Brad Marley

A few weeks ago I finished reading the futuristic gamer novel, “Ready Player One.”

Science fiction isn’t usually my thing. But I was more than a little intrigued after reading the premise. Anything that is going to hearken back to my childhood (read: video games from the 80′s) will, at the very least, get my attention for a few chapters.

Plus, many people on the Twitter had suggested it. So I decided to borrow it from the library (remember those?)

I’m glad I did.

The book takes place in the year 2044. The main character, Wade Watts, is a kid who, along with the rest of Earth’s population, spends almost his entire waking existence “living” in a program called OASIS — a virtual reality scenario where anybody can be anyone, all the while hiding behind an avatar they’ve created.

When the creator of OASIS dies,  his last will and testament reveals he has hidden three Easter eggs in the simulation. The first person to find them becomes the lone beneficiary of the creator’s vast sums of wealth, as well as the sole proprietor of OASIS.

And they become the most powerful person in this fictional 2044 world. So you can see the story’s conflict comes from.

But back to the avatars for a second.

The citizens of this Earth spend almost all of their waking moments ensconced in OASIS, roaming the vast network of worlds that have been created as part of this virtual world. At least in this universe, face-to-face conversations with real people have gone the way of personal freedoms. They are practically non-existent. But it seems that they are more comfortable conversing this way.

While reading this book (which I recommend, by the way) I was struck by how closely this resembles today’s world.

I see it on the streets as people nearly run into me with their heads tilted down toward their iPhone.

I see it in meetings as people flip through their Twitter account during a presentation.

I see it in restaurants on dates where the couple is so interested in each other, that they have to tell Facebook everything.

Our generation (and the one hot on our tails) are becoming too comfortable with technology when it comes to advancing their relationships.

And this can only end badly.

***

Recently, Gizmodo posted an article titled “Facebook Is Making Us Miserable.”

(Go ahead. I’ll wait here while you read it. Done? Good. Let’s move on.)

It encapsulates how sites like Facebook can suck you in for hours, causing you to lose track of time, all the while lowering your self-esteem.

One passage, in particular, stood out:

“Last, there’s a decline of close relationships. Gone are the days where Facebook merely complemented our real-life relationships. Now, Facebook is actually winning share of our core, off-line interactions. One participant summed it up simply: “We Facebook chat instead of meeting up. It’s easier.”

I don’t want to sound like a technophobe, because I’m not. There’s a time and a place for everything.

But how long will it be until we rely solely on Facebook to advance our personal relationships?

Or has it already happened?

But it’s not just Facebook that is ruining our ability to have real, honest-to-goodness conversations.

A recent study shows that a typical teen sends up to 60 text messages a day on their phones. Friends, parents, colleagues…nobody is off-limits when it comes to modern society’s laziest form of communication.

Sure, they’re easy and convenient, but they are also a breeding ground for poor grammar and a deadening of our social skills.

Here’s an experiment to try at home: The next time you’re out with friends, put all of the phones face down in the center of the table and force the first person who checks their phone to pay the bill. If the people you are with aren’t important enough to delay checking your Twitter account, maybe you’re not worthy of their time, either.

It’s harder than you think.

***

Facebook designers want you to forget that you are using their site when you log in. Rather, they want you to leave your session with the feeling that you just spent time with your friends and families and people you graduated high school who you haven’t actually seen in 12 years. They don’t want you to consciously think that you are actually in Facebook.

Does this sound familiar? It should. I just wrote about it 300 words ago.

Facebook wants to mimic the effects of serotonin – that stuff in the brain that makes you happy.

And if they succeed?

You might as well cancel all of your plans, drop out of society and wear live animals as hats. Because nobody is going to actually see you. Just your Facebook profile.

After all, why would you stop doing something if it makes you happy?

C.C. Chapman has a board on Pinterest dedicated to the idiots who pitch him.

It’s called “Idiots Who Pitch Me.”

And on this board is a pitch he received for the Shake Weight, a product, the pitch explains, that is geared toward moms who have  just given birth and are looking for a way to get back in shape.

That’s great. Except there is one problem: C.C. Chapman is a dad.

I skimmed his blog and, as far as I can tell, he does not have a Y chromosome. Maybe it was his head shot at the top of the page that tipped me off.

Regardless, it took me two seconds to come to that conclusion.

Two seconds.

Based on this investigation, I think we can all agree that this is a blatant example of laziness on the part of the PR professional who pitched him.

Unless you are a PR robot — and you’d have to be a poorly programmed robot, at that — there is absolutely no excuse why a dad gets a pitch geared toward a mom.

None.

I understand there is a possibility that the person who sent the pitch was given a media list and told to carpet bomb the hell out of it. But that just makes it worse because it implies a severe lack of leadership from the senior level. And if they are in that position, giving poor orders, what does that say about the direction that they have been given?

It’s a vicious circle of ineptitude that continues to run rampant in our industry.

***

Calling out PR professionals for not doing their due diligence has become somewhat of a cottage industry for bloggers. Gawker does it. Kevin Dugan does it.

Shoot – I’m doing it right now.

It’s not something I enjoy doing. But I’m starting to come around to the idea that it must be done; that the only way to fix this problem is to shame the sloppy PR person into making a change.

Society already has a less-than-stellar opinion of us – why make it worse?

We are entrenched in a perception battle that likely won’t end anytime soon. But it’s a fight we don’t have to concede. One of the first steps we can take to amend our image is to send our pitches to the right people.

It’s not that difficult. You just have to do some research.

It will take all of ten minutes.

The more diligent we work, the less reasons there are to make fun of us.

Who’s with me?

In 2011, Leah Moss, a recent graduate of Michigan State University, bucked the grads-leaving-Michigan trend and started her own print magazine in Detroit and called it “Jack Detroit.”

