Along with this contraction of information is a parallel expansion of media. Because social scientists have us so precisely categorized, outlets targeted to specific groups flourish. Lear’s caters to mature, high-income women. Details appeals to middle-income, fast-tracker men. Essence aims for black women.

Peter Yarrow, of Peter, Paul, and Mary, tells a great story in his stage show to illustrate how narrowly focused we’ve become as a society. In the 1940s and 1950s we had the all-encompassing Life magazine. Then, we cropped our vision down to People magazine in the seventies (all of Life wasn’t good enough anymore). Things tightened up even more with Us. Now we have Self. Somewhere, there’s just gotta be a magazine just for you. I can just imagine it: on sale now, “Fred Morganstern Monthly.”

Not only do we see more media outlets, but the flow of information has likewise increased dramatically the past few years. Fax machines, cellular phones, modems, fiber-optic cables, Low Power TV, satellite down-links, all have reshaped the way we get our information, when we get it, an

Thirty years ago, Marshall McCluhan, the father of modern communications, wrote the immortal words, “The medium is the message.” Today I would amend that to, “The medium is the media.” Our civilization is utterly dominated by the force of media. After our own families, no influence holds greater sway in shaping the text of our being than do the media that cloak us like an electronic membrane.

We all think of ourselves as unique, unlike any person past or present. Indeed, what gives human life its divine spark is the distinct quality of every individual. Yet in many ways we are all the same. The task of market analysts, pollsters, and demographers is to identify those characteristics we share, and group us accordingly. If you are in your early forties, male, Caucasian, a father of two, earn $50,000 or more, and listen to a Top 40 radio station, there are total strangers out there who know an awful lot about you.

That’s because they understand a lot about your upbringing. They know you watched “The Mickey Mouse Club” in the fifties, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” in the sixties, “Saturday Night Live” in the seventies, became environmentally conscious in the eighties, and were probably sorry ABC canceled “Thirtysomething” in the nineties. They’ve got your number because they understand the role the media have played in your life from the moment you Boomed as a Baby.

Today, in America, we tune in to over 9,000 commercial radio stations, 1,100 television stations, 11,000 periodicals, and over 11,000 newspapers with a combined circulation of nearly seventy million. These are the sources of our opinions on everything from nuclear disarmament to Madonna’s love life. Nobody likes to be told what to think, but all of us, every single day, are told precisely what to think about.

As Anthony Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson show in their insightful book, Age of Propaganda, the mass media are most effective in terms of persuading the public for two primary reasons. First, they teach new behavior and, second, they let us know that certain behaviors are legitimate and appropriate. So, if the media are encouraging certain buying patterns, fashion trends, modes of thinking, the unstated message we receive is “It’s okay for me to like that, do that, feel that.” In this way, our culture evolves, is accelerated, and disseminated.

Like the transcontinental railroad of the last century, the media link every city, gully, farmhouse, and mountaintop in North America. Regionalism is fading. The American accent is more uniform; our penchant for migration and blending in is like the smoothing out of a great national blanket. We are fast becoming one.

A common grammatical error occurs when people say “The media is” rather than “The media are” (“media” being the plural of medium”). Yet I sense people who say “the media is” are on to something. They perceive the many arms of the media-TV, newspapers, radio, etc.-as part of one monstrously monolithic creature. The media are “one” too.

Consider “Baby Jessica” McClure, for whom my firm donated public relations services. Jessica was the toddler from Midland, Texas, who fell down a narrow pipe in her backyard in 1987. For thirty-six hours, America was mesmerized by press coverage of her rescue. Acting as a concerned neighbor, the media conveyed Jessica’s light to the nation. The private agony of the McClure family became the anguish of all America.

Think of it: the temporary suffering of one “insignificant” little girl stopped the world’s most powerful country dead in its tracks. (Then, to canonize the experience, the TV movie version of Jessica’s story made it to the small screen within a year.)

Without those cameras there to catch it, and those TV stations to broadcast it, Baby Jessica’s ordeal would have made absolutely no impact on anyone other than her family and those who saved her. Because of the media, all of America for two days became part of Jessica’s family.

