So I had an interesting call this morning. One of Canada's national news networks called me wondering if I'd be available to do a three-minute television appearance to discuss RIM's PR as part of a larger special they are doing on RIM (it will air July 12 - hint, think business network).
I turned the interview down.
Now, some might say that was crazy. That national exposure for my consulting business should have superceeded any concerns I had about whether I was who they should be interviewing.
But some times you have to know when you should decline an interview. In this case, I don't have the cache at this point in my career to jump in on a national-level discussion regarding RIM's PR (at least in my opinion I don't). It's not that I don't think my views are insightful, but rather that such an interview should be done by someone that is wholly focused on RIM (such as an analyst for instance), or at the very least the mobility / smartphone space.
Now, if they had been doing a special on PR and corporate PR folks who have taken a shot at starting their own consulting business, then that would be an appropriate interview.
I'll admit the devil on one shoulder was saying 'do the interview, it's great exposure for your consulting biz', but the angel on the other shoulder was saying 'You're not the right interview for the special they are doing.'
So I did the right thing and declined the interview.
Part of me wondered how they came across my name. So I did a quick Google search and typed in 'RIM public relations" and my recent blog - The hits keep on coming - RIM has a tough week - shows up as the number sixth return.
I'm surprised that it pops up so high in the search returns given I don't use tags for my blog entries. I don't blog to generate the largest possible audience, so I'm not focused on generating traffic. My blog is more for folks that are interested in PR or who know me and are interested in my general views on various issues (basically, for my blog it's far more about quality than quantity of visitors).
Anyway, so what are the criteria you should be using when assessing whether or not you should accept an interview?
To me they are the following:
1) Are you the subject matter expert?
If the topic the media wants you to speak on is not something you do on a daily basis, then you are probably not the right person to be interviewed. In this case, yes, I do PR on a daily basis, but RIM is by no means my focus. I only turn my attention to RIM every now and then when some headline catches my attention.
I wrote a post a while ago - An example of how PR can be both good and bad at the same time - where someone took an interview that they shouldn't have (in my opinion). You should not be taking interviews if the topic being discussed is not something you deal with on a daily basis.
This interview was not about PR in general, it was specifically about RIM's PR.
2) Context is everything
Had the network been doing a PR panel I may have taken the interview because then it would be about a variety of views counterblancing each other. To be the sole commentator on RIM's PR would not have been approriate (see #1 for why).
Also, had it not been a national network (with the special airing in prime time) I may have engaged also. But when you are dealing with the top tier media outlets (that sport an audience of millions), you really should be someone that lives and breathes the topic in play. With smaller media outlets you can engage because there's an unspoken understanding that you are just one of many thought leaders providing opinion. On a national stage, there is an unspoken expectation that you are the #1 thought leader.
3) How do you feel about 'commenting'
You should almost never turn down an interview if it's about YOUR business. But when it's about commenting on someone else's business, you had better do a gut check about how you feel about that. In this scenario, I like RIM. I think they are one of Canada's greatest tech stories. Yet, on the PR / marketing front, I don't have anything positive to say.
So how do I feel about going on a national network being critical of RIM simply to promote my business? I have to admit, it doesn't feel right to me.
I don't mind blogging about RIM because this is a more intimate venue with context - people understand my overall view on PR from my various posts. In a three-minute national interview the only thing I'd bring to the table is how I think RIM has shot itself in the foot on the PR front. Not to mention I'm not a huge Apple fan, so I'd be hurting RIM and by extention helping Apple - it just doesn't feel right to me in this instance.
When you are commenting on someone else's business, you have to ask yourself whether you want to be that critical voice in the media. Commenting on someone else's business is a much different scenario than speaking to YOUR business.
4) What's the ROI?
This applies more to small businesses. When you are growing your business, engaging with the media can be a blessing and a curse. Had I done the interview I'd probably end up with a whack load of businesses calling me. The only problem, I don't have the resources to support a dozen new clients.
So while increasing my brand visibility would be great, I'm not ready for that growth just yet. Unsustainable growth is not a good thing (it can hurt your existing clients) and you see businesses fall apart from it all the time (heck, I'd argue on some level RIM suffered from unsustainable growth in the mid-2000's, pumping out something like 80,000 blackberries a day - all that growth preventing them from seeing the changes coming down the road - or at leas it's a possibility that was the case).
So there you have it. I'll admit, part of me wanted to do it. That's just my nature, I'm big on engaging with the media and feel like you should never pass up an opportunity to get your message out there. Having said that, I had to gut check myself and be honest with myself that:
1) I have general views on RIM's PR, but I'm not an expert in the sense that I follow every little thing that goes on with RIM
2) The context wasn't right - I'm not a national thought leader (yet) and that's who should be commenting.
3) I wouldn't feel good about being critical of RIM on such a large stage. I mean, I don't even like blogging negative things about RIM, but the point of my PR blog is to tell it like it is so that new PR folks (and existing PR folks looking to expand their views) can learn something.
4) There's no ROI in it for me to be honest. Well, there is, but it's not one that I can handle right now (I can handle a few clients, but not a swarm of them).
The real take away from this is more on the socmed front and what I've talked about a lot in this blog - which is content is king. Tweeting has its place, but nothing replaces content when generating thought leadership. Obviously the network in their prelim research read my blog, liked the content, and thought I was a good fit for their special.
I've always been a fan of blogging, which is why I do it, because it adds value. I'm less a fan of Twitter, FaceBook, etc. simply because they are content-poor mediums. How much can you really say in 140 characters?
This is why traditional media activities, which emphasize communications and content, remain far more valuable in my mind than the emerging low-content outlets such as Twitter and Facebook. Not to say the later don't have value, because they do, but they don't grow brand equity the way content-rich activities (news releases, blogs, podcasts, etc.) do.
