For decades, PR firms were judged on how well they could sling together standard language, over-reaching promises and examples of past work, along with a few lines at the beginning customized for a potential client based on one meeting and, at the end, the all-important fee request (based usually on the highest monthly number the firm thought it could get away with). The proposal would be considered, shared among decision-makers, and then weighed against other firms competing for business. The winning firm would then have to live up to the “best case” scenarios laid out in the proposal and would bill that number from proposal’s end every month, until they were fired.

While business realities have evolved, the PR agency proposal often has not. It’s still a time-consuming exercise in guess work and hypothetical examples. Rarely, if ever, can it delve into what a real relationship would actually be like. Most often, it gives the potential client a false sense of security that it did its “homework” in looking for a firm. Quite often, the proposal goes absolutely nowhere other than the unbillable section of the firm’s time report.

Sometimes, it’s necessary to get thoughts on paper to allow for a process of prioritization and evaluation. In those cases, both the potential client and the firm should agree on what would actually be helpful to be presented and what doesn’t cross the line into free work. Often, a simple letter or memo can lay it all out. If a longer proposal is necessary, there should be shared expectations about what it should contain.

Most often, we prefer to work with potential clients to explore opportunities on level ground. They come to us based on a referral from someone familiar with our work. We try to get to know each other to see if we share common values. We try, in initial conversation, to identify priority areas – the “need to haves” that would be addressed first in an engagement. We talk about a scope of work that could serve as a starting point, and then, and only then, fees that would correspond to the time it would take to accomplish the initial, focused objectives. This two-way dialogue tends to result in the best client relationships we enjoy.

We have frequently written about how RFPs are the worst ways to hire a firm. But even without those Really Flawed Processes, mistakes can be made, time wasted and empty promises made by requiring written proposals that win style points but little else. If you’re shopping for a firm, consider cutting to the case and leaving out the fluff.

There is plenty of speculation. First, that after 6-months off the year to finish out non-competes, former 89X Morning lewd-sters “Dave & Chuck the Freak” will step into the 101-FM hot seat in order to continue the station’s transition to a younger (18-34) demographic. If you’ve been listening closely to the station over the past year-plus, you’ve no doubt noticed a gradual shift in the music mix toward more alternative-rock-like fare. Specs Howard School’s Dick Kernan, in the Crain’s piece, compares the move to NBC’s transitioning next year of Jimmy Fallon to the “Tonight Show” in order to attract the advertiser-friendly Millennials or (Gen-Yers).

As Drew and Mike announced during their last broadcast Friday this is not the end of the line for them.  That should come as no surprise to anyone considering their incredible popularity and immense listenership.  One rumor going around is that they may end up at the helm of a retooled Magic.  WRIF’s sister station has floundered since Jim Harper retired and, some insiders are saying, there might be a format switch to a more lucrative FM sports station to go head-to-head with CBS’s “The Ticket”.  When you consider the amount of sports Drew and Mike routinely covered, it is far from a stretch.  Another possibility could be Afternoons at another Greater Media sister and Classic Rocker WCSX-FM. (Drew has wanted off Mornings for years as has been well-publicized in the past).

Whomever ends up replacing ‘RIF’s Dynamic Duo, they very well could be in for an initial tough time.  Who can forget  the Rick Rizzs/Bob Rathbun for Ernie Harwell debacle on WJR or the ‘CSX-misfire of “Deminski and Doyle” for “JJ & Lynne”? The hope at WRIF is that Dave & Chuck, who have already been in the market together for 10 years, will be an anomaly with a built-in audience that will follow them up the dial. That audience is out there somewhere. In their last full ratings book of October 2012, D&C ranked 5^th in Morning Drive 18+.  Last month, 89X dropped to 21^st place in that very same daypart.

