Current job listing on craigslist:

Creative Genius
-----------------------------------
Date: 2005-08-30, 2:13PM CDT

You are a conceptual genius.
You are a print design guru.
You have years of experience.
You have Agency experience.
You might have a couple Addy's on your trophy shelf.
You play well with others.
You have killer portfolio.
You have some Interactive experience.
You rock out to iTunes.
You have wicked sense of humor.
You are not above doing your own print production.

WE NEED YOU!

Job location is Plano
Compensation: 40-50K Based on experience

I think that's how Van Gogh got his start...of course, I ear that didn't end well.

From Purdue University:

Professor Uses 'Novel' Way to Teach Advanced Public Relations

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind., Aug. 30 (AScribe Newswire) -- Purdue University public relations students are learning that fiction can prepare them for reality.

"I traded in textbooks for novels in three of my advanced public relations classes," says Josh Boyd, associate professor of communication. "Even though the stories are fiction, the characters and plot can reinforce theories, ethics and the realities of working in a career such as public relations."

Boyd also assigned two novels, Carl Hiaasen's "Native Tongue" and Christopher Buckley's "Thank You for Smoking," for class discussions and papers.

"Native Tongue" is about a veteran journalist whose career stumbles, and he ends up working an entry-level writing job at an amusement park in south Florida. The author portrays public relations as "something mercenary and without honor." Buckley's novel is about how a spokesperson for the Academy of Tobacco Studies handles working with smokers' rights groups and antismoking groups while trying to promote tobacco.

"This was a great way for students to learn, to at least some extent, what it's like to work in the field, and that is valuable for those who may have little internship experience," says Boyd, an expert in corporate rhetoric.

"Students learned about crisis management and how to address the media when something goes wrong, as well as how these fictional public relations professionals handled ethical problems. Instead of just talking about ethical standards or spin theory during class, we had real examples of professionals working with different kinds of news media, such as 'Larry King Live' and the 'Today Show.'"

"The novels put advanced students in the shoes of a fictional professional."

I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere about how PR practitioners write fiction for a living anyway...ha ha.

From Silicon.com:"Apple is preparing a major announcement next week, dropping hints of something as critical to the company's future as the release of the original iPod in 2001. The company sent an invitation to reporters on Monday morning for a 'special event' being held on 7 September in San Francisco. The invitation reads: '1,000 songs in your pocket changed everything', referring to the release of the first 5GB iPod nearly four years ago. 'Here we go again.' As with any planned announcement from Apple, details are scarce and rumours are running rampant."

This is how to do PR. Steve Jobs learned from Regis McKenna well.

Yes, we know that most celebrity journalism isn't really journalism. And we know that magazines routinely touch up celebrity photos. But still....THIS is fascinating. (Via Cruel Site of the Day.)

The AP reports on a poultry science professor who is a true spin doctor:

"Daniel Fletcher has found a way to transform dark meat chicken into white, a scientific advance some purists say has gone too far ... The recipe involves adding excess water to ground-up dark meat to create a kind of meat soup, then spinning the mixture around in a tub at high speed. The centrifugal force makes the mixture settle into layers of fat, water, and extracted meat, which can be molded into breast-like patties of all-white meat."

I'm sure there's an unflattering PR metaphor in there somewhere...

From wiseass.org via PR Thoughts, here's the perfect way to deflect spin and punditry, no matter the source: your own BS Protector!

The story behind the BS Protector is here, and the free download is here.

Despite the source of this download, Media Orchard is NOT making a political statement! BS Protectors work equally well against Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Communists, Fascists, Terrorists, Neo-Cons, Neo-Isolationists, Neo-Nazis, Neo-Marxians, Whigs, Know-Nothings, Bull-Moosers, Fundamentalists, Secular Humanists, Zoroasterians, Socialists, Utopians, Cold War Nostalgists, Social Conservatives, Fiscal Conservatives, Segregationists, Northeastern Liberal Elitists, People Who Still Think Unions Work, Hollywood Liberals, Wild-Eyed Liberals, Bleeding Heart Liberals, Really Loud People, the FOX News Channel and Ralph Nader...

As well as bombastic flacks and pundits -- of course.

Adweek reports that another interactive agency, Ripple Effects Interactive, has launched a "blog relations" practice.

