Drops on Monday. Be sure to check it out.
Drops on Monday. Be sure to check it out.
We have finally run through most of our op-ed queue, and are looking for new thought leadership pieces. If you had previously sent one that did not run (and it is evergreen), send again. If you have had an idea banging around in the back of your head, send it on.
I think our guest columns, editorials, and PRWeek columns have been featuring some great fodder for debate.
Here are some:
We have a PRWeek Twitter feed these days. You can follow us at . During the seven minutes a day it works. Kidding!
We’re going to be calling for submissions soon for the 40 under 40 feature, which runs in December. This will no doubt please Erica Iacono, who has been inundated with pre-submission solicitations.
I’ve been following the news that the New York Times‘ John McCain’s Op-Ed on the grounds that it did not announce anything new and merely served as a refutation of Barack Obama’s recent Op-Ed that ran in the same paper. Of course, this is fertile ground for conservative critics to allege liberal bias to the NYT’s - a point the paper poorly tries to deflect by reminding the McCain camp that the paper endorsed McCain in the Republican primary. What has been heartening is that editors of all stripes have appeared on talk shows to support the Times‘ decision based on editorial control. Presidential candidates - no matter how important - do not get jurisdiction over the decisions of the working press. The New York Post found the news value in the Op-Ed (perhaps more so in the controversy, then in the Op-Ed) and decided to run it. So it ran. Ask any thought leader about their experiences, and you’ll often find it takes a couple of tries to find a taker.
McCain has no shortage of opportunities to espouse his points. The Times owns its own real estate. Editors everywhere should applaud the Times for maintaining its standards, even though it’s liable to draw plenty of criticism. Here’s, I think, the salient point:
In an e-mail to the campaign on Friday, David Shipley, an op-ed editor at the newspaper, said he could not accept the piece in its current form, but would look at another version. In the e-mail, released by McCain’s campaign, Shipley wrote that McCain’s article would “have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.”
We get plenty of Op-Ed submissions that don’t conform to our editorial standards (too self-promotional, poorly written, written in the form of a Q&A, etc). And we find nearly all are happy to work with us on getting the copy to the best place. Of course, those scenarios don’t often lead to the opportunity to throw red meat to the base.
So, we’ve started doing some video. I’ve already enjoyed the stuff we’ve done. But I’m also open to suggestions. What types of videos would you like to see?
If you had as an audience the rockstars of the C-suite (a clever way of saying blue chip company CEOs), what one question would you ask them re: their thoughts about the PR industry?
I talk to a lot of agency leaders who are very proud of their blogs, but don’t really talk much about what value it adds to the business. Of course, many of these professionals made their marks as journalists and, therefore, look to their blogs as hobbies. But these blogs are often carried under the banner of the agencies they run. So I ask: Why do you blog? What’s the ROI back to the agency?
Some have passed. Some are yet to come, but already filled with participants. Some are still being filled. The latter are the consumer roundtable in Chicago, the healthcare roundtable in Philadelphia, the public affairs roundtable in Washington, and the entertainment/media roundtable in Los Angeles. Should you want to pitch your corporation or agency, or let us know who we should include, e-mail .
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in any form without prior authorization.