The Human Brand

Branding.  It's like the holy grail for most marketers.  Creating an instantly recognizable brand is one of the primary objectives for the majority of marketers and organizations spend thousands of hours and millions of dollars to do so.  And yet, with all that effort and with all the products, companies and services available to the consumer, the number of insta-brands (or instantly recognizable brands) is quite small.

Of course, small businesses and non-profits just don't have the resources that major companies do when it comes to branding their organization, product or service.  But, as we've seen in this blog before, you don't need the massive resources of large companies to do something well and be effective.  You simply need a plan and a little know-how.

The Obstacles:

First, branding isn't just getting your name out to the masses.  It's about creating an image that is instantly recognizable.  You want folks to have an immediate connection to you when they hear your name, product or service.  This isn't just about having folks recognize your name, but about having them really connect with you.  Maybe you want your name associated with quality, reliability, new and hip, it's really up to you. 

The problem is, folks don't automatically relate to "things," they relate to people.  It's hard to relate to a plate of spaghetti or a sandwich or a car.  You can WANT those things, you can think those things are cool, or nice or desirable, but you can't really relate to them.  The same holds true for most organizations.  You can admire a business or what a non-profit is trying to accomplish, but at the end of the day, it's still a faceless organization, often a name without a personality.

And using social media to create meaningful, integrated relationships between a brand and consumers is simply harder than creating the same kind of relationship between people.  In essence, all of the social media networks out there were designed to connect people with people, not people with brands.

For instance, you own a small business or run a non-profit.  You're online as yourself, but also have pages for your organization.  On your personal pages, you most likely interact with your friends in a more casual, conversational manner.  Now think about how you interact on your organizational pages.  You most likely use those pages to simply announce specials, deals, make a plea for donations or let folks know about an event.  Unlike your personal profile where you're involved in conversations, these types of organizational postings are primarily one-sided.

This isn't how humans interact with other humans.  Even on sites like LinkedIn, where your interactions are more professional and formal, you're still often having a conversation, it's rarely just a one-way street.

The problem is, if you attempt to involve yourself in more casual conversations from your organizational pages, it may not be received very well by others in the group or conversation.  They'll probably look at it as an awkward intrusion by a company trying to sell something.

You can certainly build a network on your social media pages of people who "like" or are "fans" of your brand, but that still doesn't mean they want you involved in their personal conversations.  Plus, commenting on various personal posts can potentially damage the brand image you have worked so hard to build.

So does this mean you have to continue the one-way conversation rut that you're probably already in?  No, you don't.  You may never be able to get folks to view your brand as a warm, fuzzy friend that can converse in casual conversations at will.  But you CAN humanize your brand to the point where your network contacts feel comfortable interacting on a less-than-formal level.

The Solutions:

First, understand that we're talking about "humanizing" your brand.  In other words, you want to make your brand feel less than a faceless entity and more like a welcome friend that can be trusted and conversed with regularly.  At worst, you want them to feel like you're brand is a familiar acquaintance.

You can do this easily without breaking your bank. 

1.  Put a human face on your organization
2.  Be more interactive

There you go.  Simple, right?  Actually yes, and we'll show you how.

The Human Face:

Think about the 'O' Network.  Think about Virgin Records.  Think about Maytag.  What do all of these things have in common?  They each have a human face attached to their names.  Oprah Winfrey is literally a corporation unto herself.  She owns magazines, runs a TV network, makes movies and television shows.  And yet, she is, in the end, simply Oprah. 

Virgin Records IS Richard Branson.  He jet sets around the world, loves music, give generously to charity.  He's a playboy adventurer that exudes confidence and fun.  Oh, and he owns one of the largest music retail outlet chains in the world.  Virgin isn't just a music label anymore, it's virtually a way of life.  And that's because, as an organization, it's practically synonymous with Branson.

Both of those organizations have real-life individuals behind their brands.  In fact, those people ARE their brands.  They embody everything about their brands.  But what about characters, a fictitious face to an organization?  That's where Maytag comes in.  You know the guy.  The loveable loser repairman who has nothing to do because of the quality of his product.  Like Mr. Whipple, Mr. Peanut, Mr. Clean, Tony The Tiger, the Travelocity Elf, Charlie Tuna, the list goes on and on, The Maytag repairman doesn't really exist.  And yet, each of these characters have helped to create a brand that consumers love.  Perhaps the most famous of this type of branding belongs to one of the most successful companies in the world, McDonalds.  What would McDonalds be without the clown?  Just another burger joint?

This type of branding works because now you have a face to front for the organization.  Just like you should have a human face when pitching a story to a news outlet, having a character to represent your brand works.  It works because now consumers have something or someone, a person or character that they can relate to. 

One of the primary reasons this tactic works is due to a few important elements:

1.  The characters are relatable - They're funny, charming, frustrated, in love, pursuing a goal.  They represent many of the human hopes, strengths and frailties that people instantly connect with.


