Take this journey across the face of war at www.futurewardefeat.blogspot.com
Friday, May 1, 2009
The Joker's Bicycle
WILL THE world's only network centric army survive future war? Perhaps a past war has some of the answers.
Take this journey across the face of war at www.futurewardefeat.blogspot.com
Take this journey across the face of war at www.futurewardefeat.blogspot.com
The Knights of the Nauseous Poop
ART THOU beguiled by wars medieval,things political
and events modern in the Philippines?
Hie thee off to www.knightsofthenauseous.blogspot.com
to slake
thy curiosity.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Whatever happened to “Thank you?”
I commute via jeepney almost everyday. And every time I am struck by the lack of a simple courtesy that was commonplace during my youth when The Beatles ruled the airwaves.
A passenger hands his fare to the driver, and someone takes the fare and places it in the driver’s hand. Basic politeness dictates that one should thank the person who handed the fare to the driver.
A simple “Thank you” or “Salamat” would do.
But you hardly ever hear these words. I make it a point to say “Salamat” every time someone does me this favor. Of course, I miss out on occasion, but I do make an effort to thank that helpful person.
I somehow expect other passengers to say “Salamat” when I do them this favor. But this hardly ever happens. I can’t even recall the last time it did happen!
I tried a simple experiment only recently. I counted the number of times someone said either “Salamat” or “Thank you” to someone who handed his fare to the driver.
In 21 jeepney rides, I counted 108 instances when someone handed another passenger’s fare to the driver. Only three people bothered to say “Salamat” or “Thank you.”
Just three people and they looked like they were in their 30s. And not one teenager.
This result reminded me of the angels’ search for 50 good men at Sodom and Gomorrah. It also told me that courtesy should be taught at school, from elementary to college.
It’s in the little things like saying “Thank you” that reveal the moral and intellectual quality of a people.
Courtesy is contagious. It’s catching. If more of us bothered to say “Salamat” or “Thank you” for a favor, or smiled instead, we’d find a lot more to like in our fellowman. We’d learn the meaning of being kind and considerate.
The first place to start practicing these simple, forgotten courtesies would be at home. I’d be right if I said that very few Filipino parents even bother thanking their children for doing them a service.
That’s because most Pinoy parents remain authoritarian. It’s still a boss-employee relationship in nearly all families.
But it wouldn’t hurt to thank your children once in a while. If saying thank you is against your parental management style, a smile will do. Or a nod of approval. That will tell your kids it’s all right to be kind.
Our grim country needs all the kindness and smiles we can give it. So, have the courage to say “Thank You” or “Salamat” when an officemate does you a favor; when a guard opens a door for you or when your brother runs an errand for you.
Little courtesies will go a long way in making this country a better place. Let’s spread them around.
A passenger hands his fare to the driver, and someone takes the fare and places it in the driver’s hand. Basic politeness dictates that one should thank the person who handed the fare to the driver.
A simple “Thank you” or “Salamat” would do.
But you hardly ever hear these words. I make it a point to say “Salamat” every time someone does me this favor. Of course, I miss out on occasion, but I do make an effort to thank that helpful person.
I somehow expect other passengers to say “Salamat” when I do them this favor. But this hardly ever happens. I can’t even recall the last time it did happen!
I tried a simple experiment only recently. I counted the number of times someone said either “Salamat” or “Thank you” to someone who handed his fare to the driver.
In 21 jeepney rides, I counted 108 instances when someone handed another passenger’s fare to the driver. Only three people bothered to say “Salamat” or “Thank you.”
Just three people and they looked like they were in their 30s. And not one teenager.
This result reminded me of the angels’ search for 50 good men at Sodom and Gomorrah. It also told me that courtesy should be taught at school, from elementary to college.
It’s in the little things like saying “Thank you” that reveal the moral and intellectual quality of a people.
Courtesy is contagious. It’s catching. If more of us bothered to say “Salamat” or “Thank you” for a favor, or smiled instead, we’d find a lot more to like in our fellowman. We’d learn the meaning of being kind and considerate.