The purpose of the pub was to focus on men’s issues and build stronger community ties through its editorial content. And, right away, the mag made an impact.

Interviews with local celebrities like Detroit Red Wings goalie, Jimmy Howard, and Phil & Ben Bator, brothers who are a part of that fabulously addicting site that gives us all the insight into the human psyche that we need (Texts From Last Night), gave the publication the immediate legitimacy that a magazine needs to find its footing, especially in today’s media climate, where grabbing attention spans can be just as crucial as securing ad dollars.

As a practicing PR professional who works in Detroit, I viewed this as a new and legitimate publication to pitch. And as we all know, there can never be too many outlets, especially when more and more are either disappearing, or ditching print.

And if we could get our stories in an outlet that wanted to be a Detroit version of Esquire, that would certainly not be a bad thing.

Unfortunately, four months after issuing their first issue, the Kickstarter-backed project folded, becoming another bullet on the long list of of failed Detroit-based ventures.

But this isn’t the story of Jack Detroit.

This is the story of the media environment, in general. Jack Detroit is just a pinpoint; an example of how hard it is to deliver great content and make money. It would seem that you can’t have one with the other, especially when other publications are beginning to put their focus on “easy, cookie-cutter copy.”

[Editor's note: If this is where our journalism is headed, just shoot me now.]

As a PR professional, we have to ask ourselves: Who will tell our stories?

We depend on the media to be that vehicle; we depend on our abilities to share compelling information with journalists that, in turn, drives them to write.

But if the general public is moving away from in-depth pieces, do we really want sites that are just in it for the eyeballs to write about us?

It’s a tricky question.

On one hand, of course we want that ink. The more people who see us, the better.

But on the other hand, quick, list-y copy doesn’t give our story the spotlight (we believe) it deserves.

As a fan of good journalism and witty writing, I want the magazines like Jack Detroit to thrive, selfishly, because I want to read long reads and have more magazines to pitch.

But I’m just not sure that’s still a possibility.

Late on Saturday night, the Twittersphere blew up with the news that Joe Paterno had died.

Except he didn’t.

Judging by this hashtag, it appears CBS incorrectly broke the story.

Even though his family confirmed that he did pass away a few hours later, I think it’s still worth mentioning that this speed-over-accuracy media atmosphere we are all a part of is troubling.

It’s troubling because, besides a clever hashtag, there seems to be no repercussions for spreading such an untrue story, leading most to believe that this wasn’t a big deal.

But I think it is a big deal.

Our country’s freedom of the press is something we all take for granted. A morning newspaper on the doorstep has been, for most of us, as American as baseball and Occupy Wall Street. But as social media continues its rapid ascent as our main source of news-gathering, we risk losing maybe our best source of news-gathering.

I’m talking, again, about the newspaper. (Don’t think I didn’t think about calling this post “Why We Need Newspapers, Part 2.”)

Newspapers don’t make mistakes like this. They have the luxury — yes, the luxury — of checking their facts. It’s been a long time since a print newspaper actually “broke” a story, but that’s no longer their place in the world. A successful paper must now focus on analysis. They must write the stories behind the stories that broke the night before.

That’s where they can thrive.

But I fear that the news about Paterno passing away will only serve to put this thought in our heads that newspapers should go the way of the dinosaurs.

If anything, it should make them settle in for a fight to stay relevant.

I wish there was a way to hold those accountable who mislead us to be punished, but, for now, we’ll have to let the Court of Public Opinion levy the punishment.

Our job, for those of us who are active in social media, is not to fan the flames. When we hear something shocking, it’s up to us to check our facts. Read it with a grain of salt.

Because if we don’t, we’re only fanning the flames of inaccuracy. And once we’ve made it clear that we can tolerate mistakes, there’s nothing to hold back the wave of falsity.

/end rant

It can be incredibly hard for PR pros to be creative.

We all have these grand ideas for the next viral video or unique ways to use new technology to tell our client’s story. But when we sit down to put those ideas in motion, we get bogged down by the minutiae that can plague our industry — time entry, six rounds of approvals, etc. — and our creative juices stop flowing.

It’s frustrating.

For a profession that prides ourselves on being creative, we sure are an extremely process-driven bunch, aren’t we?  So aggravating.

Sometimes it seems like a small miracle that we get to actually implement an idea here and there.

But fear not, fair readers. (All 17 of you.) There is a shining beacon of creativity that should give all of us hope for a better, more creative future.

And it’s the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

*record scratch*

Yep. The CDC.

Last May, they revealed “Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse.” It was an emergency preparedness guide taken to the next level.

With their tongue firmly planted in their cheek, the guide explained why it’s crucial to be prepared in the event of a zombie apocalyptic scenario, even going so far as to cite the Bible of surviving a zombie attack.

Oh, yeah: They also shared tips on how to prepare for real emergencies, too.

It was a brilliant PR strategy.

Emergency preparedness guides are boring.

Emergency preparedness guides with a pop culture twist are much more entertaining (and readable.)

(I’m not going to lie to you: I wish I’d thought of this.)

What really blew me away was the fact that a government agency would allow this idea to see the light of day. We think of large corporations and government entities as being dry and “by the book.” This was neither, which is probably why it got picked up by mainstream outlets.

To take it to the next level, they even released a graphic novel in October, just in time for NY Comic Con. A neat (and logical) next step in their continuing campaign to prepare people for emergencies.

***

This initiative proves that you don’t have to be a small, nimble agency to pull off a surprising PR campaign.

If it’s a good idea and fits the overall goals of the initiative, it can be done.

So the next time you find yourself doubting your idea before it has been presented, because you think it will be shot down, take heart.

And think about zombies.