Why won’t they let young people sit down?

The internet can take you to some strange places very quickly.

Take Saturday night for example. One minute I’m lying on the couch listening to my 12 week old son crying relentlessly upstairs and my wife trying her best to soothe him off to sleep. Eventually she jangled car keys in front of his face for 15 minutes. It worked quite well.

The next minute, I’m racking my brains trying to remember the name of the act that represented the UK at Eurovision in 1995 and thanks to my iPhone, I’m soon on the internet finding out the answer.

From there (don’t ask me how) I ended up on a website that contained minutes from a community council meeting.

Amidst the usual chat about potholes and squirrels was something that took me aback. There’d been a discussion about a bus shelter and whether or not a bench for people to sit on should be installed in it.

The minutes stated “it was felt the bench could become a magnet for youths”.

What on earth is wrong with young people using a bench at a bus stop?!

Isn’t that the intended purpose of the bench? For people to sit on?!

I assume they meant “a magnet for people of any age that might cause trouble”. But that’s not what they said and it’s not the message they’re sending out.

The message is everything and with discussions like that going on (and being included in the minutes – goodness knows what they’re saying behind closed doors that we never hear about) no wonder young people feel victimised by the rest of society.

Of course, the way people speak in community councils and in the privacy of their own homes is influenced, to a degree by media coverage. Just being aware of this means you’re now more likely to spot examples of young people being given a bad press when they don’t deserve it. So look out for this and let me know when you spot an example.

I’d make it mandatory for every community council to include a young person on the committee who attends all their meetings. They’ve as much right as anyone else to a say in how their community operates and shouldn’t be getting “talked about” in this way without being able to stand up for themselves.

Perhaps local schools could suggest a group of prefects who could attend throughout the year. I know some community councils regularly have a youth worker along who speaks on behalf of the young people in the area, but I don’t see why the young people themselves can’t be involved.

I think there’s a lot everyone could gain and I’d be keen to hear any examples of parts of the country where this happens and how it works.

The Number 1 Reason A Press Release Doesn’t Get Used…

If you could spend just 10 minutes inside any newsroom in the world you’d understand why so many press releases don’t get used.

It’s simply because those press releases don’t contain news.

And the journalist’s role is to filter out the valuable, interesting news that they should deliver to the audience, from the noise, nonsense and self serving publicity material that deserves to get deleted.

So, what is “news”?

Here’s how Google defines it:

“Newly received or noteworthy information, esp. about recent or important events”

I’d define news as something my audience will want to hear about now.

Were the pandas arriving at Edinburgh Zoo “important?”. To animal enthusiasts in Edinburgh, probably. In the grand scheme of things, of course not. Yet think about the level of coverage they received in newspapers and on television.

What’s more “important” – a car crash in Brazil that kills a dozen people, or a car crash on the M8 that kills one?

We rely on journalists to make these judgements and provide us with the “news” we want.

But it’s not a perfect science. There are layers, filters and decisions made at every stage that as an audience, we’re not part of.

That car crash in Brazil might be completely ignored by our British TV evening news. But if one of our networks happened to have a reporter and camera crew in the area of Brazil where the crash occurred, or managed to get hold of eye witness video footage – it could become a big story, high up the running order.

The problem with many press releases is that one, generic version is written and sent out to every media outlet the sender can get an email address for. As a result, it doesn’t tick any boxes, doesn’t matter to any audience and gets deleted.

The trick is understanding that what counts as “news” depends on who you’re talking to, and who they’re talking to.

It starts with thinking about the publication you’re targeting and tailoring the entire approach to meet their needs.

So you highlight certain details for one newspaper, then tone them done a bit for another and focus on another aspect of the story.

Before you hit “send” – put yourself in the shoes of the journalist receiving your press release.

Will it pass the “so what” test?

Journalists carry out this test hundreds of times a day, often on instinct and at lightning speed. In my experience a press release has 3 seconds to grab the journalist’s attention before it gets deleted.