The first place to start practicing these simple, forgotten courtesies would be at home. I’d be right if I said that very few Filipino parents even bother thanking their children for doing them a service.
That’s because most Pinoy parents remain authoritarian. It’s still a boss-employee relationship in nearly all families.
But it wouldn’t hurt to thank your children once in a while. If saying thank you is against your parental management style, a smile will do. Or a nod of approval. That will tell your kids it’s all right to be kind.
Our grim country needs all the kindness and smiles we can give it. So, have the courage to say “Thank You” or “Salamat” when an officemate does you a favor; when a guard opens a door for you or when your brother runs an errand for you.
Little courtesies will go a long way in making this country a better place. Let’s spread them around.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Sweat is good
It might be a cultural thing having to do with the Filipino's deep-seated desire to look his best no matter what. Or it might have something to do with aberrations in the Filipino psyche, like our glorification of reality shows where contestants dip for prizes in disgusting pigswill.
But sweating has always gotten a bad rap in this country. It's as if sweating were, well, a gruesome bodily function. Like hurling (vomiting).
That's why we have Filipinos who become panicky when sweat shows through their clothes. Or who chide others who sweat a lot, claiming that sweat is "pangit" (ugly) and should be wiped off post haste.
But sweat is good. Sweat is cool. And so is sweating. If you didn't sweat, you'd be dead within an hour from heat stroke.
If you didn't sweat, your skin would fry--literally--as its temperature shoots past 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius). Then your heart rate goes haywire. What happens next depends on the presence of mind of the persons you're with. If they know first aid for heat stroke, you've got a chance. If not . . .
You can prevent this worst-case scenario by doing the smart thing: sweat. And you can only sweat sufficiently if you drink lots of water--water and not soft drinks, coffee, tea or fruit juices.
On a typically cool day, the average person loses one-liter of water per hour as sweat . We're always sweating (even in air conditioned rooms) but are so busy we don't notice it. Sweating or perspiring is the body's way of releasing excess metabolic heat.
During summer, which is particularly fierce this year, that water loss jumps to two or three liters per hour! That's mind-boggling and potentially life threatening.
You're looking for trouble if you stay out under the sun for hours without first drinking a lot of water and regularly replenishing water lost as sweat. The danger from heat stroke increases in a very humid country like ours since humidity (or the amount of water vapor in the air) keeps sweat from evaporating. And that hinders the sweat glands from producing enough sweat to cool you down so your body temp doesn't hit the danger zone of 106 degrees Fahrenheit.
Losing two to three liters of water per hour is a lot and most of us don't realize we can lose that much so quickly under a blazing summer sun. The dangerous thing is that by the time we feel thirsty, we're already dehydrated.
Dehydration happens without warning. You start licking your dry lips. Your skin feels on fire. You feel dizzy. Confusion sets in.
If you still have some presence of mind, you'd quickly find shade and slowly drink water. Keep drinking until you feel your senses returning. Your body temp has got to drop to 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit or lower for you to enter the safe zone.
You should feel safer when you begin sweating profusely. Try not to wipe off the sweat at once but let it evaporate. Sweat is good. It might also save our life.
But it would be best if you knew first aid for heat stroke. Remember that the only solution for heat stroke is to cool the victim down.
You can do this by getting him to drink water if he's conscious; soaking his entire body in cool water; sponging cool water onto his body and applying ice packs to his head, neck, armpits and groin. If not treated, heat stroke can kill in less than an hour.
On the other hand, I don't advocate not wiping off excessive sweat. I also don't encourage you to cool down inside an air-conditioned room if you're sweating (that will get you sick).
But, as a wise sage once cautioned, do everything in moderation. If it's hot and you're outdoors, let your body sweat so it cools you down. If you don't sweat, drink water. If you're bathed in sweat, better dry out outdoors. And do drink lots of water.
So sweat, be cool and be safe.
But sweating has always gotten a bad rap in this country. It's as if sweating were, well, a gruesome bodily function. Like hurling (vomiting).