"We're trying to create buzz on the Internet for our clients," said David Gong, head of the Ripple Effects group. "Given the explosive nature of blogs, message boards and social media, we feel this is a great time for agencies to leverage them."

Of course, blog relations is a far more natural offering for public relations agencies -- but blogs are hot, so everyone and his brother is trying to cash in. And public relations firms have not, to date, distinguished themselves with their efforts in this arena.

As Reuters reports, "He went to prison for fraud and was ordered by the U.S. government to stop touting health products on infomercials, but Kevin Trudeau's book "Natural Cures 'They' Don't Want You to Know About" is a bestseller."

Why?

The reason has less to do with Trudeau's credibility -- he has none -- and more to do with the rigid public posture that the medical establishment has often taken toward alternative, complementary and holistic approaches to maintaining health and curing disease.

The reality is, we've evolved a system where doctors prescribe pills and cut into our bodies to treat our symptoms rather than the underlying causes, and where preventative healthcare is not prioritized. The result: a 25 percent U.S. obesity rate, along with increases in the rates of cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Statisticians predict that our expected lifespans will soon decrease for the first time in U.S. history because of this crisis.

Just as food companies like McDonald's are gradually jumping on the healthy-food bandwagon under public pressure and the threat of lawsuits, so the medical establishment -- from the FDA to individual healthcare practitioners -- must recognize that a greater emphasis on diet and nutrition is more critical than any new drug or surgical remedy.

And that means doctors like New Hampshire's Terry Bennett -- who bluntly told his female patient that she was obese and needed to lose weight, and was censured as a result -- should be considered heroes. Until that happens, the Kevin Trudeaus of the world will continue to rake in the bucks.

One organization's PR disaster is another's PR bonanza.

That's what the Florida Marlins are learning after their ill-advised decision to suspend one of their batboys for six games after he agreed to drink a gallon of milk in less than an hour at the behest of pitcher Brad Penny.

The silly suspension has turned into a PR black eye for the Marlins on Florida talk radio and in the papers. And PR-savvy organizations have stepped in to pick up the pieces.

As ESPN.com reports, "The Milk Processor Education Program is offering the batboy $500, the original prize of (Penny's) dare, along with any lost wages from the suspension as long as he promises to drink the recommended three glasses of milk a day (just not all in one sitting).

"In addition, the Fort Myers Miracle, the Minnesota Twins' Single-A affiliate in the Florida State League, have offered him an honorary batboy position during their game Monday night against the Tampa Yankees. All kids 14 and under will receive a pint of milk upon entering the stadium. The Miracle will also have a cow at the front gates and literature will be passed out on the importance of drinking milk. Empty milk cartons will be placed around the ballpark, so fans can donate money to the out-of-work batboy."

Marlins' note to self: Oops.

In my post, "The Case Against Morally Superior Journalists," I pointed out that some journalists look down at PR practitioners. I then attempted to make the case that all people, in all professions, have to make difficult moral and ethical choices from time to time -- and that PR people are not, as a class, morally inferior to journalists.

In the course of my argument, I offended some journalists with my candor about a few of the common practices in journalism, and my discomfort with these practices. I did not add (because I did not think I needed to) that PR people have to make difficult choices of their own -- and that there are many common practices in public relations that I am personally uncomfortable with. I write about these practices frequently in this blog.

In my own experience as a PR practitioner, I have quit assignments, and one job, because of ethical concerns. The PR world is far from perfect, and I have been forced to make difficult choices in this business any number of times. In the end, though, this profession suits me better.

Oh, yeah: Why I Love Journalists.

I love journalists because they do extremely important work. I have been addicted to newspapers since I was a child, I read a dozen magazines every month, and I watch news -- even infuriating 24 hour cable news -- more than anything on TV except my beloved Dallas Mavericks and Miami Dolphins.

I guess it's worth pointing out (as if I needed to) that without the fourth estate of journalism, our democracy could not function.

I also love that journalists are extremely passionate about what they do -- and about defending their profession from insult, real and perceived.

OK...are we even now?? Yeesh!

Under the headline, "Was Baradell a Bit Too Honest?," a journalist named Phillip Day posted a letter on Romenesko's blog suggesting that I should have been fired for writing a story that I considered "slanted" and "sensational."

Phillip missed the point. The story I referenced in my previous post had no inaccuracies; it was thoroughly reported -- bulletproof.