And once it’s got their attention it has to matter. It needs to be something they want to tell their audience, and want to tell them now.

Having spent 16 years in journalism and deciding every day which press releases to use and which to trash, I can help you write a press release that gets results. It’s about finding the little details and insights in your business which will make an impact. It’s about understanding as much as possible about the journalist you’re sending it to even down to including the right choice of image to go with it.

Think about the results you want.

In my experience, there are no shortcuts. A bland, generic “one size fits all” press release sent to thousands of journalists is a waste of time and money.

Far better to tailor it to a smaller number of carefully chosen contacts. Once it gets coverage, it becomes “news” and will get picked up by other journalists who didn’t even receive the original release.

If you would like help writing a press release that gets coverage please contact Colin Kelly Media. If you’ve already written one you can send it via my distribution channel.

it’s the big day!

Do your messages made a difference?

5 Scots That Give Great Interviews…And What We Can Learn From Them

Michelle Mone
Deep within the Scottish psyche lie some serious issues about our attitudes towards “success”. We have problems with people who’re seen as too big for their boots.

For the last 15 years Michelle Mone has achieved great success while making sure her connection to “where she came from” comes across in interviews.

Back in 1998, her (at the time) small Scottish company was taking on the mighty multi-national Goliaths of the lingerie industry. Michelle played this card for all it was worth. She didn’t talk like a CEO in interviews, she talked like your sister’s friend. And people got behind her.

We respond to those who’re “just like us”. This doesn’t mean exaggerating a working class accent or becoming an inverted snob, but by making sure journalists know about your humble roots, sharing that you sometimes lack confidence or even pointing out a few of your own flaws, you build a picture of yourself as “a real person” in a world where many others are faking it.

Tommy Sheridan
His charisma and convictions are well documented. What’s not so well known is the lengths Sheridan went to to build his profile in the media.

He made himself available day or night, even to the smallest local radio station and answered as many questions as a reporter wanted to ask. He made time for everyone. He’d give you his home address, mobile number and made the effort to give interviews.

More than any other Scottish politician of the time, he bothered to think about the media’s needs and by serving them better, got himself more coverage.

While other politicians only dealt with the BBC and broadsheets, Sheridan made the reporters at the bottom feel important. And as they rose through the ranks, so did his stock.

Alex Salmond
Years before entering office, the First Minister recognised the power of a good interview. Always coming across as the voice of sanity, down to earth and a “real” person rather than a politician, he got himself masses more coverage simply by being available and giving good quotes.

The SNP was way ahead of the game installing ISDN lines in the homes of their key people. 10 years ago this meant Salmond was giving radio interviews in studio quality while sitting in his living room first thing in the morning. His Labour or Tory opposite numbers would often be on the phone…or not on at all.

Lulu
Watch her next time she’s on QVC promoting her make up line. She understands how to “sell” without coming across as a sales person. It’s all about stories, and she’s got plenty. And she tells them with a passion and energy that wins people over. Those qualities are infectious.

A cynic could start off seeing her on TV thinking “not her again!” and by the end she’s won them round. She does that by relating to people – she’s got the common touch and makes sure she conveys her excitement.

Ally McCoist
Always has time. Always honest. Always friendly.

Understands there’s more to life than football, and more to life than the media. There’s a lot that can be taught in media training and lots you can practice to get better. But your priorities in life have to come from within.

Ally McCoist has got his straight and as a result comes across very well, whether he’s facing a difficult time at his club, presenting on Question of Sport or winning a title as he did many times as a player.

Takeway Interview Tips
- Be available
- Be passionate
- Be yourself – flaws and all
- Be relied upon to give great quotes and soundbites
- See your “business” for what it is – a small part of peoples’ lives that in the grand scheme of things…doesn’t matter.

 

How far will you go?

embrace the space social media for business!

