Technology is a slave to me

I’ve been thinking about three deals I’ve closed over the last week or so. I arranged a media interview for a client. I arranged a speaking gig. And I got a consulting assignment.

All three deals were done entirely by email, with no phone calls.

The fact that email served as the communication channel for these deals normally wouldn’t have entered my mind, but I’ve been giving a lot of thought lately to a recent post by Jeremy Pepper titled “Slave to Technology” in which he exhorted PR professionals to put down their email, IM, and other technology-based communication tools and return to the phone.

There’s no question that some people become overly-dependent on technology, a phenomenon that’s not limited to PR practitioners. I hear way too many stories about people who have been laid off by email, which provides those uncomfortable in confrontational situations with a means of doing what’s required of them without looking into the eyes of the target of their actions. People need to know when to use each tool based on what it’s good at, and the importance of face-to-face should never been underestimated.

But I just can’t agree with Jeremy when he suggests that deals get done on the phone and not by email. It’s just not true. Nor can I agree with Jeremy when he suggests that we should simply force ourselves to stop using technology altogether for some period of time (like one day a week). Sorry, but if a reporter calls to let me know he’s tied up in traffic and will be 10 minutes late to lunch, I’m not going to resist checking email just because I’ve bought into some insipid “no email day” concept.

Besides, we easily forget that the phone is technology, too.

Several years ago, a colleague who worked for Exxon (now retired) sent me a PDF of a page from a 1930s edition of Humble Oil’s salesforce publication, “The Lubricator.” (No jokes, please, this is serious.) The article addressed the introduction of telephones to Humble’s workplace. It offered tips on how far from the mouth to hold the mouthpiece and what to say when answering the phone. It explained why the company was placing only one phone in each department rather than providing one to every employee (people will talk on the phone instead of getting their work done). But the bit that jumped out at me instructed employees that the telephone was not a replacement for the accepted tool for communication: the letter.

The article conveyed management’s fear that the phone would encourage employees to procrastinate until the last minute, not write the business letter, then just pick up the phone instead, a practice the company found unacceptable. Writing the letter was the way things got done and the phone was, well, technology.

So, Jeremy. If you’d been blogging in 1932, would you have told people to put down the phone and pointed them to that typewriter thingy on their desks?

The letter has gone the way of the dinosaur; the U.S. mail is now made up almost entirely of bills, packages, and direct mail marketing pieces. Letter-writing—once the primary means of conducting business—has given way to the email. Not the phone, mind you—plenty of letters were being delivered by mail over the decades during which the phone has been a standard tool. But the phone is a real-time tool (annoying political recordings left as voice mail notwithstanding). Email is asynchronous, one of its greatest strengths.

Is it, then, a stretch to suggest that newer technologies have superceded the use of an older technology, that phone thingy on your desk (as Jeremy put it)?

(Note: This isn’t an attack on Jeremy, whom I like, respect, and admire and almost always agree with. If you’re not reading his blog, you should. I was motivated to write this counterpoint only because so many people commented, “Right on, Jeremy” that I wanted to offer the flip side of the argument.)

To be sure, there is value in a phone call. Your voice conveys sincerity and warmth that is far more difficult to communicate with text. (How many times has an innocent joke in an email been misinterpreted, causing grief for both sender and recipient?) It’s easy to digress into off-topic conversation that can build closer bonds.

But if each tool is used based on its strengths, then it becomes a matter of thoughtful integration of all the tools, not an artificial abandonment of a tool that has become a vital part of a PR practitioner’s communication mix.

I also wondered if, as Jeremy also asserts, PR people have, in fact, abandoned the phone. Jeremy wrote in response to my query that a stroll into just about any agency is greeted by silence instead of the chatter of practitioners on the phone with journalists. That’s not my experience in several agencies I visit when I visit agencies, and I get calls from agency reps almost daily, pitching me on one story or another. But I decided to ask PR people, via Twitter, how much they rely on the phone. It’s certainly not scientific, but out of 23 replies I received, only a few dismissed the phone as a critical tool:

• the phone is my worst enemy…I <3 email and texts…fast and I can respond when I have the time; phone is too intrusive
• I rarely use others in favor of in-person mtgs, IM. IM’s the channel of choice - we’re always connected. e-Mail is a relic.
• mostly EM, IM, Twitter, FB—even email is dying off; phone calls are mostly sales calls
•   Absolutely. Hate phone calls. Love e-mail/IM. It’s quick, easy, and people actually stop to think before communicating. Win, win, win. 
• I don’t use my phone that much. Seems I can get lots done and get to the point in email conversations best.

