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."
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.
Actually, Paul Graham just told the submitter to run that story. This article is a "press hit."
It was all a show of how PR can still work in the anarchistic WWW.
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 implication being that at some point they left. But outside the "geek community and high-tech development" as you put it, suits have always been their. Lawyers and businessmen and most non-uniformed male professionals have been wearing essentially the same clothes for the last 80 years or so. Pretty much only hats disappeared and maybe suspenders. Male business fashion doesn't change much.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
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.
Fox just takes Reuters feeds and sets up expert panels to discuss them. It's very cheap to produce.
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.
I think the geek community is a good indicator of how business *should* allow they're employees to dress, short of the old concert t-shirts and torn jeans. Geeks usually tend to not bother with fashion, opting for comfort instead. But in business, especially the marketing peons and others who think appearance is everything, clothes make the man. A suit just makes you a better person. I think it's BS, but unfortunately people like that run the business world. Funny how they think that clothing, rather then actions, make a person. Hell, mobsters and contract killers always dress pretty nicely in movies, but that doesn't make them good people. They still go around killing people...
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
No. They are suggesting you keep your eyes open, and when you read in your favourite magazine that "suits are back", think about who is telling you that, and what they have to gain from it. With increased awareness comes increased immunity.
-aiabx
Just this guy, you know?
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).
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."
It's surprising because the article says the exact opposite of what you just did. You didn't read it very carefully.
What it said is that for a fairly small amount of money, an amount that fits into the budget of a small business, you can have magazines all over the world say the same nice things about your company at the same time and disguise it as something the magazine found out on its own.
The rich and powerful in this country like to say bold, stupid, brash things with the media they control. Microsoft goes out and labels Open Source a communist conspiracy. Some weirdo like Dvorak agrees and we all sit about shaking our heads at how crazy he is. That doesn't convince anyone of anything.
The example Graham uses of articles about suits coming back is subtle and insidious. Instead of using advertising to tell you what you should do, they hire reporters to tell you everyone else has already done it... and they do it without all that much power. The Men's Warehouse is no media conglomerate.
The entire notion of journalistic integrity goes out the window in a way that's much harder to compensate for, even as a clever consumer. When MSNBC says that people still trust traditional media more than bloggers, it's easy to assume they may be biased. When MSNBC says that people are consuming more ice cream in an attempt to build strong bones, it's difficult to see how they might have an interest in selling you ice cream.
If the answer is just that the reporters were stuck for something to say on a deadline, then we're selling our minds for glass beads. Trinkets. Nothings.
The news is, nobody has to bribe the media for the media to suck. It sucks on its own.
But in business, especially the marketing peons and others who think appearance is everything, clothes make the man.
No, no, no.
Funny how they think that clothing, rather then actions, make a person.
No, no, no.
Look. Whatever job you do, there are a certain number of people who do the same thing as you, but better. Faster, cheaper, closer to the right place, whatever. There are also a huge number of people who do the job as well, or virtually as well, as you do. Similiar cost, similiar distance, turn around times, etc. It doesn't matter the industry.
Basically, you are NOT a unique snowflake. You are NOT a beautiful flower. No matter how much you think business will stop if you leave, chances are it won't. It may be difficult for a bit, but things will get better, and smooth out. There are few people who "essential" to any reasonably sized enterprise. Unless you have a "business principle" insurance policy on taken out by your boss, or you are the *owner* or high-boss of an enterprise, you are not probably essential.
So what makes people pick you, instead of the dozens of almost-you knock-offs, that realistically, can do the same exact quality of job?
Things are *never* truly equal between candidates for a position, but they are virtually equal. There is almost always more than one candidate who can do the job, at the specified cost, in quality manner. That's just how it is.
So back on to suits. When I'm hiring a person, I usually have 3-5 people who could all be the hired person. At that point, it is up to me to pick a person. And on the list of things I look for is apperance. Will I feel ashamed to have this person represent my group? Will I feel akward having this person give a public speech? Will I feel weird standing next to this person at a trade conference? What about the other employees? Are they going to hostile to this person? What about me? Does this person jibe well with me? Or the person rebellious for the fun of it - argumentative for no reason?
The way the person looks is a factor. There are dozens of people like you. You are interchangeable. You probably aren't especially well qualified for the job over anyone else.
ALl bets are off if you are truly exceptionally qualified, but that is rare.