However, based on my reporting, I personally believed that the individuals who made accusations had an ax to grind and that, since the accusations could not be verified, they should not have been published. Instead, we published the accusations -- clearly stating that they were accusations, not facts. Journalists do this every day.

Unfortunately, we also know that when a newspaper publishes accusations, many people assume they are true. To paraphrase Ed Meese, "Most people accused of a crime are guilty, aren't they?" I think journalists sometimes take this power for granted.

Adam McGill of D Magazine was kind enough to link to my previous post, "The Case Against Morally Superior Journalists," on FrontBurner, the magazine's excellent blog. Unfortunately, he also posted this "summary" of my post, as submitted by an anonymous journalist:

SB's post can be distilled down to "PR practitioners and journalists are human, and as such are fallible." There's nothing wrong with that. But then he goes on to describe the false moral high ground journalists claim over their PR counterparts -- get this -- right before he himself stakes out a moral high ground over journalists -- get this, Part II -- right before denying that he is staking out a moral high ground! He truly does belong in PR. Read those last two graphs to yourself. It's like something out of the Onion.

Of the three objections SB has to the craft, only one has to do with actual journalism; the other two deal with anti-journalism. Deciding what your story is before doing your reporting has as much to do with reporting as deciding what your results are before doing your research has to do with science. That takes care of points one and two. Point three, the one that addresses actual journalism, baffles me. No subject in such a situation is required to submit to an interview. If pursuing such a story makes him uncomfortable or compromises the delicate balance of his personal moral framework, then he never should have been a journalist in the first place. The question of whether or not stories of personal tragedy are newsworthy has tied me into neither pretzels nor knots -- and I have done such interviews under the most unsettling circumstances.

To respond to this scribe's complaints in order:

1. I do not think PR people are morally superior to journalists -- far from it. The point of my examples was to show that there are difficult moral and ethical choices to be made in all professions.

2. The suggestion that journalists don't sometimes conduct interviews with a fully formed angle in mind is silly; I don't think the poster actually believes this.

3. The suggestion that certain publications don't sometimes slant their coverage toward the sensational is also silly; whether you blame Rupert Murdoch or prefer to go all the way back to Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, we all know this happens -- and that it's nothing new.

4. The poster is "baffled" by someone who is uncomfortable going to the house of a murder victim's family -- unannounced, uninvited and after several unreturned phone calls. Sorry to be so "delicate."

The senior internal PR person is one of the most important leaders within an organization -- not just because of his impact on company strategy, but because of his relationships and frequent contact with the news media.

The media uses your company's spokesperson as a gauge for how things are going for you. Is the spokesperson happy? Then maybe X Corp. is a fun place to work. Is your spokesperson passionate? Then maybe X Corp. is driven to achieve its operational objectives. Most reporters don't spend a lot of time poring over your balance sheet; they often start with their right brain -- their intuition -- to sniff out problems at a company.

That's why it's never a good idea to part with your PR exec on bad terms, as the tri-cornered hats at the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation obviously have, based on this report in The Daily Press of Newport News, Va.

Reporter Chris Flores apparently tried to reach Tim Andrews, the erstwhile PR chief for Colonial Williamsburg, on the phone, then discovered his contact info was missing from the organization's Web site. He even tried to find Andrews by going to his home, to no avail. Making matters worse, no one else at Colonial Williamsburg would return his calls, either.

Well, it's too late now, but if you're curious -- here's what I would do if I were wearing the tri-cornered hat:

1. Give Andrews a nice severance package to make him happy -- even if the departure was voluntary. The severance agreement would contain the terms of a smooth transition.

2. These terms might include, for example, friendly calls from Andrews to his key media contacts to inform them of the change, followed by a press release that hails Andrews' contributions as it introduces his successor.

That would have worked a little better than having Chris Flores at your ex-PR man's front door. Now everyone looks silly, and if I were Flores, my next question would be, "I wonder what other funny stuff is going at Colonial Williamsburg?"

The periodical Ethical Corporation has a special report on the relationship between corporate responsibility campaigns and public relations firms. It questions whether PR firms should be guiding corporations in their social responsibility programs, since PR is a profession "preoccupied with symbolism, imagery and perception rather than substance."

