Posts

Lesson 8: The Facts Don’t Matter

/0 Comments/in /by

By Gerard Braud

www.braudcommunications.com

One day, as a joke in the newsroom, I uttered the phrase, “don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.” We all laughed. A colleague was pushing for a story to make the evening news, but there were lots of holes in the story and I (who in lesson 3 emphasized that it’s all about me) wanted my story to be the lead story. I won and got the lead story. The colleague’s story was killed.

Over the years we used the joke several times daily just to raze each other. But then we began to realize that way too much of what made the news at our TV station and at those of our competitors, made the news regardless of the facts. Ultimately, it was one of the reasons I left the news business after a great 15-year ride.

But let’s be honest. How many news stories are filled with facts? The truth is, not a lot.  Newspaper stories will always have more details than TV and radio news reports. But TV stories, especially, are driven by visual images. The example that I always use is that if the story is about a brown cow, I need video of a brown cow. If I have no video of a brown cow, I can’t put the story on the evening news.

Another example I always use is the mixed metaphor that says, “If a tree falls in the woods and it is not on video, is it news?”

When I used to cover hurricanes in the ‘80s and ‘90s I was always upset when I didn’t have video of something blowing away. I needed the visual on video to tell the story.

I laughed a few years ago when there was a news report about a landslide in Japan. A highway traffic camera captured trees sliding down the side of a hill. It was only news because there was dramatic video. Trust me, as a guy who has worked around the world and extensively in the Pacific rim, there are landslides all over the world every day. This one happened to be captured on video and therefore became news.

As I mentioned in lesson 4, a print reporter will likely write only a 12-20 sentence synopsis, a radio reporter is only writing 6-8 sentences and a TV reporter is only writing 10-12 sentences.

The average person tries to give way, way, way too many facts in a news interview. Take this comment with a grain of salt, but the reporter doesn’t really care about you or the facts. Sure, they seem interested in you, but their report is more important to them personally than your facts.

A news report is a puzzle. Certain pieces must fit exactly together. In a TV report, quotes make up 1/3rd of the story. The lead and the conclusion together make up 1/3rd of the story. I don’t want to burst your bubble, but can you guess how much room we have in the story for your facts? In a TV news report, that equals 4 sentences. In a print report that equals 8-12 sentences.

If there is no room in the story for a bunch of facts, why would you spend so much time giving lots of facts to the reporter?

So, in conclusion for this lesson… don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.

In our next lesson we’ll explore the media training myth about 3 key messages

Lesson 7: Never get in a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel

/0 Comments/in /by

By Gerard Braud

www.braudcommunications.com

I find it unbelievable that in the 21st century we still find executives who don’t want to take on a reporter or news outlet that has wrongly damaged their reputation.

The traditional way of responding to a media outlet that makes a factual error is to ask the management for a retraction. But sometimes the issue is not always factual but a difference in your point of view. If a newspaper does a hatchet job on you, the correct way to respond is to always write a letter to the editor. The letter should be short and to the point, with about 200-400 words. In some cases, you may want to ask 3rd party supporters to also write short letters on your behalf.

Yet I still find executives who say, “We’re not going to respond. Just let it die. You can’t get in a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.” That statement was wrong 50 years ago and it is even more wrong today.

In the past, a negative story may have run on TV or radio once or twice for 60-90 seconds, then it was gone. In the past, a negative story appeared in the newspaper for just one day, then the paper was thrown out, never to be seen again.

But the internet has changed all of that. Today, those negative stories live on in archives on the internet forever. Additionally, media websites are among the highest ranked websites on the internet because their information is deep, the site is constantly updated, and it is perceived by search engines as highly credible. The media sites are so highly ranked that if your organization or name is mentioned in a news report, the media website could come up as a higher ranked site on the internet than your own site.

What this means is that if I do an internet search for your name, or that of your organization, I may see and read the negative things written about you on a media website before I read the positive stuff about you on your own web site.

So what do you do?

Well, just as always, if it is a newspaper that has damaged your reputation, you should write a letter to the editor as I’ve outlined above. That letter to the editor now becauses part of the online archive linked to the story. That way, in the future, when people stumble across the story they will immediately find your point of view as well.

In the case of radio and TV, you should place your comments on the media outlet’s blog on their website. Please be aware that other web users and opponents may verbally attack you and your comments once they are on the media outlet’s blog. You need to be ready to clearly state your case.