Why one press release is never enough…

The whole point of a press release is for the person on the receiving end to do something good with it – eg use it as the basis of a story that gives you positive coverage.

If you’re really lucky (or your press release is really good) they might just copy and paste exactly what you or the communications consultant sent.

But the truth is, 9 times out of 10, the press release gets deleted and goes no-where.

And the reason for that is simple: What you sent wasn’t right for the publication that received it.

“Hang on a minute!,” you might be saying “I thought the whole point of a press release was you write it once and fire it out to everyone?”

Not quite. Take a few moments and think about who you’re sending it to and what those journalists need.

The way your press release is treated by your local newspaper is very different to the way a national newspaper would treat it. And that’s different to the way a newspaper or website overseas would treat it. The very local media will want to know where you work, the village you live in, perhaps where you went to school, what pub you drink in. The regional or national paper will be satisfied with your profession, and that you’re from “Glasgow”. At a global level, simply your nationality will do and the whole way you present the content of your press release will be much broader.

It doesn’t mean writing several press releases all from scratch.

It’s carefully tweaking what you’ve got, highlighting different elements, changing little bits here and there and understanding that different audiences have different needs.

When clients ask me to create and distribute press releases to raise their profile I generally work on 3 different versions and send to different contacts databases. It’s about convincing the journalist on the receiving end that this was intended specifically for them and hasn’t just been fired out at random.

Invisible Children responds to a crisis

The man behind the social media phenomenon “Kony 2012″ is in hospital.

The charity he works for has issued a statement.

If I’d been advising the charity’s CEO Ben Keesey last night I’d have told him not to use the “exhaustion, dehydration and malnutrition” line. It’s inviting ridicule when the mainstream media are reporting this.

I’d have ben tempted not to mention Russell at all. He’s become the story and he has to go.

The Kony video racked up 80 million YouTube views because it communicated a simple, powerful message that was difficult to argue with.

In the last few days, the message has become far more complicated.

Consider the way Russell has been described. He’s gone from being “a film maker” in the early coverage to “an evangelical Christian”. People like film makers if they make good films. It’s a very safe term to use. “Evangelical Christian” makes some people feel uncomfortable and gradually starts to undermine the message of the film.

We’ve started to talk about the character of the person who made it. The coverage of the last 24 hours describes Jason Russell is even more unhelpful terms, which further detract from the original message.

The statement from Keesey puts even more of the spotlight on Russell and less on Kony – who he doesn’t mention at all. That’s a massive wasted opportunity. Keesey’s words mean the latest chapter in the story is entirely about Russell.

Of course, any boss has a duty of care towards staff but by wording his statement as he did Keesey has made discussion of Russell’s personality “official”, ensuring that for the next few days there will be continued coverage of Russell’s situation. And when he returns to health, which I hope is soon there’s going to be a media scrum to get an interview with him. It’s as though Keesey thinks by saying little, he can shut the story down. No chance. He has to put Russell aside and use this opportunity to control the message.

But the mistakes began before the video was even placed on YouTube.

In my opinion Invisible Children could have prepared better. They created a compelling piece of social media. But did they have a strategy in place to deal with the consequences of something going viral? 80 million views in 2 weeks – that’s a hell of a lot of attention on a pretty small organisation.

Were they prepared for the scrutiny that comes with that? The questions about their finances and personnel? They should have been better prepared and instead of responding to people saying they were “a scam” could have been open and transparent about who they were FIRST.

Why did they allow Russell to give interviews? They were very clear that their sole aim was the sharing of the video and to make KONY famous. They also made themselves and Jason Russell famous. And perhaps even infamous. My advice to them during the initial hype about the film would have been to refuse ALL interview requests and tell media outlets simply to play a section of the film. Publish complete and transparent information about themselves and their financial records on their website so anyone who wants to find out more can.

In private, all that matters is Jason Russell’s health and I hope he’s OK.

But in public – assuming this charity is serious about its aims regarding Kony – then all that matters is the message and it cannot become tainted or complicated.