2.  They are personable - These characters don't preach, they don't yell or scream at the consumer, they simply talk.  This is important.  They interact with consumers.  Even in ads, you often see them interacting with regular consumers. 


3.  They stick around - Repetition matters.  Like radio and TV ads, quality is important, but quantity is vital.  You can't just toss out a character a few times and hope consumers catch on.  You have to use your character all the time, over a long period of time. 

Being Interactive:

This second part is perhaps the most important part of humanizing your brand.  We've discussed this in this space before, but it's so vital to your social media success, that it bears repeating.

BE INTERACTIVE!

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?  When you post, whether it be on LinkedIn, or Twitter or Facebook, don't just tell people about your specials, or your product or your service.  Ask questions, look for feedback, get your network involved in what you're doing.

An example of a brand that is using social media to successfully interact and build their brand is "TempurPedic".  This is where I say I'm not being paid by any organization mentioned in this posting...so you know.

TempurPedic is running ads that don't just tell the consumer how good their beds are.  In fact, the ads make very few claims at all.  Instead, they ask consumers to interact with their social media and online platforms.  The ads ask viewers to go to their website, check them out on Twitter and Facebook and find out what OTHERS are saying about their product. 

This is a brilliant approach.  Particularly since they actually use the phrase, "join the conversation" in the ad itself.  It's not asking them to log in and receive information, it's asking them to be PART of disseminating opinion and information.  It makes the consumer feel like they are an active part in building the brand.

I know what you're saying right now.  "But I don't have the money for a national television ad campaign."  I get it.  Who does?  But that doesn't mean you can't have a similar message in your postings.  You can encourage your network to participate in conversations.  Ask questions, solicit for advice, open a forum to discuss specific things.

Then there's the issue of video.  One of the best things about living in 2011 is that anyone, ANYONE, can shoot video, edit it and post it as a kind of ad for your brand.  You can use a character as part of these videos, you can have a call to action, you can open conversations with these "ads".

In fact, if you're NOT using video on your social media platforms yet, you need to start, immediately.  People like watching videos, they will share videos, all of which helps build your brand. 

When you do put your video together, here are a few things to remember:

1.  Keep them short - Anything over 30 seconds isn't likely to be shared or watched all the way through unless the video is REALLY good.


2.  They don't have to be funny - Funny is relative.  What's funny to you, might be offensive to others.  Simply consider your message and the best way to deliver your message.  You want the feel and image of your video to reflect and build on the image you are creating for your brand. 


3.  Have a call to action - At the end of the video, or during the video, make sure you let the consumer know what you want them to do.  If you want them to join a conversation, tell them.  If you want them to do something else, tell them.  Just watching a video will help raise awareness, but it doesn't necessarily get consumers to support your brand.

That Human Touch:

In the end, you want your social media network to not only like your brand, to feel affection for it, you want them to help you build your brand.  If your friends and fans can start relating to your brand on a human level, they will start to relate to your organization on a more personal level.

Eventually, you'll find that your network will begin to actively help build and humanize your brand through conversations with their own network and mentions of your brand as they might mention other friends they have. 

This doesn't happen overnight, but it DOES work.  Just make sure that the human face to your brand has a warm smile.  I mean, we may live in a technological era, but some things never change.

The Forest For The Trees

One of the biggest problems small business owner and non-profit directors have when handling their own PR and social media efforts is that they are too close to their own organization.  I know this sounds strange to say, but sometimes being TOO familiar with your business or non-profit can actually hinder your ability to speak to the masses, gain friends and followers and garner you some much needed earned media coverage.

Case in point:

On Thursday morning, I received this email from a friend who works as news producer at a local television station:

On Nov 11, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Shaw, Duncan J Shaw wrote
You know I *love* sending you stuff…

Nowhere in this e-mail or attached press release is there an explanation of *what* “Wage Theft” is (they provide a link to a video in the e-mail, and I think there are links in the attachment), but you would think you’d at least give a one or two line explanation…

This "release" is one of the myriad of "Bad press releases" that newsrooms receive every day.  Fortunately, I have the pleasure of reading a few of them from time to time without having to sift through the piles of garbage that producers, reporters and editors have to deal with.

Before we go any further, let's take a look at the aforementioned "release":
(NOTE - I have removed the name of individual who sent the release)

Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:53 AM
Subject: Press Advisory for Wage Theft Action in Denver, 11-18-10

Greetings.

Attached is a press advisory about a Wage Theft Day of Action and Awareness that will take place a week from today in 30 cities around the country (including Denver) on Thursday, Nov. 18th at 11:00am.

Here is a YouTube link about the problem of wage theft:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn6nr2PviIU&feature=player_embedded

For general inquires ahead of time about the Day of Action in Denver or concerning the informal partnership that has developed in Denver between Interfaith Worker Justice of Colorado, the Department of Labor, OSHA, and the El Centro Day Laborer Center, please contact me (Rev. Daniel Klawitter) at: 303-477-6111 ext. 36.

