Slashdot Mirror
Paul Graham on PR
ralejs writes "Paul Graham takes on PR. From the article:'Why do the media keep running stories saying suits are back? Because PR firms tell them to. One of the most surprising things I discovered during my brief business career was the existence of the PR industry, lurking like a huge, quiet submarine beneath the news. Of the stories you read in traditional media that aren't about politics, crimes, or disasters, more than half probably come from PR firms.'
As always, it's an interesting, surprising and slightly provoking read."
In the ever-present attempt to mirror Paul Graham's web site, the submitter forgot to check if this essay even has anything to do with technology, which it does not!
outside of the geek community and high-tech development communities, suits are back?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I'm not trying to be a troll here, but how is this surprising? The rich and powerful run this country by owning the media and Congress. Nothing new to see here, move along.
Ads? What ads?
Lawsuits!
put the what in the where?
When did suits leave? Why'd they leave? And what kind of suits are we speaking of (business, swimming, wet)? Because if swim suits left, I wish someone would have told me.
...the existence of the PR industry, lurking like a huge, quiet submarine beneath the news.
This is good analogy, as I suspect that most PR reps (both male and female) are quite adept at looking after the parts of clients that are long, hard and full of seamen.
A topic that the Slashdot editors are intimately familar with!
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
Well, I didn't read the whole article, but its amazing how true this guy is. I have tons of friends that work in PR who tell me all the time how the influence the media and people's perceptions of the world. The ironic part is how the "business" world has had the tendency to shut them out of their exclusive, black suit wearing clique. People often underestimate the fact that quite a few PR firms take on a lot of pro-bono work as well. So many start ups could not have well, started up, without their help. its a double edged sword.
My favorite quote from our ex PR firm: "That is what they said, now I am going to tell you what they meant."
This was in response to a focus group clearly stating they did not like something and the PR people were trying to spin it to positive. I never listened to them again.
This seems like a contridiction. PR people don't lie, they tell selective truths.
It is like the late night commercials for diet products. "WE GAURENTEE YOU'LL LOSE 20 POUNDS IN 2 WEEKS idividual results will vary"
Why don't we call PR firms what they really are? They are designed to confuse people. Even when they are giving you the truth, they are not giving you the whole truth. Imagine if our court system was run that way. "Mr. Simposn was seen in that neighborhood wearing a brown blazer that brought out his eyes and smile that all people love. yada...yada...yada... and Mr. Simpson wishes to express deep condolences to the Brown family."
It is the same problem I have with FOX news, they spin the news so much, editorialize the news, and people use that information when voting. Even the "left" they bring on FOX news are really more moderate conservative arguing with right wing conservatives. What do you get? People think that anything more left than "moderate conservative" if extreme left wing. So the moderate liberal is now an extreme left winger. By changing names and labels, they have changed politics. Will we every get good old democrats, in the tradition of LBJ and JFK, the ones who believe in the great society? Or will we keep getting Clintons who are more republican than democrat.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
The more powerful the role of PR in the media and the mind of decision makers, the weaker the role of reason when it comes to technology selection. If one company can spend millions on FUD and get that FUD published or cited by seemingly reputable journalists, then less well capitalized technologies such as OSS are at a disadvantage.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blow hards.htm
Sounds like the oldest trick in the marketing book.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
So this is why Slashdot posted this one: http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/ 21/162247&tid=109&tid=219
News for Nerds. Stuff that matters? Come on...
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
Is there anything wrong with PR people doing PR? Is anyone out there suggesting that some benevolent authority should intervene and saves us from PR?
I mean really, whose left on American Idol should be something you read in TVGuide, not CNN.
In a article about how PR firms write stories to get attention for their clients, there is a link to the PR firm the guy worked with and a statement that they are the best... hmmm... Maybe we should learn a lesson from the article?
http://www.pterrys.com
Not to say that everyday I wear them. I usually dress simular to what my customers are dressed as so I am not considred sales guy. But I do look forward to the days when I work with my more formal customers where I need to put on the Suit. I dont know it feels like I am one of those big shot buisness men walking the streets around the capital when I am waring a suit. On days when I don't wear a suit walking around the capital. I just feel like ordanary joe.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The news media is lazy, and if you give them a story they'll run it. Thus is one has the money to produce a story and distribute it to reporters, you can shape public perception. I'm shocked that money buys influence.
I like my beverages with warning labels!
If Slashdot's going to post every single article that Paul Graham writes, regardless of its nerd quotient, could we at least have Paul as a topic or author? So we can filter it out like I used to do with that other marginal fellow Jon Katz? Please?! At least shove his long-winded drivel off the front page. Save that real estate for Star Wars and dudes that shoe-horned Linux into weird shit.
During my MBA Program, our marketing instructor told us that having newspaper stories written about her company was a part of their marketing strategy.
It doesn't seem like a big deal on the surface, but once you start to critically read various articles (and not just limited to business in general), as Paul suggests, you see a lot of it.
mcho
http://www.messagingreminder.com/
The way that PR Pros not only spin the news but write the copy for news stories is disturbing but no news (unless this is a PR story??).
A friend of mine in PR once had a total nobody Client listed as one of Europes 50 most influential men in IT. All he had to do was take one journalist to lunch.
Fox just takes Reuters feeds and sets up expert panels to discuss them. It's very cheap to produce.
I blame Ida Tarbell and A History of the Standard Oil Company, damned muckrakers and all their muckraking.
One company I was at, they had a guy whose job was just to write newspaper style articles about the company and submit them to various local and national papers. Even if they weren't very interesting stories(some were just reworded press releases), there are always newspapers that have a few colum-inches to fill.
It's cheaper than buying an ad and often more effective.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
This stuff should not be a surprise.
PR firms and advertisers and sales folks have spent billions over the last half-century (?) or so rigorously testing and figuring precisely how to influence the average - and even non-average - schmo. Its a science and they are 21st century, computer-enhanced masters at it, and the media are their lapdogs. And I'm not talking "america" or "surburbia". I'm talking world wide. Note - I'm not trolling - I actually admire their single-mindedness and stunning success at it. I just hate being on the receiving end of it.
Today, if you don't want to be influenced, then you'll have to cut off all your sensory input.
Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
The other kind of news is the political op-ed that's dressed up like a news story but it's not really a story. These, at least, provide some value to the voter concerned about understanding who he is voting for, but very little value. Countless news "stories" are just recitations of a public figure's opinion. This sounds like it should be valuable to it, but it's a carefully crafted, generally ambiguous and misleading statement, intended to befuddle and confuse the casual reader into agreeing.
For example, say I dislike the new pope. I go find a reporter and say, "I'm concerned and dismayed that the College of Cardinals believe that a former Hitler Youth is the best choice to guide the Catholic church through its unsure future."
This isn't a news story, it's not even an event, it's just one guy saying what he thinks. Now, this has value to intelligent people because we can research the statement and determine that the author is a manipulative jerk and not vote for him. But most of the population fails to do this. I suppose there's something to be said for not depriving the rest of us of information to compensate for the ignorance of the masses.
I don't really have a point to all this either. Oh! I know. By not having a point and just complaining I'm disguising directionless ranting as an intelligent Slashdot post. Ok, just as a Slashdot post. And by doing so, I'm demonstrating by example the very phenomenon that I distrust. Man, I'm brilliant!
