Stay on message. OR I’LL BEAT YOU GOOD.
Ah, what a great vacation that was. So relaxing. I can still hear the sounds of the waves crashing on the white, sandy beach, tropical birds singing their alluring songs in the lush forest behind me. I really meant to update the blog from my cabana, but the resort was having problems with their wireless intern– ah, who am I kidding? The muses just weren’t watching my back. I try to keep updates here interesting, and have to wait for inspiration instead of just picking a random topic out of a hat.
So I was listening to the always-entertaining Mobcast last week, and the guys got to talking about “staying on message” and I went through a series of emotions — first, excitement about the onslaught of inspiration. Then I grew very, very angry, remembering meetings about messaging and training game developers how to stay on message for hours and hours before trade shows and media tours. Then I laughed because my dog was trying to hump my other dog. Then I grew sleepy. And so the weekend passed, and I’m finally getting around to writing this post.
I don’t remember which of the handsome Mobcasters said it, but he cited an example of a PR rep being visibly upset during an interview in which some sports guy or developer just wouldn’t use the exact phrasing the PR team had decided on prior to the press event. Whether you see it or not, this happens all the time — PR reps around the world are probably about to blow a gasket at this very moment because their finely crafted corporate messages are being shredded by staff who — how dare they — just don’t get how important it is to executives.
Allow me to explain briefly for those unfamiliar with the concept of messaging: when a company is getting ready for any sort of press engagement — a product launch, trade show, media tour, press conference, investors meeting, etc. — the executives and the PR team — or the PR team alone — will sit down to come up with “key messages,” which will then be used to draft a guideline for responses to queries. These usually use very specific wording about a product’s features and why they’re important, the company’s stance on a controversial issue, corporate plans or any number of other topics. Straying from the exact wording often means not sticking to the message and is frowned upon.
Establishing key messages is an important part of any PR plan, and while it might seem like fiendish megacorporation territory, sticking to those key messages in most cases is also very important. Most importantly for those outside of the organization, it allows the product/company to maintain a consistent brand, so that consumers aren’t confused. I’ll invent a conveniently relevant scenario: imagine a movie studio promoting it’s latest film based on a Stephen King novel. In one interview the producer says the movie will be a suspenseful thriller. At a simultaneous press junket across the country an actor calls it a bone-chilling horror flick. If those people had both stuck to the message, the consumer who’s seen both interviews wouldn’t be confused. That’s a very simplified example, but I think you get the point.
When someone doesn’t stick to the message and an unapproved and often somewhat incorrect statement hits the enthusiast news scene, the PR team has to scramble to resolve the confusion. Maybe that person talked about a feature that hadn’t yet been announced — the always-awesome unintentional leak — and the execs need to start getting involved. Particularly in a publicly-traded company, the ramifications of someone straying from established messaging can be rather significant.
I’ve eschewed the virtues of messaging enough; it’s not all Skittles at the end of the tasty rainbow (what?). Most “corporate” companies — you know the ones, most commonly associated with fearlessly arrogant fancy-pants executives and utter inaccessibility — take “sticking to the message” to extremes. I’ve gone through email interviews written by game developers, for example, into which I’ve been urged by execs to insert more key messages to ensure the company’s brand is sufficiently represented. Whether we actually answered the question or not was, ultimately, irrelevant, as long as most of our company’s core philosophies, competencies and product features were presented at every single opportunity.
I think that if you have a good relationship with a journalist, you should feel comfortable straying from the company line once in a while, though (almost) never on major company issues that could cause harm. If those off-the-record comments make it to print, you’re screwed. In a trusting relationship, though, the journalist will appreciate the difference between something that is fair to print — a more subjective version of the message or a freely shared inside scoop — and a bit of knowledge that could cost someone their job.
Messaging won’t go away. I’m sorry, journalists, but if you’re in an interview with one of my clients, I hope they’re sticking to the message. They can have opinions, you guys can talk all day long about some unrelated topic… but as soon as you start asking questions about business practices, why our product is better than the competition or whatever, I want them to say what they’re supposed to say. If they stray from messaging and it’s wrong, I’ll speak up right there — I may ask you not to print something because it’s a feature we haven’t talked about. If you still print it, you’re a jerk. But then I have to deal with that. And I’ll probably be upset because some guy just couldn’t stick to the message.
I can see where you’re coming from, Tom…although from the press perspective, the ‘message’ is boring, precisely because that’s what we keep hearing from multiple sources, over and over. The most interesting quotes are always the off-message ones.
I believe I am the handsome gentleman that brought the topic up.
I enjoyed reading your side of the issue, Tom. What you’re saying really does make sense, and I totally understand why it is important to stay on message. You certainly brought up a number of factors that I haven’t really considered.
But, like Demian said, the message is often pretty dry and boring. It’s also usually something that has been beaten into the ground.
While it’s PR’s job to deliever the message, it’s the journalists’ job to try and get something interesting out of that message. Too often, it’s more difficult than it probably should be.
I understand the s-storm that can come from saying the wrong thing during an interview, but for the most part, there really isn’t such a thing as bad press. Yes, that’s not entirely true, but I believe that most of the time it is.