For inquires about what wage theft specifically looks like in Metro Denver and/or to get personal human interest stories from workers who have had their wages stolen by their employer, please contact the Director of El Centro Humanitario, Eddie Soto, at: 303.292.4115, esoto@centrohumanitario.org

WHAT: Educational event/Press Conference on Wage Theft
WHO: Religious Leaders, Day Laborers, Worker Advocates and representatives from OSHA, the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division and Colorado Dept. of Labor and Employment.
WHEN: Thursday, Nov. 18th at 11:00am.
WHERE: El Centro Humanitario, 2260 California St. Denver, CO 80205.

Speakers will include Dusti Gurule, the regional representative for U.S. Department of Labor Secretary, Hilda Solis.

Sincerely,
XXXXXX

There was the obligatory follow-up contact information at the end, which was perhaps the best part of the release.

Now let's take a look at WHY this release is such a poor example of a press advisory.  Look back at Duncan's note in his email to me.

1. There is no explanation of what "Wage Theft" is
2. The video link is just that, a link, no embedded video

These two items alone make this a very ineffective press release.  Of course there are some reasons as to why these mistakes happened.  First, the sender assumed that journalists know what wage theft is.  Second, they may not have taken the time, or knew how, to embed video into an email.

While both mistakes are understandable, they aren't excusable.  As we've covered in this space many times before, journalists are two things; busy and lazy.  Yes, it sounds like a contradiction, but it's not.  Reporters, editors and producers already have a ton of work to do.  They either won't want to, or don't have time to open up external links or attached files.  If you want a journalist to look at your video, read your release or peruse your article, then you have to put it directly into the body of your email.

You really have to make it as simple as possible for them to get and digest the information quickly.  One stop shopping is the way to go.  Don't make them go to YouTube, or take tha chance that whatever file you've attached doesn't come with a virus.  Yes, it's only one extra click, but that extra click can be the difference between getting news coverage and ending up in the ignore pile.

Speak The Language:

Now about the other miscue, assuming that journalists were already aware of "wage theft", well, that's an entirely different beast.

As a small business owner or non-profit director, you deal with your particular cause, service or product on a daily basis.  You know all aspects about what your organization does, from top to bottom and from all angles.  No one knows as much as you do when it comes to your business or non-profit.  On one hand, this makes you the perfect person to go forth and spread your message.  On the other hand, this intimate knowledge can be a real handicap as well.

For instance, the individual who sent the above press release is most likely so involved with the issue of wage theft that it is almost inconceivable to him that very few people actually know what wage theft is.

This has been an issue with many of the clients I work with as well.  Whether it's a restaurant, a storage company or any number of non-profits, each of them simply assume that everyone is already aware of their business or cause.

This assumption negatively impacts how you present your information.  Because we all know that brevity works when dealing with the public, corners are cut and vital information is often left out.  This is the kind of information that, while well known to those close to the business or cause, isn't readily known outside of those circles.  Thus, you end up sending a release that focuses on your upcoming event, without actually describing what your business or cause is all about.

More than that, BECAUSE you are so well versed in your cause or business, you ultimately end up using language that is either confusing or is a turn-off to the public at large.

When dealing with one of my current clients, we have gone round and round over the type of words used to describe pets without homes.  To the public at large, homeless pets are feral.  But within the circles of animal rescue and care, feral has a very specific meaning.  That means we have to use both "homeless" AND "feral" in all of our releases.  It might seem like a little thing, but it's extra words that can ultimately confuse readers.

Another instance involves the upcoming holiday season.  When it was proposed to promote proper care for new pets given as presents, the client had a problem because so many pets will likely come from breeders, something the client is opposed to.  The problem is, the public doesn't care, thousands of new pets WILL come from breeders this holiday season.  Simply by talking about holiday pets won't increase the number of pets purchased from breeders.  But by avoiding the topic altogether, the client would have missed an opportunity to talk about spaying and neutering for all these new pets and wouldn't have had a platform to discuss spaying and neutering in general.

This problem can be seen in every walk of life.  Engineers, chefs, computer programmers, non-profits of every stripe.  When putting together your press releases, when posting items on your various social media platforms, keep in mind that the public at large isn't familiar with your acronyms, your technical speak, your specific definitions.

Combating The Problem:

It's not easy to step back and see the bigger picture.  In most cases, you don't have that luxury.  You're so busy handling the daily details of your organization, you are essentially immersed in every aspect of your organization.  So when it comes to putting together your release or posting on Facebook or Tweeting, here are some ways you can make sure your knowledge doesn't get in the way of your success:

1.  An extra set of eyes - Get someone you trust to go over your releases before sending them out.  Make sure this is someone who isn't as familiar with your organization as you are.  By getting someone to represent the public at large, you can make sure your message isn't lost, hindered or obfuscated by technical language or terms that only you will understand.