Additionally, you may wish to place a response on your own website and blog. Blogs are highly valued by search engines and will help counter the negative comments from the original story.

Finally, don’t take it personally. Your response is as important as a business decision, as we outlined in lesson 2. Hire professional PR writers to help if necessary. They will take the issue less personally and likely choose better words that may temper any anger you are feeling.

In our next lesson we’ll explore why the facts don’t matter.

Lesson 6: I Wonder What the Next Question Will Be?

/0 Comments/in /by

By Gerard Braud

www.braudcommunications.com

I want you to think for a moment about the last interview you did with a reporter. The reporter asks you a question then you start talking. Think very carefully now – what were you wondering the entire time you were answering the question?

In most cases, my media training students will confess that the entire time they were talking, they were thinking, “I wonder what the reporter is going to ask me next.”

Well here’s a little confession – Most of the time while I was a reporter, the entire time people were answering my question I was wondering what I was going to ask them next.

This means that in most interviews, both people are distracted, wondering what the next question will be and therefore neither is really concentrating on what the current answer is.

Therein lies the biggest problem in most interviews and therefore the greatest opportunity.

Here is what you need to know about reporters to fully understand how the interview will go down. In most cases, the reporter has no written, prepared questions before the interview. And chances are, the reporter has not done an extensive amount of advanced research.

If you are dealing with an investigative reporter or a television network news magazine, you can expect the reporter has done more research and has some specific questions to ask. But in your average interview for your average story I would estimate that 80-90% of the time, the reporter is going to make up the questions on the spot when the interview begins.

The interview will start with “soft” questions, designed to help you relax and get into your comfort zone. As the interview progresses, the questions will become more direct and possibly more negative.

But here is the big secret – How you answer the current question will dictate what the next question is. Even more specifically, the words you use at the end of your answer will often be used by the reporter to craft the next question.

In other words, the reporter will mirror your language right back to you in a form of a question. For example, if my final words are, “…the challenges we’ll face next year will eclipse the challenges we face this year…” what do you think the next question will be?  The reporter will ask, “What are the challenges you expect to face next year?”

To test this theory, watch a TV news anchor talking to the reporter who is live on the scene of an event. The anchor will ask a question and the reporter will repeat part of the question back to the anchor as part of their answer.

Mary the Anchor: “Bob, it sure looks like a disaster zone out there…”

Bob the Reporter: “It sure is a disaster zone out here Mary…”

I’ve developed a system for crafting answers that foreshadows the things that I want to talk about in an interview, followed by a “cliff hanger” or a sentence that creates some suspense. The trick is to always stop short of giving all of the details about something and to make the reporter want to know more. You want to make the reporter ask you a logical follow up question.

This technique makes life easy for the reporter because they never have to think very hard about their next question. You, therefore, are controlling the interview and the questions. The reporter is just following along.

I teach an entire workshop on crafting these “Kick-butt Key Messages.” Unfortunately, time here doesn’t permit me to teach the entire program. You would need a half day to truly learn the technique and system I use. But in the meantime, observe news anchors tossing questions to reporters on live locations and in your next interview try to create a few “cliff hangers” that will make the reporter ask you the logical follow up question that you want.

And finally, in lesson 3 we talked about creating quotes. In every interview you need to talk in sound bites and quotes. Often reporters keep asking questions because while they may already have enough facts to write the story, they don’t have a good enough quote to put into the story. And here is a big secret – the faster you give the reporter a good quote, the sooner the interview will end.

In our next lesson we’ll explore the old myth that you should never get in a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.

Lesson 5: The Media is Biased

/0 Comments/in /by

By Gerard Braud

www.braudcommunications.com

There is much debate about whether the media are biased; especially whether there is a liberal bias. If you truly want to explore that subject, I suggest you read the book Bias by Bernard Goldberg.

It has been my experience over the years that much of what is perceived as bias is really the result of the following:

• Editors send reporters out of the door armed with only partial facts or rumors

• The reporters and editors have misconceptions or misperceptions about you or your issues

• A competitor or opponent of yours has approached the media and only told them half of the story

• Ignorance by the reporter

All four of the above result in the reporter calling you, asking for an interview, and asking you negative questions, putting you in a defensive posture.

Let’s break it down.

Partial facts are usually the result of rumors and innuendos. We all share rumors every day. “Hey, you know what I heard today…?”  In the newsroom, a reporter or editor turns that rumor into a research project and must confirm or refute it. “Hey Gerard, I heard a rumor today that… Why don’t you go check it out?”