The problem is that everything ends up sounding the same. Game information gets doled out in tiny portions, games get three-or-more previews, a developer gives the same interview to ten different outlets… there’s simply not enough interesting stuff about most games to justify this sort of coverage.
In the end, we all are trying for the same thing: to hold the interest of readers/viewers. You want them to be interested in your product, and we want them to be interested in reading our coverage about your product.
Again, I enjoyed reading your thoughts. And thanks for listening to the Mobcast, too!
This is precisely why PR exists: to keep a message consistant, clear, and conjoined with the organisation’s values. Without that guidance, the public would witness a haphazard stream of information.
In following your example of a Stephen King novel turned movie, each public would consider a different source as “the” source. “The producer said its a suspense thriller,” says a movie buff. “But I heard that Christian Bale said it was the best horror flick he’s been in yet,” replies a Mechanist fan. Debate ensues, even though both people are right, because their messages were gathered from separate–but equally important–sources. The problem? There should only be one source, dispersed to all specialists in each target public. What happens when the movie company’s million dollar campaign to be realized as “Hollywood’s Horror Company” is now associated with suspense?
Yet, you raise a great issue with media relations. How can I keep a message consistent without being repetitive? There is a difference between consistency and repetitiveness, afterall. I believe this to be the part of PR that requires much talent. The goal here is to have an overarching campaign of messages, with varying, intended outcomes. For example, in the movie analogy, let’s say the core messages include: horror movie, first of a series, better-than-the-book, starring Christian Bale. If each target public were to receive messages, they would each focus on a different aspect of the core message, while masking other parts. Now each message-carrier can reveal something new at each event.
The strategy is similar to Apple’s and Nintendo’s business practices; they never release a product with all its functionality so that consumers are forced to upgrade at a later date. Case-in-point for Apple would be requiring an upgrade for the iPhone so that it can COPY & PASTE (something relatively simple, but a quick $10 from each owner). Nintendo seems fairly obvious; how many times have you rebought a DS (DS, DS Lite, DSi), Gameboy (GB, GB Pocket, GB Pocket Color, GB Advance, GB Advance SP, GB Advance Micro…), or Mario 64 (N64, DS, Wii Virtual Console)? The object here isn’t to be misleading to your public. It follows a principle of brand loyalty and our desire for something new, even if it is just repackaged with a little extra shine. By withholding just a little bit, and slowly revealing/adding to the original, we can keep the public grasping for more, without ever straying from our core messages.
Here are a few examples of how this can be achieved in the movie analogy.
Producer: “In following the genius of Stephen King, our movie tries to capture the unique narrative eye of the book. Fans of the book, however, will see something new at every turn. We here at [COMPANY] are making Horror for Hollywood.”
OUTCOME–> Release of information, plug of the company’s tagline campaign, drawing in fans of the book with a promise of loyalty and something new.
Christian Bale: “I was very pleased to jump on board with [COMPANY], now notorious for making horror films. I was such a fan of Stephen King’s book that I immediately signed on. I anticipate a long relationship with this series.”
OUTCOME–> Another plug of the company’s tagline, celebrity endorsement targeted at movie-goers, bait for the media (hint at sequel).
Stephen King: “I’m glad to pick this series up as a movie. When Christian Bale came in, I knew [COMPANY] had a vision of what my book should be on the big screen. In a day when horror films only involve sawing parts off of bodies, I’m glad to see that at least one producer is making real horror in Hollywood.”
OUTCOME–> Yet another plug of the company tagline, celebrity endorsement targeted at book fans, controversy (obvious “fighting words” against popular horror rival, Saw.
Thanks for the comments, guys. I have to agree that being message-driven all the time makes for ridiculously mundane PR campaigns, but again, the messages are mostly being driven from above; while the PR team crafts them, it’s the suits that get pissed off when someone strays from messaging. If you have an executive team that’s not as uptight, you can come up with great ways to get your messages across without constantly repeating the same thing over again. But seriously, I’ve been in situations where bosses have made it very clear that we’re not to change the way we’re saying things unless we have to — in a written interview, for example, there would be no excuse for straying from the message even a bit.
I try to encourage execs to have fun with interviews. Demian, I’m totally with you on the notion that interviews are much more interesting when the interviewee isn’t reciting the same bullshit they just recited to the last guy. But — and here’s where you can break out the soggy old cabbage — I think it’s also up to the journalist to ask unique questions and to press the interview subject when they’re being fed a canned response. It just really doesn’t happen very often. If you push and push for a “proper answer” you’ll probably get it. Or it’ll be blatantly obvious to your readers in the transcript (or video or whatever) that they’re not getting the whole answer.
One problem with sticking to a message in this industry — and probably most entertainment industries — is that it works. If I tell you my game is going to be “the new shit” or that it’ll “redefine” something or other, there’s a good chance you’ll print it. If I DON’T tell you the exact thing I want you to say, you definitely won’t say it. So if you’re writing a 1000-word story and I can get in a dozen quotes, it doesn’t make sense for me to give you any info other than what I want you to print. And considering that a lot, but certainly not all, games writers approach interviews — with this blind excitement and reverence for the game creators — it’s just not very common that a question will come up for which a message hasn’t been crafted. That’s a bit sad.