The reality is most new PR wannabes will lack both the skill-set and confidence to have a long term career in the industry, unless of course they take the path of least resistance aka working for a large PR firm. In that case all they’ll need is a pulse. This is a topic I’ve talked about before and I wish I could report feeling better about the next generation of PR pros. What’s going on? There are multiple factors at play but I’ll focus on the top few issues.

• Social Media is to Blame: Obviously one of the biggest changes in the industry  since Edward Bernays coined the phrase Public Relations is social media. If you’re reading this you get it. But while social media has changed the way folks consume information it hath made PR people become myopic; they view social media as the totality of PR not just another channel. Clearly at Barokas PR we’re big fans of technology but we also embrace the old-school ways of doing things. While we don’t use typewriters we do use the telephone. Technology has enabled young PR professionals to hide behind tweets, updates, posts, and emails. But what happens when a client asks for counsel, real advice, live and in person? Or when the only way to sell a story is by t-a-l-k-i-n-g to a reporter.

• Lack of Understanding what a Client Needs: Somewhere between college and an agency, many PR people forget what it is they are hired to do. We’re hired to get our clients ink (digital or otherwise). Yes – we do other things like help clients out of jams, get them to where they need to go, jump-start product launches (hey we’re like AAA), but our primary directive is get coverage. Seems like it should be obvious, no?

• Inability to see the Forest through the Trees: Unlike factory workers on an assembly line repeating the same one task over and over, PR people should understand the larger vision of the client. It’s almost never just about this release or that upgrade. Too often, and typically driven by fear and a bitchy boss, PR people get stuck in the now and fail to think about the client’s long-term goals and how success will ultimately be measured. This tunnel vision leads to missed opportunities and an inability to provide true strategic counsel.
• Failure to Communicate. It’s always interesting when communication professionals have problems communicating. Typically it’s a failure to set proper expectations like when a client believes their product or announcement is something that everyone will care about – but it really isn’t. Often PR folk sit silently in those meetings – with their silence signing them up to deliver what they can’t. Instead of having the hard conversation at that moment, they fail to get press- then have to explain to the client what happened. Client is disappointed, begins hating PR agencies, and the cycle starts. All of this could’ve been avoided with a proper expectation setting dialogue.

“So, what do you do?”

“See? If I push the keys, magical letters come out!”

Typically, I respond with something like this (verbatim):

“Well, I work for Barokas Public Relations, the Northwest’s leading mid-sized public relations agency. We also offer ancillary marketing services – if you’re interested.”

Just kidding. That one was for you, Ralph. I typically launch into some type of overview about how I work in tech public relations for a (super cool) firm in Pioneer Square and how it’s exciting because we’re constantly working with new start-ups that are literally changing the way we interact with technology. That actually isn’t a joke, and I’m not even vying for a raise (although if you’re offering…), I truly do enjoy learning about our clients and the innovative ideas they bring to the table. It’s one of the cool things about working in this industry – you get to be a part of the living and breathing monster that is the technological world.

It usually takes my counterpart a second to respond, as if the cogs in their brain are slowly turning into motion, or as if they can’t believe that I would have any interest in tech-anything. Shouldn’t I be worried about a Kardashian or something? In about 90% of my personal experiences, this sparkling nugget of conversational brilliance is the response:

“Oh – so like computers and stuff?”

“New and exciting technology…”

This is normally the moment where I realize the date is going nowhere. I’m not sure if these otherwise seemingly-intelligent individuals feel like they’re “dumb-ing” it down for my benefit (because if I’m working in it, it can’t be THAT difficult) or if I’m really, truly attracted to tree stumps. I typically bite back the urge to say that the first programmable computer (the Z1, in case you’re interested) was actually invented between the years of 1936 – 1938, so to consider computers “new and exciting” technology is, in short, a little asinine and instead sip my drink (please, God, let it be strong).

I guess I can’t totally blame the guys. As women in this industry we play a fairly new role, and we’re not exactly brought up valuing the technical and strategic mindset that it takes to be successful creating (or working for) these types of companies. In some cases we do allow ourselves to become a novelty in the space – I’m totally guilty of simplifying my job duties or the descriptions of the companies I work for in order to make it easier to comprehend. I’ll also shamelessly admit that I’m constantly running across new terms and technologies that I don’t understand – but isn’t that the point of innovation? If everyone already knows about it, it can’t be considered groundbreaking.

“Today, Sally, we’re going to learn about the Cloud…”

I don’t want to work in a space where there isn’t anything left to discover and the moment I stop seeking the answers to all my new questions is the moment my growth will stall. There isn’t any room for complacency in tech PR – you’re constantly expanding, which is why the lazy, routine-driven and apathetic individuals rarely hack it in this environment. It’s sort of a Survivor-esque business model, and if you’re not constantly strategizing, forming alliances and making creative tools out of sticks, you’ll probably get snuffed out.

So – the point of this long-winded post is that navigating the tech PR world as a woman is much like navigating dating. You start out going into a world you don’t understand, you’ll most likely have to prove your worth at one point or another and you have to be prepared for people who won’t take you seriously. The only thing that keeps you coming back, in both instances, is an insatiable curiosity for what the next day (or date) might hold.

To all the guys out there – if you happen to be going on a date with someone who works in the tech PR industry, at least make it a little interesting and drop a “cloud” mention or “API” reference into the conversation instead of relying on the ‘ol “computer” standby. You can Google those things to find out what they are. Also, if you happen to be intelligent, motivated and you can hold a conversation without consulting Siri, you’re probably more awesome than anyone I’ve dated recently and you can contact Howie to get my number.

-Ashley

The conundrum of why people can speak and read but cannot write is one that has frustrated and baffled me for years. Even as a law student, I regularly encountered horrible writing from people that seemed otherwise quite articulate and intelligent. Over the years, I’ve heard plenty of explanations for why most people can’t write, ranging from “kids these days” to “teachers are underpaid” to “TV and the internet are rotting our children’s brains!” I happen to think that most of these explanations are encumbered with a heavy dose of bullshit and finger-pointing. If you can speak and read, you should be able to write. So what’s stopping you?

1. People Are Scared. There are few things more intimidating on this earth than the blinding white expanse of a blank Microsoft Word document starting you in the face. Where to begin! What to say! It’s scary as hell. I get it. And for a lot of people, this fear turns into the devil on their shoulder, whispering in their ear that they have to get it right the first time, every word they put on the page must be perfect, and everything they write must be kept. The next time you think this, I want you to picture me (five foot two, dark blond hair, brown eyes) standing on the other shoulder, with a bullhorn, screaming in your ear “fuck that guy!” You cannot imagine how many essays, papers, speeches I have written that start out as total trash. The first page is chaotic, overwrought, disjointed. This “junk,” if you will, is my process for collecting my thoughts, testing out what works, finding my rhythm. In fact, I just deleted the entire first paragraph of this blog post after realizing it was total crap. I just needed to start somewhere. Don’t be afraid to start poorly and do a brutal self-edit later. Getting all the junk out of the way is not time wasted if it leads you to the buried treasure.
2. Big Words Do Not Equal Good Writing. Ever read a sentence that goes something like this? Crap crap trash crap EXCOGITATE, trash crap crap. I do all the time. People think that inserting big, “I own a really large, old, leather-bound dictionary” words will disguise crappy writing. I’m here to disabuse you of this notion. Nobody is fooled. Your writing is just as bad. You just know how to use Thesaurus.com. Congratulations. Here’s the deal: only write what you would actually say out loud. If you use excogitate in your everyday speech, knock yourself out, but for me, it’s easier to say “thought it through.” So speaking of, think it through. Imagine you’re having a conversation with your reader. Imagine what you would say to them, and then say it. Silently. On paper.
3. Most of What You Read Is Trash. On November 11, 2011, the authors of the top five books on The New York Times Bestseller List were, in order from one to five: David Baldacci, John Grisham, Nicholas Sparks, Danielle Steel, Richard Paul Evans. USA Today is written in such a way that someone with an 8th Grade level of education can read and easily comprehend it. Moral of this story? People read crap. Don’t get me wrong – I enjoy crap as much as the next gal, and I think the Twilight Saga, Harry Potter, and a number of Nora Roberts romance novels are really entertaining reads. The problem is that most people read only this stuff, and if you never read anything that challenges you intellectually, you will never be a better writer. That said, put down the People Magazine. Back away slowly. Now go pick up The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Slate, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal. In them you will find some of the highest quality writing in the world. The articles they contain are written intelligently, for an intellectual audience. The “big” words fit so seamlessly into the sophisticated structure of the writing that the reader never stumbles over them. Even more important than the sentences themselves, however, is what they convey. Through them you will learn more about the world – what’s interesting, what’s timely, what moves people, angers them, enlivens them, enthralls them. You will learn how to tell a story that does more than awaken – it makes the reader stand still, captivated. And after all, isn’t that the goal?

“Gee Winifred – does this party blow or is it just me?”

With enough tweets, buzz and build-up to give the “Fail Whale” days of screentime, the launch of Google+ was really theirs to fuck up. So how exactly do you blow the most anticipated launch of the year backed by a theoretically cool product and hosted by one of the most recognizable names in technology?

Good question.

I think of the Google+ launch like those open bar parties you’re lured in to while vacationing in Cabo. At first the crowd seems cool, the drinks are flowing, theoretically everyone is having a good time, but then all of a sudden the mood changes. The lights flick on, someone kills the music and you realize that you’re stuck in yet another timeshare presentation.

Granted, my slightly sarcastic and overly dramatic viewpoint of things is generated by the fact that I am a true Facebook baby. The “original” social network launched while I was in my prime technology adoption years and we’ve “grown up” together so to speak. I think of Facebook as a fond, slightly stalkerish friend that I talk to frequently but love to deny I know. We’ve been through ups and downs together – through relationship status changes, lost “friendships”, inappropriate tagged pictures and a sea of wall posts. On countless slow Friday – I mean – Saturday afternoons (I’m working tirelessly on Friday afternoons Howie, I promise) Facebook has entertained me with tidbits of detail about people– things that I didn’t know I was interested in until I found myself clicking on the profile of that one chick in my science class from Freshman year. Do I really give a shit what Suzie is studying in grad school? Is it THAT fascinating the Bob and Betty broke up for the 15th time and have finally settled on an obvious “it’s complicated” status? Hell no. What is important is that Suzie, Bob, Betty and everyone else you know is there. They’ve bought in. Given their most intimate details to a site that blasts them to the entire world- in essence whispered their secrets to the Judas of all technology. And they’re cool with it. Let’s be real – we’re all cool with it. We’re gaining attention these days for things that never would have elicited a response before. We are the anti-privacy era. I will literally share what I ate for dinner on any given night if I think it’ll bring forth a frenzy of “likes”. Which brings me to another question – if the entire world is so into sharing every detail of their lives on any possible platform, why aren’t we sharing on Google+?

“You don’t know me, but that won’t stop us from having a lovely Facebook friendship.”

While attending the BlogWorld and Social Media Expo this past weekend (basically like one long college lecture but Facebooking, Tweeting and in general making things sound cooler than they actually were was highly encouraged) a lot of the talk circled back to Google+ and their shaky future. There were confliciting opinions, but one quote stood out above the rest:

“Google+ is to Facebook what Macintosh is to Windows.” – Guy Kawasaki

I’ve heard this Kawasaki character is one pretty smart dude, which led me to seriously ponder his statement over the last few days. Is Google+ the indie darling to the mass-adopted Facebook? Are all the cool kids “going Google” and I haven’t yet been clued in to the latest trend? Somewhere in the vast expanse of the Internet are there hip creative types posting their innermost thoughts to their “circles”? This remains to be seen, however it does lead one to wonder what the next Google+ step will be. With their newly released “business pages” (a very Facebook-esque space where companies can mingle with the few early-adopters of the Google platform) it seems that Google has moved from their user-recruitment phase to the much more lucrative business angle.

“Is ANYONE out there or am I in this circle alone?!”

No doubt social media managers in offices around the globe scurried to get their own pages up yesterday after the announcement – eager to be one of the first brands represented (I can hate on the social media crew –I’m one of them) but what’s the point of building and maintaining yet another social media space if there aren’t any users to engage?

In my opinion Google+ has all the right elements to create a big disruption in the Facebook-centric world of social media, they just haven’t yet figured out how to keep the metaphorical music up. Back to party-speak, they’re throwing a seriously epic celebration but someone has shot the DJ. A media rave that started out with bumping beats and dubstep (it’s cool now, I’ve heard) has been silenced to the whisper of a few advocates. The Google Kool-Aid bowl is drying up, leaving even the most proactive of users wondering what’s next for the “jolly G giant”. They have the crowd, the name, the location and a rapt audience, but is it still a party if the DJ is dead?

-Ashley

The change in Klout’s ranking system created much discussion not only about the anger and fatigue associated with the precipitous drop in scores, but moreover the validity of the entire Klout system. In a TechCrunch piece titled Nobody Gives a Damn About Your Klout Score http://tcrn.ch/shg5fU Alexia Tsotsis argues that the whole thing really doesn’t matter and it’s much ado about nothing. Like many, she tried Klout for the first time and still doesn’t get it. But looking at Twitter and the growing mob of peeps using the hashtag #OccupyKlout it clearly matters to a lot of people, many of whom had a visceral reaction to the change. If you listened closely you could hear “We’re not worthy“ from all corners of the country.

I’m on the proverbial fence about this issue. On one hand, okay I get it – I see how a scoring mechanism might help advertisers, maybe even PR folk, determine who should get the special treatment due to their influence. But on the other hand – meh - really? When we look to bring on a new employee at Barokas would I check their Klout score? No. If I was dating would I decide who to spend Saturday night with based on their K-score? No. The reason for my cynicism: a newborn.

I have a friend who works at a very big software company in Redmond, Washington who spends 90% of his waking hours driving social media “this and that” for said software company. In doing so, he’s amassed a large following on Twitter, a loyal audience to his blog, and of course a very respectable Klout score. But when last week’s change took place his score went from somewhere in the 70′s to somewhere in the 50′s. That was, however, until he posted pictures of his infant daughter on his Facebook page. Overnight his score rocketed back into the 70′s – and for a short time going over 80. So I have to wonder, was my friend suddenly – really – more of an influencer after posting the pics? Did he become more valuable as a credible source because he went from here-to-there on the Klout barometer? Hmmmmm.

Regardless of which side of the fence you fall on this issue one thing is for sure: this is only the beginning of this debate and Klout has set the benchmark, for now, on measuring one’s worthiness. Maybe I’ll even climb a few points based on this post. If not, I’ll gather up my kids for a quick photo – that’ll surely do the trick.

Still confused? Watch this.

Howie

Whether for beer, insurance, cell phone service, or pizza the theme is the same; guy wants fun, woman ruins fun, guys makes stupid choices, woman scolds him. Is this really reflective of our society? I know us dudes are pretty simple creatures, it doesn’t take a lot to keep us happy. Still – I’d be hard pressed to find any guy I know who’d buy a Falcon, suit of armor, or giant gumball machine with the money he saved on his car insurance. But according to the folks at State Farm, that’s what we’d do

Another popular ad theme during Sunday’s game is how inept us guys are when it comes to dealing with babies. And the stereotypes aren’t reserved for just the dudes. It seems that every mom, especially the newish moms, are always judging or scolding their hubby’s for doing something wrong with the kids; feeding it bad stuff, changing diapers the wrong way, not strapping it into the car-seat properly, etc. Or in this case, AT&T believes that new moms become bitchy wives when husbands try to multi-task

Perhaps I’m over analyzing this whole thing, but I can’t get away from the fact that when we look deep into the national-mirror we see a reflection of stupid dudes married to short tempered, short haired, angry women who disapprove of their husband’s choices. C’mon this can’t really be the way it is? Although, I suppose presenting a happy couple, enjoying a relaxing weekend, without erectile dysfunction, wouldn’t make for very good TV. Finally – I’d like to thank the folks at Budweiser for keeping the stereotypes alive and kicking with this brief look into marital bliss.

Howie

So two years ago to the day, my mom bought my dad a MacBook Pro. He had never used a computer but was always very curious about them. Along with his MacBook she also bought 3 years of Apple Care and 1 year of One to One tutorial at the Apple store which entitled him to as many training sessions as he wanted (those poor people). Ideally my dad would’ve used those sessions to enhance his computing abilities, or at least to do more than figure out how to look at his favorite site http://www.mynorthwest.com, but no luck. When Morgan got his laptop we set up a Gmail account for him with address moba@gmail.com – this was to represent his first name combined with my mom’s first name, Barbara. He was sure this would be an easy one to remember, but alas – he forgot. So… off to the Apple store he went to set-up a new Gmail account. After 4 or 5 new accounts he ended up on morganbarokas@gmail.com – which he remembers. But the password has been a problem, something else the friendly folks at the Apple store helped him with.

Dad had heard a lot about Facebook and thought it would be an interesting thing to have if he could “get it on his computer.” So we set him up with a Facebook page – but there are some issues. First it’s the password problem. Next he hasn’t grasped that his Gmail inbox is actually NOT his Facebook page. A few weeks ago he was expressing frustration with how many Facebooks he had. I asked him to show me and he pointed to his Gmail – which had emails from Facebook about activity on his page. The conversation went on to include how he’s not interested in hearing about people’s grandkids and how good they’ve become at T-ball.

Perhaps one of the biggest concerns Morgan has about his computing experience is around photos. I’ll paraphrase but essentially this is the conversation we had:

“People keep asking me to send them pictures of the family, grandkids, and trips me and your mother go on.”

Me: “So do you need help with attaching photos?“

“No the guys at the Apple store do it for me but I’m going to stop sending.”

Me: “Why?”

“Because every time I send someone a picture they never return it. If I keep sending all those photos I’m not going to have any left.”

Apparently the sharing concept was lost in translation for my dad. Another concept that puzzles Morgan is the whole ubiquity of the Internet – which is likely the cause of him asking me if I can “get” a website on “my Internet.” It’s awesome to see him so happy when I’m able to bring up a site that he could also get on his Internet. We’re still working on him gaining clarity that his email can be on a machine other than his laptop. “How can it be that my email can be on my machine, but also on your machine?”

Over Labor Day weekend my dad asked me if I had heard of this “new thing called GeekWire?“. He had heard something about it on the radio and wanted to know if I knew it, and could get it on my machine. Speaking of radio, on Monday Morgan asked me to explain tweeting and how he could do it. He has a news-crush on @TheNewsChick, Linda Thomas from KIRO radio and wanted to “send her a Twitter.” What Morgan probably hasn’t realized is that Linda Thomas sent him a Happy Birthday note on Facebook. Guess he’ll discover this at his next Apple store One to One session. My mom re-upped him for another year.

Happy Birthday Dad.

Howie

Like everything else, everything has changed in world of journalism to the point where most aren’t quite sure who qualifies as a journalist and what standards, if any, they need abide. Example: we have a client who makes widgets, but not just any widgets, these widgets are made for a very specific type of user. Occasionally the WSJ will cover news of the widget world but there is a guy, one dude, with a blog that focuses only on the kind of widgets our client makes. And this dude gets nearly a million visitors to his blog per month – visitors who read about widgets, use widgets, buy widgets. Is he a journalist? Maybe – depends on what defines one. Two years ago this guy was making Hemp necklaces on the beach in Maui. In the interest of being a little less cryptic let’s consider two very high-profile individuals who look like journalists, act like journalists, work like journalists, but claim they’re not journalists and should not be held to the journalistic standards.

David Pogue wrote for MacWorld magazine from 1988 until in left in 2000 to cover personal-technology for the New York Times. Over the years Pogue has written on the coolest consumer technology gadgets and services. A recommendation by Pogue can make an enormous difference for a company and its products. But David Pogue doesn’t consider himself a journalist. Earlier this year in an interview Pogue claimed he is an entertainer – not a journalist. He said “I am not a reporter. I’ve been an opinion columnist my entire career…I try to entertain and inform.” Fascinating stuff. Speaking of fascinating how about a big dose of Michael Arrington?