That rumor would become my assignment for the day. If there is a rumor that the mayor is on cocaine, then I try to prove that the mayor is using cocaine. If he is, it is a story. If he isn’t, then there is no story.  If the rumor is that the married congressman has a girlfriend, then I try to prove the congressman has a girlfriend. If it is true, I have a story. If I can’t prove it, then there is no story.

You may not like it, but it is the nature of the business.

The next issue is very similar; it’s the impact of a misconception or misperceptions. Often this is purely subjective. Perhaps you are proposing a new development, but something just seems shady. Then the news report may likely reflect a tone of skepticism. The reporter may even seek out a 3rd party who is willing to cast further doubt on your project or credibility.

On the issue of opponents — I’ve watched many opponents make compelling cases and provide an enormous amount of supporting material and a hefty helping of innuendo. In the U.S. they’re often called “opposition groups” while around the world they are called “NGOs,” which stands for non-government organizations.

Usually the members of these groups are very passionate about a specific issue and those issues may be considered liberal issues. If a member of one of these groups makes a compelling case to a reporter, they could trigger a news report about you or your company. The reporter may come armed with reams of documentation supplied by the opponent, placing you in a defensive position. The resulting story could portray you in a very negative light.

And the final issue is ignorance by the reporter. Sometimes reporters just get the wrong idea about something and pursue it as a negative story. For example, most reporters look at steam belching from an industrial facility and think they are seeing pollution. Hence, they may do a story about industry polluting and fill the report with images of the stack belching what looks like smoke.

When you are faced with a situation like this, you need to apply all the tricks from lesson one, which includes explaining everything to them in simple terms the way you would explain it to a 6th grade class at career day.

Chances are the media are not “out to get you.” But somebody else may be out to get you and they are letting the media do their dirty work.

In our next lesson we’ll talk about how you can predict what questions are reporter will ask you in an interview.

Lesson 4: They Took Me Out of Context and They Left My Best Stuff on the Cutting Room Floor

/0 Comments/in /by

By Gerard Braud

www.braudcommunications.com

The 2 single biggest complaints I have heard from executives over the years, after they have done an interview, is that “the reporter took me out of context” or that “the reporter left my best stuff on the cutting room floor.” (If you are young, the cutting room is where film was edited for TV news prior to the mid 1970’s. Film that was not used in the story was thrown to the floor during editing.)

Here is the God’s Honest Truth – First, if it was your best stuff it would be in the story. What you think is your best stuff and what the reporter thinks is your best stuff may be very different. But no reporter leaves your best stuff on the cutting room floor.  Secondly, reporters never intentionally take anyone out of context. If you are taken out of context there must be a reason for it and I think I know why. Let’s break it down –

In lesson 3 I emphasized the importance of talking in well worded, professionally written quotes. Why do we all know Neil Armstrong’s quote, “That’s one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind?” The reason we know it is because it is a well written quote from a professional writer and Armstrong practiced as part of his pre-flight training. It was not a spontaneous thought or ad lib by Neil Armstrong as he became the first man to set foot on the moon.

Your best stuff should be a well written practiced quote. Hey, if it is good enough for Neil Armstrong, it should be good enough for you.

Unfortunately, spokespeople who refuse to go through media training are usually guilty of making some spontaneous, inflammatory statement that becomes the quote. Generally they say something really dumb that they regret later. The problem is once it is said, it’s said. There is no taking it back. There is no do-over.

So my big rule for you in this category is that someone is going to edit what you say; it should be and must be you. Editing starts when the quote is written.

And remember this — reporters all recognize a good quote. If you want proof, attend a news conference and watch the reporters as they take notes. It is like watching a ballet as all of the reporters raise their notebooks at the same time to write a quote or fact as the spokesperson says something important. Then all of them put their notebooks down together, then raise them all together again as they hear the next important quote or fact.

Let’s now look at the issue of, “they took me out of context.”

Being taken out of context is usually the fault of the spokesperson. It is generally caused by the spokesperson being unclear, transposing important words, speaking in jargon or trying to give too many facts. That results in the reporter misunderstanding what the spokesperson meant. In short, something gets lost in translation.

How can you keep from being taken out of context?

