness, or lack thereof, of other social media channels.

Click here to read the full article.

Welcome!

Welcome to Making the News Canada, a blog about media relations, marketing and communications for non-profit organizations.

Material in this blog is based on my over 30 years of experience directing and doing media relations, marketing and communications for non-profit groups, and on my experience as a journalist and columnist.

It is also based on my book Making the News: An Essential Guide for Effective Media Relations (Novalis, now out of print).

The goal of this blog is to help non-profit groups do better when it comes to sharing their important messages--even though they don't have huge staffs or much money. 

I hope you find some of the posts mildly interesting, or maybe even a little bit helpful.