CONTRACTION AND EXPANSION

Journalists and talk-show hosts like to claim they’re in the information business or the news business. But you know and I know they’re in the money business just like everyone else. Because practically all media are privately held profit-making ventures, they behave much like any other enterprise, looking for ways to increase the bottom line.

To do that they must expand their consumer base, that is, their audience. They must give the customer what he or she wants. So if your local news station runs a few too many five-part specials on the illicit sex lives of nuns during “Sweeps Month,” remember they’re only trying to please the viewers.

Creating a successful product means citizens may not always get the information they need. A Harvard researcher found the average network sound byte from presidential campaigns dropped from 41.5 seconds per broadcast in 1968 to just under 10 seconds in 1988. That translates into roughly sixteen words a night with which to make up our minds on who should run the country. We absorb more information, yet understand less than ever before.

This is a logical consequence of big media. Their existence depends on keeping the audience tuned in. If TV station “A” covers candidate “B” droning on about farm subsidies, most of the audience will probably switch to station “C” running a story about the stray cat raised by an affectionate pig. Station “A” would be wise to ditch candidate “B” and send a crew out to film Porky and Tabby.

Along with this contraction of information is a parallel expansion of media. Because social scientists have us so precisely categorized, outlets targeted to specific groups flourish. Lear’s caters to mature, high-income women. Details appeals to middle-income, fast-tracker men. Essence aims for black women.

Peter Yarrow, of Peter, Paul, and Mary, tells a great story in his stage show to illustrate how narrowly focused we’ve become as a society. In the 1940s and 1950s we had the all-encompassing Life magazine. Then, we cropped our vision down to People magazine in the seventies (all of Life wasn’t good enough anymore). Things tightened up even more with Us. Now we have Self. Somewhere, there’s just gotta be a magazine just for you. I can just imagine it: on sale now, “Fred Morganstern Monthly.”

Not only do we see more media outlets, but the flow of information has likewise increased dramatically the past few years. Fax machines, cellular phones, modems, fiber-optic cables, Low Power TV, satellite down-links, all have reshaped the way we get our information, when we get it, an

Today, in America, we tune in to over 9,000 commercial radio stations, 1,100 television stations, 11,000 periodicals, and over 11,000 newspapers with a combined circulation of nearly seventy million. These are the sources of our opinions on everything from nuclear disarmament to Madonna’s love life. Nobody likes to be told what to think, but all of us, every single day, are told precisely what to think about.

As Anthony Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson show in their insightful book, Age of Propaganda, the mass media are most effective in terms of persuading the public for two primary reasons. First, they teach new behavior and, second, they let us know that certain behaviors are legitimate and appropriate. So, if the media are encouraging certain buying patterns, fashion trends, modes of thinking, the unstated message we receive is “It’s okay for me to like that, do that, feel that.” In this way, our culture evolves, is accelerated, and disseminated.

Like the transcontinental railroad of the last century, the media link every city, gully, farmhouse, and mountaintop in North America. Regionalism is fading. The American accent is more uniform; our penchant for migration and blending in is like the smoothing out of a great national blanket. We are fast becoming one.

A common grammatical error occurs when people say “The media is” rather than “The media are” (“media” being the plural of medium”). Yet I sense people who say “the media is” are on to something. They perceive the many arms of the media-TV, newspapers, radio, etc.-as part of one monstrously monolithic creature. The media are “one” too.

Consider “Baby Jessica” McClure, for whom my firm donated public relations services. Jessica was the toddler from Midland, Texas, who fell down a narrow pipe in her backyard in 1987. For thirty-six hours, America was mesmerized by press coverage of her rescue. Acting as a concerned neighbor, the media conveyed Jessica’s light to the nation. The private agony of the McClure family became the anguish of all America.

Think of it: the temporary suffering of one “insignificant” little girl stopped the world’s most powerful country dead in its tracks. (Then, to canonize the experience, the TV movie version of Jessica’s story made it to the small screen within a year.)

Without those cameras there to catch it, and those TV stations to broadcast it, Baby Jessica’s ordeal would have made absolutely no impact on anyone other than her family and those who saved her. Because of the media, all of America for two days became part of Jessica’s family.