I turned the interview down.
Now, some might say that was crazy. That national exposure for my consulting business should have superceeded any concerns I had about whether I was who they should be interviewing.
But some times you have to know when you should decline an interview. In this case, I don't have the cache at this point in my career to jump in on a national-level discussion regarding RIM's PR (at least in my opinion I don't). It's not that I don't think my views are insightful, but rather that such an interview should be done by someone that is wholly focused on RIM (such as an analyst for instance), or at the very least the mobility / smartphone space.
Now, if they had been doing a special on PR and corporate PR folks who have taken a shot at starting their own consulting business, then that would be an appropriate interview.
I'll admit the devil on one shoulder was saying 'do the interview, it's great exposure for your consulting biz', but the angel on the other shoulder was saying 'You're not the right interview for the special they are doing.'
So I did the right thing and declined the interview.
Part of me wondered how they came across my name. So I did a quick Google search and typed in 'RIM public relations" and my recent blog - The hits keep on coming - RIM has a tough week - shows up as the number sixth return.
I'm surprised that it pops up so high in the search returns given I don't use tags for my blog entries. I don't blog to generate the largest possible audience, so I'm not focused on generating traffic. My blog is more for folks that are interested in PR or who know me and are interested in my general views on various issues (basically, for my blog it's far more about quality than quantity of visitors).
Anyway, so what are the criteria you should be using when assessing whether or not you should accept an interview?
To me they are the following:
1) Are you the subject matter expert?
If the topic the media wants you to speak on is not something you do on a daily basis, then you are probably not the right person to be interviewed. In this case, yes, I do PR on a daily basis, but RIM is by no means my focus. I only turn my attention to RIM every now and then when some headline catches my attention.
I wrote a post a while ago - An example of how PR can be both good and bad at the same time - where someone took an interview that they shouldn't have (in my opinion). You should not be taking interviews if the topic being discussed is not something you deal with on a daily basis.
This interview was not about PR in general, it was specifically about RIM's PR.
2) Context is everything
Had the network been doing a PR panel I may have taken the interview because then it would be about a variety of views counterblancing each other. To be the sole commentator on RIM's PR would not have been approriate (see #1 for why).
Also, had it not been a national network (with the special airing in prime time) I may have engaged also. But when you are dealing with the top tier media outlets (that sport an audience of millions), you really should be someone that lives and breathes the topic in play. With smaller media outlets you can engage because there's an unspoken understanding that you are just one of many thought leaders providing opinion. On a national stage, there is an unspoken expectation that you are the #1 thought leader.
3) How do you feel about 'commenting'
You should almost never turn down an interview if it's about YOUR business. But when it's about commenting on someone else's business, you had better do a gut check about how you feel about that. In this scenario, I like RIM. I think they are one of Canada's greatest tech stories. Yet, on the PR / marketing front, I don't have anything positive to say.
So how do I feel about going on a national network being critical of RIM simply to promote my business? I have to admit, it doesn't feel right to me.
I don't mind blogging about RIM because this is a more intimate venue with context - people understand my overall view on PR from my various posts. In a three-minute national interview the only thing I'd bring to the table is how I think RIM has shot itself in the foot on the PR front. Not to mention I'm not a huge Apple fan, so I'd be hurting RIM and by extention helping Apple - it just doesn't feel right to me in this instance.
When you are commenting on someone else's business, you have to ask yourself whether you want to be that critical voice in the media. Commenting on someone else's business is a much different scenario than speaking to YOUR business.
4) What's the ROI?
This applies more to small businesses. When you are growing your business, engaging with the media can be a blessing and a curse. Had I done the interview I'd probably end up with a whack load of businesses calling me. The only problem, I don't have the resources to support a dozen new clients.
So while increasing my brand visibility would be great, I'm not ready for that growth just yet. Unsustainable growth is not a good thing (it can hurt your existing clients) and you see businesses fall apart from it all the time (heck, I'd argue on some level RIM suffered from unsustainable growth in the mid-2000's, pumping out something like 80,000 blackberries a day - all that growth preventing them from seeing the changes coming down the road - or at leas it's a possibility that was the case).
So there you have it. I'll admit, part of me wanted to do it. That's just my nature, I'm big on engaging with the media and feel like you should never pass up an opportunity to get your message out there. Having said that, I had to gut check myself and be honest with myself that:
1) I have general views on RIM's PR, but I'm not an expert in the sense that I follow every little thing that goes on with RIM
2) The context wasn't right - I'm not a national thought leader (yet) and that's who should be commenting.
3) I wouldn't feel good about being critical of RIM on such a large stage. I mean, I don't even like blogging negative things about RIM, but the point of my PR blog is to tell it like it is so that new PR folks (and existing PR folks looking to expand their views) can learn something.
4) There's no ROI in it for me to be honest. Well, there is, but it's not one that I can handle right now (I can handle a few clients, but not a swarm of them).
The real take away from this is more on the socmed front and what I've talked about a lot in this blog - which is content is king. Tweeting has its place, but nothing replaces content when generating thought leadership. Obviously the network in their prelim research read my blog, liked the content, and thought I was a good fit for their special.
I've always been a fan of blogging, which is why I do it, because it adds value. I'm less a fan of Twitter, FaceBook, etc. simply because they are content-poor mediums. How much can you really say in 140 characters?
This is why traditional media activities, which emphasize communications and content, remain far more valuable in my mind than the emerging low-content outlets such as Twitter and Facebook. Not to say the later don't have value, because they do, but they don't grow brand equity the way content-rich activities (news releases, blogs, podcasts, etc.) do.
Comments
Post a Comment