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Wired might spontaneously run a story on tagging, but if Business Week is writing about it, the story must have been fed to them by a PR firm. Since PR firms cost $10-20,000 a month, only fairly rich companies can afford them. And sure enough, a few days later I read that del.icio.us had just gotten money from VCs.
No, that's not true in the slightest. Any size firm or charity can do PR. Wikipedia is in BusinessWeek every now and then, and they're not paying any PR firms anything. They just know how to write up a press release and use a fax machine.
What's particularly insidious is government PR and video news releases. Wikipedia can't replicate that.
I don't see what these people who are complaining this story has nothing to do with technology are complaining about, this is perfectly relevant in my opinion.
Ultimately, the article's point is that PR people aren't necessarily bad, but that lazy reporters who don't do work beyond what the PR people give them are. Lending weight to this is how the "liberal" mainstream media has refused to report on the Bush administration concerning little beyond what are in the press releases the White House gives them. So there is a problem with the media, but it isn't liberalism: it's laziness.
In the ever-present attempt to mirror Paul Graham's web site, the submitter forgot to check if this essay even has anything to do with technology, which it does not!
That as may be, there's probably more useful thought in the first 18 (unfiltered) replies to this story than there is in the 100-200 '+2 or above filtered' replies to the typical iPod, "Dell are definitely going for AMD this time!", or just slow news day story.
Anything that gives more insight into how people are influenced and *why* PHBs believe the crap they do must be useful to the average geek, right?
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
It was quite astounding how the guy managed to spin things around to make them sound easier to digest (justifying became "Educating and Explaining", relaxing pollution laws became the "Clear Skies" etc (reworded from memory)). It is reasonably justifiable to see companies doing this...but it is disconcerting to see governments do it (not just the US govt...I'm sure others do it too).
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
After reading the article, I found some parallels to the political world and the media in general. I tell my kids that television is nothing more than other people programming us how to think. We're told how to think, for whom to vote, what to eat, and how to dress. People pay for all of this in order to maintain control or to get exposure.
Think of those silly ug boots. You know what I'm talking about. It's those suede boots (some) girls wear with shorts or skirts. Yeah, they never caught on because they suck. Truly ugly shoes, but we know about them. Why? Because some ultra-retarded fashion designer wanted to market his or her new nastiness and paid people to tell the whole country that these new boots were all the rage. That's right, everybody is wearning them, and if you want to be somebody, you'll wear them, too. What a load of total crap.
So what's the moral of the story? Think for yourself, live your own life, and don't believe anything that comes out of the mouth of the media unless there is definite substantiating evidence. Rarely do you see or hear definite substantiating evidence. Your brain is there for a reason...use it.
BDR Gear
Outdoor gear, MREs, and more!
Yes, you're much safer here on Sashdot.
:(){ :&:;};:
Score: 5 Insightful
TTFN
Wanna see the ascii porn easter egg? Run this at a bash prompt:
What if slashdot is just a PR firm for Linux? Think about it......
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
"Evolution, Morpheus. Evolution. Like the dinosaur. Look out that window. You had your time. The future is our world, Morpheus. The future is our time."
Are the PR firms that specialize in getting stories submitted to Slashdot?
If Googel only wasn't as gay.
You probably think your GMale-account is a real mail-account.
Paul Graham's right-on about this phenomenon of PR firms feeding stories to various press outlets. But...
Frankly, we're going to have to come up with a good name for this phenomenon (I could go into all the reasons why putting a name to something is a Good Thing, but life is short and I'll take it as a given).
"The Submarine" doesn't cut it.
Thoughts?
As someone who actually has a degree in Public Relations (actually, Mass Communications with an emphasis in PR), I'd say Graham is fairy on target.
I find it very telling that one of the classes I had as an undergrad (actually in the psychology department) was Persuasion or, as the instructor said, "How to get people to do things that they don't want to do."
What I don't like about the article, however, is that it infers that Marketing and Public Relations are actually the same. They are definitely not. Marketing is really a two-way sales method (consider it a closed feedback loop) while Public Relations (excepting the occasional survey) is typically one-way. This, however, doesn't mean that PR is inherently insidious.
What gives PR a really bad name is when its techniques are used as propaganda, with prepared stories being shown as news pieces. When that happens then you can't be sure what really is true.
Successfully condensing fact from the vapor of nuance since 1998.
Because there's always at least one new mode of thought to add to my arsenal. Here, it's "...ask not just whether the author is telling the truth, but why he's writing about this subject at all."
Paul Graham wrote an article!
OMG! PAUL GRAHAM WROTE AN ARTICLE!
My world is so much richer now.
The student has learned from his master. Stories like this , this , this, and this make more sense now.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
My favorite quote from our ex PR firm: "That is what they said, now I am going to tell you what they meant." This was in response to a focus group clearly stating they did not like something and the PR people were trying to spin it to positive. I never listened to them again.
You had the 1-way mirror the wrong way round. The shiny side was meant to be facing outwards so that your market saw themselves looking good instead of the machinations of your company, while you got a good look at *them*.
What you got was the PR company trying to make *you* look good to yourselves by reversing the glass, obscuring the fact that your potential customers were actually scowling at you through the glass, able to see how crap you were.
Okay, not a great analogy.
But, having said that, why would a PR company be doing market research for you? Surely the two are different things altogether...
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
I appreciate your point, but it's impossible for the government to give the truth "without spin". First, because the opposition - who ever they are - will be attempting to spin things their way and the government - who ever they are - will need to compensate.
Second, "spin" is a nebulous concept in any case - what's the difference between "spin" and "diplomacy", for example? What one man calls "spinning the truth" another man will call "a clear and simple explanation".
The only reason is to use your critical thinking skills whenever *anyone* is trying to convince you of something - and to try and make sure your own biases aren't spinning what you hear.
Clear, Dark Skies
No, a big chunk of PR isn't even that - it's just encouraging a particular (true) story to get out. RTFA.
--Matthew
PR is the work of the Devil, who is Marxist-reading Catholic homosexual who votes Democrat and writes checks to the ACLU.
PR is a sin, a sin punishable by eternal damnation, or an hour of having to listen to me.
The president of a PR firm and a Muslim were walking down the road when the Apostle Paul pissed on their heads. Ha ha! I knew you would like that joke.
PR firms are run by evolutionists and liberal lawyers trying to turn our children into godless heathens that rape small animals.
Jesus loves you, unless you into PR, in which case he hates you and wants to rip your testicles off and stuff them up your nose.
The only thing worse than PR is being a feminist. Women ought to know their place, at the stove or bending over for their husband's tender love.
Amen.
... At least at the place I work at (large aerospace/defence company in So. Cal.) if someone in a suit is noticed around it is a definite hint that an important customer is coming. Other than that, everyone wears slacks and (polo) shirts, or even more casual. At some point the sector president sent out an e-mail reminding that surfers' outfits (swimming shorts and faded t-shirts) are a bit beyond the line of acceptable business attire. ;-)
But then, again, it is a bit too warm here to wear a suit and tie...