About six months ago, a potential new client contacted me after being referred to our agency by a respected Detroit media editor. We spoke briefly by phone and scheduled a time to meet at Tanner Friedman. Within days we were seated at our conference room table and proceeded to have what I felt was a very productive

2-hour meeting to discuss this entrepreneur’s successful background, new venture and key goals as well as the experience, capabilities and fee structure of our agency. As the meeting ended, it was mutually agreed that our organizations appeared to be a good fit for working together and a proposal was requested.

Proposals take time and thought and though we will not prepare specific action plans until hired, we do generally relay a possible approach and potential tactical areas for consideration. In this case, a proposal was drafted and sent to the potential client, followed by follow-up calls and emails over a several week period. The response: absolutely nothing.  No acknowledgment of proposal receipt; no notification of being busy; no note that the individual was moving in a different direction or entirely uninterested.

Months passed and, about a week ago, this individual contacted me again, requesting a discussion regarding a different project. We communicated briefly by email before my messages once again seemingly disappeared into an abyss of silence. My final note to this individual: Respectful communication is a two-way street and a prerequisite for working with Tanner Friedman and that the prospect of our working together was obviously not a good fit. I have yet to hear back. It’s better that way.

“No thank you.”

That was the simple email I received back from a media decision-maker who we have worked with for more than a decade. She just wasn’t interested in the story I pitched her, and that was perfectly fine as it’s her job to make those decisions. At least I had an answer, which can be hard to come by these days.

We respect and appreciate the job of the journalist. We understand one of the toughest parts of working in traditional media these days must be contending with the email inbox. We know that too many PR people have no idea how to target a pitch or offer real news and, instead, they “throw it all on the wall and see what sticks.” We even worked with someone years ago who insisted on pitching a feature on a local shopping area to CNN. We also receive emails that are way too long and have trouble getting to the point or have cryptic subject lines. So we know the inbox is filled with more garbage than reporters, editors and producers could possibly answer. It must be really, really annoying.

We know you have more to do than ever before and less help to do it. That’s why we work hard to narrow things down as much as possible before deciding to contact you in the first place.

So, here’s a suggestion that would help us all work better together in this modern age – when it’s an email from a familiar sender or a subject line about a familiar company or organization, or whenever it’s possible to spare a few seconds – please respond.

When you don’t answer, we don’t know what to make of it. Did you not read it? Are you on vacation? Are you not interested? Are you just busy? Should we call? Should we wait a few days? Sometimes, it makes dating seem downright straightforward.

“No thank you” made me want to thank the sender, much to her surprise. But, it meant we didn’t have to call to follow-up. It actually prevented annoyance.

So, whenever possible, something like “I like it. Give me a week,” or “Sorry – just not a fit” or “I’ll call you later” or “call me at 2 p.m.” takes literally just a few seconds and would really be appreciated, especially when we know each other. Most importantly, it prevents an annoying phone call, a second email or even the dreaded, ugly and not recommended “I want to make sure you received the release.” Anytime that can be prevented, it has to be considered a step in the right direction.

We saw it in the aftermath of tragic events this past week in Boston. Who wasn’t glued to TV or radio for continuing coverage as well as up-to-the-minute print and broadcast outlet updates online – each of us seeking information and a way to somehow make sense of it all.  As the manhunt for the bombing suspects heated up on Friday, many office phones were silent across the country with individuals web streaming coverage from their desks and others eschewing cell phone calls by car in favor of the latest radio reports.

A wise man once said that how we handle adversity can define us. It is at times like these that the media – mass media such as the major networks and news outlets – are at their finest. Oft maligned for being sensational, political or worse, unnecessary, it is they who we turn to for accurate information and keen perspective. More often than not, they get it right.

It is particularly heartening to think that we all worked together, perhaps like never before, toward delivering justice. As the FBI made public the pictures of the terrorist brothers, they knew that the media would beam their images to the world and that, further, we would then post and share and tweet them even further; a grass tops and grass roots collaboration. It was two-way “mass” communication both basic and complex and truly at its finest.