You laugh at marketing, but what you forget is that there millions of people who can do their job. And they know it. And that means they all want to look clean, presentable, and professional.
Suits come back when jobs are harder to find. It's an advantage.
Maybe its just me, but I actually feel like I'm more productive if I dress up for work. I wind up getting more into getting stuff done than usual. I think I heard it put once something like the lines of dress for football and a game will break out...except far more eloquently. Its a sports analogy so I didn't pay as close attention as I should have. Anyway I've always thought it was kind of shame how casual everything is, dress wear can make people look really good. If it fits and its made of the right material it can be quite comfortable too...the ironing and purchase cost I can live without however.
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." -Voltaire
... 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.
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
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.
I'll tie it to the tech community.
About eighteen months ago, I was being fitted for a new suit for a friend of the family's wedding at the Men's Wearhouse. When they found out what I did for a living - and the fact I got to lounge about at work in golf shorts, jean shorts, and sandals (which is how I went in there), they pointed out that the tech industry was reponsible for the lack of professionalism in the business community and the dot-com bubble bursting was one of the best things which could have happened because the "geeks & nerds" wouldn't have as much leverage as to where they worked or what the dress code would be (because things would have to loosen up to acquire adequate talent).
My response? "You mean you have less business because we can wear the same type of clothing at any hour of the day - we don't have a set of work clothes and non-work clothes; and if we had to wear suits, we'd have to drive a lot more business suits your direction, right? And on top of that, we don't even have to take everything to the dry cleaners, either. Do a wash and we're ready to go."
----- daggers emitted from their eyeballs -----
The suit: nicely done.
The looks on their faces: priceless.
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
Right. You're just a cog in a machine. And do factory owners cover their cogs with glitter? No, because that would be stupid. Likewise, forcing your employees to wear suits is stupid.
Yes, it makes sense for workers to wear suits when bosses like them, but it doesn't make sense for bosses to like them.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Has it ever occurred to you that some of us are more comfortable separating our work clothes and our casual clothes, and therefore, are more comfortable working in a suit?
Sometimes it amazes me what kind of bullshit even people with a scientific background fall for. It's cloth, a fucking cloth bag thrown over a primate. There's no magic hoodoo work/casual magic in any of it. It's your own lack of self awareness that's allowing little tricks of texture or colour influence your mood or behavior.
I have excellent people skills. I elect not to employ them most of the time I'm on slashdot, because I don't need to. I'm not trying to win a fucking popularity award.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Actually, I AM a unique snowflake. I AM a beautiful flower. I'm sorry you aren't.
If you don't have this attitude (along with some team-oriented ones) I don't want to work with you. If you don't respect yourself and the work product of your staff over the superficials, why should I?
Who am I? I'm the guy who runs a 14 nation, 24 office IT department making a salary in a publicly held corporation in the top 10% of the U.S. I've been doing it for 7 years and each person who works for me works hard and contributes a UNIQUE part of the puzzle. I retain staff longer and have fewer people doing more work because I select people who fit into the puzzle when someone leaves. Despite higher salaries, my total salary expenditures are lower than comparable departments because my people are happy and doing interesting work so they produce more per person.
Maybe my whole department will be outsourced to India someday but it hasn't happened yet and I doubt it will anytime soon.
Frankly, if I wanted a cog, I'd go to an auto parts store.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
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
Only quoting, so please don't consider it as Godwin material.
Thank you.
The grandparent seems to be confusing "unique" and "inexpendable". A person's qualifications, talents, and skillset may not be unique, but the person sure as hell is. I've worked at places where I was expected to disappear into my function, and it was unpleasant. Had I been treated that way in an environment where the job itself required creativity and problem-solving, it would have been intolerable.
It's attitudes like the GP's that spawn sarcastic thoughts like "You're not being paid to believe in the power of your dreams" and "There is no 'my kid has cancer' in TEAM".
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
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.
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.
Well, as an attorney in Silicon Valley, I express my thanks to the "geeks & nerds" for bringing common sense to corporate dress codes -- since we don't want to be too overdressed when we meet our techie clients, your dress code has had a "trickle-down" effect on our dress codes. Even though we are not allowed shorts at work -- common sense has not progressed THAT far -- at least we don't have to wear suits every freaking day -- only for court appearances, just like the rest of the perps!
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
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.
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