Paul B.
there exists a strange attractor were thru time ... ... :P
and other circumstances money accumulates, like
a bend in a river where gold nuggets get
deposited
here it is where PR kicks in.
"i don't have the means to claim that bent in the
river yet, but i can sure as hell make it a place
no one wants to go to".
i guess it just depends how early in your live
you noticed that hormones are way more convincing
then neurotransmitters
-yeah, so i'm a sorry sod, go figure
The more I saw the stories the more I subconciously could start picking them out, much like my spam filter. But the more I saw them where I expected them, the more I saw them everywhere. And I didn't expect to see them everywhere. Now I know why I'm seeing these stories turn up where they do.
Hopefully it becomes common for people to see these stories where they appear. Hell, maybe someone will write a firefox extention that will filter out such stories, or mark suspected advertisement stories. Though advertisers would be again forced to be up-front about their products until the next subversive advertising.
I do security
What's particularly insidious is government PR and video news releases.
Why are these automatically worse than, say, corporate PR? Does it really undermine democracy if the Department of Agriculture is putting out mp3s that explain the state of sugar industry?As long as they clearly state where the information is coming from, what's the problem?
Why should explaining government positions be left to those who oppose it?
Clear, Dark Skies
It is my experience that crime reports are PR by the police/crime industry in large measure, and the result is a culture of fear.
Why is it that parents are more fearful of child molestation than traffic accidents?
I could go on
All news is largely fiction.
nothing is real
I fucked your dad.
I mean really, do you think that President Bush has a plan to 'reform' or 'save' Social Security? Of course, not. He has a plan to create millions of elderly poor. But you would never know it from the newspapers because they just print whatever comes off the wire. He gets away with it because the center-right wing of the Republican party, also known as the Democrats, have no plan at all so they can't even issue a press release. The only time there is ever 'balance' in media is when there are two equally well funded sides that can issue opposing press releases, like insurance companies vs. trial lawyers.
COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
Is that like some kind of uniform that used to exist in the 20th century?
.. ?
...
And why would a PR firm like Paul Graham want people to wear suits, unless they were married into a family that sells them
Next thing you know you'll tell me that people wear a large folded handkerchief used to close the folded down collar that used to stick up to show one's station, and call that a "tie". To prevent other people from smelling their bodily smell after not washing for an entire week, since baths are considered unhygenic.
Now, on to more important things, like when we get those silvery bodysuits or the ones like the Vulcans wear on ST:Enterprise
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Is there anything wrong with PR people doing PR?
Yes. They're telling deliberate lies of omission in order to further their own personal bias. That's wrong.
They're actively trying to disguise deliberate, paid partisan bias as objective, impartial news reporting. Lying by context is no less a lie than any other form of lie.
It's deceit that stops just short of fraud, but deliberate deceit nonetheless. It's wrong, and it shouldn't be allowed to prosper.
Is anyone out there suggesting that some benevolent authority should intervene and saves us from PR?
Perhaps we should intervene, and save ourselves. We still have the power to vote with our wallets, we don't have to buy from firms that undermine our fifth estate.
We don't have to resort to immediate, drastic boycott for every situation; enough strongly worded letters to a company PR department will often get the point across that customer approval ratings are dropping.
PR spin only exists because people tacitly support it. If enough people disapproved strongly enough, and expressed that disaproval enough for the practice to become unprofitable, it would soon dwindle or even disappear entirely.
--
AC
What's worse, the fact that PR companies exist? Or that people are so uninformed, they fall for them?
I think the fact that PR works speaks VOLUMES about why it exists in the first place. People would rather believe in a slightly less real reality that they prefer, than believe in the one they don't. That, and the fact that most people are too lazy and uninformed to do any double checking about spin.
Not that anyone needs any proof or reminder about how effective PR is.... but look at the recent election. Something like 40-50% of the people who voted for Bush still thought Iraq had something to do with 911.
I believe this sort of disinformation is criminal and should be abolished from our society. But since it [PR practices] really isn't against the law, and won't be abolished, it is considered unethical AT best.
So who's fault really is it? If America suddenly developed a decent bullshit detector... what would happen to PR companies? What would happen to politics? What would happen to us? We'd probably evolve as a society, that's what.
Of course there's manipulation going on all the time. For example, here in New York the subways suddenly started having all kinds of structural problems, delays, fires in electrical conduits, etc. The service has gone down dramatically. Then lo and behold the MTA announces that either the state OK's another rate hike in two years or they simply won't be able to maintain the integrity of the system. And now people are nodding their heads, gee they must be right. Hmm, methinks I smell a rat.
And yes, companies do hire PR firms to tell the sheeple what to think and do. And it works. But on the other hand, without PR small startups and organizations and movements couldn't get started--it's simply way, way too expensive to access the communication channels the way the Fortune 500 do.
My friends, those who hope for purity in information as passive consumers are living in a fool's paradise. Information and discourse are fought over as fiercely as anything in this world. If you're not prepared to fight to be heard, then my advice is go be a hermit in Kamchatka.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Actually, the guarantee is that you'll lose up to 20 pounds in two weeks. People hear the "20", not the "up to".
It's the land of the brave, and the home of the free
Where the less you know, the better off you'll be.
Fox News is just the latest symptom of our political disease. This all started a long time ago.
Before Fox News there was the Cato Institute. They were a far-out right-wing libertarian "think tank" who decided that they would invest money in making sure they ALWAYS had an "analyst" ready to give an opinion on any political story whatsoever. So for years, any time ANYTHING happened, someone from the Cato Institute was always quoted with their position. And guess what? Now Cato is considered mainstream. The populace now considers an army composed of "private security contractors" to be good business sense instead of an end-run around the Geneva Convention. Cato won.
Before that, there was the televangelists--collecting HUGE sums of money and putting it to political use. Counterintuitively, they helped kick the born-again Jimmy Carter out of office and get him replaced with the mildly-religious Ronald Reagan. Why? Reagan's policies (low taxes for rich people, deregulation) favored the televangelists. Not that Carter didn't help matters by being an abysmal president.
Anyway, the point is there are two basics to politics in the US: get lots of money and be taken seriously. If you get those two things, you become a political force. It doesn't MATTER how you get the money (televangelists bilked the faithful and people blamed the televangelists, but didn't care where the political donations went). And all you have to do to get taken seriously is wear a suit, shave your dreadlocks, and speak in a calm, normal tone of voice in a place where people will hear you. If a nut factory like Cato got taken seriously, even LaRouchites could get taken seriously by following this formula.
The problem is, the left has "pride" and "convictions". They need to lose those first. Then they won't be ashamed mugging people on the streets for cash and putting vacuous talking-head-bots on the news circuit. The left hates to stoop to the tactics of the right. That's why they lose.
...leisure suits!
(Apologies to Mr. Laffer.)
Huge eyebrows are out?
Andy Rooney
Anyhow, it is a kind of tautological system, wealthy people fund politicians, PR firms, lobbyists, think tanks and whatnot. They also own most of the major media, and even PBS is starting to look like it has commercials between shows.
The majority shareholders of finance companies pay some think tanks to make the case for eliminating bankruptcy protections (unless you're wealthy) or to privatize social security. Then they pay lobbyists, and finance campaigns of candidates they support, the politicians start talking about this. Their employees - editorialists for the newspapers, magazine and TV networks they hand out the party line like the commissars of the USSR used to.
