by Brandon Glenn | Sep 15, 2021 | Blog
Group brainstorming sessions are largely a waste of everyone’s time.
Before I’m burned at the stake for corporate heresy, consider that this seemingly controversial statement isn’t just coming from me. Google “Why brainstorming doesn’t work” and you’ll surface a plethora of articles from leading publications like Harvard Business Review, Inc., Fast Company, The Washington Post and The Guardian.
In the abstract, brainstorming sessions seem to make a lot of sense: Harness the collective brain power of a bunch of smart people with differing viewpoints, encourage the free-and-easy flow of ideas by focusing more on quantity than quality, avoid criticism, embrace wild ideas, then sit back and let the magic happen.
Alas, I’ve found that in my years of corporate experience – and more importantly, numerous studies have shown – that group brainstorming sessions rarely yield innovative solutions. Instead, they are likely to produce a group of mediocre, half-baked ideas that result from participants understandably grasping for the lowest-hanging fruit.
Group brainstorming: The zombie idea that won’t die
So what’s so bad about group brainstorming? In short, it produces fewer ideas and worse ideas compared to individual brainstorming. A meta-analytic review of over 800 teams found that individuals are more likely to generate a higher number of original ideas when they don’t interact with others.
“After six decades of independent scientific research, there is very little evidence for the idea that brainstorming produces more or better ideas than the same number of individuals would produce working independently,” according to Harvard Business Review. “In fact, a great deal of evidence indicates that brainstorming actually harms creative performance, resulting in a collective performance loss that is the very opposite of synergy.”
There are a number of theories about why group brainstorming seems to stifle, rather than promote creativity. First, humans simply have a bias toward agreement and conformity, leading them to challenge marginal ideas less than they should. Next is the concept of “production blocking,” a process loss caused by the need to take turns speaking in group sessions. When only one member is allowed to speak at a time, it may cause other team members to forget earlier ideas shared or prevent them from sharing their immediate thoughts.
Additionally, there are the obvious problems that may occur when large groups of people gather for any problem-solving discussion: group think, social anxiety, loafing and regression to the mean.
Yet despite the accumulation of decades of evidence about its ineffectiveness, group brainstorming sessions remain an institution in much of Corporate America. Why? Essentially, it just “feels” right. On its face, group brainstorming is a democratic way of reaching consensus on the next idea a company should pursue, even if it’s not a particularly great idea. Ultimately, it’s this intuitive (but wrong) feeling that group brainstorming is the best approach to idea generation that explains its persistent survival in the face of widespread evidence to the contrary.
Brainwriting to the rescue
There is a better approach to developing new ideas: Keep the “idea generation” and “discussion” functions separate. In other words, write first, talk second.
In the technique known as “brainwriting,” team members first do their own thinking to develop and write down their ideas. Then, gather the team together and post the ideas (without the names of those who developed them) on a whiteboard. Only then can the discussion begin.
Certainly, discussion of ideas is still worthwhile, but importantly, it should not happen until the group has already created several distinct ideas to debate. “Raw” ideas rarely work; instead, “it’s the permutation and combination of the outlandish and banal that lead to the best proposals,” according to Fast Company.
Amen. We have the power to free Corporate America from the inefficiency, unproductivity and stifled creativity of the dreaded group brainstorm session. All we need to remember to do is write now and talk later.
by Brandon Glenn | May 26, 2021 | Blog
As artificial intelligence (AI) continues its inexorable march towards consuming more and more jobs previously done by humans, it may be a question of when, rather than if, humans become the new horses.
Think, for a minute, about how absolutely essential horses were to the economy 200 years ago. With much of the economy still industrializing and dependent on agriculture, horses were vital to the farm work that produced the world’s food. With no automobiles, horses also played a critical role in transportation, delivering goods to market and enabling humans to travel in coaches or by horseback.
Horses were so important that the U.S. equine population grew six-fold between 1840 and 1900 to more than 21 million horses and mules, according to a report in Foreign Affairs. Then came the internal combustion engine, replacing horses with cars in cities and tractors on farms. The U.S. equine population plummeted to 3 million by 1960, a drop of 88% in just 60 years.
For decades if not centuries, a related debate has loomed, ranging from “The Grapes of Wrath” to “2001: A Space Odyssey” and many others: Will technology replace and make human labor irrelevant? (Given that McKinsey reported five years ago that “currently demonstrated technologies could automate 45% of the activities people are paid to perform,” this is a subject that should be a concern for all workers – and that was five years ago!)
Now, with the rise of AI in marketing and public relations, the “Are humans the new horses?” question has begun to hit a little closer to home for PR professionals. Today, we may use AI software for routine, manual, time-consuming tasks such as transcribing interviews. Tomorrow – as AI gets better and smarter, which it most certainly will – we may use AI to write press releases, product descriptions, website copy and the like.
Once AI gets good enough to do that, it will likely begin to take human jobs. Sure, companies will still need some humans to feed information into the AI software to help the software write a press release, but assistance from AI will mean that companies need far fewer humans to produce the same amount of output.