CONTRACTION AND EXPANSION

Journalists and talk-show hosts like to claim they’re in the information business or the news business. But you know and I know they’re in the money business just like everyone else. Because practically all media are privately held profit-making ventures, they behave much like any other enterprise, looking for ways to increase the bottom line.

To do that they must expand their consumer base, that is, their audience. They must give the customer what he or she wants. So if your local news station runs a few too many five-part specials on the illicit sex lives of nuns during “Sweeps Month,” remember they’re only trying to please the viewers.

Creating a successful product means citizens may not always get the information they need. A Harvard researcher found the average network sound byte from presidential campaigns dropped from 41.5 seconds per broadcast in 1968 to just under 10 seconds in 1988. That translates into roughly sixteen words a night with which to make up our minds on who should run the country. We absorb more information, yet understand less than ever before.

This is a logical consequence of big media. Their existence depends on keeping the audience tuned in. If TV station “A” covers candidate “B” droning on about farm subsidies, most of the audience will probably switch to station “C” running a story about the stray cat raised by an affectionate pig. Station “A” would be wise to ditch candidate “B” and send a crew out to film Porky and Tabby.

Along with this contraction of information is a parallel expansion of media. Because social scientists have us so precisely categorized, outlets targeted to specific groups flourish. Lear’s caters to mature, high-income women. Details appeals to middle-income, fast-tracker men. Essence aims for black women.

Peter Yarrow, of Peter, Paul, and Mary, tells a great story in his stage show to illustrate how narrowly focused we’ve become as a society. In the 1940s and 1950s we had the all-encompassing Life magazine. Then, we cropped our vision down to People magazine in the seventies (all of Life wasn’t good enough anymore). Things tightened up even more with Us. Now we have Self. Somewhere, there’s just gotta be a magazine just for you. I can just imagine it: on sale now, “Fred Morganstern Monthly.”

Not only do we see more media outlets, but the flow of information has likewise increased dramatically the past few years. Fax machines, cellular phones, modems, fiber-optic cables, Low Power TV, satellite down-links, all have reshaped the way we get our information, when we get it, an

A common grammatical error occurs when people say “The media is” rather than “The media are” (“media” being the plural of medium”). Yet I sense people who say “the media is” are on to something. They perceive the many arms of the media-TV, newspapers, radio, etc.-as part of one monstrously monolithic creature. The media are “one” too.

Consider “Baby Jessica” McClure, for whom my firm donated public relations services. Jessica was the toddler from Midland, Texas, who fell down a narrow pipe in her backyard in 1987. For thirty-six hours, America was mesmerized by press coverage of her rescue. Acting as a concerned neighbor, the media conveyed Jessica’s light to the nation. The private agony of the McClure family became the anguish of all America.

Think of it: the temporary suffering of one “insignificant” little girl stopped the world’s most powerful country dead in its tracks. (Then, to canonize the experience, the TV movie version of Jessica’s story made it to the small screen within a year.)

Without those cameras there to catch it, and those TV stations to broadcast it, Baby Jessica’s ordeal would have made absolutely no impact on anyone other than her family and those who saved her. Because of the media, all of America for two days became part of Jessica’s family.

CONTRACTION AND EXPANSION

Journalists and talk-show hosts like to claim they’re in the information business or the news business. But you know and I know they’re in the money business just like everyone else. Because practically all media are privately held profit-making ventures, they behave much like any other enterprise, looking for ways to increase the bottom line.

To do that they must expand their consumer base, that is, their audience. They must give the customer what he or she wants. So if your local news station runs a few too many five-part specials on the illicit sex lives of nuns during “Sweeps Month,” remember they’re only trying to please the viewers.

Creating a successful product means citizens may not always get the information they need. A Harvard researcher found the average network sound byte from presidential campaigns dropped from 41.5 seconds per broadcast in 1968 to just under 10 seconds in 1988. That translates into roughly sixteen words a night with which to make up our minds on who should run the country. We absorb more information, yet understand less than ever before.

This is a logical consequence of big media. Their existence depends on keeping the audience tuned in. If TV station “A” covers candidate “B” droning on about farm subsidies, most of the audience will probably switch to station “C” running a story about the stray cat raised by an affectionate pig. Station “A” would be wise to ditch candidate “B” and send a crew out to film Porky and Tabby.