Perhaps a better example for us was the supposed shortage of high-tech labor in the late 1990s. Only one senator voted not to lift the number of H1-Bs coming into the country. I believe the "shortage" was manufactured, but now that there is a glut of foreign IT workers in the country where is the movement to correct it? There isn't much of one - the big money likes a labor glut, and as far as IT workers, there's a variety of tools to wield against them doing anything about it - all that money, various laws to prevent worker organizing, IT workers who think they're brilliant and everyone else is beneath them and only losers worry about things like this.
The scariest thing for me is when I sit at a table and hear someone repeat word-for-word - word-for-word (!) something said on TV to get them to think a certain way. I have been in focus groups and know that they are just saying those exact phrases to make people think a certain way. This entire propaganda system doesn't disturb me as much as when I hear the people around me repeating the propaganda message, word-for-word like it was said on TV, back to me. It's like their brain hasn't done any processing except acceptance of the message that came from the TV, via the PR firm, via the focus group, via the company, via the wealthy majority shareholders of that company. That is what I find scarier than the whole propaganda system.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Scratch politics from that list. The Pentagon has its Office of Special Plans. I am suspicious about crimes and disasters as well, given the amount of money involved in dealing with them.
Well I for one _welcome_ our new PR overlords.
If an article's been paid for, it should have in nice bold letters at the top "ADVERTISMENT FEATURE", and have the usual indicators, e.g. the font which is disturbingly not quite the one for regular articles. I don't really see how the distinction between directly paying the publication and paying a PR firm for the "article" makes any difference to the reader.
The fact that some magazines don't do advertisment features hasn't stopped such ads being run. One trick is to "forget" to send the ad in, then get permission to send the ad directly to the printers for inclusion.
In any case, when reproducing somebody's press release as an article, the correct procedure is to liberally drop in phrases like "...according to CONGLOMO" or "CONGLOMO representatives claim"*
* Where CONGLOMO is whichever company just released some worthless piece of kit or another.
I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
I remember when I learned the truths in Paul Graham's essay, while working for a software start-up. Before, I figured that a reporter would decide to run a story about a company, research its customers, call one of them up, and someone there would spontaneously say, "With FrobCo's E-Business Catalyst, Yoyodyne was able to streamline its supply chain while improving customer satisfaction." This is exactly backwards. Instead, the company says to its PR firm, "I want an article suggesting that E-Business Catalyst streamlines supply chain and improves customer satisfaction." The PR firm calls up a few customers and says, "May I quote you as saying 'With FrobCo's E-Business Catalyst, Yoyodyne was able to streamline its supply chain while improving customer satisfaction.'" Customer agrees, because part of the contract was that they would be a "referencable account" after successful deployment. The press release goes out, and amazingly, some gullible or lazy reporter prints it with a few edits.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
Not Found.
WTF? Somebody call an ambulance! Paul Graham is losing it!
I'm not psychotic (at least in this instance). People said I was nuts. I always knew in my heart it was a conspiracy.
It actually IS A FUCKING CONSPIRACY to make me wear A FUCKING TIE.
I fucking knew it. Damn.
Fucking bastards.
I read the article, here's the short version: THE MEN'S WEARHOUSE has been using PR firms to plant fake news stories in all the major newspaper business sections telling everyone that suits and ties are expected wear in the office?
And you know what? I have a closet full of fucking $400 those fucks MEN'S WEARHOUSE suits. If that isn't a freaking conspiracy, I don't know what is. Thousands of dollars of my hard earned cash going to those bastards so I look like I'm expected to, because of those fake news stories, even though they are REDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE, itchy, hot, strangling and totally impractical things to wear while working.
I am so angry I'm seeing red.
Well I'll tell you what. My FUCKING SUIT WEARING DAYS ARE OVER, RIGHT NOW. No ties either, period.
Anyone has a problem with it, I show them the evidence of what the fuck has really been going on. If they still can't handle it, tough shit, fire me.
Well, consider this: 1. Increasingly, people watch DVD and timeshifted TV instead of the straight boob tube, which means that they skip the commercials. 2. Most magazine's revenue comes from advertizers rather than from readers.
From item 1, I'd say that advertizers will start moving ad money away from run-of-the-mill TV (to the exception of big sports events and the like, which people will watch unshifted). Less money for TV means more money for magazine-based ad campaign (it means also less shitty sitcoms designed only to suck in ad dollars, yay!)
From item 2, this means that the financial health of magazines would improve overnight with more ad pages. The mags will be once again able to afford spending $300 to buy each subscriber (which was once the going rate), often by giving the subscriber a somptuous gift for a $15/year subscription.
Notice that I never said the mags would actually start investigating stories or cross-checking their facts. I did a 3-year stunt as a free lance writer for a computer mag, and it ain't a pretty sight. But that would not stop them from getting back on their feet.
If I was a magazine publisher, I'd heavily invest in TiVo and I'd print tutorials about fitting your PC with MythTV and a tuner card. Each skipped TV commercial is good news for the press.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
Why should this story be on /. ? Here's one reason: it relates to the controversy over the legitimacy of Apple rumor sites and other bloggers. A lot of the argument is whether they are "legitimate journalists". Well, here's your legitimate journalism: PR BS bought and paid for.
Trying to distinguish "journalism" or "the press" from blogging or any other form of free speech can only lead to tyranny. And this article is a great demonstration of just how unjournalistic "real" journalists can be. Viva la blog--and go, ThinkSecret, go!
I think this quote is not only underhanded and misleading, it is simply wrong. The quote assumes that even if there were 5000 online stores, and even if his online store had 1000 users, there is no percentage that can be drawn from that.
We can change the argument and say my company makes cogs; one of two companies that does so. If we have five customers, does that mean we have 250% of the market?
Even though it is not legitamate, he would have to say there are 5000 online store users on the web, and they have 1000 users in their online store. Then he could say they have a 20% market share (though this assumes his 1000 users buy the same amount as the other stores' users, and that each user is only a user at one store, etc)
Propaganda is the manipulation or fabrication of information for the sake of influencing public opinion, which is exactly what these PR companies do.
There is no discernible difference between propaganda and PR drivel. They both spin the facts to put a positive shine on their team and a great stinking stain on the opposition. See political ads. See those adds from Exxon on how they are helping to preserve the environment for tigers.
Buson-Marsteller, the worlds largest PR firm, has in the past contracted their services to governments, including brutal dictators.
The better name you seek... is propaganda.
Nice Marmot
Yep, the empty suit makes the whole charade out to be what it is. For every thinking suit, there are minions of empties. They are the gladhand end of the industry. The guys who specialize in generating the aspect of vendor action(invoice justification, billable hours, "we need a MAN ON SITE"). Good 'people' skills, a sense of humor tilted toward denigration of the competition, but most of all, the projection of the corporate 'feelings' is their domain. Yep, the empty suit is a marketing angle. It may generate some income but in the end serves no useful purpose when it come to getting a job done.