That's why we have Filipinos who become panicky when sweat shows through their clothes. Or who chide others who sweat a lot, claiming that sweat is "pangit" (ugly) and should be wiped off post haste.
But sweat is good. Sweat is cool. And so is sweating. If you didn't sweat, you'd be dead within an hour from heat stroke.
If you didn't sweat, your skin would fry--literally--as its temperature shoots past 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius). Then your heart rate goes haywire. What happens next depends on the presence of mind of the persons you're with. If they know first aid for heat stroke, you've got a chance. If not . . .
You can prevent this worst-case scenario by doing the smart thing: sweat. And you can only sweat sufficiently if you drink lots of water--water and not soft drinks, coffee, tea or fruit juices.
On a typically cool day, the average person loses one-liter of water per hour as sweat . We're always sweating (even in air conditioned rooms) but are so busy we don't notice it. Sweating or perspiring is the body's way of releasing excess metabolic heat.
During summer, which is particularly fierce this year, that water loss jumps to two or three liters per hour! That's mind-boggling and potentially life threatening.You're looking for trouble if you stay out under the sun for hours without first drinking a lot of water and regularly replenishing water lost as sweat. The danger from heat stroke increases in a very humid country like ours since humidity (or the amount of water vapor in the air) keeps sweat from evaporating. And that hinders the sweat glands from producing enough sweat to cool you down so your body temp doesn't hit the danger zone of 106 degrees Fahrenheit.
Losing two to three liters of water per hour is a lot and most of us don't realize we can lose that much so quickly under a blazing summer sun. The dangerous thing is that by the time we feel thirsty, we're already dehydrated.
Dehydration happens without warning. You start licking your dry lips. Your skin feels on fire. You feel dizzy. Confusion sets in.
If you still have some presence of mind, you'd quickly find shade and slowly drink water. Keep drinking until you feel your senses returning. Your body temp has got to drop to 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit or lower for you to enter the safe zone.
You should feel safer when you begin sweating profusely. Try not to wipe off the sweat at once but let it evaporate. Sweat is good. It might also save our life.
But it would be best if you knew first aid for heat stroke. Remember that the only solution for heat stroke is to cool the victim down.
You can do this by getting him to drink water if he's conscious; soaking his entire body in cool water; sponging cool water onto his body and applying ice packs to his head, neck, armpits and groin. If not treated, heat stroke can kill in less than an hour.
On the other hand, I don't advocate not wiping off excessive sweat. I also don't encourage you to cool down inside an air-conditioned room if you're sweating (that will get you sick).
But, as a wise sage once cautioned, do everything in moderation. If it's hot and you're outdoors, let your body sweat so it cools you down. If you don't sweat, drink water. If you're bathed in sweat, better dry out outdoors. And do drink lots of water.
So sweat, be cool and be safe.
Monday, March 2, 2009
The second war against Iraq
SHOULD it come to a fight, the second Persian Gulf War will prove if the United States has reached a sophistication capable of achieving the perfection of military strategy: Attaining victory with a minimum of fighting.
Washington's strident saber-rattling; the pre-positioning of its armed forces in the theater of conflict, its stepped up aerial attacks on Iraq's anti-air defenses and a not too stealthy campaign to remove Saddam by "other means" (such as a bullet in his brain) appear to me as more indicative of its intent to win victory with the least fighting than as imminent preparations for a lightning war.
The United States seems bent on frightening Saddam into submission by threatening his life and promising the overwhelming destruction of his armed forces, which is the foundation of his power. Saddam's surrender without the need of combat would achieve the United States' military aim of overthrowing him and dealing a serious blow against international terrorism.
That would be the best result possible for a world alarmed by the economic disaster that might result from a prolonged war against Iraq. It might also be the world's best in win-win solutions.
Should Washington's campaign to unseat Saddam without resorting to war fail, however, the Allies should be able to destroy the Iraqi army in about a week, according to Western analysts. Former US president Bill Clinton has said that he'd be surprised if the Iraqi army lasted more than three days.
