Turns out we’re not alone.

A recent study by Yahoo found television alone just isn’t enough for most audiences, as 75 percent of Internet surfers are browsing while watching television. Break it down by device and tablet users are the biggest multitaskers:

Yahoo featured the study on its advertising blog, but the findings confirm what sharper PR and marketing professionals have come to realize. These days, consumers have a voracious, irresistible hunger for media, and it’s completely telling that a favorite television show or big game can no longer completely engross viewers.

Take me, for example. During a single televised Minnesota Vikings game, I keep close watch of my fantasy football team on ESPN.com, I post about the game on Twitter and Facebook, I read player bios on Wikipedia, I read rapid reaction from bloggers, I review statistics on Football Outsiders and I monitor other games on NFL.com. It’s not that I’m distracted. I’m just interested in the broader context of the game and I don’t allow television to limit my experience.

Think about what the multitasking television viewer means for public relations. In the past, landing a client on the six o’clock news gave marketers a chance to positively shape a story and influence consumers. Altogether, a nice win. Now, television is just a jumping off point. You get your client a glowing three-minute segment, that’s just the start. The same consumer you’re trying to reach might visit your client’s website, blog, Facebook page and Twitter account before the segment ends.

The lesson for PR pros? There’s no sense in separating traditional and digital media strategies while consumers are devouring both forms simultaneously. Tell your client’s story on television and viewers will come to the Internet with questions of their own. Viewers aren’t distracted by their devices. The reality is they’ve never been more engaged.

You might have heard the story — reported by USA Today and given even more legs by Business Insider and several other outlets — about the big-PR firm execs who were “busted” doing, well, their job. Former CNBC news anchor Jim Goldman and former political columnist John Mercurio aren’t exactly saints, but the substance of the criticism of the two seems off-base.

Yes, it’s a crafty form of hardball to pitch stories that tear down a competitor rather than build up a client, but sometimes high-level PR can be a dirty game. (Fortunately, the type of work we do and clients we have at Fast Horse, we spend much more time on the friendly, positive side of things, and media relations is but a part of what we do.) And in refusing to disclose the company or organization for which they were working, the PR pros are definitely on the wrong side of the Public Relations Society of America’s code of ethics, if that sort of thing means anything to you (emphasis mine):

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION: Open communication fosters informed decision making in a democratic society.
Intent: To build trust with the public by revealing all information needed for responsible decision making.
Guidelines: A member shall:

• Be honest and accurate in all communications.
• Act promptly to correct erroneous communications for which the member is responsible.
• Investigate the truthfulness and accuracy of information released on behalf of those represented.
• Reveal the sponsors for causes and interests represented.
• Disclose financial interest (such as stock ownership) in a client’s organization.
• Avoid deceptive practices.

But in the stories I read, neither of those items gets much criticism. Instead, the focus is on two points:

• the PR pros in question were spreading lies, and
• the PR pros’ position as “high-profile media figures,” as USA Today described them

On the lying: USA Today and Business Insider — and probably many of the other outlets rehashing this story — mention that these PR pros were spreading lies about Google in this “whisper campaign” (which, by the way, really just seems like a fairly standard media relations effort, albeit negative). “After Goldman’s pitch proved largely untrue, he subsequently declined USA TODAY’s requests for comment,” the paper wrote. But there’s no explanation of exactly what’s untrue or how that’s the case. Rather, it seems like they’re dealing information that’s highly debatable, information that makes accusations with some support but that isn’t quite proven. That’s a hell of a lot different than “untrue.”

On their positions as “high-profile media figures”: Remember my description from the second sentence of this post? “Former.” They’re both former high-profile media figures. They both now work for a giant, well-known PR firm. Therefore, it’s not a scandal to be caught shaping how a story unfolds in the media. In fact, it’s their job.

UPDATE at 10 a.m. on 5/12: Writing for the Daily Beast, Dan Lyons came up with an article on this matter that’s well-reported and clarifies much of the gray area around this story. Among other things, he found that Facebook is the unnamed client who hired the PR guns to take shots at Google, and he actually points out the specific claims USA Today called “untrue.” Quoting the blogger who initially exposed the PR guys’ efforts, they’re not really “untrue” so much as they are “making a mountain out of a molehill.” Again, big difference.