I see two results from this quick-and-dirty poll. Most PR people are using the phone and those who aren’t seem to be achieving results anyway (that is, closing deals). You have to wonder how long they’d keep their jobs if they weren’t. Instead, I have no doubt that they are closing deals and achieving other vital goals. They’ve just found that the phone maybe isn’t always the best tool for closing those deals and achieving their goals. One thing connected each of the three deals I closed by email: I knew the people I was dealing with. I had relationships with them. We could communicate by email easily based on that relationship, rather than play the voice-mail-phone-tag game. It’s also important to consider how the people you’re contacting (reporters, bloggers, whatever) want to be contacted. Contrary to Jeremy’s assertion that you need to use the phone, there are a lot of reporters out there who’d rather you didn’t. Consider the following passage from “Care and Feeding of the Press,” an online document from the Internet Press Guild:

Don’t call. Really. You should not call us to find out if we received your press release. We realize that follow-ups are part of many PR organizations’ normal operating procedure, but in many cases it’s more likely to create resentment. It is appropriate to follow up on requested information, such as a sent press kit or product, but not on a blind mailing. If we’re interested, you’ll hear from us. If we’ve already established an ongoing relationship because I’ve covered your products earlier, it’s okay to send a follow-up e-mail a few days later to ask if I have any questions; but that’s it. Now, I know this next point goes against a lot of your training; but take our word for it: Nothing sets a writer or editor’s teeth on edge more than an eager young voice saying, “I’m calling to see if you got the press release we sent.” (It is, alas, common practice to have follow-up calls made by the most junior [read: clueless] members of an agency.) When we’re in the middle of a tight deadline, the last thing we want is a phone call that contains no new or useful information whatsoever. Thus, by making such calls, you’re harming both clients’ and your own reputations. If you actually have something substantive to add, such as pointing out an error in a press release, that’s another story; but you’re still better off sending us an e-mail about it than calling us.

What? How can it be that a reporter tells us, “You’re…better off sending us an email…than calling us?” if the only way to achieve results is on the phone? Simple. The phone is not necessarily the best way to achieve results, meet a reporter’s needs, or close a deal. The best tool is, well, the best tool at the time and under the circumstances. Ultimately, most of us aren’t slaves to technology. Technology is a slave to our needs.

1. I agree with your assessment of “best tool under the circumstances.” I fall into the “use the right tool at the appropriate time” camp.

   Sometimes, it’s easier to shoot an email, other times, it’s better to pick up the phone. Oh, and there’s one other category in the mail/relic area: legal correspondence. Everything sent via email is followed up by a hard copy received through the mail…keeps people from saying “must have been caught in the spam filter” or “must have accidentally deleted” etc., I guess.

   That said, I’m always somewhat skeptical when I see/hear journalists say “don’t call,” or “if we’re interested, we’ll let you know.” It seems like an avoidance technique. Follow up, painful as it can be, is sometimes necessary even if it’s to get the firm “no.” After all, what if the email gets caught in the spam filter or accidentally deleted?

   Posted by Jen Zingsheim  on  10/02  at  09:31 AM

2. Shel:

   I agree with your view that there are always circumstances in which one medium of communication is more effective than the other. My experience is that it is the judicious combination of email and phone that is invariably the most effective.

   When I shifted over to PR from journalism, one of the first tips ever given to me that continues to resonate is that “the phone is your friend.” I know from personal experience that email is often deemed the preferred method of communication by harried journalists because it is easier to ignore, not necessarily because it is more effective.

   Yes, e-mail is an excellent means to facilitate an initial contact and provide information in a much more convenient written form. But more often than not, the best way to remain top of mind with the recipient and urge them to carry through on their intent to act on what you have sent them is with that followup phone call. If they’re interested, the phone call is usually well-received. If they’re not, there was no harm in trying, and at least you’ve confirmed it with a direct conversation and closed the loop.

   Sometimes email is enough, sometimes it’s not. The key thing is be flexible in your approach.

   Posted by Leo Valiquette  on  10/02  at  10:41 AM

3. Thanks for the comment, Jen. What’s interesting is that some people, on both the media and the PR side, are finding real-time tools other than the phone useful. Look at the number of people who responded to my tweet—which asked only about the phone—who pointed to text messages and IM.

   Posted by Shel Holtz  on  10/02  at  04:15 PM

4. Shel, I really would like to get the pdf from The Lubricator about use of phones in the 1930s workplace.  Can you share it?