2.  Dont' get caught up in the minutae - Yes, to you, the minutae matters, it has to in order to be successful.  But too much minutae will turn away followers.  They don't care about the difference between "homeless" and "feral" or between "hoagie" and "grinder".  You also don't have to explain every little thing, just the overview.  Make sure your basic message is received in the simplest and most understandable manner possible.

3.  Don't forget the bottom line - In the end, you want others to understand, appreciate and support your business or non-profit.  The public wants value and you have to show them why your organization gives them that value.  Don't worry about every little thing, focus on explaining, briefly what you do or what you're about, and what you can do for them.  If you can adhere to these two basic elements, you're releases and your postings will be successful.

You have a passion about your organization, that makes sense.  But if you don't step back and simplify and clarify your message, your efforts will result in failure.  Just keep in mind that you have to explain in short simple terms what your business, product, service or cause is all about and then explain why you bring value to the public.  It's not hard to do, unless, of course, you're just too close to the subject matter to see the forest for the trees.

How to think like a journalist:

There's a big misperception about journalists.  Like lawyers, many people rate journalists just above cockroaches, but below rats on the evolutionary chain.  And that's debatable since I know some who value a cockroach much more than they do a laywer or a journalist.

No, I'm not Superman, just a journalist...

But, speaking as a longtime journalist, I'm here to tell you that they're just like you.  They're human beings, they have good days and bad, they bleed if cut and they weep when confronted with human tragedy.

I remember covering Columbine and seeing the circus it had become just a day after the shootings.  Hundreds of reporters, technicians, producers were scurrying all over the park, looking for stories, trying to find any new tidbit of information they could report on.  And to me, it was exciting, thrilling, it was why I became a journalist in the first place.

But I also remember many other reporters who looked tired, sad, done with the whole thing.  I distinctly remember watching one reporter file a report for a network and afterwards she turned around, put down her microphone and said simply, "I'm done.  I can't do this anymore."  She left and never returned to the park.  I sometimes wonder what happened to her.  At the time, I couldn't understand why she would just walk away from such an important and monumental story.  Years later, after 9/11, I understood her fatigue, her frustration, her disgust with being constantly tired and sad.  And so I left as well.

I tell you this not to elicit sympathy, but to paint a picture of the journalist as a human being.  They are prone to weakness at times, they are biased, they sometimes do things with their gut and let the chips fall where they may.  It is for this very reason that you have to try to understand how a journalist thinks in order to meet their needs and make your future PR pitches a success.

I've already covered what constitutes news in previous entries, but let me quickly recap for those who may have missed it.  The general parameters journalists use when deciding on what is newsworthy and what isn't is as follows:

1.  Timeliness
2.  Proximity
3.  Impact
4.  Relevance
5.  Wow factor

But even with these guidelines, there are always disagreements among newsroom staffers about what story should be covered and which one should be left in the futures file.  There's a very good reason for this.  Think about it.  While timeliness and proximity are pretty set variables in the equation, others like impact and relevance, even wow factor can throw the entire decision-making process out of whack. 

For instance, I'm not a parent.  I don't really have a paternal bone in my body.  My interests lie elsewhere.  So a story pertaining to a baby crib recall just doesn't hold that much interest for me.  Certainly I recognize the impact and relevance it has for my potential readers, viewers and listeners, but because of my personal bias, I might only assign this story as a :15 second reader while a colleague might push for a full :90 second package complete with live shot and graphics.  We both recognize it's a valid story, but it's how we approach that story and handle it's coverage that separates us.  And that difference has everything to do with who we are as people.

Would you like to play a game?

With that in mind, I want you to take a moment and play a game with me.  I call it the newsroom quandary exercise, and it's a great illustration of the difficulty of the decisions newsrooms face very day.

I'm not assigning a time limit here (although in my class, I give my students about 10 minutes since they're usually discussing this in a group and debating their points).  If you can do this exercise with two or three others, you'll get more out of it because you'll notice how vastly different their opinions are from yours.

First, let me tell you who you are.  You are a producer for a local television news station, let's call it KDEN, for convenience sake.  Your audience is primarily the front range of Colorado (Denver and its surrounding suburbs).  One final thing.  The mission of your particular station is to deliver hard-hitting, "quality" news stories. Your program also features a local business report.  There's more but we'll get to that after the first part of the exercise.

You have 11 stories before you.  You can only cover six of them.  You have to choose which six to keep and which six to cut.  You're on the clock, GO!