So had I been advising Ben Keesey last night I’d have suggested he said something like this…

- Thank everyone who’s watched and shared the Kony 2012 video

- Point out that 80 million views represents less than 10% of the number of people on Facebook so there’s still a huge job to do

- Remind us what Kony has done and why he should be stopped

- Thank everyone who’s donated money – pledge to spend it in a way that makes a positive difference to the world and explain that full details of how that money is spent will be available on a regularly updated section of the website

- Finish by stating that as recent media coverage has made clear, the member of the team who made the film is currently in hospital and that you wish him a full recovery and hope he’s able to re-join the team at some point in the future.

Privately, brief news editors that Russell has stood down in order to concentrate on his health and suggest that in the grand scheme of things, forcing children to fight in a war is a rather more serious offence than finding it difficult to cope with a sudden stressful situation. And ask those same news editors why a small charity was able to create a piece of content about an evil man that 80 million people responded to while their news organisations didn’t. Suggest that if the Kony 2012 phenomenon has taught us anything it’s that the mainstream media is becoming irrelevant and that they might wish to focus on sorting this out than devoting further coverage to one man’s health issues.

Your thoughts?

Repositioning the RSPCA

The animal welfare charity for England and Wales thinks it’s become “too cuddly” in the eyes of the public and wants ideas to position itself at the cutting edge. See this Tweet from earlier today for an example of what, I assume, they want to get away from.

Gorgeous bunnies – cuddly Jojo and inquisitive Bobby – are looking for a forever home. http://ow.ly/9lbvy Are you their perfect match?

At the heart of this change in tactics is a need to address a drop in funding.

I think social media has a big role to play here. I was pleased to see the RSPCA to take part in the “Twitter 24″ exercise last year. This was something many public sector agencies – such as the police and local authorities – did with great success. For one 24 hour period, every call they got, was Tweeted in real time.

So over the day their followers got a sense of the full scale of work they do, with some surprising insights and results and changing perceptions.

My theory is that for the vast majority of individuals and organisations, the more people feel like they KNOW us, the more they’ll LIKE us. And often the problems we face come about when we’re misrepresented and people make assumptions about us because we haven’t done a good enough job of getting ourselves across.

So the RSPCA, and any organisation, can take back some control simply by talking honestly and openly about what they do.

Well done to them for taking part in Twitter 24. In fact, I think they should do it again but this time, invite someone else to write the tweets. Call in a celebrity, a sports star, an MP, a group of high school pupils, or a combination of all of these,  people who might not have considered what the RSPCA actually does. Have them compose the tweets and share them through their own channels AND the official RSPCA feed. This will get more emotion into the Tweets and by opening itself up to people who’re not so close to the organisation, the messages will have more impact and credibility.

As this anti RSPCA Facebook page shows, some people are very sceptical about what they do, or downright oppose it and there’s work to be done addressing some of this opposition and answering legitimate questions and concerns people have.

There isn’t any public figure that springs to mind when I think of the RSPCA. They need some new, higher profile ambassadors. They need “champions” both inside and outside the organisation that can go online and on television and radio programmes and put their new message across.

With centres all over England and Wales I guarantee there will be people already working for the charity who with a bit of training could do this perfectly well. They need to tell compelling stories about the difference the RSPCA makes and what it does with money donated by the public.

Believe it or not there are some hard hearts out there who are surprisingly unmoved by stories of animal neglect. Paint some vivid pictures and tell me more about the people responsible for these acts of cruelty. Who are they? What else have they done wrong? Why are our communities better places without them? There’s a human cost to animal cruelty.

I also wonder if the charity is missing out by asking the public not to report animal cruelty through social media. Surely it’s inevitable that if that’s how I choose to follow the RSPCA then that’s how I’ll tell them when I spot something worth investigating. They should acknowledge this and perhaps add a facility to their Facebook page that allows me to do so without leaving that platform.