I know namedropping isn’t proper etiquette.

But I can’t help myself.

Alexander McCall Smith - yes THE Alexander McCall Smith who created Mma Ramotswe and the No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency series - was  kind enough to send the following e-mail my way:

If you missed the Word Craft post last week, a little bit of background -

The Wall Street Journal added a column to its weekend lineup called Word Craft in which a different contributor weighs in each week on the words, style and philosophy behind communications.

I happened to zero in on the Word Craft column by Alexander McCall Smith called “Block That Adjective!”

As you might suspect from the title, Mr. McCall Smith espouses what I’ll term “prudent writing.”

I highlighted this paragraph from the “Block that Adjective!” column:

… Concise prose knows what it wants to say, and says it. It does not embellish, except occasionally, and then for dramatic effect. It is sparing in its use of metaphor. And it is certainly careful in its use of adjectives. Look at the King James Bible, that magnificent repository of English at the height of its beauty. The language used to describe the creation of the world is so simple, so direct. “Let there be light, and there was light.” That sentence has immense power precisely because there are no adjectives. If we fiddle about with it, we lose that. “Let there be light, and there was a sort of matutinal, glowing phenomenon that slowly transfused, etc.” No, that doesn’t work.

And added my commentary:

While the “voice” might have had something to do with the power of “Let there be light,” it’s still a wonderful paragraph.

Hopefully, Mr. McCall Smith will permit me that one adjective.

This was what prompted the author to believe I “would use adjectives carefully and to great effect.”

As they say in the sports world, “no pressure.”

Everyone pays attention to Google.

When Google announced that founder Larry Page will take the CEO reins, virtually every media property in the world automatically reported on the news.

The company’s PR machine doesn’t have to lift a toe (even less effort than a finger) to create demand.

With that said, if you reverse engineer the fireworks from last week, one finds Google’s PR team was hardly passive. Its command of storytelling techniques clearly shaped the media coverage.

Let’s examine the core components used to communicate the news in written form: Eric Schmidt’s post on Google’s main blog and the Q4 earnings news release.

The conversational tone in the blog post makes for an easy cut and paste. Even the Wall Street Journal pulled from the content.

But there’s more going on here.

For example, Schmidt reflected on the past 10 years:

This triumvirate approach has real benefits in terms of shared wisdom … 

This word “triumvirate,” which technically defines three people holding authority, ended up in numerous stories no doubt conjuring ”triumph” in the minds of many.

The blog post also included a terrific visual which generated massive pick up.

Instead of capturing the standard photo of three guys straining to say cheese, Google had some fun with the shot (more on visual storytelling: The New York Times Shows Three Pictures Are Worth 3000 Words) .

By providing media properties with a viable alternative to tapping the photo morgue, Google benefits from a visual that affirms the message “all three executives are on the same page with the change.”

Moving to the Q4 earnings release, the executive quotes stand out.

Typically, comments in a news release fall under the corporate drivel category.

But Google doesn’t waste this valuable real estate, instead crafting quotes such as the following from Page that sound like real people talking:

There is no other CEO in the world that could have kept such headstrong founders so deeply involved and still run the business so brilliantly.

By inserting the word “headstrong” which carries a negative connotation, the quote comes across as more genuine and explains why a large percent of stories in media ranging from USA Today to The Guardian to Al Jazeera picked up the quote.

It would be interesting to know if someone from the Google PR team had the chutzpah to make this suggestion to Page or if Page came up with the idea himself.

As a final human touch, Schmidt tweeted after the news was out: “Day-to-day adult supervision no longer needed!”

I could have done without the exclamation point, but using a medium like Twitter provided a nice book end to why Google’s Board pursued Schmidt in the first place in 2001. Again, many articles pulled in the tweet as anecdotal relief to break up the hard news.

Back to the big picture–

Media coverage did touch on less-than-flattering perspectives such as the company’s inability to crack the code in social media, Schmidt’s public image, and the possibility that strife had entered the relationship between Schmidt and the founders.

And sure, there’s no skill in securing media interest for this type of news. As F. Scott Fitzgerald would have wryly noted, ”The tech goliaths are different than you and me.”

Still, the Google PR effort had a huge impact on influencing the narrative that resulted from the announcement.

Perhaps the best symbol can be found in the ReadWriteWeb coverage.

As you would expect, the media property devoted a healthy piece of real estate to the news, 848 words to be exact. Roughly 70 percent of the RWW story came from the Google blog post and Q4 earnings release.

That’s not an indictment of RWW which has a reputation for quality content.

It’s a compliment to Google PR which delivered the components for storytelling that rings true.

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. 

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.”

I conducted a session on storytelling for one of Sony’s sales teams earlier in the week.

An old poll jointly conducted by The New York Times and CBS served as a good trigger for discussion.

The first chart points out that the average person feels “on guard” with others.

It gets worse as you can see by the following.

No big surprise here.

I suspect our cynicism toward humankind has actually worsened since 1999.

But check out the third data point.

The vast majority of people not only lower their guard, but believe a person will “try to be fair” once they know the person.

Before going further, I want to make sure I give credit where credit is due. Annette Simmons connects these dots much more eloquently at the International Storytelling Center.

Back to the NYT/CBS data.

Simply stated, the trust a person puts in you skyrockets by knowing you.

Even a closet introvert like me can’t ignore the implication.

And there’s no better way to help someone get to know you than by sharing a story.

If I say to you “I’m a great dad and love my kids,” what’s your reaction?

Right.

You probably figure I never spend time with my kids and feel guilty about it.

But if I tell you a story about tag-teaming with my three kids once a week to prepare the family dinner, and how we challenged ourselves last week with Julia Child’s Boeuf Bourguignon recipe which turned into an unmitigated disaster, now you’re starting to get a feel for my values plus more.

That’s the power of storytelling.