   Posted by Jim Lynn  on  10/03  at  06:28 AM

5. To all who asked about the PDF of the magazine piece from Humble Oil, Pete gave this to me at least 15 years ago. I’ll do my best to find it when I’m back in the office and post a link to it if I’m able to turn it up. If not, I’ll try to track Pete down (he’s retired now) and see if he still has a copy.

   Posted by Shel Holtz  on  10/03  at  08:05 AM

6. Like email, the phone is a technological advancement although much older.  Although I’m in my 30’s, I can probably bet that when the phone was invented people were saying that a face-to-face was the best way to get things done in the PR world.  Technology will always advance, and like any tool, one must understand when it is best to employ which tool at what time.

   Posted by Sam  on  10/04  at  06:03 AM

7. Wow, laid off by email…tacky.

   Anyway, I agree with the idea of phone calls. While I prefer a quick and easy email, it’s hard to read a client’s reaction when it’s simply written in text.

   Hearing people, tone of voice helps you gage their reaction, along with showing your sincerity. I was over on another site earlier today talking about the long lost art of handwriting as well. I’m as guilty as everyone of relying on quick, easy technology, but we truly lose a piece of what we’re saying at times.

   These days, I actually LOATHE talking on the phone, where years ago I loved talking on it. My thought is I can do it faster via email…have we become a nation of “must be as efficient as possible” people?

   Posted by Deb  on  10/07  at  03:32 AM

8. technology is there to make our lives more comfortable, to save us time, effort and money. I don’t see how I can live without emails, because I communicate with all our customers and associates through email. This way, everything is logged. Phone calls will make difficult situations into “he said, i said, she said, i said” with no proof of what actually transpired. Unless we record all conversations.

   I agree that at one point, we need to lay low on emails. Especially when it comes to personal and emotional things that need our attention. I have been fired through email by two clients, it did however give quite a pinch. Unprofessional, i thought. But thinking about it now, they probably wanted me to digest everything first, because making a fool out of myself.

   My 2 cents.

   Posted by jackie of teak furniture  on  10/07  at  08:05 PM

9. Hey Shel,

   I agree with you, there’s no right or wrong, good or bad, it always depends on the situation, the audience, and the message. 

   I know I’m old, but when I was a PR pup, we hand-delivered news releases to the newsroom of the local paper (and mailed the rest). And I remember hearing stories about reporters hiding under their desks to avoid certain PR people. 

   More currently, this week I had occasion to need to speak with three London-based journalists with whom I don’t already have a relationship (highly specialized area).  The information I had to share was pre-breaking news, and to offer an exclusive interview opportunity if/when the news happened—something each would certainly have been interested in—but it could not be put in writing.  In each case, when I called their offices I was told they were not in, and that they didn’t have voicemail, but that I should email instead.  Needless to say, they missed a scoop.  No wonder the blogging world is scooping traditional media so often, if reporters are afraid to be “bothered” by legitimate news sources.  Maybe the “don’t call us, we’ll call you” motto will be carved in old-media headstones.

   Posted by Barbara Gibson, ABC  on  10/08  at  01:03 AM

10. Shel,

    Good piece ... but you buried the lead by waiting until near the end to alert you already had a relationship w/these folks you dealt with. That’s the key.

    I’m a journalist-turned-PR practitioner who now teaches on the side, often espousing technology as a tool to get the job done. But I make a point of requiring the students I’m teaching to at least *try* to make personal contact before resorting to e-mail, particularly if they’re trying to get an appointment with someone for an interview. I fear that the next generation of PR practitioners will lose the skill of oral communication if teachers don’t nudge/shove them beyond their comfort zones.

    Bill Sutley
    Columbus State University

    Posted by Bill Sutley  on  10/09  at  05:04 AM

11. Like email, the phone is a technological advancement although much older.  Although I’m in my 30’s, I can probably bet that when the phone was invented people were saying that a face-to-face was the best way to get things done in the PR world.

    Posted by izlekop  on  10/09  at  11:31 PM

12. Bill,

    You’re right to press your students to at least try to make the personal contact, but if they doing so just as they have something to pitch, they’re already too late.  The PR pro who is really good is reaching out to establish personal-professional relationships (like those Shel had with his contacts) so that when you have something to pitch, the journalist won’t be “hiding under the desk” to avoid you, or junking the e-mail you sent.  You’re right that that relationship is the key that allowed Shel to close the deal…even by e-mail.

    Posted by michael clendenin  on  10/13  at  11:09 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: