Matt and I are often sought out by PR students and others new to the industry on topics such as running a firm and overall ethics. I was recently asked how our organization handles client trade; in other words, in-kind compensation.

While such an arrangement can be worked out many different ways, at Tanner Friedman, we always make sure “trade” goes to benefit the “greater good”—in other words, the entire agency and all that work within it.

For a non-profit organization holding an event, for example, we tend towards a model where we are compensated in dollars for a portion of the work and then “in kind” dollars are leveraged in high-profile ways, such as logos on an invitation, event signage and/or program ads that promote the firm.

On the other end of the spectrum, some firm principals might instead earmark airline miles or restaurant trade only for their use or their family members. It does happen. However, I would argue that, instead, this trade should be provided to top performers throughout the agency as extra perks, incentives and bonuses.

After all, in building morale and a team approach, “all for one and one for all” can ring quite hollow when only one or two are enjoying the fruits from the labor of many.

Ask anyone in public relations and they will tell you that bridging the perception-reality gap is among our biggest challenges as communicators.

It doesn’t matter your line of work, there are always misperceptions that are threats to your business.  For example, in PR, we are thought of by those uninformed or misinformed, as “spin doctors” like those they see in politics or, worse, on politically-oriented TV dramas.  Good public relations strategies that tell your stories and deliver your messages help, over time, to transform perceptions closer to your realities.  

Right now, no industry is working harder than the auto business to bridge its gap.  The future of their industry, thousands of communities and millions of jobs are at stake in this PR battle.  But, unlike many industries, the autos have beat reporters who get to know their business and develop an extensive body of knowledge.    One of those journalists, Mark Phelan of the Detroit Free Press, has worked for years to know the industry he covers.  So today, with myths about the car business flying all over America, Phelan plays “Mythbuster” with a front-page column that spells out the facts.

The “takeaway” here - if your business or industry is still covered by a beat writer that has not yet been lost to media cutback, get to know that journalist.  If they get to know your industry, your challenges and your myths, they can help you set the record straight.  It’s another reason to build relationships with,  not just push statements to, reporters who cover your company.  The auto industry’s woes are a good reminder of the remaining value of sound media relations, as part of an overall PR program.

Great communicators don’t come along every day. When they do—and distinguish themselves—they are often deserving of accolades and review.

Such is the case with author David Foster Wallace. I recently discovered his books and the fact that he grew up in my hometown of Champaign-Urbana, Illinois and is the same age as I am, 46. His father taught at the University of Illinois, my alma mater, while, his mom taught at Parkland College, where my mother worked.

While I didn’t know him growing up, I immediately identified with his observations, wit and eye for irony. I am far from alone. Revered as one of the great writers of his era for works such as “Infinite Jest,” “The Broom of the System,” “The Girl With the Curious Hair” and others, Wallace put forth a unique style all his own, including long, multi-clause sentences and substantive notes amid main narrative; in turn, setting himself apart and winning over a generation.

Sadly, like many artists who communicate their thoughts and ideas so brilliantly to the general populace, behind closed doors Wallace was unable to sort out his inner demons. A sufferer of depression for more than 20 years, he ended his own life just two months ago.

Some can take solace in the fact that his brilliant work lives on, including his ability to communicate with the written word like few others ever have or ever will.

If you think you “know the media,” but you don’t pay attention constantly to the changes unfolding in front of us, then start using the past tense and say that you “knew the media.”

Within the last week, news broke about a “partnership” agreement between NBC and Fox that enables them to share news crews in markets where they both own stations.  A piece in the trade journal Broadcasting and Cable explains how it’s supposed to work.

The networks tell us that this arrangement will mean “more enterprise reporting.”  Until proven otherwise, I’m skeptical that it’s anything other than a cost saving measure.  Viewership for local TV news is down across the country, in many cases about 20% in 10 years.  That means less revenue for companies where the Owned and Operated stations (O&Os) used to be cash cows.  Coupled with the economic situation the nation is now facing,  broadcasters are putting unprecedented pressure on management to find new ways to save money and increase margins.

What does this mean for PR people?  The old-schoolers who expect multiple cameras to come out to news conferences are in for more disappointment.  For the rest of us, it means the same thing as all of the other changes we are seeing - fewer traditional media resources means less coverage in traditional media and a multi-platform approach to communications becomes even more imperative.  

While today’s latest radio news compels me to comment it is perhaps one of the toughest blogs I have ever had to write as I know, like and respect all of the participants well.

Jim Johnson and Lynne Woodison are about as good as it gets as people and radio professionals. I have had the good fortune of working with both; including JJ many years ago when we broadcast together over the former WLLZ-FM. Their unexpected firing today after their morning show on WCSX-FM (here’s Crain’s coverage from Bill Shea) leaves both without jobs and a personality void in this marketplace at a time when terrestrial radio needs all the ammunition it can muster in its on-going battle with satellite and iPods.

John Gallagher, on the other hand, is one of radio’s top management professionals with a lineage that includes AM radio legends WJR and WLS in Chicago. He knows and loves this industry well and, unfortunately, was tasked with being the hatchet man today on behalf of his latest company, Greater Media, Inc. I am sure it pained him greatly.

It is an unpleasant sign of the times and one not reserved only for the radio industry: when profits are down, oftentimes the most expensive talent is the first to go. We saw a similar move many months ago when Tom Ryan was fired by CBS’s WOMC. Yet, don’t these well-known, talented, locally-based personalities provide the only true differentiator for choosing traditional radio over other music options?

Of course they do. And that’s the real shame in all of this.

So, now we are free of “I approved this message” and all of the other grating aspects of the 2008 Presidential Campaign.  But, I’m still being asked what our clients can learn from the successes of the Obama campaign. There are lessons for communicators, but first, to borrow another campaign phrases, there are some “fundamental differences” between political PR and the rest of us that must be spelled out before looking at what could be learned from the winning campaign.