Along with this contraction of information is a parallel expansion of media. Because social scientists have us so precisely categorized, outlets targeted to specific groups flourish. Lear’s caters to mature, high-income women. Details appeals to middle-income, fast-tracker men. Essence aims for black women.

Peter Yarrow, of Peter, Paul, and Mary, tells a great story in his stage show to illustrate how narrowly focused we’ve become as a society. In the 1940s and 1950s we had the all-encompassing Life magazine. Then, we cropped our vision down to People magazine in the seventies (all of Life wasn’t good enough anymore). Things tightened up even more with Us. Now we have Self. Somewhere, there’s just gotta be a magazine just for you. I can just imagine it: on sale now, “Fred Morganstern Monthly.”

Not only do we see more media outlets, but the flow of information has likewise increased dramatically the past few years. Fax machines, cellular phones, modems, fiber-optic cables, Low Power TV, satellite down-links, all have reshaped the way we get our information, when we get it, an

CONTRACTION AND EXPANSION

Journalists and talk-show hosts like to claim they’re in the information business or the news business. But you know and I know they’re in the money business just like everyone else. Because practically all media are privately held profit-making ventures, they behave much like any other enterprise, looking for ways to increase the bottom line.

To do that they must expand their consumer base, that is, their audience. They must give the customer what he or she wants. So if your local news station runs a few too many five-part specials on the illicit sex lives of nuns during “Sweeps Month,” remember they’re only trying to please the viewers.

Creating a successful product means citizens may not always get the information they need. A Harvard researcher found the average network sound byte from presidential campaigns dropped from 41.5 seconds per broadcast in 1968 to just under 10 seconds in 1988. That translates into roughly sixteen words a night with which to make up our minds on who should run the country. We absorb more information, yet understand less than ever before.

This is a logical consequence of big media. Their existence depends on keeping the audience tuned in. If TV station “A” covers candidate “B” droning on about farm subsidies, most of the audience will probably switch to station “C” running a story about the stray cat raised by an affectionate pig. Station “A” would be wise to ditch candidate “B” and send a crew out to film Porky and Tabby.

Along with this contraction of information is a parallel expansion of media. Because social scientists have us so precisely categorized, outlets targeted to specific groups flourish. Lear’s caters to mature, high-income women. Details appeals to middle-income, fast-tracker men. Essence aims for black women.

Peter Yarrow, of Peter, Paul, and Mary, tells a great story in his stage show to illustrate how narrowly focused we’ve become as a society. In the 1940s and 1950s we had the all-encompassing Life magazine. Then, we cropped our vision down to People magazine in the seventies (all of Life wasn’t good enough anymore). Things tightened up even more with Us. Now we have Self. Somewhere, there’s just gotta be a magazine just for you. I can just imagine it: on sale now, “Fred Morganstern Monthly.”

Not only do we see more media outlets, but the flow of information has likewise increased dramatically the past few years. Fax machines, cellular phones, modems, fiber-optic cables, Low Power TV, satellite down-links, all have reshaped the way we get our information, when we get it, an

Along with this contraction of information is a parallel expansion of media. Because social scientists have us so precisely categorized, outlets targeted to specific groups flourish. Lear’s caters to mature, high-income women. Details appeals to middle-income, fast-tracker men. Essence aims for black women.

Peter Yarrow, of Peter, Paul, and Mary, tells a great story in his stage show to illustrate how narrowly focused we’ve become as a society. In the 1940s and 1950s we had the all-encompassing Life magazine. Then, we cropped our vision down to People magazine in the seventies (all of Life wasn’t good enough anymore). Things tightened up even more with Us. Now we have Self. Somewhere, there’s just gotta be a magazine just for you. I can just imagine it: on sale now, “Fred Morganstern Monthly.”

Not only do we see more media outlets, but the flow of information has likewise increased dramatically the past few years. Fax machines, cellular phones, modems, fiber-optic cables, Low Power TV, satellite down-links, all have reshaped the way we get our information, when we get it, and what we do with it.