Already, we’re seeing some examples of PR and marketing AI software – just not the kind that is sophisticated enough to take human jobs in a significant way. Copy.ai promises an “end to writer’s block” by helping users “generate marketing copy in seconds.” (I signed up for a seven-day trial and played around the software a little bit to write a product description; it seemed pretty good.) Similarly, Contilt pledges to “put the power of AI at your fingertips” by using software to generate article drafts and do research. No doubt there are plenty of similar startups today, and there will plenty more in the future.
These companies like to sell their AI as tools that will help humans do their jobs, better, which is true enough in the beginning. Then the AI gets smarter, and it begins to approach, but not meet, humans’ ability to edit content or draft a byline, for example. At this point, we’ve started on the slippery slope to where AI’s “good enough” work product becomes so much cheaper for companies to produce than a human-written article, that “good enough” becomes the industry standard for all articles and human writers start to lose their jobs. What a time to be alive!
So what’s a concerned PR professional to do? Data scientist Michael McBride offers three points of advice:
- Don’t get cocky: In one notable survey, 90% of responders thought that up to half of jobs would be lost to automation within five years, but 91% didn’t think there was any risk to their job. Don’t fall into the “It can’t happen to me” trap. It can.
- Make a process map of your job (extreme kudos to anyone who actually does this!): Create a process map that “visualizes the set of decisions and actions that make up your day-to-day life.”
- Double down on soft skills: Professions that require a tremendous amount of empathy and human interaction are among those least likely to be automated.
The good news is that, as it stands in 2021, there are still PR jobs available. Humans haven’t become horses – yet. Nonetheless, prepare for the coming onslaught of AI as if your career depends on it, because it probably does.
by Brandon Glenn | Feb 17, 2021 | Blog
Of all the deliverables we routinely encounter in public relations, none presents as much of a challenge as the humble byline.
Press releases are necessarily to-the-point and formulaic. Blog posts are often quick-and-dirty shorter pieces that are meant to quickly touch on a specific topic, rather than delve in deeply. (White papers don’t qualify as “routine” as they should be employed sparingly; once per quarter, at most, and even that may be pushing it.)
Bylines, however, are altogether different. To craft a coherent, well-reasoned, nonpromotional 800 to 1,000-word article that offers background, explanation and possible solutions on a pressing industry issue is difficult for a writer to do even in his or her own voice. Add to it the PR writer’s challenge of crafting the piece using the client’s thoughts in the client’s voice and the exercise becomes significantly more arduous.
In that spirit, following are three quick tips for writing a better byline.
Develop a written plan before any phone calls: To make the best use of subject matter experts’ (SMEs) time, start planning your byline long before any phone calls. What’s the major theme or “angle” you’re looking to convey to the reader? Start by brainstorming potential headlines, and then after you have a few, write out what could be the first couple sentences of the article. If you’re unable to get this far, it’s a strong sign your plan for the article isn’t solid enough, and it’s time to refine or rethink the angle.
Do your research: It’s fairly rare to find an idea that is completely new. In other words, whatever you’re planning to write about, it’s likely someone else has written about the same, or a similar, topic previously. Do a few variations of Google searches around the topic you’re planning to write about to evaluate what’s been said before. This will provide an idea of the well-trodden ground that’s been discussed ad nauseum and is better avoided, as well potentially spark ideas for new angles. Further, avail yourself of the research that other writers have performed. Good reporters will “show their receipts” in their articles with links to studies, surveys, data and other articles that can provide helpful background. Save time and boost efficiency by taking advantage of the work that’s already been done.
Come up with a targeted list of questions: Also filed under, “Don’t waste SMEs’ time.” Draw up a list of targeted questions for call participants to review prior to the call. In my experience, the top reason byline intake calls go off-the-rails is lack of preparation. Following a list of predetermined questions enables participants to remain focused and helps keep the call running smoothly. If you’re lucky, the SME will even read over the questions prior to the call and ponder potential responses, which generally helps immensely to boost a byline’s quality in the end.
Due to the nature of what we’re trying to accomplish with bylines, they’ll always be challenging to write. But there is a formula for success. Follow the three tips above to craft better bylines.
by Brandon Glenn | Sep 23, 2020 | Blog
Nobody expects perfection, and certainly not on the first attempt.
That’s why we always anticipate that the written content we produce for clients will need at least one round of edits – and maybe more. The editing process is without a doubt a key component of content development, ironing the rough edges of copy into smooth, on-message prose that shares the right message with the right audience.
Especially in the world of public relations, in which we write on behalf of clients instead of ourselves, I find that the editing process often contributes key insights that improve the quality of the final written content, whether it’s a byline, press release, case study or other deliverable. It’s that previous point – that public relations professionals are employed to write in the voice of their clients, not themselves – that makes the give-and-take of the editing process so critical.
To understand why, I like to think back to my reporter days, when everything I wrote appeared under my own name. Because my name was at the top of every article, all of this content was written in my own voice. The challenge was to get my own words out of my own head and onto the page.
Public relations is an entirely different animal. Nothing I write appears under my name, and everything I write is done in the client’s voice. That’s where the guesswork comes in. Because I’m writing in a voice other my own and I can’t possibly get inside another person’s head, all public relations writing, at least to some extent, is guesswork.