But, this week, like we have seen recently in the car business in Detroit, the Big 3 showed that they can rise to the occasion. When it came to the most accurate reporting, the most solid analysis void of hyperbole or speculation, compelling storytelling from the field and tone-appropriate anchoring, the three “legacy networks” led the way on TV, every step of the way. The highlights include NBC’s Justice Correspondent Pete Williams batting 1.000 with his sourced reporting and CBS’ John Miller, who has split his career between broadcast news and law enforcement, providing measured insight into what was happening behind the scenes. Their websites were also complete, easy-to-navigate, up-to-date and straightforward. Overall, it seemed they were the most careful on what they reported via Twitter.

Meanwhile, on the “cable channels,” CNN had its widely-reported gaffes and subsequent PR issues (see the blog post on that below) and Friday night’s climactic standoff and arrest was “anchored” on Fox News Channel by slugfest host Bill O’Reilly and shock TV pioneer Geraldo Rivera and MSNBC’s coverage was “anchored” by political debater Chris Matthews.

If, as I wrote last week, “cable news” gives viewers the choice between “the conservative channel,” “the liberal channel” and “the channel that gets it wrong,” then it would seem “network news” would be the place for straight news coverage. Not so fast. The network morning shows are filled with content like celebrity gossip, domestic murder trials from around the country, missing young white women and New York City weather. CBS is experimenting with a Charlie Rose-anchored, news-focused show, but they have never really been able draw a competitive audience in the morning with any talent pairing or format. In the evening, the news broadcasts are tied to 1960s lifestyles with a 6:30pm broadcast. Prime Time generally has magazine-style shows, but fewer of those then anytime in the last 20 years.

Maybe one of the networks will realize its opportunity and replace sitcoms in Prime Time with a straight newscast for viewers who are busy during the day and want more than empty debate at night. But it’s expensive and risky and would be foreign to so many who have become accustomed to what national TV news has become.

Oh well. It was nice to have the “Big 3″ back for a few days. Hopefully, their budgets will still be in tact the next time we need them.

Multiple “big brand” news organizations, notably CNN via its correspondent John King and the Associated Press, which feeds virtually every bona fide news organization in America, reported first an “an arrest is imminent” and then “a suspect is under arrest” and then “the arrested suspect is being taken to Federal Court.” Some of the reports even included detail about how authorities identified the suspect. At the same time, other news organizations were either holding off or directly refuting the CNN and AP reports.

About an hour later, law enforcement began announcing, through their own channels, that there were no arrests. CNN’s King started backtracking, blaming bad information from his source. That source, it turns out, was a single source (which, as a standard was once not enough to even report a shred of news in a story like this), inside Boston law enforcement, which the public knows was playing a secondary role in this case.

From a PR standpoint, CNN comes out of this looking the worst because the AP is staffed by largely anonymous journalists and its service is often invisible to consumers. On the other hand, CNN is engaged in a public battle to win back the relevance it has lost over the past 20 years. In fact, on Monday of this week, hours before the Boston bombing, CNN President Jeff Zucker compared CNN to the “spare tire” you use only when you need it (breaking national news) and “the challenge for us is how to make CNN more essential, how to make it one of the four tires on the car.” Two days later, CNN faces a reputation challenge.

Compounding matters and likely contributing to the dubious reporting and generous “green lights” from management today is the inherent challenge for cable channels that typically just run cheap, easy political debates with talking heads all day to suddenly transform themselves into news reporting organizations. Most days, there’s not a lot of news on “cable news.” So when there is, they have to operate differently, which is a tough task from top to bottom.

First, it was a much-discussed error in reporting the Supreme Court’s health care law decision last year. Now, it’s this report of the arrest that wasn’t. For all of the focus on personalities and formats, credibility really does matter to the public, whether they follow the news minute-by-minute or much less often.

The TV business now operates in a perilous time, especially on cable where younger viewers are starting to think it’s not worth the money. If the choices really do become “the conservative channel,” “the liberal channel,” or “the channel that gets it wrong,” an important segment of the audience will continue to migrate from the platform.