Some cultures recognize the value of the empty suit at a different level. The empty suit becomes an extension of the thinking suit. He relies on the thinkng suit to well, think. It's a nicely symbiotic relationship. The empty tosses compliments and under the table favors to the thinking. The thinking in turn gets a lot more work done by way of his legion of robot eyes and hands.
For some strange reason the rolls in the USA are reversed. Here the empty suit rules. See Dilbert.
Why is this so?
Perhaps it is because the empty suits are the corporate front on both ends of a deal. By virtue of their position they are in control.
Curious. How many companies out there let the engineers or programmers talk to their counterparts on the other side of a business deal, before it's done?
How many try to come to an arrangement that will bring about the most benefit for both sides with the least amount of overall 'suit time' and dollars spent?
Could our economy even survive a scenario such as this? What with 80% of the work force doing little more than washing each others suits, wouldn't a major shift lead to collapse in real estate, banking, and Wal-Mart?
Damn. where did I put that string tie!
That's right. Screw personal hygiene. It's BS. I'm not gonna be held up to standards of appearance. That stuff's for peons. Fuck deoderant! Screw showering! Toothbrushes are for ninnies, and shaving is for suckups!
Also, I'm gonna go nude from now on. Admire my festering crotch, all you wage-slave peons! I AM MY OWN MAN, DAMMIT!
You can advertise your product; plastering bus stations with posters, concocting radio jingles, creating spiffy adds with talking dogs; or you can use public relations. Generally speaking, public relations is far more cost-effective, because it more closely ties you and whatever it is you are selling to potential buyers. It is more likely to be paid attention to, is less expensive, and tends to have better staying power.
Some advertising is not inherently bothersome. If I pick up a game magazine, advertising from game companies is fine with me. Pop-under ads for some dating site when I'm at a tech website I find annoying. So some advertisers are just assholz, and some aren't.
The same is true of PR. Using a public relations firm to spread the word about your company's efforts to exceed EPA regulations so they know you're a clean company, is one thing. Using a PR firm to buy a reporter so he'll give your products more favorable reviews is deceitful. The PR firm in such cases has no ethics, nor does the company employing it, nor does the reporter receiving the kickback.
Business-types operate in a different environment than geeks do. But the persistence of this inane "we're geeks and we're living in the real world, but buisinesspeople are all stupid and evil" crap on Slashdot is really becoming tiresome.
The programmers who worked on Grand Theft auto did a great job, didn't they? The game has great flow and is lots of fun. But the game is about people robbing and killing and pimping and generally engaging in truly disgusting behavior. How come we never see *anything* on Slashdot about the ethical dilemmas faced (or not faced) by programmers?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Why is it that parents are more fearful of child molestation than traffic accidents?
My guess is they either live in Florida or next door to Neverland Ranch.
I will wear a suit for a job!
> Of the stories you read in traditional media that aren't about politics, crimes, or disasters, more than half probably come from PR firms.
Meanwhile all the ones about politics, crimes, or dsasters come from a PR firm. Sheesh, somewhere there's a quote about how cynicism can't keep up, insert it here:
Full title: Toxic Sludge Is Good For You!: Lies Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry This book will open your eyes to more dirty tricks by big business and the PR industy.
Reading the article its pretty clear from the langauge that he's been spoon fed this stuff by some anti-PR industry business interests.
but seriously, and maybe this is old news, I found this article of his about cultural and moral fashion to be even more interesting (or perhaps reaffirming):
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
-ashot
I don't know why he left these out of his formulation , these are hyped , exploited, and canned just like everything else in the mainstream media.
No matter where you go , there you are.
> My spelling and grammer combined with the fact that I have college degree, proves a problem with the educaion system.
Actually, I came to that conclusion from what you wrote, not how you wrote it. Sorry, but substance always beats style......
I think Paul Graham has an incentive to write about this ;)
In his article he talks about stepping back and asking that question.. Not just ask, what is this about? but "why" is this person writing about this?
So, the question is, why would Paul Graham be writing about this? Perhaps he wants a lower PR rate when he goes back to his PR firm with a new product? Or better yet, perhaps he has a product or solution for these PR firms to actually function in the web environment.
Makes you wonder
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
I was expecting a great conversation about persuasion etc instead I get talk about crappy suits...
Anyway,
"ask not just whether the author is telling the truth, but why he's writing about this subject at all."
^ an EXCELLENT thing to do when reading slashdot!
Nearly all magazine are just one big hit; FHM, MensHealth,Cosmo,Heat. So I can't be bothered with that; it's really annoying when you start reading something about say, how good for example Whey is for the body, only to get to the end and find an advert for a Whey company. That's when you relise they've just wasted your time because the source isn't trustworthy.
The same thing is happening online so stay sharp people... I for one will be quietly marketing in the future.
A blog I run for the wealth
I agree that we should teach strong critical thinking skills in our schools. One problem is that there are many teachers out there with a self appointed mandate to teach people what to think (political correctness) rather than how to think. They call this 'critical thinking' when it is the opposite.
I've always heard that upper management tends to think that professional dress tends to cause employees to be more productive and professional (though I don't agree with this myself). Maybe this is somehow also related to the undying need for management to continue to try and squeeze every last drop out of their employees (those who are exempt status, of course).
I wish he'd stick to writing about things he understands. Just because something appears in Business Week does not mean it came from a press release. Publications do a lot of boilerplate crap, but you can't make that assumption and just handwave. Just because Paul Graham believes all the lies his PR people told him doesn't mean we all should. He says he can detect press release rewrite journalism with his magic gaydar due to years of experience. I can certainly detect bloggers out of their depth, myself.
Or just completely blind to the rich history of mankind and the ritual wearing of "clothing" to alter states of mind.
Even the simplest idiot can grasp that when someone wears a suit, they leave behind work in the ritual of removing the suit and donning casual clothes. When they place upon themselves "the suit" then it is time to be in the work frame of mind.
Perhaps when you get a job you'll understand.
In that case, and given a choice, I'd also consider how they'd fit into a team, their apparent people skills, how they present themselves, communication skills, and so on.
For one thing, and again, given the same qualifications, I refuse to hire someone who even can't write a coherent paragraph.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Just this morning I had a conversation about who was pulling the strings about traffic light timing. There was national and local television coverage with an obvious tie between them. Cynically, I said that maybe business must be low for some Traffic Light manufacturer. Also, just try a Google search for "Traffic Light Timing" and see how many articles originated today. This is an outright media blitz.
As a reporter for a technology publication, I find Graham's points to be rather overwrought. He makes it sounds as if every story in the mainstream press was ghostwritten by a PR agency.
No doubt the PR agencies have a hand in launching many stories, but far more of their pitches fail than get picked up. I get anywhere from 50 to 100 pitches a day via E-mail (not to mention phone calls). I write maybe one or two stories a day. Sometimes the story begins with a pitch, sometimes not.
And when a story does arise from a PR pitch, there's no guarantee the agency will be pleased with the results. Reporters generally do talk to a range of sources and not all say things PR reps like.
No doubt there are a lot of rewritten press releases that get published as news. That's true of mainstream press sites and of blogs. Sometimes the press release says it all. And sometimes time or resource or editorial ambition constraints prevent a more substantive analysis.