1.  John Elway elopes and gets married during private ceremony in Hawaii
2.  State officials declare snowpack well below normal, warn of severe summer drought
3.  Governor hopefulls attend caucus debates the night before, (story to include caucus results)
4.  10 killed in plane crash in Florida (1 coloradoan believed to be on board)
5.  Police break up massive drug ring in aurora
6.  5-car pileup kills one, delays traffic for hours on I-25 during morning rush hour
7.  Baby crib recall issued for nation
8.  Local filmmaker wins Oscar for best documentary
9.  Local non-profit opens spay and neuter clinic, estimates millions to be saved by City
10.  150 laid off from Coors.
11.  Police still on manhunt following shooting on Capitol Hill the night before (Police press conference included)

Honestly, that's a tough, tough list.  Certainly there are days when producers don't have that many stories to choose from.  Yet, there are days when there are even more. 

How did you choose?  What did you cut and what did you leave in? Here is my list in no particular order.


Elway gets married
Police manhunt
Snowpack below normal
Baby crib recall
Coors layoffs
drug ring break up

It was a tough one for even me as the estimated millions saved by the local non-profit is tempting to pick.  But I made a decision that it was a story that could be covered at a later date with little or no loss to the impact of the story. 

I chose NOT to include the pileup knowing that it would have been covered already by previous shows, plus, a follow up to the story the next day would offer more perspective and allow for a more in-depth story.  It might also be a story I hand off to the 10pm news for deeper coverage.  The same holds true for the award winning local documentary filmmaker.  I wanted to put in the caucus story, but by the time I get to it, it's almost 24 hours old.  A better follow up story is required for me to be able to put it in my broadcast.  Finally, I chose not to cover the Florida plane crash because it's not confirmed a Coloradoan was on board, and the national networks will cover that story better than I can at this point. 

What were your reasons for choosing what you chose?  I'd love to hear them.  Listen, there are no real right or wrong answers in this.  Frustrating isn't it?  The best you can do is make your decisions and be able to justify your decisions if asked to do so.

Now, the hard part.  You need to rank the stories.  In other words, what do you lead with, and in what order do you cover them?  Here is my ranking:


1.  Police manhunt
2.  Snowpack levels low
3.  Baby crib recall
4.  drug ring break up
5.  Coors layoff
6.  Elway gets married

My top three are all stories that have an immediate impact on my viewers.  The police manhunt (complete with police press conference), the cuacus and the recall all have the potential to impact the lives of area residents. There's also a contextual issue to deal with here.  While the possibility of a severe drought in the summer may seem like a long way off in March, based on the fact that Colorado is still suffering the effects of our last drought, it takes on a larger meaning.

In much the same way that school shootings have taken on a larger profile since the Columbine shootings, when news happens that is related to a previous big story, it can also take on a bigger presence.

Now, keep in mind, that producers also must decide how to handle each story.  Would you give more time to the crib recall?  Maybe you'd move Elway farther up.  Or perhaps you'd focus on the layoffs.  These kinds of decisions will be influenced, like it or not, on your personal biases.  Producers have to decide which ones to give a package to, which ones to just assign as short readers and which ones to provide graphics for, soundbites for, plain video for.  Each of these decisions take up time in your newscast.  Producers have to decide where in their broadcast each story will be placed.  Some in the A-block, some in the B-block and so on. 

As you can see, there are a ton of decisions that go into putting together a newscast.  The same holds true for newspapers and radio broadcasts.  Radio reports generally get 2-3 minutes, tops, to report on the news of the day, while newspapers only have so much space to print their stories, complete with graphics, sidebars and photos.

What this means to you:

First, as you can see, it's vitally important to keep up with the news of the day.  If you know that an important event is happening on a Thursday, you should know about it and try not to hold an event on the same day, or make a pitch that day as it could get lost in the shuffle of the coverage of the news of the day.

Second, knowing what the news of the day will give you an opportunity to make a pitch that relates in some way to what a news outlet is already covering.

Third, by understanding how these news decisions are made, you'll be able to better tailor your pitch to meet their needs.  If, for instance, you know that one news outlet prefers hard news stories over more feature stories, then you can adjust your pitch to meet that requirement. 

This exercise also helps in understanding the pressures journalists are under.  If you can understand the personal biases involved in these decision-making processes, you're less likely to get frustrated when a pitch is declined.  A story you pitched on Monday and was decined on Tuesday might be a viable story when news gets slow a few days or a week later.  It might be a good time to repitch.

As always, I'm available to answer questions and take your feedback.  In the meantime, have a great St. Patrick's Day!

Want vs. Need

In case some of you have been living in a cave for the past four days, I'm here to fill you in on what's been going on.  Let's see, it snowed in Denver all weekend, USA beat Canada in Hockey, oh, and Tiger woods apologized to the world.

My last entry took a look at his apology and dissected what he did right and what he could be criticized for during the admittedly emotionless prepared speech.  Immediately following the speech, the internet, talk shows, television analysts exploded with their take on the press conference, what he said, how he said and why it mattered.