Arrington is arguably the most loved and hated individual in the technology world. The news (opinion) site he formed in 2005, TechCrunch, has become the object of insaitable desire for tech CEOs, investors, and by extension PR people. Many have gone to great lengths, including taking their clothes off, to get an audience with this often elusive character. Why? Because like with David Pogue a story in TechCrunch can mean life or death for a company, or at least it feels that way. The euphoric feeling a CEO derives from his/her inbox being flooded with congratulatory emails from friends, colleagues, board members, and customers can be as intoxicating as a 5th of Bourbon or hallucinogenic as a special mushroom. We’re not here to talk drugs, but like a drug there are those who have and those who want. Michael Arrington is clearly the Manuel Noriega of the technology media world.

So back to the matter at hand: is Lord Arrington a journalist? If you ask him you’ll likely get a very Arringtonesque “fuck-no I’m not.” Really? He and his former staff ask to be treated like journalists; they want exclusives, they want access, they want the scoop. They won’t however honor embargoes and do play by their own set of rules, because they can. With AOL’s acquisition of TechCrunch and Arrington’s recent departure many argue TechCrunch will never be the same. Is that a good or bad thing? Depends on who you ask. What’s clear is that TechCrunch, and Arrington, had a cataclysmic impact on technology journalism and have re-written the rules of engagement with PR folk.

So where do we go from here – will journalistic rules continue to erode? Are rules needed? After all, there are no (real) rules the PR industry abides by and certianly no punitive measures even when PR folks commit egregious acts. With the rise of Citizen Journalism and Online Journalists we’re certain to witness a continued shift away from what used to be considered the sanctity of journalism.

Until the new rules of journalism are codified I’m going to rely on the old inductive reasoning of the Duck Test: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Howie

If you’d like to join us please visit http://barokas.eventbrite.com

For another top-ten list visit the myths PR people want you to believe  http://barokas.com/myths

Hope to see you there.

Howie

Malaysia Airlines recently announced that on certain – long – flights, like from Kuala Lampur to Amsterdam, Sydney, and London babies are banned from riding shot-gun, and will have to do their screaming and pooping further back in the plane. While Malaysia Air is the first to implement this policy, rumor has it that Virgin and British Airways have also kicked this idea around (kind of like that kid sitting behind me on my last flight to San Jose). What does this have to do with PR? A lot. First it’s about taking risks – in this case huge risks since moms with babes, especially new moms, are VERY vocal; the Internet has given them a huge megaphone. Next – it’s about making tough decisions that publicly may not earn your company points but will ultimately be in the best interest of your customers (or passengers as it were). Too often companies resist making tough decisions for fear they’ll alienate a subset of their customer/client base. What they fail to recognize is the old adage that “you can’t please all the people all the time.”

I applaud Malaysia Air not just because I am a victim of in-flight abuse by baby, but because I believe what they did took an incredible amount of courage.  Why should customers who pay 3X the cost of a coach ticket be subjected to a whining baby and high-maintenance parents who act as if they are the only ones who have ever reproduced? Your baby is not my problem – in fact I paid a lot to get away from you. Please quit your complaining – did you forget you were allowed to get on the plane before me?

For just one moment let’s all put our maternal and paternal defense mechanisms down. At some point you didn’t have kids, and at that point you probably didn’t think it was so cute when Junior sitting behind you was doing curls with the tray-table attached to the back of your seat, or when Missy in front of you kept creeping up over the seat and dropping her sippy cup, which her mom expected you’d return – over and over and over. Or how about “that smell” – when you know someone has a full Pamper? Babies and planes: they don’t go together. But until Mickey and Minnie start their own airline it’s a part of life we unfortunately need to endure, at least for those less fortunate folks who don’t own or timeshare a jet. Anyway, as Snoop Dog says…back to the lecture at hand.

Show me a successful business and I’ll show a company that takes risks. Companies of all flavors, from tech start-ups to well established brands can learn from what Malaysia Air did and ask themselves “what calculated risks should we be taking?” Â It’s a tough exercise that’s a lot harder than taking candy from a baby.

Finally, for you moms tempted to write me off as a kid-hater, to you I say you’re sorely mistaken. I love kids – in fact I enjoy kids more than I do a lot of adults. I just don’t want them in the same movie theatre or section of a plane where I’m seated. And since we parents love to share pictures of our kids, I thought it only appropriate to wrap this post with my babies – Zach and Jake.

Howie