[photo courtesy of captainslack on Flickr]

Editor’s note: This is John Reinan’s weekly marketing column for MinnPost.com. To see the original, go to http://bit.ly/aXHLDs.

The opening of Target Field is undoubtedly one of the most successful product launches in recent memory. And make no mistake, it truly is a product– a $545 million product that will generate untold millions in revenue for the Twins throughout its lifetime.

If you’ve been to the new ballpark, as I have, you know that the praise for Target Field is well earned. The team got pretty much everything right, from the biggest things to the smallest. (Although I’ve heard a few complaints about the bathrooms from men, who are shocked to be waiting in line at a sporting event. Women everywhere are laughing.)

Every aspect of the ballpark has been analyzed from every angle, and the media coverage from Twin Cities print and broadcast outlets to date would have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if purchased as advertising space.

The Target Field launch reminds me of a saying from my favorite editor. “Writing is like making a salad,” she’d say. “You can’t take wilted lettuce and make it taste great by covering it up with a fancy dressing. And you can’t take lousy reporting and make it into a great story with fancy writing.”

Her point applies to the marketing business, too. As I tell my clients, it’s always easier to sell if you’ve got a great product. Target Field is a great product, and although the coverage may strike some as excessive, you can bet the media interest would have died down by now if the stadium had been a dud.

By the same token, media coverage in general is a lot harder to earn these days than it was even a few short years ago. Most print media have seen staff cuts of at least 30 percent in the last three years; many print publications have cut their news staffs by 40 or 50 percent.

TV and radio news staffs haven’t been exempt from the cuts, either– they’re just not as self-revealing as print. You won’t ever hear Diana Pierce mention the latest cuts at KARE-11 on the 5 p.m. newscast, but they’ve cut plenty.

When massive media cutbacks began in the Twin Cities, I thought it might lower the bar for coverage. The media might be so demoralized and stretched so thin that they’d grab any story pitch you shoveled at them, just to keep the wheels turning.

To their credit, it hasn’t played out that way. If anything, they’re even more selective. A few years ago, a reporter on a slow day might have listened to an OK pitch and followed up on it, just because she didn’t have anything more pressing right at the moment.

Not any more. Everyone is so busy that they’ve really got to pay attention to where they’re using their resources. Getting media coverage for a company, event or product these days is more challenging than ever, and only the best will get through the door.

I’m fortunate to have some great clients who do interesting things and produce excellent products. My batting average on story pitches is pretty good. But there’s no doubt that the media carnage of recent years has made things tougher on people like me– which only underscores just how terrific Target Field really is.

The Federal Trade Commission raised quite a stink a few months ago when it released its new guides governing endorsements and testimonials, which the commission itself said would “affect testimonial advertisements, bloggers [and] celebrity endorsements.”

I’m co-presenting at the next Minnesota Interactive Marketing Association event, a discussion about ethics around social media marketing. As you might imagine, this broad topic of endorsements and disclosure looms large. My wingman for this gig — Michael Fleming, a bright lawyer from Larkin Hoffman — sees a lot of people who are confused on the matter.

That confusion starts with people, like the writer of the TechDirt post I linked to above and so many others (myself included), mistaking the guides from the FTC as new “rules” or “laws” regulating marketing and advertising. I’m sure the FTC’s use of the word “governing” didn’t help the matter, but Fleming points out the FTC has issued guidelines, not regulations.

If you get taken to court, accused of not properly disclosing a financial relationship with a blogger, the FTC’s guidelines will be one of many factors the court would consider. That’s it. (I’ll leave it at that because I’m not a lawyer and I am more interested in getting to my point than in executing an exhaustive and precise legal discussion. But I welcome clarification or elaboration from Fleming or anyone else who knows more about the subject.)

