I just finished reading Peter Shankman's "Can We Do That? Outrageous PR Stunts That Work and Why Your Company Needs Them." For those who don't know him, Shankman is best known as the founder of Help a Reporter Out (HARO), a fast-growing free service that connects expert sources with the media. Before that he ran a successful PR shop called the Geek Factory, which is the basis for this book.
The title is a bit misleading: You might think this is a book about Shankman taking his client's money and doing crazy things with it, things you and I would never dare do (like skydiving). But it's not. Most of what's in here are sensible rules of thumb that every PR person can learn to master.
Best of all, Shankman shows us the importance of bold ideas and why they're so badly needed in the PR profession. To that point, what I enjoyed most about this book was not so much how these kinds of ideas can generate great results for a company or client, but how they give our profession meaning and elevate the productivity of all the people involved.
The PR profession is always struggling to justify its existence and get respect. I believe much of that is because PR people are generally afraid to be bold thinkers. Shankman writes:
"Because the majority of people out there are afraid to be different, it allows people like us to own the ball game, the playing field--hell, the whole damn stadium..."
In other words, avoid complacency and the safe solution, and people will notice.
Now many of us might blame the client as the real impediment to the bold idea. This may be true, but that doesn't mean you should give up. And Shankman shows us how to create that bold idea and sell it to the skeptics (or "Stoppers," as he calls them).
If there's another clear message in this book, it's the importance of a bold leader. That, unfortunately, is not easy to find in these conservative times of cost-cutting and risk aversion.
In one great line Shankman says, "We're all born creative. All you need to do is allow yourself to be creative." But perhaps even more important is finding a leader who is not threatened by the bold idea and creates an environment that welcomes creativity from his or her employees.
I'll go out on a limb here and say that much of what ails the PR industry is rooted in its timidity. I think one of the greatest lessons from Shankman's book is this: If you want meaning in your professional life, you must conjure and execute bold ideas. Do that, and you'll create a body of work that will be remembered and can help others.
You might even have enough to write a book.
419.730.3040
andrew [at] newsvetter [dot] com
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
“I’ll go out on a limb here and say that much of what ails the PR industry is rooted in its timidity. I think one of the greatest lessons from Shankman’s book is this: If you want meaning in your professional life, you must conjure and execute bold ideas. Do that, and you’ll create a body of work that will be remembered and can help others.”
I think this is even more important than Peter’s quote (which might scare people, a tad).
Andrew, what do you think causes timidity? Honestly. Is it the politics? Is it lack of creativity? Is it fear of judgment by clients and management? And more importantly, what’s it going to take to break down the barrier to great ideas?
Beth Harte
Community Manager, MarketingProfs
@bethharte
I agree with the need for bold thinking and would like to think I proposed a good bit of it over the years. But like it or not, our PR initiatives are only as good as our clients/employers allow them to be. And clients often have good reason to be conservative — even if it’s just to protect a healthy status quo. Sometimes being “bold” isn’t the best strategy.
I haven’t read Shankman’s book, as I was turned off — no, I was insulted by the title. While sometimes and “outrageous stunt” does fuel a marketing effort, it can also bring with it great risk to corporate reputation. In addition, the mainstream news media can be easily turned off by flacks who create psuedo events for the sole purposes of manipulating news coverage. (Of course, Balloon Boy has me rethinking that one! But again, that’s flackery, not PR.)
The PR textbooks all point to P.T. Barnum as one of the first users of outrageous stunts to gain publicity. Barnum was a flack who would say just about anything to get people into his Big Top. He lied frequently to people her referred to as “suckers.” (OK, that part may be folklore.)
If that’s all you want — fanfare and media attention — then outrageous stunts are one way to get there. But let’s call it “promotion,” not public relations.
PR is about building trust by building relationships. You get do that by jumping out of airplanes.
Thanks for the write up, Andrew…
Bill: While I appreciate your candor, I also advise against commenting on something when you flat out admit you haven’t taken the time to understand on what you’re commenting on the first place. Fact is, one of the very first things I say in the book is that a stunt for the sake a stunt is pointless. You want to produce a stunt? Fine – Go for it – But it better tie back to the brand, the product, and actually provide revenue-enhancing opportunities not only during the stunt, but long after the stunt is gone. The problem with your comment is that you aren’t aware that I wrote that, because, as I said, you chose to comment without reading the book. Can I send you a copy? I’d be curious to see, assuming you read it, if you keep the same comments on my book – fact is, each stunt came with measurable action, and measurable results. Without them, there’s no point.
Beth: Agreed – Timidity is death.
Thanks for the comments, all!
Peter,
I do understand that your book doesn’t promote outrageous stunts for the sake of outrageous stunts. Andrew told us that in the second paragraph of his review — the one where he says the title is “a bit misleading.”
All I said was that I didn’t read your book because I was insulted by a title that advocates outrageous stunts. But I guess the book doesn’t really say that. See why I’m confused?
Like it or not, we DO judge books by their covers, Peter, and I’m tired of being fooled. Your cover suggests PR will benefit from more “outrageous stunts.” I disagree with this PT- Barnum approach to PR, used all too often by marketers and promoters to generate buzz and manipulate news coverage.
If your book isn’t about “outrageous stunts,” then perhaps it should carry a different title. For what it’s worth, I felt same way about Seth Godin’s “All Marketers Are Liars.” In the first chapter of that one, Seth tells readers that isn’t really what he believes. Fooled again.
My post titled “Why I don’t trust marketing,” spells out my thinking a little more clearly. I don’t expect you’ll agree, but that’s why these conversations are so interesting, eh?
http://tr.im/EWD1
Gonna leave it at this – For someone who doesn’t like “outrageous stunts,” can I ask why you feel it necessary to send out a tweet, mentioning my twitter handle, every time you respond to this blog post? You’re not redefining Pi. Is it really news?
Nope. It’s not news at all, Peter. That’s why it’s on Twitter. It’s “what I’m doing now.” It’s minutia. The points made on both sides may hold some interest for the handful of folks who read it. But in the end, it’s not gonna matter much.
I’m here to defend the profession of public relations, which isn’t about stunts, but about building and maintaining relationships using 2-way communication. I gotta keep beatin’ that drum.
Bill, you can be creative (even outrageous) with your PR approach AND build long lasting relationships with the media AND achieve serious business results. That’s what I found so compelling about Peter’s book. True, it’s not easy and there are risks, but I think it’s precisely what students of PR should be adding to their tool boxes. Not every situation will warrant it, but why not at least try (it’s surely more interesting). Speaking personally, I wouldn’t have gotten to know Peter, you and many others if it weren’t for my toons. In my experience, “creative substance” gets you a whole lot farther in this world. If someone has proven that, it’s Peter.