One of the most prominent complaints or criticisms I heard on Friday, and into the weekend, was that the entire rigamarole was a huge waste of time.  Reporters, producers, editors, photographers, all news veterans lamented that the press conference was broadcast live on network and cable stations, live on the radio, streamed live on the internet.  "Why was this 'news'?" they cried.  This cry was echoed by many in the general public who missed a chance to see Drew Carey be accosted by an 80 year old woman because of the apology.

Millions complained, millions watched:

I had my own theories as to why news networks devoted so much time to Tiger's conference.  I chatted with some friends of mine still working in newsrooms and got their take.  Many agreed that while it wasn't an earth-shattering or life-changing event, it still presented news value to their audience.  Simply put, they felt it was something that held interest for the viewing, listening and reading public.

I was curious, so I asked for the viewing numbers from the press conference.  According to Monday's rating numbers, as provided to me by a local television station, the televised press conference received a rating of 13.6.  This equals approximately 210,000 households viewing the event (note - this is out of an estimated 1.54 million potential viewing households in the Denver market). 


Put another way, this is a larger group of viewers on average than watches the late night, 10pm news broadcast on the leading station.  A 13-share is pretty darn good for any time slot on just about any day.  Salespeople can make a lot of money selling advertising for a show that continuously gets a 13 share.

Also keep in mind that this number does NOT include cable viewers in Denver at the time, which was estimated at about 60-percent during the press conference.  This means it's likely that 210-thousand number could jump considerably when those viewers are included.  It's not unrealistic to imagine that the number could double.  This means it's likely that nearly one third of the potential household viewers could have been watching Tiger read his statement on live television.

But does this answer the question as to "why" it constituted news?  No, not really.  Remember, I've gone over the general characteristics of what defines news.  Proximity, timeliness, impact, relevance and wow factor.  I'm not going to go through each characteristic and apply it to Tiger's apology.  But I am going to look at this from the point of view of want vs. need.

A cautionary tale:

When I was producing talk radio, I worked with a talk show host, Erin Hart, who was solid, but sometimes had a hard time grasping the difference between what her viewers needed to hear and what the viewers wanted to hear.  I remember one day when she was adamant that we spend the day talking about the mass starvation and genocides taking place in Africa.  At the same time, there were had been a recent police shooting, a news report about the failing DPS system and, of course, her favorite target, conservative Colorado Governor Bill Owens was still in office.

I insisted that any of those three topics would generate more interest, more conversation, it was talk radio after all.  No, she just KNEW that people would care if she could just tell them what was going on half a world away.  She was determined to MAKE them care.

We spent three hours with one phone call and received a stern lecture from our program director at the time.

Certainly news carries an aspect of information you need to know.  For instance, you need to know if the car you're driving will stop when you apply the brakes.  You need to know if there's a toxic dump in your neighborhood.  You need to know if there is a dangerous person prowling around your area.

But in reality, these are stories that are covered in a very quick, basic reporting style.  Just the facts, ma'am, and then you're informed.  But news covers a lot more than just those types of stories.  They cover stories of interest, stories of the odd and unusual and stories that the viewers, readers and listeners will find interesting.

These are stories of want, not necessarily need.  Tiger's story was a story of want, that much is clear.  Network executives believed that there was enough interest in Tiger's first public statement since the incident that they pre-empted regularly scheduled programming to carry it.  But I believe the decision went far beyond just the wow factor element of the story.

I believe they looked at this through the same prism they use when making decisions about news programming in general.  There was interest in the story, first, because it was Tiger.  He's a celebrity, a major celebrity.  But more than that, there was timeliness and relevance and, in some cases, impact.

Many, many Americans struggle with marriage infidelities.  To see a person like Tiger go through the same issues, it makes him seem more human, more relatable.  This adds relevance to the story.  There is timeliness, obviously, because it was happening right then.  Then there's the impact.  There is an economic factor to take into consideration.

According to AP, trading on the stock market took a huge dip during the apology.  Then, right afterwards, it ticked up again.  Sponsors who depend on Tiger's endorsements are struggling to figure out what to do with him and his now tarnished image, while others have already dropped him.

You see, this story mattered.  Sure it was one man and it didn't involve any heinous crime.  But it still mattered to millions of Americans.  In this instance, the people determined what was news, not the networks.

There's a reason why shows like American idol gets so many headlines.  It can turn a song like "Pants on the Ground" into an overnight hit because people watch it, and people talk about it.  Because of this, your local news and the networks will devote time in their coverage to shows like Idol.  It will bring in viewers and that's important to stations struggling with budgets.

What this means for you:

Let's face it.  If news covered only the important, need to know only, stories that many define as news, would you watch?  Maybe you would, but many, many others would not.  This isn't the age of Edward R. Murrow anymore.  It's the age of the internet and news takes on a lot of different faces today.

As a small business or non-profit, you have to weigh this want vs. need issue when deciding on what to pitch to a news organization.  Sure, your event may be for a good cause, and it is worthy of news coverage because people SHOULD know about your efforts.  But is it something that the public is really interested in?

You have to look beyond just the "what people should know" aspect and find something in your story that will really interest people.  You can do this by listening to what people are talking about in grocery store lines, listen to talk radio, read the papers and watch the local news.  Look up the most popular Twitter subjects, check in with some pop culture blogs and see what is being talked about.  In order to successfully catch the attention of the public, you have to know what they're talking about and what they're interested in.

Because in the end, news is rarely about what the public needs to know, it's almost always about what people want to know.  Call it "infotainment" if you want, but it's the world we live in and it's not going to change.  If anything, the advent of the internet makes it easier for people to bypass what they see as dry and boring news and go directly to the sites that feed their desire for something interesting.

This is what you're competing with and if you pitch only stories that feed the need and ignore the want, you're going to struggle to raise the profile of your organization.

There's no crying in golf!

It's 9:31 am, Friday morning, February 19, 2010.  Tiger Woods finished his nationally televised apology about ten minutes ago and now the talking heads and pundits are clamoring all over themselves to judge his words, actions and decisions in the wake of, what appears to be, the biggest sports story of the day.  Click the link above for a full transcript of Tiger's apology, courtesy of KCAL news in Los Angeles.

I'm not here to judge Tiger.  Nor am I here to judge his apology.  To paraphrase a great writer,  I come not to bury Tiger, nor to praise him.

Instead, I come to analyze.  Small business owners and non-profits should have watched the Tiger press conference.  If you didn't see it, you missed public relations magic in the happening, along with a ton of other behind-the-scenes activities that made today's apology even more fascinating than it already was.

Before I go further, I have to offer up a disclaimer or two.  First, I am a Tiger fan.  A big Tiger fan.  He is a compelling athletic figure, and the best golfer in the world we have seen in over a generation.  I also never felt he owed anyone besides his family an apology, public or otherwise.  He didn't break any laws, he didn't cheat the game, or its fans, to quote several pundits online.

But as pressure mounted from fans, the media and, particularly, his sponsors, he and his handlers from the IMG agency apparently felt the time had come to publicly grovel and ask forgiveness.  And again, I'm not here to judge the apology, just to analyze it from a public relations perspective, and hopefully take lessons from this circus that you can use should you ever find yourself in a situation where you have to make a public apology.

And don't think this could never happen to you.  Small businesses and non-profits are in the arena of public trust.  If you lose the trust of the public, for any reason, your organization will fail.  It's that simple (unless you're a bank, then the government will prop you up, but that's another issue).

Tiger is a polarizing figure.  Many love him, or at least loved him, before this scandal broke.  Many hate him, for his arrogance, for his immaturity, for his game.  Unlike the McGuire apology, who's apology was also handled by IMG handlers, Tiger will have a chance to put this all behind him by being a stellar performer again on the links.

But what about the apology itself?  Minutes after the apology, online writers and journalists were hammering Tiger for being too stiff, for being too unemotional, for being too rehearsed.  Tiger didn't break down, he didn't cry, which has become so expected at many athletes' apologies.  For just over ten minutes, Tiger stood before the cameras and a select group of reporters, and read from a prepared statement.

That's not to say he didn't show ANY emotion at all.  He seemed genuinely angered when he addressed the media's treatment of his wife and child, and when addressing what he calls false allegations his wife ever hit him or that he ever took performance enhancing drugs.

This anger dump, seemed to rub many in the media the wrong way, noting that it wasn't the right time to go after the scribes.  I ask, though, if not then, when?  Sometimes you have to attack a situation, even in a public relations and crisis communications setting.  Had he gone overboard and made personal attacks or truly lost his cool, then I might agree.  Listen, as a former journalist, I nearly always come down on the side of the media.  In this case, however, Tiger had to address these issues and allegations, and showing a little anger is only human, and it's something I think many in the general public can, and will, relate to.

The body of his speech was pure crisis communications 101.  

Admit - He addressed the problem.  He admitted he had a problem.  He pointed to himself, his immaturity, his flaws, his drifting away from his Buddhist teachings, his own poor decisions.  He didn't throw his wife under the bus.  In fact he defended her in glowing terms.  He made it clear that the only issue involved his infidelity, that he felt he was above the rules of marriage and that he was wrong...period.  He did a good job of bringing himself down to earth and appeared humbled, something which, I'm sure, greatly pleased many.

Apologize - He apologized.  He said "I'm sorry," several times, and directed his apology specifically to several groups, from his fans, to his family, to his sponsors, and to families and children who viewed him as a role model.

Correct - He followed that up by saying he has already undergone treatment, sex therapy treatment, and would undergo more treatment to ensure this never happened again.  He spoke of his Buddhist teachings and admitted he had drifted away from those teachings.  He added that a big part of his recovery will involve that spiritual element.