Of course, those guidelines will have a fair amount of weight in court — more weight than you and your Twitter friends — but they’re not the same as laws. That revelation was a relief to me, as a marketer. I don’t envision a situation in which I’m likely to fall on the wrong side of these FTC guides, but it’s damn good to know that, beyond the questions these guides raise, there’s room for reason and, I presume, a chance to defend those who have acted in good faith. As Fleming told me, the courts will be the ultimate arbiter on matters of what’s right and wrong here, not the FTC, and marketers have some room to learn more and make a case before the legal hammer comes crashing down on anyone.

I told you all of that mumbo-jumbo to tell you this: There’s a lot of trail left to blaze in the world of blogger relations, endorsements, product sample-sending and the like, and it’s going to be a while before we have some case law and some case studies to provide direction more concrete than “use your best judgment.”

PRNewser points out an interesting comment from a New York Times story about “mommy blogs.” From PRNewser:

…Tiffany Romero [is] co-founder of Secret is in the Sauce, a community of 5,000 female bloggers. Romero recently told attendees at a conference to let PR firms know that they don’t work for free.”Your time and your experience and your audience are worth something…It’s capitalism, plain and simple,” she said. The gist: we expect to be rewarded when we write about your product or company. Whether or not disclosure is a part of the exchange, the comments are an alarming recommendation.

I don’t consider it alarming. I consider it insightful. When conducting media or blogger outreach, a marketer’s job is not to “get the client free coverage.” The job is to understand what makes a reporter, blogger, editor, producer or whomever tick, to know how you can help her do her job, and to know how her interests align with those of your client.

Sometimes we work with people whose job is to report news and interesting developments in an industry and meeting a deadline or filling some column inches. Sometimes that job — or maybe it’s a “job” — is sharing stuff that’s intriguing on a much more personal level for the writer and, with any luck, feeding a family in the process. In the latter case, there’s no reason to be alarmed by the idea of bloggers desiring to make money.

If they refuse to make the appropriate disclosures, don’t work with them. If you’re not comfortable with money changing hands, you’ll have little trouble finding other bloggers to work with — assuming you have information worthy of their attention. There’s no need for any sort of James Bond stuff, sneaking around in the dark with some shady characters. And if openly disclosed pay-per-post coverage is something you’re interested in, go for it. It sounds like Tiffany Romero has some friends you can talk to.

[photo]

All too rare, an exceptionally well-written news release is something this writer truly appreciates. It’s not just enough for an inspired PR pro to have an idea that’ll take the piece he needs to write from “poo” to “powerful.” He needs to work that piece through his colleagues’ and supervisors’ revisions and contributions — not to mention their apprehensions and their own “wonderful” ideas. As if that weren’t enough, the legal department looms dangerously close to the end of most approval processes.

When Ford found its 2010 Fusion Hybrid on the receiving end of some rumors circulating via e-mail — specifically, that the car could be had for only $15,000 via a special program — creativity kicked in faster than full-on crisis communications. For the better, I believe.

Now surely, this news release isn’t the most free-spirited, humorous or irreverent we’ve seen, but it’s a great example of maintaining a very reasonable, very human tone in a less than ideal situation. This release certainly could have been a straight-laced, by-the-book chunk legalese. You know, play it safe and whatnot.

Instead, Ford took the opportunity to convey a hint of personality — and to drive home a few key messages, to boot. Well played.

Photo courtesy of Ford Motor Company via Flickr

While watching MSNBC in the office yesterday (right in the midst of NBC Universal’s “Green Week“), I caught a segment discussing the amount of carbon emissions and wasted energy caused by — wait for it — spam e-mail.

(Unfortunately, as of this writing, the clip isn’t up on MSNBC.com, but the study received plenty of attention from other media outlets. The New York Times provides a quick overview of the findings here.)

OK, ad wizards: I’ll give you three guesses who came up with this study and subsequent,  Earth Day-timed media push. Did you guess “an anti-virus software company”? Ding ding ding! Bonus points if you guessed McAfee specifically.

I’m a little disappointed by the coverage it’s received. Most of the mainstream media coverage I saw simply regurgitated the findings of McAfee’s study, which is actually fairly thorough in terms of examining and explaining the ways in which our e-mail habits use energy. But just a few minutes’ worth of critical thought drums up a few key questions I didn’t see addressed until I found a couple of posts from clean-tech blogs.