During China’s “Goddess of Democracy” protests in 1989, the students kept in touch with the outside world via fax. Instantly, China seemed to leap forward from feudal empire to modern nation. Vietnam was the first “we’ll be right back after these messages” war. As napalm rained down on the jungle, we saw it live as it happened. We had no time to process information or analyze events as we were barraged by them. Because of improved communications, the Gulf War had the same effect, only with infinitely more drama.

The media may have accelerated the process of dissemination, but as we found out in the days of the first supersonic jets, breaking the sound barrier did not, as some scientists feared, cause planes to disintegrate. Likewise, instant news did not cause us to psychologically disintegrate.

There’s no way to assess what this means to society. To be carpet-bombed by information must have far-reaching consequences to our civilization, but that’s for future observers to sort out. Today, we face an intimidating media- driven culture. Anyone looking to succeed in business must first master the fundamentals of navigating the media. To reach customers, donors, or investors-to reach the public-one must rely on the media as the prime intermediary. The methodology to achieve this is known as Public Relations.

THE NATURE OF PUBLIC RELATIONS

Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can’t, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it.

-- Robert Frost

I’m often asked whether public relations is a science or an art. That’s a valid question. In science, two plus two equals four. It will always equal four whether added by a Republican from Iowa, a shaman from New Guinea, or an alien from Planet X. However, in public relations, two plus two may equal four. It may equal five. It may equal zero today and fifty tomorrow.

Public relations is an art.

Like an art, there are rules of form, proven techniques, and standards of excellence. But, overall, it’s a mercurial enterprise, where instinct is as legitimate as convention.

Public relations was once defined as the ability to provide the answers before the public knows enough to ask the questions. Another P.R. pundit once stated, “We don’t persuade people. We simply offer them reasons to persuade themselves.” I define what I do as gift-wrapping. If you package a bracelet in a Tiffany box, it will have a higher perceived value than if presented in a K Mart box. Same bracelet, different perception.

PERCEPTION IS REALITY

Don Burr, former CEO of People Express Airlines, once said, “In the airline industry, if passengers see coffee stains on the food tray, they assume the engine maintenance isn’t done right.” That may seem irrational, but in this game, perception, not the objective truth, matters most.

How one comprehends given information is all-important in public relations. For decades, baby harp seals were bludgeoned to death by fur hunters, but until the public saw the cute little critters up close and personal and perceived the hunt as unacceptable, the problem didn’t exist. Before that, it was a matter of trappers preserving their hardy way of life. The seals ultimately hired the better publicist.

This also works in negative ways. The congressional check-bouncing scandal was a case in which individual congressmen’s visibility skyrocketed, while their credibility plummeted. The Tobacco Institute, a Washington-based lobbying and P.R. outfit, spends its time and money claiming cigarettes are okay. Nothing they do or say will ever make that true, but they may go a long way in changing public perception of their product. A few years ago they sponsored subliminally that no-smoking regulations infringe on our basic liberties. How’s that for a P.R. stretch?

Ultimately, the goal of any public relations campaign is to either reorient, or solidify, perception of a product, client, policy, or event. From there, nature takes its course. If the public perceives the product as good, the movie star as sexy, the pet rock as indispensable, then the public will fork over its money. As the brilliant business author Dr. Judith Bardwick explained, “To be perceived as visible increasingly means one is perceived as successful.”

Some may charge that stressing perception as reality is tantamount to sanctioning falsehood. I disagree. As the great historian Max Dimont argued, it didn’t matter if Moses really did have a chat with the Lord up on Mount Sinai or not. What matters is that the Jewish people believed it and carved their unique place in world civilizations because of it. Perception became reality.

Likewise, on a more mundane scale, one will succeed in a P.R. campaign only if the perception fostered truly resonates with the public. I do not believe people are easily duped. You may try everything in your bag of tricks to get the public to see things your way. You’ll pull it off only if the perception you seek to convey fits the reality of the public, the reality of the times. As Pretkanis and Eronson argue, credibility today is manufactured, and not earned.

P.R. OR PUBLICITY?

Often, the terms “public relations” and “publicity” are used interchangeably. They shouldn’t be. P