Now, it’s important to note, that as a PR firm, our job is to reduce that guesswork as much as we possibly can, whether it’s through interviews, background research, asking intelligent questions and the like. But, no matter what, because the content we are writing is in someone else’s voice, in the end PR writing remains based on guessing. The editing process is when clients get their opportunity to evaluate that guesswork and massage the copy into something that resembles their company’s own voice.
Despite its inevitability, though, the editing process can sometimes be painful, fraught with misunderstanding, miscommunication, ambiguity and delays. To help ease the pain and improve efficiency, here are three tips to make the editing process go more smoothly.
Tip 1: Practice safe version control: When we send written content to a client, it’s fairly common that three or more individuals (someone from marketing and a couple of subject matter experts, for example) would like to review and edit the piece. That’s fine and very much encouraged. What’s not fine is when all three individuals send back their own edited copies of the document, which can lead to a lot of confusion and inefficiency. In many cases when this happens, one SME’s edits will contradict the other’s, leaving the PR professional to sort out a way forward while potentially wading into the client’s internal politics. To avoid this situation, practice safe version control. If you’re going old-school and emailing a Word document around, send it to one person at a time, and incorporate the first person’s edits before sending it on for review to the second. Alternatively, online tools such Google Docs allow for simultaneous editing and can help overcome the problem of contradictory edits.
Tip 2: Minimize comments in the right-hand margin: Resist the urge to click the “Comment” button in Word or list comments and suggestions in the body of an email. Nothing else results in so much confusion and ambiguity in the editing process as when the right-hand margin of a document is littered with comments. The writer must read those comments, think about their meaning, actually understand the meaning, potentially go out and obtain some new information, adjust the article’s text in a way that (guessing again!) the author(s) approve of, then send the article back to the client who must review it a second time. If the writer guessed wrong or misinterpreted a comment, rinse and repeat. Perhaps surprisingly, in my own experience, the most difficult part of this process is simply trying to interpret what the commenter is asking the writer to do. Instead of taking the time and effort to describe the changes the writer should make, why not just…
Tip 3: Embrace track changes: Here’s a scenario that describes editing nirvana: In the second half of a sentence, the writer said “A” but the reviewer prefers the sentence to end with “B.” So, ensuring that Word’s “Track Changes” functionality is turned on, the reviewer simply goes into the document and types his “B” directly over the writer’s “A.” The result? No confusion, no ambiguity, no questions, a sentence that reads exactly how the reviewer likes, and no more guessing on the writer’s part. Plus, the writer can now review the document and learn how to adjust copy for next time. And all it took on the part of the reviewer was a little more time and effort compared to leaving a comment.
The editing process holds the potential to bring about complication and confusion that exasperates writers and reviewers alike, but it certainly doesn’t need to. Follow the tips above boost the efficiency and accuracy of your content-creation process while removing the pain from editing.
by Brandon Glenn | Jun 10, 2020 | Blog
Another year, another Cision “State of the Media” report.
The 2020 edition, which represents the 11th annual report in the series, surveyed more than 3,200 journalists from across the globe to provide a picture of today’s media landscape. While much of the yearly report generally reads like PR 101 for experienced public relations professionals, it often contains some nuggets of interest that are worth further reflection.
In that spirit, following are a few notes and observations after digesting the 29-page report:
COVID-19 did NOT change everything: In the marketing and public relations worlds, things can seem to change fast, so it can get easy to become caught up in the moment and lose a little long-term perspective. Don’t allow COVID-19 to let that happen to you. Yes, our professional lives during the pandemic are undoubtedly different in many ways, but lots of things in the media world remain largely as they were pre-pandemic. Email is still the preferred method of pitching. Journalists still want to hear from local and national experts who can offer perspectives that illuminate their audiences. To cut through the noise, pitches still need to be timely, relevant and targeted. These things are unlikely to change any time soon.
The media business continues to be brutal: The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated what was already a years-long trend of the media business shedding jobs. Journalism advocacy organization Poynter maintains a depressing and frequently updated list of recent industry layoffs that illustrates the severity of the problem. For reporters and editors, a lack of staffing and resources was cited in the Cision report as the biggest challenge they face. For public relations outreach, this presents a challenge as the number of media outlets continues to dwindle, but also represents an opportunity as individual journalists are under pressure to produce higher volumes of content and could use help finding stories.
Press releases are still relevant: In spite of its obituary having been written a number of times over the years, the humble press release remains very much alive. In fact, journalists who took the Cision survey cited the press release (36%) as the most useful of all brand sources, beating out spokespeople (19%), email pitches (13%) and company websites (12%). For marketing and communications professionals, this qualifies as great news: There is still a place in the world for the well-crafted, well-timed and appropriately targeted press release.
The major takeaway? The more things change, the more they stay the same. Given the barrage of news and information we’re confronted with on a daily basis, separating the signal from the noise is rarely easy for anyone let alone journalists dealing with budget cuts and shrinking staffs. Standing apart from the pack requires the same focus and commitment to timely and relevant messaging that it always has.
Page 3 of 6«12345...»Last »