Don’t try to overload the reporter with facts. Reporters write in an inverted pyramid style. That means they start with a headline that is the synopsis of the story. Then they add the next broad general fact and so on. Seldom does the reporter get into great detail and an abundance of facts. So, don’t get caught in the trap of trying to give too many facts.

Also, realize that the flaw of giving lots of facts and details is often a personality trait. Accountants, engineers, doctors and lawyers live in a world of details where numbers and facts must be precise. Hence, they want to be exact in what they say and they say too much; they give details beyond the reporter’s comprehension. A print reporter is likely only writing a 12-20 sentence synopsis, a radio reporter is only writing 6-8 sentences and a TV reporter is only writing 10-12 sentences. Usually the miscommunication begins when the spokesperson may want to tell the details of “War and Peace” but the reporter is only looking for the CliffsNotes.

If you keep it simple you help the reporter write their story without miscommunications or misinterpretation and you won’t be taken out of context. That’s why in so many media training programs the trainer will ask the spokesperson to focus on just their 3 most important messages.

Next, forget the corporate and non-profit jargon, buzzwords and the government acronyms. Jargon, buzzwords and acronyms are speed bumps to comprehension. They are easily misunderstood by the reporter. The reporter then writes what they think they heard you say. However, if you were not clear, then the story will be wrong. It is your fault and not their fault.

Finally, before the interview is over, ask the reporter if they clearly understand all of the words you used. An embarrassed reporter may nod their head in agreement, yet be too embarrassed to ask you to define certain terms that you used.

In summary… Keep it simple.

In our next lesson we’ll address bias in the media.

Lesson 3: It’s About Me

/0 Comments/in /by

By Gerard Braud

www.braudcommunications.com

My wife often reminds me that it’s “not about me.” But she forgets that I come from a 15 year career as a journalist, where everything was about me.

Everyday it was my story; my interviews; my scoop.

Reporters have big egos. Accept it. You can’t change it so don’t even waste your time and energy.

To be successful in an interview, you have to know and understand the wants, needs and desires of a reporter. They include:

• I want a hot story.
• I want to be the lead story, which is the first story in the newscast or the first story on the front page.
• I want to build a positive reputation.
• I want to advance my career.
• I want to impress my boss.
• I want a raise.
• I want my TV station to have the best ratings.
• I want my newspaper to have a high readership.
• I want to be recognized as a good reporter by my peers.
• I want to win awards.

Do you see a trend here? I want, I want, I want…

Give reporters what they want, but give it to them on your terms. Take care of them and they’ll take care of you.

Help them tell a great story and they will treat you right.

The best single tip I have for you in this category is to talk in great quotes. A quote is one of the single most important things a reporter needs for a story. Sure, facts are important. But when it comes time for the reporter to write the story, your quote makes or breaks the story.

Most spokespeople concentrate too much on trying to convey facts.

The anatomy of a TV news story is this: the reporter writes 1 or 2 sentences to set up the premise or “lead” for the story. The next 2 sentences are a quote, followed by a 2 sentence transition that sets up a second quote. Then the reporter wraps up the story with a summary. A newspaper story is similar, but 3 to 4 times longer.

When you speak in quotes you are actually writing part of the reporter’s story. I’ll bet you didn’t realize that.

Here is one other weird thing that reporters do that no other professionional does. A reporter gives away a portion of their job each day to a complete amateur. Yep – A lawyer doesn’t let an amateur try their case or write a contract; an accountant doesn’t let an amateur do the math or balance the books; an engineer doesn’t let an amateur run the chemical plant; a doctor doesn’t let an amateur do surgery. But a reporter turns over a portion of their script – the quote – to you – an amateur. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants, etc. are not professionally trained writers. Yet they are writing a portion of the reporter’s story when they start talking in an interview. Some part of that interview will be quoted and that means you are writing a portion of the final script.

Great quotes are seldom spontaneous for the spokesperson. That is why they are best written by a professional writer and public relations expert. It is the spokesperson’s responsibility to ask for help crafting quotes and then also their responsibility to go through media training and practice so the quotes are internalized, honest and sound unrehearsed.

In our next lesson we’ll examine those age old responses from spokespeople who say, “the media took me out of context and they left my best stuff on the cutting room floor.”

I’m Trying to Give Away $100 and No One Will Take It

/in , /by

By Gerard Braud

www.braudcommunications.com

I feel like such the Social Media middle man. Check this out… I was giving a keynote speech to 100 executives who belong to an association. The topic was similar to my upcoming topic at the IABC 2009 Conference, which is New Frontiers in Media Training, which will include Social Media Training — blending Media Training skills with Social Media realities.

I asked if anyone in the room could tell me what I am doing?

I started getting answers such as, “you are giving a speech.”

It was just one more indicator of the generational and cultural gap between the techno savvy Web 2.0 crowd and leaders who don’t have a clue about what is going on in the Social Media world.

I’m guessing every one of you reading this blog knows how to find out what I am doing? Some of you are going there right now to find out.

I told the executives to think beyond what they see in front of them to understand what I am doing. I told them that people around the world could tell me what I was doing without even being here. They were befuddled. 

So I asked if any of them had ever heard of Twitter? A few responded yes. I asked if any of them had a Twitter account? None did. I asked if any of them had a Facebook account? A few hands went up. I asked how many had ever watched a video on YouTube? A few more hands went up this time. I asked how many had ever posted a video to YouTube? Only one person had.

I asked how many in the audience thought I was speaking a foreign language when I used terms such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Finally, most raised their hands amid loud laughter.

The lesson here is we have much to teach our executives when it comes to Social Media. Social Media is the new ambush, capable of catching an executive doing something stupid. Social Media is more dangerous than the old style 60 Minutes TV interviews on CBS News in the United States.

I hope you’ll join me in San Francisco at the IABC Conference so we can explore this topic together.

Please post your comments below…

Click here if you’d like to listen to this a BraudCast.

If you’d like to have my regular podcast — or as I call it, my BraudCast — sent straight to you inbox, please sign up at www.braudcasting.com

And if you have a team of executives in your company or in an association, who need to hear from me, I’m always happy to make a presentation to them. Just send an e-mail to me at gerard@braudcommunications.com

Spring, Fox News and Panyhose

/0 Comments/in /by

There are blizzards, floods and tornadoes in the news — all signs of a changing season. But you can never tell what season it is based on how Megan Kelly of Fox News dresses.

How you dress when being interviewed on TV is important. News anchors are becoming bad role modes as we hear in today’s BraudCast.

After you listen to the BraudCast, if you’d like to see Megan’s shiny legs and summer wardrobe in the dead of winter, there are many videos available on YouTube.

Here’s wishing that you dress for success,

Gerard

BraudCast – A Social Media Breakthrough

/0 Comments/in /by

A hazard of trying to force Social Media into the workplace is that 1) in some companies, many employees don’t use computers at work and 2) where computers are used, their is a huge demographic divide between the online habits of Baby Boomers and the Gen X-Gen Ys. But in today’s BraudCast, I see a sliver of surprising hope that the generational divide is getting smaller.

Happy listening,
Gerard
P.S. If you’re into Social Media, you can find me at:

http://twitter.com/gbraud

Gerard Braud's Facebook profile

Gerard’s Top 5 Tips for 2009 – Day 5 – Social Media Training

/0 Comments/in /by

In 2009 I think you need to introduce Social Media Training where you work. I started teaching Social Media Training for 2 reasons and the classes generally take 2 forms. One form is to teach executives and blog leaders the proper way to communicate in online forums. The second form is to help executives realize that their bad behavior on and off the job can easily be recorded on a video cell phone and posted to YouTube for all to see, doing more damage than an old style ambush interview by traditional media.

For those of you with executives who participate or lead online forums, I’d ask you to ask and answer these questions to determine if you need Social Media Training:

• Does the executive know how to use key messages when communicating online?

• Does the executive know how to handle negative comments online?

• How well do the executive’s comments hold up when they are run through cynic filter?

• Does the executive’s comments ever sound angry, defensive or hostile online?

• Does the executive know the power of a question?

Let me respond to each of these:

Social media, especially participation in a blog, requires a certain degree of rawness. It would be a mistake to fill a blog with lots of PRBS. But at the same time, there is a case to be made for staying on message and guiding the discussion, just as one learns in traditional media training. Blog leaders need to realize that what they say is not a naked conversation, but a conversation that is on the record for all the world to see. Through good Social Media Training you can have the best of both worlds.

Negative comments arise quickly in social spaces. They can be harsh and mean. In conventional Media Training you are taught how to handle a negative question from a reporter. Some of those same techniques can be effective online.

The blogosphere is a very cynical place. Training will help a blog leader, podcaster or video caster look at their own comments from the cynic’s point of view.