Graham cites fashion stories as an example of the mainstream press's lack of initiative. Please. Is he expecting a Pulitzer from the fashion and lifestyle pages? Is that much worse than the gear-porn stories so common in the tech industry? (He should have condemned those who covered Enron...that's a case where the spin really did some damage.)
Sure, there's lots of feel-good or sensationalist fluff out there. But that's what people prefer to read. How else to explain the popularity of titles like People?
Every journalist dreams of getting a hold of a great story, but they're rare. Not everyone is approached by an inside source with nation-shaking revelations. And it's hard to find such people by cold-calling. Nor do most publications have the reources to fund a thorough investigation of a particular practice or industry. Be grateful we still see some from time to time.
Graham writes, "Whatever its flaws, the writing you find online is authentic. It's not mystery meat cooked up out of scraps of pitch letters and press releases, and pressed into molds of zippy journalese. It's people writing what they think."
Well, I think it's a stretch to condemn the entire mainstream press as inauthentic based on a few stories born of PR. I'd also venture to say that much of the writing I find online is suspect. Is someone's review of some book or CD on Amazon somehow more worthy of trust than one penned by a reviewer for the NY Times (who got the book for free from a PR agency)?
Graham talks about people writing what they think. Usually, their thoughts begin with a link to a story in the mainstream press.
The best bloggers are good reporters. If reporters happen to use facts that originated with a PR agency, that shouldn't be a problem as long as efforts are made to consider the reliability of the data.
that every time Paul Graham farts, it's reported on the front page of Slashdot?
I like this model much better but maybe I'm too idealistic.
The example I like to use to illustrate the possibility of a product succeeding on merit vice marketing is Doom.
I agree with the basic premise here, but the media and entertainment industry has trained the sheeple to shout "Conspiracy Theory" whenever someone states the obvious about the media--that it is mostly PR.
Actually, American culture itself is a product of PR, evolved over generations through the continual application of PR/Propaganda by the corporations and the Rich. American culture is like some sort of domesticated animal, so far evolved by external propaganda/PR forces that it little resembles a genuine culture, i.e., compare a poodle to wolf.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
The potential for corruption in what's deemed journalism today has gotten to the point where I recently suggested the definition of 'authentic' be considered, "something authored" :)
Back in the days when I was filing 2-3 stories a week on open source software, I made a pretty quick realization that there were only so many stories you could write about people writing and rewriting each others' software. Once that realization set it, I was on the slippery slope to PR addiction as I struggled to a) fill the news hole while b) covering stories with any type of efficiency.
I can't think of too many examples where a PR pitch shaped my story, but Graham's comments about "mystery meat" covered in a coating of "journalese" sent a shiver down my back. Good PR people influence reporting by packaging ideas in the same glib, half-chewed fashion a reporter uses to package it for an editor. It's sort of like a virus slipping its DNA into the host cell's DNA. Since the number of clever ideas a reporter can process in a given week is finite, if you can slip one clever idea into his thoughtstream, it becomes a sit back and wait for the payoff process.
What Graham neglects to mention, however, is access. What makes PR so addicting to the reporter isn't the minimization of workload: It's the guarantee of face-to-face access when you need an interesting person or group to drive your story. Aside from seeking out buzz-quotes, another way to test for existence of a PR company is to look for all the subtle cues of an arranged meeting -- Hollywood journalism clues such as the way the interviewee attacked a salad during a 15 minute lunch or they way their eyes crinkled briefly in a 20 minute walk-and-talk. Good PR people know that every reporter is trying to make a mink coat out of a single pelt, so they make sure to keep the pelts on limited supply.
Anyway, I can say all this because, thanks to the economy, my career has veered away from relying heavily on PR folks. I now can afford to pitch only the story ideas I know are unique and that precludes talking to too many intermediaries. When I do convince PR people to have their clients talk to me, I wind up feeling guilty when the pitches bomb.
As for the future of the PR/news writer relationship, I've said it before and I'll say it again: A person should read the news the same way they buy fruit at the market. Sniff it, inspect it, clean it, and then eat it knowing that you still need a few more courses if you want a balanced meal. Blogs may expand the buffet table, but I find the fare the journalistic equivalent of an all candy diet. Something tells me the PR folks have already figured out how to package that candy.
I'm with you. I think it would be great if every truly excellent product could come out of nowhere and take over a market without any marketing or PR at all. But as a business owner there's no way I'd trust my success solely to the quality of my product. The simple fact is that most of the time just getting people to know your product or service even exists is very difficult.
Most of the time companies that get ahead without marketing or PR do so not by choice but because they simply can't afford to spend the money. If you're competing against a company that has big PR/advertising money, unless their product absolutely sucks, you'll have to spend money so people can hear about your new entry into the marketplace.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Suits are back, but luckily no one knows it yet.
Going to a low key bar or a rock show? Want to look like the coolest kid on the block? Wear a suit.
Yes, as we know, everyone who surfs Slashdot makes 6 figures and works in faded T's and Birks. Fact!
Reading the comments here is very illustrative. It shows how insidious this crap is...
/. sheep start baaaaaing about? "Suits are back in?" "Yeah, they never left!" "Hey, whattaya know, suits are back in!" "Yep, suits get you hired!"
The article explains how the "suits are back in" is a fake story designed to cause buzz and a possibly false impression, in order to generate more sales for the client.
So what do the
Pathetic.
For the record, I too have had some background with advertising and PR and its disgusting.
This space available.
"maybe I'm too idealistic" was a hesitant admission prompted by, in fact, knowing I'm too idealistic. - I was an owner of a business that failed because nobody banged down my door in response to the $0 dollars spent on marketing - I now work for a company and don't force my idealistic philosophy's on those that sign my paycheck lest my paycheck's cease
From the Article:
When Windows 95 was launched, people waited outside stores at midnight to buy the first copies.
I think it would be safe to say that these people were more disapointed than those who waited weeks to see Episode I.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I tend to disagree with the parent post. On some level wearing a suit is akin to wearing a uniform. You kind of represent yourself as a player of the game; you're ready to 'play ball' so to speak. Wearing a suit is also an indication you are willing to set aside your individuality and 'suit up' for the event at hand.
;-)
It's the uniform of business today! In the past it was quite literally 'big wigs' . . . it will evolve and mabye we'll even get to the star trek jumpsuit eventually
Listen to Reality!
Someone posted this in a thread awhile back, but I lost track of it and I couldn't remember who said it. I was afraid I wouldn't ever find it again...
I like to wear a suit when I'm at work. No tie, no special jacket, just clean cut and professional. It takes some getting used to, but it's clean, it's easy, it never gets out of fashion and hence it's a LOT more economic than trying to avoid wearing last year's popular fashion. Male professional uniform hasn't changed over many decades and that's a tremendous advantage if you ask me.
In my current job (long term engineering contract) my collegues wear casual clothing. They've accepted me as a collegue and don't mind my slight over-dressing the occasion, as long as they're concerned. Yet, when someone from our team needs to represent the company or attend an event, most of the time it's me. As I figure, that's because I have both the attitude and with my conforming clothing my boss knows I will have a better shot of not offending people.
However, first thing I do when I get home from work is change clothes to casual jeans. Aside from a wedding, funeral etc. you won't catch me in any kind of suit in my leasure time.