There's a simple answer to this question: No. A PR firm should not run your company's social responsibility program. That PR-first approach is what leads ExxonMobil to address the legitimate concerns of environmentalists by starting a "Save the Tiger" campaign to protect endangered bengal tigers. Get it? The tiger is ExxonMobil's mascot! How "preoccupied with symbolism rather than substance" is that?

The correct way to do social responsibility is better exemplified by ExxonMobil's competitor, BP, which has worked hard to present itself as enlightened on environmental issues -- principally global warming. BP's efforts start with the CEO and have substance behind them. I don't doubt that BP's PR team played an important role in the development of its strategy -- it should have -- but not the leading role.

I love journalism, and I respect and admire the work of journalists. I also know, in this era of angry bloggers, that so-called MSM (mainstream media) journalists take more unfair crap than just about any profession -- with the possible exception of contingency attorneys.

That said, there is one thing I don't like, and have never liked, about some journalists. I don't like the way they treat public relations practitioners.

I've been on both sides of the journalist/PR pro relationship, so let's start with a confession. When I was a reporter, I was often rude to PR people. I treated them alternately as annoying telemarketers (when they pitched me a story) or slavish assistants (when I deigned to write about their companies.)

One incident in particular still elicits pangs of guilt. A PR person representing a large Dallas church invited me to interview one of his denomination's national leaders. He called me several times, and was nice enough, and so I finally relented and agreed to do the interview.

But then something came up that day and I forgot all about the appointment. At the end of the day, when I checked my voicemail, I had an angry message from the PR guy. He kept calling until he was able to reach me on my phone to tell me how unprofessional I'd been, and how embarrassed he'd been sitting there, with this national religious figure staring at him, waiting for me to show up.

What I feel most guilty about today is my reaction to his call. I was apologetic on the phone with him, but when I got off my first thought was, "Well, I'm never dealing with that guy again. What a jerk!"

Of course, I was being the jerk. But I was so accustomed to PR people who quietly endured my arrogance that I mistook his aggrievement for hubris.

I believe in karma now, because the same thing happened to me a year after I started in PR. I had just taken a mid-level corporate job and had arranged several interviews with the CEO at a trade show. The CEO and I sat in a 10-by-10 room with empty white walls and a small white table, waiting for the first reporter to show. He never did. As I fumbled with my cell phone and developed flop-sweat, the CEO stared at me. (I believe the reporter acknowledged a "scheduling conflict" in an e-mail to me a week or so later.)

OK, I deserved that one. But what I didn't deserve was the "calling out" I got from an erstwhile journalistic colleague a few years ago. I was working in corporate communications, she was still a journalist, and she was writing a story about a controversy involving my company.

The conversation went like this: She asked me a question, and I told her my company's point of view on the issue. She didn't agree with this viewpoint; furthermore, she didn't believe that I agreed with it, and blurted out the following:

"Scott, you've sold your soul!"

Notwithstanding the utter lack of comprehension of what PR people do -- i.e., we represent our employers or clients, not ourselves -- this former colleague's comment goes to the heart of what bothers me about some journalists. Put simply, they think they are better -- that their jobs have a higher moral and ethical purpose than that of the lowly PR practitioner.

I have always found this ironic (and on a handful of occasions like the one above, infuriating) because I left journalism for three reasons. One, I was burnt out. Two, I wanted to earn a decent living. And three, I did not like some of the moral and ethical situations I was put in as a journalist.

I didn't intend for this post to turn into Moby Dick, so I'll close with three examples of these moral and ethical situations:

1. Reporters routinely kiss up to interview subjects in order to get their story. This is particularly questionable when the reporter already knows that he's going to write something negative about his interview subject. A great example of how this dance works is "Anatomy of a New York Times Article," a blog post by Mark Cuban. Reading the e-mail trail reminded me of some of my own past sins; it made me a little queasy.

2. One of my last assignments as a journalist was to write a story about the Dallas school system. The publication's editor had gotten a lead on a "conspiracy" of sorts within DISD, and asked me to talk with his sources and write the story. I talked to his sources; there was no conspiracy, or at least not one that could be in any way proven. But the editor insisted that I wasn't "digging hard enough." I relented and gave him the slanted, sensational story that he wanted. I felt sick afterwards.

