Want the media to pay attention?

Offer a compelling story.

Want the media to really pay attention?

Deliver a really compelling story.

I get this concept.

But to say Julian Assange dominates the headlines because WikiLeaks is a world-shaking story shortchanges Mr. Assange’s PR savvy.

As Reuters pointed out, Assange “has masterfully manipulated elite media outfits.”

Digging deeper, Assange applied a communications technique that eludes 90 percent of PR professionals.

This forum isn’t to debate whether Assange is a superhero, villain, or wannabe hacker with a pasty complexion. Put this to the side and consider his communications strategy.

When he decided to expand WikiLeaks’ public profile by releasing the mother lode of classified information, he deviated from the status quo.

Typical PR thinking would have shotgun a news release out to the world with a pointer to the digital treasure trove of governmental pillow talk.

More is better.

That’s not how Assange maximized the communications impact.

He did just the opposite.

He created scarcity, not abundance, by offering access to only four publications: Le Monde (France), El Pais (Spain), The Guardian (the UK), and Der Spiegel (Germany).

Call it a geographic exclusive with each publication enjoying first-mover status with the readership in its respective country (The Guardian shared the information with The New York Times which covered the United States as well).

The upshot -

Knowing they had “exclusives,” these five publications funneled enormous resources to the story that never could have been rationalized with a level playing field. According to The Associated Press, 120 journalists from the “big five” ploughed through the material.

Thanks to the wonders of the Internet, these deep and intense stories propagated until they were everywhere.

What can the PR profession take away from this exercise, Grasshopper? (Channeling David Carradine.)

Your client or company is sometimes best served by a few or even one quality story rather than numerous “parachute” stories.

It does take a different mentality and obviously more work (three stories for nine publications versus one story for nine-plus publications).

But the payoff comes in genuine storytelling that fortifies the company’s brand.

One more perspective on Assange that I find amusing -

A first-person narrative in The Independent explains what it was like to hang with Assange before he turned himself in to the British authorities. Right before he steps into the public spotlight, check out what was going on:

Sue and the other friends start discussing his statement.

Statement?

I suppose there are times when even the leader of WikiLeaks needs to stay on message. 

Blogging shares a similarity with golf.

A zillion people enjoy the activity, but only a chosen few make money at it.

This point recently got hammered home when I stumbled across an ad on Craigslist recruiting bloggers for Intuit’s small-biz property.

Intuit pays 100 bucks per post.

I already knew it’s the rare blogger who can quit his or her day job.

But only 100 bucks for crafting a 300-word post?

Now, Intuit might argue an efficient blogger can crank out a post in a couple of hours. Secure enough gigs like this and theoretically you’re generating $100K in annual income based on a 40-hour work week over a calendar year (20 posts per week = $2K per week X 50 weeks, and you can still enjoy two weeks of vacation time).

If people were machines, I suppose this would be true.

This got me thinking.

Maybe the economic downturn pinched Intuit on the financial slide.

But a quick look at revenue shows FY2010 was a banner bounce-back year.

OK, maybe Inuit is still digging itself out of a cash-flow hole.

I think it’s fair to say that’s not the case.

So what can we conclude from this riveting dot-connecting analysis?

The commoditization of blogging makes newspapers look like a growth business.

Apparently, this is what the market will bear.

To Intuit’s credit, they got Tom Foremski’s memo that every company needs to be the media.

Hence, the company’s quest to build out a site around the small-biz industry. (That tag line “We’re talking about small business success” could use some work.)

While each post gets 100 bucks whether it’s average or a great, Intuit does acknowledge the importance of storytelling techniques:

We want posts to be fun and easy to read, not stuffy and dry. You must have a good ear for language, but you should also be cognizant of online publishing realities and can use key search engine keywords in your posts and headlines without sounding robotic.

Sounds like a cross between Demand Media and Stieg Larsson.

Wonder if Oprah will apply for the gig. 

Update (Dec. 16, 2010)

Gregg Morris shared with me that the pay for blog writting can fall far below the $100 per post from Intuit.

As exhibit A, check out another listing on Craigslist called Writing Articles (any). 

Here’s the punchline:

Pay is $5 for 500 words, and 3.50 for 300-350 words. 

I suspect even Dickens made more than a buck per 100 words.

Update (Dec. 18, 2010)

Christopher Null from Intuit was good enough to answer my question about response to the ad.

In short, Intuit received over 100 resumes within a few days prompting the company to take down the ad.

Again, another proof point that demand exceeded supply for Intuit’s proposition.

Like most “older” PR professionals, I was raised in the command-and-control era of communications.

I remember my first experience observing the senior guys conducting media training for a client. It was all about pummeling the spokesperson into submission to stay on message.

While the trainers were having fun - the PR version of running a torture chamber - it seemed to me that such a process might generate a robotic narrative.

An experience supporting Philips and its CD-ROM business in 1986 forever changed my perspective.

In preparation for a slew of media interviews scheduled for Philips, I walked the VP of marketing, Rob Moes, through the messages and how he should answer anticipated questions. That was what I was trained to do.

The first interview unfolded according to plan.

The second interview found the reporter getting more and more agitated as Rob parroted back the party line. The reporter repeatedly pressed for market projections, which frustrated Rob to the point that he finally blurted out, “Trying to figure out the number of units that will ship in the future is like asking Mrs. Magellan how many lunches to pack. Who the hell knows?”

Needless to say, this answer wasn’t one of the key messages.

The response completely altered the dynamic of the interview.

Rob essentially shucked the script and had a conversation with the reporter, answering the questions in his own words with anecdotes pulled from personal experiences.

Observing the exchange, I couldn’t believe the difference between pre-outburst and post-outburst.

Stories trump corporate drivel.

Why were we pummeling executives into submission to stay on message?

Instead, we should be helping our clients apply storytelling techniques in their communications.

That was my “aha! moment.”

Consider this quandary.

Caterpillar makes heavy machine equipment like hydraulic excavators, tractors and the ever-popular backhoe loader.

Pushing dirt from point A to point B doesn’t exactly conjure drama.

Recognizing this point, Caterpillar developed a series of videos that do tell compelling stories by connecting the company’s equipment to a human element.

My favorite involves Caterpillar’s role in uniting the country of Madagascar which previously had no roads to connect the island’s 320,000 people in the rural north with the rest of the country (we can assume vanilla beans comes from the south). 

With the help of European Union (EU) support, a 300-kilometer highway was constructed that for the first time gave the “northerners” access to schools, hospitals and the capital city of Antananarivo. 

The connection literally changed a nation. 

Yes, Caterpillar has a vested interest with its equipment used in building Route Nationale 6, but check out the video noting the amount of time allocated to bulldozers and the like.

Talking about a story with humanity (doesn’t hurt that the voiceover is James Earl Jones grade).

Here’s the key.

Caterpillar was savvy enough to understand its equipment should take a supporting role in the story. In fact, the section of the video devoted to the Caterpillar dealer and machinery lasts a grand total of nine seconds.

That’s all.

Nine seconds. 

Because the power of the story comes from changing the lives of the people of Madagascar. 

The interviews with people like the taxi owner deliver the perfect close.

“It used to be I have too many cars and not enough customers. Now I have too many customers and not enough cars.”

I have a hunch the taxi owner is about to discover another aspect of business … competition.

One final point -

The total video last 130 seconds.

Media expert Sam Whitmore shared a study with us this week that shows shorter videos can actually have greater recall than longer versions.

More isn’t necessarily better.

Caterpillar gets this point and more.