Anger is the worst way to respond in conventional media and also the worst way to respond in social media. He who keeps his cool wins, in my opinion. The person who takes the humble position will ultimately gain public favor. Even if you are confronted with anger, the right move is to respond with kindness and respect, to use your training techniques for addressing negatives and to fall back to your key messages where appropriate.

I’ve been successfully teaching that one of the most powerful tools in online response is to ask a question, rather than respond defensively. For example, if someone makes a negative comment, rather than trying to shoot down the comment, ask the other person a question, such as, “could you elaborate more on your thoughts so I can better understand your point of view?” I have found that when they further explain their position, it begins to fall apart and exposes lies, rumors and innuendos. This creates a platform for you to toss out the lies, rumors and innuendos, then explain your position as it pertains to the remaining issues. Sometimes you won’t even have to respond because others will shoot down the lies, rumors and innuendos for you.

These are the primary points to cover for executives who proactively participate in social media.

On the other end of the spectrum are those who don’t have a clue about viral videos and then get recorded on camera behaving badly in either an official or social capacity. I’ve seen countless examples of reputations being destroyed, jobs being lost and irreparable harm being done in such situations.

To give you a few examples, a few years ago at a gathering of U.S. Marines, a Marine leader was giving a hoorah type speech. He thought he was among an audience that was in 100 percent agreement with him and loyal to the esprit de corps. The father of a Marine was video taping the speech when the leader made negative comments about gays. The father was offended and handed the tape over to the media. The media showed the video and the leader career was swiftly terminated.

This scenario points out that leaders need to be admonished that they are potentially being recorded 24/7/365. And while the example I gave resulted in the mainstream media becoming involved, in the world of YouTube those same videos can be quickly posted to the web for the entire connected world to see. Then the blogosphere lights up with comments about the video.

The viral video world also means that some of your official corporate videos are being seen by audiences that you never expected to have access. As you produce corporate videos, you need to run them through the cynic filter and ask yourself how would the outside world respond if they saw this video. A case in point is a video by Ernst & Young. It appears the video was shot at a corporate leadership meeting and then shown at a larger annual meeting. Based on my video experience, it was a very expensive video to produce, complete with a band and “hot girl” lead singer. For the video, the company took the liberty of changing the lyrics of a traditional Gospel song, called, “Oh Happy Days.” Whereas the original lyrics included the phrase, “Oh happy days, when Jesus was born,” the new lyrics said, “Oh happy days at Ernst & Young.” Yes, they took Jesus out. This created an uproar once the video became viral. Wow, good thing they didn’t parody a song of Islam and remove the name of Mohammad. As I first viewed the video, my cynic filter notice that there was only one black person in the entire video and the only Latino or Hispanic individuals were seen working in the kitchen. Additionally, with respect to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who tells us that whites clap on beats 1 and 3 while blacks clap on beats 2 and 4, I noticed that in many respects he is right and that in many respects, many of the people in the video cannot find beats 1 and 3 or 2 and 4. This is especially true for the bearded guy down front who is seen more times than anyone else. I’m guessing he is the CEO. Watch the video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaIq9o1H1yo

In other cases, individuals make fools of themselves in media interviews, only to have the media or a viewer upload the video to the web. In one such example, a county commissioner is confronted by a reporter following a public hearing. When the commissioner is questioned by the reporter, every one of the commissioner’s responses centers around asking the reporter if he knows that Jesus loves him. Such a response was not germane to the question and positioned the commissioner as a buffoon. In years past, such a video would have only been seen 2 or 3 times on the news, resulting in a few days of teasing for the commissioner. These days, the video lives forever on the web for all to laugh at. See it at: http://www.myragantv.com/video/?d=299 or at: http://blurbomat.com/archives/2007/10/10/gotta-love-jesus/

There are also a bevy of blogs that comment about this video.

Recently I was training a client who happened to be a public official. While we were out in public, the official got in a shouting match with 3 people in their 20s. I quickly intervened, because I feared one of them would whip out a cell phone and record video.

The fact is, old style ambush media interviews have been replaced by viral media and most people over 35 years old don’t have a clue about viral media. I see this as one of the biggest threats to reputations and profits in 2009.

Well there you have it, five days worth of information I think you need to know to make 2009 a good year.

If you have questions about any of the things I discussed, just pick up the phone and call me at 985-624-9976 or send an e-mail to me. The address is gerard@braudcommunications.com

Best of luck to you in your communications endeavors for the coming year.