For starters, doesn’t this study sort of assume that people turn on their computers, check their e-mail, spend extra time dealing with spam, and then immediately shut down their computers? I mean, if my computer’s on most of the day, can you really blame the extra energy expenditure on unwanted e-mail?

And I’m pretty sure there was no accounting for the tons of carbon emissions we’ve collectively saved by indirectly banishing the postal service to near-relic status. If we’ve spared the atmosphere of 385 quadrabatrillion tons of CO2 by mailing countless fewer pieces of paper because we prefer e-mail, isn’t spam just a minor operating cost?

Call me Crabby Pants, but this strikes me as just another shallow bit of Earth Day coverage we could have done without.

Thanks to some good hustle and a bit of creativity, Marvin has been showcased nationally as an example of a company refusing to lay off any of its workforce in the face of flagging industry sales.  For Marvin, it’s all about doing the right thing for its business and its tight-knit community of Warroad, Minn. – and the decisions the company made when times were good have put it in position to weather the storm now.

Coverage has included stories from CNBC, Fox Business, the Associated Press and Bloomberg News – resulting in hundreds of placements around the country portraying Marvin in a positive light.  Check out Marvin President Susan Marvin as a guest on “The Diamond District” explaining the company’s philosophy.

Next, an executive from Symantec, the biggest maker of anti-virus software, explained that “with one click, the worm’s creator can instruct it to suck sensitive data, like bank passwords and account numbers, out of millions of computers” and showed Leslie Stahl how a simple visit to Facebook could put her at risk.  When asked about what could eliminate the threat, the Symantec executive, not surprisingly, pointed to top-notch, regularly updated, security software.

Was it a compelling story?  Sure, but it also must have left the marketing department at Symantec high-fiving until their hands were bleeding.  I mean, this was an unprecedented opportunity for them.  Not only did it manage to scare people into thinking that every keystroke could cost them their life savings, but their products were positioned as the only solution when it comes to protecting yourself.

Now, I’m in no way taunting the power of the Conficker virus and certainly not questioning the power of media relations.  I simply thought the coverage of the story was a little curious for a news program like “60 Minutes.”   Why not mention that Macintosh computers are not affected by Conficker?  How about tapping an impartial expert to offer a few tips for avoiding viruses online?   How about a little information on the patch Microsoft created to protect against infection?

I don’t doubt that we all need anti-virus software to battle the worms that are being created constantly, but the skeptic in me would rather hear the case supported by a third-party source in addition to the executive from Symantec. As a wise man once told me: If you want to know if you need a haircut, don’t ask the barber.

Over the past decade or so, the PR Week Awards have taken their place alongside the Silver Anvils as the most prestigious public relations industry awards. Not exactly the Oscars, but they are a big deal to those who make their living in PR. 

For reasons I can’t fathom, I was invited to help judge the PR Week Awards this year.  While I was delighted to be asked, it turned out to be far more work than any other industry awards competition I had ever judged.  It’s no stretch to say that I had three full days into the judging process, from reading entries, to a full day of discussing and selecting finalists and winners in New York.  The investment of time was well worth it, however, as I had the opportunity to meet some sharp people and do a deep dive on the latest PR case studies. 

To win top PR awards, you have to show measurable results against overall campaign objectives.  There’s a premium placed on showing how research guided strategy, as well as creativity in tactical execution. Having recently judged the Effies, which is the ad industry’s highest award for effectiveness, I can say with with conviction that the PR industry continues to have more rigorous standards for its top awards. While I think in some ways all of these competitions are flawed, and some firms have made an art form of exploiting those flaws, these beauty contests do have value, especially for boutique firms like ours.  We contend size does not matter in a creative industry.  Nobody buys what we do in bulk, and awards competitions are a way to prove that the playing field is quite level.

So, fresh off judging the best the PR has to offer in the category of New Product Launch of the Year, allow me offer a few random observations:

• The Media Relations Box – The vast majority of the entries I judged in the New Product Launch category employed media relations as the key driver for building awareness and generating sales.  It confirmed for me that Public Relations is hopelessly stuck in the media relations box while the traditional news media are slowly declining in relevance. In this new, increasingly digital marketing environment, PR clearly has a positioning problem. 
• Celebrity + Charity = Media Coverage – That was the PR formula when I started my career at a big PR firm in 1989.  It was still the formula in 1999.  And it apparently remains the formula in 2009.  A good marketing campaign should include a little star power and perhaps a cause element, as they are great ways to establish relevance and build brand equity.  But it seems PR agencies overwhelmingly still default to those old stand-bys as a means to generate media coverage.  I’m not saying this is a bad approach. I’m simply saying it’s a tired approach.  Creativity has always been at a premium in the PR industry.  It remains so today.
• A Seat At the Table — Public Relations still does not seem to have a seat at the table when it comes to brand strategy.  The discipline has always come in at the tactical level, and has had very little to say in how a product or service goes to market.  It’s not because there aren’t some great strategic PR minds out there.  Quite the contrary.  I think it’s because the function at the corporate level is mostly marginalized to media relations.  PR can be most effective and creative when brought in early.  Enlightened CEOs, CMOs and brand managers get that.  The results are obvious when they don’t. 
• Big Budgets Do Not Necessarily Equal Bigger Results — Some of the best work still arises out of the sparest of budgets.  In marketing, necessity has always been mother of invention.   These tough economic times will certainly breed more creativity in PR, and I think that will be a silver lining for agencies and corporate communications departments facing big budget cuts in these tough economic times.
• PR Can Move the Needle — For those who doubt the effectiveness of the PR discipline, I invite you to curl up with a nice mug of Earl Gray tea and spend an afternoon reading award entries.   Some of the best minds in the business are producing amazing work for their clients, and are finding some really innovative ways to cut through the marketing clutter to make a positive difference on the bottom line. Some of that work will be honored in New York next week at the PR Week Awards ceremony. Good luck to all the finalists!

I stumbled across a made-for-media event today that turned out to be a fascinating exercise in spokesmanship.

Randall Terry is the founder and director of Operation Rescue, one of the nation’s most visible pro-life groups. I had parked my car on Summit Avenue and was walking down to the Xcel Center when I saw a few people gathering in front of the Cathedral of St. Paul. It turned out to be Terry, who had a press conference scheduled.

There were 10 people at the event: Terry; five of his supporters; a reporter and photographer from the Associated Press; a reporter from Pacifica Radio; and me. A couple of nervous-looking cathedral maintenance workers and a young priest milled around at the top of the long stairway, on the lookout for trouble. A few minutes into the event, two passers-by stopped and watched. But this was all about getting a message out through the media — no audience was necessary.

Terry introduced himself in friendly fashion to each media person there, asking our names and shaking our hands. His supporters unfurled a large banner with a photo of an aborted fetus (see below). Before Terry started to speak, he leaned over and told the people holding the sign to “lower it just a little, so it’s level.”

He turned to the radio reporter and asked, “Can you get decent sound?” The skies were gray and threatening, and he told us all that if it began to rain, “I don’t mind going through the cycle more than once.”

Speaking without notes, he began delivering his message. Abortion is murder, he said, and Catholic bishops have a duty to tell their parishioners that they cannot vote for the Obama-Biden ticket.

“Any abortifacient that masquerades as birth control must be made illegal,” he said, mentioning birth control pills and Norplant. “These are human pesticides that have taken the lives of probably 300 million people.

“Human sexuality is a gift from God,” he continued. “We are not animals. We have a duty to treat each other with love and respect.”

Then he turned again to the radio reporter and said, “Did that sound horrible to you?” (He was referring to sound quality, not the content of his remarks.)

I’ve seen many officials speak in public settings, but I’ve never seen such conscious stage-managing up close and personal. I’m not knocking it — this guy is good at what he does. Of course, he speaks in public about as often as you and I go to Starbucks, and it would be silly of him — unprofessional, really — not to be aware of things like setting and sound.

As I left, a reporter from the Minnesota Independent showed up. Terry greeted him warmly and said, “Don’t worry — I’ve gone through this twice, I don’t mind doing it a third time.”