In words and structure alone, Tiger hit a home run in terms of classic crisis communications.  He requested privacy for his family, and even addressed the lack of public appearances or answers by saying the issues facing him and his family were private.  Again, this is something I think most in the general public will understand.  Another check in the positive box for Tiger.

Emotion Motion:

But, what about the lack of emotion?  Is it necessary in 2010 to be overly emotional when making a public apology?  Everyone's doing it.  Politicians, athletes, high school students, convicted criminals, Bank CEO's, everyone.  So maybe we were just shocked that Tiger didn't break down, or trickle a tear down his cheek.

Personally, I didn't mind that he didn't cry, or almost cry, or choke up even a little bit.  As I said earlier, Tiger appeared humble.  He seemed human.  People watching his apology could relate, even if just for a moment, to Tiger in a way they never could before.  We didn't need tears to make him seem cuddly or a more tragic figure.  And here's a thought; in today's cynical world, sometimes the tears come across as fake or as a person simply wanting pity, not real forgiveness.

As a small business owner or non-profit director, keep this in mind.  People, by and large, WANT to believe, they want to forgive.  The really only unforgiveable thing is lying.  Tiger hadn't lied up to this point, and so his apology didnt' have address a false statement or anything else other than this personal indescretions.  If you ever find yourself in a crisis, the one thing you have to do, the most important thing you'll ever do, is don't lie.  If your charity misplaced a million dollars, if your business caused an e-coli outbreak, people will forgive you if you own up to it immediately.  Try to lie your way out of it, or cover it up, the public will never forget or forgive.

Also, don't point fingers.  Don't try to blame someone else for the problem.  Don't try to say, "the devil made me do it."  Accept the blame, take your punishment, don't try to bring others down with you.

Media Backlash:

One of the fascinating aspects of today's apology involves the media reaction to Tiger's apology.  Tiger and the media have had a love-hate relationship for his entire career.  Tiger has maintained a private existence, something which often upsets the golf writers.  He has had an antagonistic relationship for years with reporters, answering questions in short, often edgy tones.  Let's be clear, the media is not Tiger's friend here.

And the media won't be your friend if you ever find yourself in a similar situation.  But Tiger seemed to aggravate the already shaky relationship by limiting the number of journalists allowed into the room, and then by refusing to answer questions.  These actions led to the Golf Writers Association of America to boycott the press conference.  A stupid move in my opinion and one that reeked of a spoiled child taking its toys and going home.  In fact, if anyone was crying today, it was the media, who has reacted in a way so childish, it makes me embarrassed for them.

I think the refusal to answer questions particularly riled the media, and I think that's why, in this case, while I believe the general public will warmly receive Tiger's apology, the media will be more skeptical and judge him more harshly.

Know this; the media feels it's an important aspect to all big stories.  They need to be able to ask questions.  Without questions, a red flag raises in the heads of journalists and we wonder what the person apologizing is trying to hide.  In Tiger's case, he's a big enough celebrity to get away with this kind of move.  You, however cannot.

If you ever find yourself in a situation where you're making a public apology, you absolutely have to answer questions from the media.  If you don't, it looks bad.  It looks like you're afraid of something.  Worse, it looks like you're trying to hide something.

Tiger isn't stupid.  He knows there will still be people out there who will never forgive him for his actions and infidelities.  But listening to his apology, it didn't sound like he was begging for the world to love him, it sounded like he was asking forgiveness from those that mean the most to him, his family, his fans and his sponsors.  And you have to understand that if you find yourself in a crisis situation, you will never please all the people all the time.  There will be those out there who will never forgive.  Don't try to appease the entire world, just those that matter most to you, your customers, shareholders, stakeholders, family, friends, etc.

Most importantly, you will have to work much more closely with the media than Tiger did today.  You will need their help to cast you in a positive light.  This means answering questions, and, more importantly, if the situation warrants it, allowing one-on-one interviews with reporters.  Because you don't carry the same cache that Tiger carries, your road back will be a longer one, but one that can be less bumpy if you grant some personal interviews to repeat your apology and allow yourself to be seen as a human being, a flawed human being, that is trying to make things right.

If it makes you feel any better, even Tiger will likely have to grant a personal interview at some point to ressurect his reputation as a role model, at least among one demographic.  Women aged 28 to 50 were among the most vocal and most angered by Tiger's actions.  Even after today's apology, he likely still has some major salvage work to do with that demo.  And, because he's Tiger, he'll target the one person who has the most pull with that group of Americans; Oprah.  Don't be surprised if he pops up on her show in the next month or so, probably right before his return to competition.

Sadly, you probably won't get the opportunity to go on Oprah to restore your credibility, but you don't have to.  Be sincere in your apology, don't point fingers, admit what you did, set a clear course as to how you're going to fix the problem, and play nice with the media, and you'll find forgiveness will be forthcoming, from most people anyway.