Importantly, political PR boils down to making your guy look good.  Often, to get there, it’s about making the other guy look bad.  They really aren’t as concerned with communicating to customers and stakeholders, because their relationship with voters is generally transactional.  Political types try to “win the day” rather than think long-term (because it’s all about a sprint to an election finish).  They also frequently rely on press releases to tout their candidates’ every move.

All of that said, there are some important takeaways from the Obama campaign that could help anyone’s communications:

-They developed an emotional message and stayed on message.  From the beginning, it was about “change” and “hope.”  It never wavered.  They developed their rational messages to support the emotional ones that got them the nomination.  Lesson learned: we recommend that clients develop messages and stick with them over time, because it often takes time for them to resonate.  Never mind that “change” and “hope” were the themes of Bill Clinton’s campaign in 1992.  That didn’t matter because…

-They embraced the younger demographics and rode them all the way until November.  The 18-33 year-olds couldn’t vote in 1992, it was all new to them.  These Americans received the messages via every possible platform and many even opted-in to receive the messages daily (even becoming donors along the way).  Lesson learned:  Generations X and Y have power - political and monetary and influence online that can be a difference-maker for virtually any communications campaign.

-The brand.  The brand.  The brand.  The campaign created a brand - a logo, a voice, a face and that’s what the majority of Americans voted for.  Even if you couldn’t support Obama the man (and many couldn’t at first  because 5 years ago he was an unknown and his Senate tenure was too short to run on) - the majority of you supported the Obama brand.  In many ways, this was the most “corporate” campaign than any Presidential race in history.  The candidate, in this case, was the visible CEO of a deeply emotional brand identity. Lesson learned:  invest in your brand and consistently communicate it in every way.

How and why do you use social media?

Promoting your company and services may be your top reason and that is fine; however, how you approach this promotion is an all-important consideration in overall marketing effectiveness.

If you simply want to advertise your company, take out an ad. YouTube is filled with mini-videos of companies that merely talk about what they do and how they do it. Similarly, thousands upon thousands of blogs and twitters seem to be nothing more than ego-strokes or lame advertorials.

As we have always recommended, when communicating to potential customers and referral sources, it is vital to provide content with meaning—discourse or information that is truly useful and insightful—to this audience; thoughts for how they can conduct their respective businesses more effectively. At the same time, when done correctly, you can provide them with a look at how you think and operate (and, in turn, why they should consider working with you at some point).

It’s not about shameless promotion. To be sure, Web 2.0 should not be about you—not even on YouTube.

After casting my vote this afternoon and preparing to position myself in front of the television for election coverage and results, I spent a moment thinking back on this year’s campaigning and what I remember most vividly.

I can’t remember an election where I received so many phone calls with pre-recorded messages from candidates, exhorting me to get out and vote (for them, of course). And then, there was that song.

Everyone remembers Bill Clinton’s use of Fleetwood Mac’s “Don’t Stop” (thinking about tomorrow) for his 1992 campaign calling for change (sounds familiar). But who would have expected that a simple, homemade tune, sung by the pre-teen daughter of Oakland County Clerk candidate Ruth Johnson, would be among the most memorable campaign songs heard on the airwaves all year. If you haven’t heard it running all over the radio, you can give a look and a listen on YouTube and AOL.

Whether you love it or hate it; think it’s cute or grating, it is memorable—and, in building any brand or reputation, that’s half the battle.

There is nothing like consistency to build brand loyalty. Neither M*A*S*H nor Cheers were ratings giants until they settled into their respective Monday and Thursday night time slots where viewers knew to find them (and tuned in in droves) year after year after year.

When it came to watching the NFL, time was if you were watching an NFC matchup, you knew you were tuned in to CBS. AFC? NBC, of course. And, if it was Monday night, all gridiron fans made a beeline for ABC.

In recent years, I have become confused (and I am sure you are not alone) as to what is shown where. Right now I am watching an AFC matchup with the longtime Monday Night Football announcer team of Al Michaels and John Madden. Problem is, it is Sunday night and the game is being broadcast by NBC (and, heck, it wasn’t that long ago that Madden was broadcast buddies with Pat Sommeral—on CBS).

I’ve become used to the NFC on Fox and, to some degree, the AFC on CBS. But, what happened to the great post-game recaps on ESPN’s NFL Primetime? Oh yea, that has moved to Monday nights along with their weekly game broadcast.

It’s a revolving door of revolving broadcast rights and broadcast teams with those rights (and teams) going to the highest bidder. Who wins in all of this? Certainly not the confused audience and, I would argue, neither do the “winning” networks. Too much change breeds confusion which breeds lower ratings. An audience will only move so many times. There are simply too many other distractions and options today.

Some things, however, never change: In broadcasting, consistency is next to godly-ness.

Clients and contacts are still asking me how come it was “so easy” for Fox’s WJBK-TV and CBS’ WWJ-AM to fire personalities recently.  Now, I think I can finally give a good answer.

You’ll remember that WJBK fired anchor Fanchon Stinger after a series of reports connected her to a Detroit businessman under investigation by the FBI.  And WWJ fired reporter Karen Dinkins after she wore an Obama t-shirt while covering an Obama rally.

While doing some cleaning at home, I found one of my TV contracts from more than a dozen years ago. It clearly states that I could have been terminated by the station for “any act which would cause public embarrassment to (the station).”  

If a behind-the-scenes management-track employee like me had to agree to such a clause in the 1990s, then today, anchors and reporters, the “public faces” of a broadcast operation must now also have to agree to such language.  

Of course, the big companies that own these outlets “won’t comment on personnel matters.”  But, now you have at least a very educated guess.