In the world of golf, who wasn’t touched and heartened by the reaction of 14-year-old golf phenom Guan Tianlan after he was assessed a rarely enforced one stroke penalty for slow play at the Masters. “I respect their decision” he said of the move that almost eliminated him from the tournament. Equally refreshing were the words of his father, Han Wan who stated: “A rule is a rule.”

Moving across the country, meanwhile, to California and the sport of baseball, what are we to make of San Diego behemoth outfielder Carlos Quentin’s neanderthal rushing of Dodger pitcher Zack Greinke, a man some 50 pounds slighter, which cracked Greinke’s collarbone? Never mind that the game was 2-1 in favor of the Padres, in the sixth inning, and the that pitch came on a 3-2 count. Never mind that Quentin has been hit more than 100 times in his career.  Quentin instead cited a “history” of being hit by Greinke (two times since 2009) for his actions, which now has him on the bench, and unable to contribute, for a prolonged suspension.

In baseball, there is a time to enforce “the code” which protects one’s teammates. Quentin instead allowed a perceived personal vendetta to negatively affect his team.

If we are looking for an example to follow in sports from an athlete, thank goodness this week we had the good fortune to see how we should conduct ourselves – on the links and between the lines: selflessly. No excuses. No complaints. CSN&Y once sang: Teach your children well. Guan Tianlan, an 8^th grader, reminded us that our children can teach us as well.

Here we are, on the eve of the Masters, with Tiger Woods back among the competitors. He’s physically healthy, publicizing his relationship with an athlete who has a “Q” score (skier Lindsey Vonn) and, most importantly, he is winning golf tournaments again.

Because of his misdeeds and the way he handled (or, more accurately, mishandled) the PR surrounding their revelation, he is far from likely to regain his status as an international mega-brand that transcends sports, ages and genders. But can he once again be a force that draws viewers that advertisers crave, particularly affluent men, to golf on TV on Sunday afternoons? Absolutely.

In sports, winning is the most endearing quality. Just like in business, trump factors can emerge. For example, PR firms owned by businesspeople who don’t operate with high integrity but still get results for their clients manage to stay in business. Lawyers who are “sharks,” reviled by clients but winners in court, can be very successful even though they engender disdain. Business-to-consumer companies can overcome reputation challenges by offering convenience and low prices, like Wal-Mart for example.

Ideally, the most successful athletes would also be the best people. Just like the most successful companies would be the ones that do business the right way. But our culture sometimes picks and chooses what it thinks is important on a case-by-case basis. With Woods, this is one of those times.

Tiger Woods is getting a taste now of what it’s like to be famous in the most forgiving society on the planet. If he can keep his personal life in order and stay “in the hunt” on Sundays, he will regain much of what he has lost in the past 3 1/2 years.

As I put my PowerPoint together in the days leading up to the event, I found I was having a hard time narrowing down and limiting some of the incredible clients and strategic communications initiatives I’ve been involved with to share over the 40 minutes (actually 30 with 10 for Q&A) I would be given to speak. I settled on a few case studies (including a major OEM product launch, a world event turnaround and an IT company we had guided to the White House) to underscore how the industry can offer opportunities to be creative, entrepreneurial and make a difference.

Of even greater importance, however, was the wisdom I tried impart on the group from the standpoint of entering and thriving in the field – including rolling up your sleeves and working hard (no one owes you anything but a chance), seeking out mentors (proactively and organically) and believing in yourself, albeit with humility (always strive to learn, improve and contribute). Most importantly, I stressed the vital importance of setting an ethical foundation, including treating all people with mutual respect.

I was greatly impressed by how this packed room of college students listened and involved themselves in the conversation, including through insightful questions and comments. It’s not surprising, considering the outstanding program offered at the school, led by professor/counselor extraordinaire Jim Wojcik. (Note: There were also two outstanding students from Ferris State who made the drive to attend). The day allowed me a rewarding opportunity to ‘give back’ and encourage the growth and success of our industry’s next generation. And if this particular group is any indication, the future looks very bright.