3. Reporters are often required to knock on the doors of people whose loved ones have just died -- often violently and unexpectedly. Although there is usually no legitimate purpose for this other than to sell newspapers or earn ratings points, journalists wrap themselves in pretzels to find the "higher purpose" in this practice. Let me explain why you're wrapping yourselves in pretzels: there is no higher purpose.

These elements of the reporter's life never felt right to me; they weren't right, by my moral and ethical standards.

That said, I would never attempt to take the moral high ground with a journalist, because I know that ultimately we're all just people, doing the best we can. We make the compromises we can live with.

I guess Greg Mitchell, editor of the newspaper industry bible Editor and Publisher, has a right to his opinion. But he's not doing a favor to journalists who are weary of left-wing bias allegations by calling for U.S. newspapers to come out against the war.

Interestingly, he cites The Dallas Morning News as a potential recruit to the anti-war cause, based on its recent criticism of President Bush's "shopworn optimism" regarding Iraq. Sorry, Greg, but you don't know the newspaper's updated editorial strategy -- which has been, for some time now, to make points that play to the left and the right without coming out strongly on either side. The Morning News has been critical of President Bush, but its editorial board won't be raising the anti-war banner anytime soon.

Larry Twombly, CEO of Hat Trick Beverages, a small California company that sells "vitality water," got a great break when USA Today decided to profile him and his company. Twombly and his PR firm, Emerson Gerard Associates of West Palm Beach, Fla., must have been absolutely thrilled to tell the national newspaper about the CEO's colorful life -- including his attendance at Harvard and his drafting by the NHL's Boston Bruins.

Of course, it's always nice if such claims can be verified. USA Today published a lengthy article today that questions whether much of anything Twombly told the paper was the truth. Twombly defended his statements to the paper as accurate; however, an embarrassed Jerry Jennings of Emerson Gerard broke with his client. Jennings told USA Today, "We were misled and apologize for any misunderstandings. We have no reason to doubt our clients."

I feel for the mortified Jennings. Personally, I've never lied to or attempted to mislead a reporter; however, I've been in the room when questionable claims have been made without my OK. It almost always comes back to bite you.

The great benefit of telling the truth -- the whole truth -- is that you never have to remember what you said. You also never have to read painfully humiliating pieces about you in USA Today.

From The Times of London: "A freelance American journalist who wrote about alleged corruption and lawlessness in the Iraqi city of Basra has been abducted at gunpoint and shot dead."

From The Associated Press.

In a statement, CNOOC said: "The unprecedented political opposition...was regrettable and unjustified. This political environment has made it very difficult for us to accurately assess our chance of success, creating a level of uncertainty that presents an unacceptable risk to our ability to secure this transaction."

My thoughts on the subject are here.

Here's an interesting article from Salon on Wal-Mart's current image problem. The company has certainly made mistakes, but it's inevitable that you're going to take some heat when you become as large and powerful as Wal-Mart. Just ask Microsoft or Nike, among similar backlash victims.

Developing or updating a company's visual identity has always been one of my favorite projects, because the process -- ideally -- is a perfect balance of art and science. As an illustration of this, here's a nice piece on the psychology of color in logo design from the Canadian firm Tactical Graphic Design.

Ironically, we chose green and black to represent the Idea Grove for the same reason that we enjoy designing logos. Green communicates freshness; black says formality. It's a yin and yang thing. We want people to see us as what we are -- equal parts creativity and analysis.

The mayor and school superintendent of Springfield, Mass., are currently trading jabs over the school system's planned hiring of a $60,000-per-year public relations officer. The mayor says other folks within the school administration should handle the position's planned duties, such as working with the news media and managing internal communications among Springfield schools. The mayor is joining with the teacher's union in saying the money for the position should be spent "within the classroom."

OK, I'll admit I haven't seen the itemized budget for the Springfield school system -- but the mayor's argument has a familiar, false ring to it. Besides sounding like a political play, the idea that money is better spent "within the classroom" is simplistic.

It's similar to a corporation where the leadership has no concept of marketing and thus believes all available dollars should be spent on "feet on the street" -- i.e., sales. This creates a big sales force -- but one with no unifying direction or support.

These are often the same companies that put the CEO's secretary in charge of PR -- with disastrous results.

Maybe I'm biased, but my advice to the folks in Springfield is to put politics aside and give the new PR guy (or gal) a chance.