That opposed to the hordes of people I come across in the weekends who, to my perception, grossly overdress for the occasion to try and give of an image of succes and rise a tred on the social ladder.
I'd even dare to say that those that "can afford to" don't need to dress up for the occasion and prefer casual clothes and humble settings in their (rare) time off events.
n/t
There: Something at a specific location.
Their: Owned by someone.
Please make sure your english compiles.
Americans are slobs, face it. They complain about suits being "uniforms", then go out and all wear jeans, t-shirts, and white sneakers. Go overseas, and you can spot the Americans in an instant. They're the slobs.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Having recently finished a postgrad journalism course at a major university, here's what I found:
Most journalism grads end up in PR, because there aren't enough jobs for them in the media, and when you write a PR release, you're doing exactly what reporters do every day - you're writing stuff in a way that makes it appetising to the reader, and perfect from the sub's point of view. PR also pays better than mainstream reporting, and you don't have to work nearly as hard. So that's why PR looks so much like news; it's written by journalists.
Also, the news media are very sensitive to costs, which is why most of them will happily print PR releases, which arrive free of charge from their sources. A good sub can edit ten stories in an hour, which is far cheaper than paying a reporter for a whole day just to chase one story that might not pan out.
So Paul Graham is quite right when he says that most "news" is marketing PR. However, he's wrong to blame the journalists for this. It isn't their laziness, or indifference to their trade; it's the fact that business today is solely interested in the bottom line, and the readers don't care that they're being fed a disguised ad.
On that last point, there's been an increasing trend towards unthinking acceptance of this kind of marketing. Consumption has become a major recreational activity in people's lives, so maybe to a lot of people, an ad is news!
So far I haven't seen anybody mention my objection to suits. Here in California's central valley, the temperature is going to be climbing towards 110F pretty soon. Nothing worse than employees stewing in their own sweat.
Why is it that every time this self-important, self-promoting blowhard decides to pontificate on something, it makes the front page of slashdot?
Paul Graham's article is just a clever PR piece put out by Dave Winer to encourage blogging?!
One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there
Paul Graham lambasting PR is like.. wait, who's Paul Graham?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Excuse me, sir, or madam as the case may be. Did you mean goatee or goatse?
Tech Public Policy stuff
Those of you who are posting about this should tell us where you are. I'm wondering what the story is in flyover country.
Tech Public Policy stuff
The best way for appearance to work in your favor at a job interview is to look like you already work there.
Tech Public Policy stuff
durrrrpmt... no shit sherlock. who edits this? oh yeah, mr taco.
Whereas Paul Graham sees PR as fairly benign, this is not always the case. I suggest reading the classic Toxic Sludge Is Good For You (Amazon reviews).
The question of how we defend blogs against the evils of PR is fairly interesting. I would even argue that a system where there are more PR workers planting news than journalists writing them can only lead to an increase in corporatism- most advocacy groups can't pre-digest news and line up three "experts", whereas it's just a cheap form of advertising for large corporations.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
"Raymond is the original perpetrator of the 'what is a hacker?' essay, in which you quickly begin to understand that a hacker is someone who resembles Eric Raymond."
Right on.
The first thing the "PR" industry did was to change their name from "BS". A pile of dung will still smell the same by any other name...
The concept that PR influences media is about as novel as the concept that media exists primarily as an advertising vehicle. None of this is anything new.
Remember subliminal advertising?"
Er, no.
Isn't that point?
T&K.
Political language
Notice how the author of this article gave a very positive rap for the New York Times? Makes me wonder what (or who) inspired the author to write this article.
... ;)
Something to think about
Or not, I think the bigger problem is that almost nobody these days wears a suit properly.
Go to one of those upbeat cafes one day at lunchtime, the sort where professionals "do lunch", and look at the way these people are wearing their suits.
Most of the time they're wearing a "perfect fit", but I think people forget that the way they stand when they try on a suit or get measured for a fitting doesn't have the same sort of "pull" as when they are sitting.
For example, how many times have you bought a pair of jeans or slacks that fit in the store, even felt okay to walk around in, but after a while of wearing them, sitting down, standing up, reclining at home, maybe going on a little impromptu jog, you found that they maybe pulled up a bit in the crotch, had to be adjusted when you sat down, or were just becoming a little bit uncomfortable after a while?
I own two suits, a spare sports jacket, and several pairs of slacks. They are all slightly too big for my size, and are always comfortable.
The suit jackets - the cuffs reach my knuckles when I'm standing perfectly straight, the shoulders are just a little wider than my own, there's plenty of room inside without being baggy, and when I sit down they're comfortable buttoned or unbuttoned, handy if you're mirroring someone to subconciously portray a professional interest in them.
The suit pants - you want to get a pair with a deep crotch or you'll regret it the first time you sit down. I've never found a pair of slacks that weren't sewn with a seam in a convenient location. This means that the legs will probably be a bit long, but nothing that a needle and thread won't fix.
Also, make sure that there are at least two belt loops at the back, never one. One loop will pull at your belt and fold it annoyingly, or the pants will end up folded on either side of the single loop.
Now, the shirt. Who decreed that you had to wear a shirt that a)Had to be ironed in order to be flat, b)Had to fit perfectly, and c)Had to be white?
I will on occasion wear a white shirt when I wear a suit, but I prefer to wear my slightly-too-big, dark golden orange silk shirt with my deep navy blue microfibre suit. Very comfortable, and I don't slip out of furniture as much as you'd think. :)
The big advantage of wearing shirts that are slightly too big is the way the tie fits the shirt. I've met a lot of people - lawyers, IT managers, restaurant owners, etc - who, when I ask about their tie, will complain quietly that they like the tie, but it feels a bit constrictive. No surprise there. They're wearing a tie that's done up around a collar that is touching their neck on all sides constantly. It feels like someone's slowly choking you.
Wear a slightly oversized shirt and that tie will do up nice and snug to the shirt, and not your neck. I forget I'm wearing the tie until I step outside on a windy day.
So if you have to wear a suit, or you just feel like giving off the impression of professionalism, wear a suit and shirt that are slightly too big for you. Not too big, you don't want to give the impression that you can't dress yourself, but just big enough so that when you sit down, stand up, move around, and generally act human, you're comfortable.
Feel comfortable, look professional, and give off the impression that "no matter what happens, I'm totally at ease with the situation".
His name is Robert Paulsen...
Has it ever occured to you that management is all about managing resources? Including _human_ resources?
E.g., that if it were a construction company, they have different jobs that require different skills? Some people are good at driving a bulldozer, some are in charge of purchasing materials, some are qualified to operate a crane, some do the accounting, some are marketting, etc. No sane company would expect the crane driver to also be a marketting guy and a lawyer and...
No, neither of them is irreplaceable, but the manager's job is nevertheless to hire the right ones. You need to hire a crane guy _and_ an accountant _and_ some truck drivers _and_ some guys who actually lay bricks _and_ an electrician or two, etc. You need all the right pieces to fill in the puzzle.
That's what a manager's job is about. Believe it or not, you're there to do that job, not just to pretend you're some royalty.
Yet here you are demanding that _everyone_ be good both at "representing your group" and "giving public speeches" _and_ at getting the work done. That your engineers and marketters are some interchangeable resource, and everyone must work equally well in two very unrelated roles.
Do you even pay well enough to actually get the few people who actually mastered two unrelated skills? People who are actually _good_ at two unrelated skills cost more than those who are good at one. It's like asking for someone who's both an painter and a good music composer: they exist, but are few and far in between. Expect to pay a premium to actually get one, much less a whole team.
So again, the manager's job is to find out how many of each you need. Demanding that everyone has all possible skills isn't even economically viable.
So you're telling me... what? That instead of X people who are good at marketting, and Y people who are good at engineering, you have (X+Y) who are piss-poor at both? They're not even good marketters, if all you judged is their suit. And you definitely didn't even try to sort them by engineering skills, if in your world everyone works interchangeably.
Heh.
"Will I feel akward having this person give a public speech? Will I feel weird standing next to this person at a trade conference?"
Ah, insecurity.
Here's just an idea for you: some of us take pride, and base our self-esteem, on our _skills_, not our suits. While you're telling me that your version doesn't even just depend on _your_ suit, but on being in the right looking group of suits? Geesh, talk about an insecure lemming.
"There are dozens of people like you. You are interchangeable. You probably aren't especially well qualified for the job over anyone else."
If you only hire incompetents in suits, I'm not surprised noone in your team was ever more qualified at any job than anyone else. There is just one point were that kind of uniformity exists, and that is the point of _zero_ competence. (Or close enough.)
The farther you move from that point, the bigger a variety you get in the N-dimensional space of skills. You start getting people who are good at marketting, but bad at engineering, or viceversa. You start getting people who can program Java very well, but don't even understand the bare basics of Unix administration, or viceversa. Etc.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
'cos now I'm on the bottom of 320 comments :)
Anyway, I'd like to offer a nice little caveat to this story. It's just today that I saw an intro on CNN about 'blog-ads'...paid for blogging.
Then in this piece there's a sweet little passage about 'I wonder how PR will mutate due to blogs?'.
Mix'n'match with his statement about how good PR firms always start with the truth....
Then do some thinking: mainstream news is afraid of blogs. Blogs/the internet is sucking viewers aways from traditional print and tv. So wouldn't you want to cast a little FUD on those crazy, paidfor ad-blogs infested by the big bad PR firms?
I guess this would be a bit of a conspiracy-minded rant...but my guess is that we'll see traditional media blackballing blogs more and more in the future.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
"If you own a company you can have your employees wear whatever you want. If you don't own the company you work at, then you can wear what they tell you to wear, and you're free to moan on the Internet."
No, I can also find another job, for someone who doesn't get ego-trips from pretending he's god. It may come as a surprise to your ego, but you're not _that_ important.
Even with the job market depression, there still _is_ plenty of market for people who actually have skills. So if you treat people badly, the ones who _can_ find a better job, _will_ find a better job. The ones whose _only_ skill is sucking up to a retard are the ones you're very quickly left with.
So basically, if you own a company, you can choose to pay for skills, or you can choose to pay a bunch of sad monkeys to play along in your ego-trip shows. Sure, it's your decision. If you own the company, by all means, you're free to take the idiotic choice. But it doesn't mean I have to respect someone's taking stupid decisions.
"I don't see what people have against suits. They look and feel good."
Actually, it's not about suits as such, it's about form-over-substance and PHB attitudes.
If you're the kind of "I'm god and can make you wear a chastity belt if I want to" PHB, I don't want to work for you. That job will be more stress than it's worth it.
If you're the kind that hires any monkey based on suit, rather than skill, chances are I won't like working for you. I'd be stuck with a huge team of co-workers who can't even tie their shoelaces, and get more bogged down in getting their buggy crap to run than in actually doing my job.
"I think it comes from the general anti-social attitude of the geeks on this website, they probably grew up with parents who didn't discipline them properly, let them sit at the computer for 16 hours a day, never taught them any manners or social graces."
Ah, the poor-man's attempt at psychology. Here's a free hint: leave that to people who are qualified. Pretending to be some expert in things you obviously don't even understand, is _the_ management fuck-up that I respect the _least_. It just makes you look like a PHB.
But to humour you, my parents were actually very strict. They didn't even leave me much time for the computer, or much else. They also did teach me respect for competence, taking pride in a work well done, basing one's self-respect on actual achievements rather than being the popular sheep in a crowd, and that critically thinking for oneself is good.
Which in the end is what this is all about. I _can_ and _do_ respect genuine competence, including in management or anything else. I am thoroughly disgusted by sad clowns who do their job badly. Including, again, in management.
"This means they naturally rebel against civilised behaviour, such as wearing correct business attire."
There is nothing "correct" or "incorrect" about it as such. It's just a social ritual, nothing more.
So the question is whether you want to pay for rituals (including suits, verbal masturbation meetings, etc) or for getting the job done. If you want rituals, sure, feel free to pay for rituals. But then you've just told me that you're incompetent at doing your real job, and mis-use corporate funds for your little ritual entertainment.
So, see above: I don't respect incompetence.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Belonging to "Hitler Youth" was compulsory for all the young people, you had no option... unlike being in the Nazi Party, which he avoided. There is no thing like (responsibility) being informed before posting to Slashdot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050419/1/3s0ss.html
New really scary think tank that is being setup.
A group of millionares and billionaries are setting up to fund it.
There plans are to use thier money to create and fund the new think tank and then use it to spread thier hate filled and mean spirited views.
They had thier original meeting back in April, under the name Phoenix Group, where over 70 millionaries and billionaries attended; the names of them were kept secret.
At a company I used to work at, it was very interesting to see how the local press reported on us. Basically we were ignored except when we released our quarterly earnings announcement; then the local papers would just reprint our press release practically verbatim with no comment or discussion other than "Company X made y dollars last quarter". It was very disappointing. Basically I have stopped consuming mainstream news outlets such as national evening news, local tv news and newspapers. They are all just pointless blather. I use WWW resources to keep myself informed.
"Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
They hide the fact that you're 30 pounds overweight.
You may say "Oh, I only need to lose 5-10 pounds". Nope, you're 30 pounds overweight as is most men who work in the business world.
I was that way 4 years ago, wearing suits, hiding that innertube.
Now, I'm lean, and I don't wear suits. I look good in my llbean pants and shirt. I'm casual, I look good, I'm in charge, and the chicks dig me (which is a shame, considering I've been married for 20 years).
You? You're fat. So you look for clothes to "make the man". Me? I make the clothes look good these days.
"Wrong."
No, he's right.
Fatso.
Lose some weight, and stop worrying about what guys are wearing. Loser.
This was a good article and very critical of reporters.
I wonder how journalists will take it.
I have found the profession as a whole to be completely unwilling to accept any criticism of any sort from students all the way up to nationally known anchor people.
I have talked with people in other professions about their professions and they will usually mention( or admit ) to some shortcomings in the field.
The journalists I have talked to have gotten instantly indignant referring to their profession as some sort knighthood.
Apart from Paul Grahms excellent article this looks like a particularly unjustified attitude considering how journalists as a whole have let themselves become little more then mouth pieces for the government and corporate America over the last few years.