No pushover
But war plans rarely go according to plan in war and the Iraqi armed forces might not be the pushover it appears on paper. And, of course, there is the threat of Iraq's still invisible WMD (weapons of mass destruction) that determined UN weapons inspectors have been unable to uncover despite a month of intense effort.
Although suggesting that wars are fought to minimize fighting appears astounding (or totally absurd), this view does hew to military logic and does have historical precedents. The perfection of strategy, as the noted British military thinker Sir Basil Liddell Hart pointed out in his famous body of work about warfare, "would...be to produce a decision without any serious fighting."
The aim of (the) strategy, he said, "...must be to bring about this battle under the most advantageous circumstances. And the more advantageous the circumstances, the less, proportionately, will be the fighting.
"The perfection of strategy would be, therefore, to produce a decision without serious fighting. History...provides examples where strategy, helped by favorable conditions, has virtually produced such a result."
Decisive example
A decisive example of the perfection of strategy was the German Army's blitzkrieg against France and the Low Countries from May to June 1940. The Wehrmacht's six-week campaign led to the conquest of western Europe at extremely low cost: 60,000 casualties against an Allied loss of more than one million men.
I cited this example with no intention of drawing parallels between Nazi Germany's campaign to dominate Europe and Washington's current effort to unseat a maniacal dictator. What I sought to emphasize was that clever strategy can achieve decisive battlefield victories no matter who its originator.
Liddell Hart was an apostle of this perfection of strategy, which he termed the "strategy of the indirect approach." It is a strategy that uses political, psychological and physical means to attain victory with a minimum of fighting.
In looking at the options available to Washington, it is apparent that the most favorable outcome for the Allies would be Saddam's removal before any war takes place. The second most favorable outcome would be the rapid defeat of the Iraqi armed forces, if possible, through the strategy of the indirect approach.
A cursory look at the map, however, shows the immense problems faced by Allied planners. The only invasion route into Iraq available now is by Kuwait, which lies southeast of Iraq.
Grim prospect
The Iraq-Kuwait border is just over a hundred miles in length, making any Allied attack on Iraq a frontal one. Without Saudi Arabia agreeing to the use of its territory to launch flank attacks on Iraq, the Allies are faced with the grim prospect of assaulting prepared Iraqi defensive positions along the most obvious invasion routes. Should Iraq decide to make a determined stand on its border, the battle to ram into Iraq might prove too bloody despite Allied superiority in armor and advanced weaponry.
Once clear of the border, however, the Allies will have free rein into Iraq. An early stand by the Iraqi army at the border will only lead to its early destruction.
Iraq, on the other hand, appears to favor a strategy of trading space for time, much like the Russians did against the Germans in World War 2. It might give up territory to conserve its military strength and try to inflict as many casualties on the Allies as possible. Winning against the Allies is out of the question.
Iraq will seek to prolong its battlefield resistance to further weaken the United States and world economy and to inflame the morale of Muslim radicals around the globe. That Iraqi media has made much of defending Baghdad and other strategic centers indicate this might be the most profitable strategy for Saddam.
The Allies lost some 1,000 men and women in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, popularly known as Operation Desert Storm. Doubtless that Saddam is eager to increase the Allies' bill for conquering Iraq a second time.
Of course, my armchair generalship might be 360 degrees off the mark, but the reality of terrain as it now stands seems to favor a head-on assault by the Allies. The spring of 2003 has been bandied about as the most favorable time for any attack but that now seems unreasonable since UN weapons inspectors will remain in Iraq until early 2003.
With the loss of the favorable campaign season, the Allies are left with the difficult choice of either isolating Iraq until late 2003 or early 2004 or fighting in the intense summer heat next year. The UN attacked Iraq on Jan. 16, 1991 and forced an Iraqi surrender 100 days later.
The indirect approach, however, remains possible. In what form and where it must take place is up to Allied planners. It would be comforting to hope that Washington's top leadership will take into account that the true aim of the strategist "is not so much to seek battle as to seek a strategic situation so advantageous that if it does not of itself produce a decision, its continuation by a battle is sure to achieve this. In other words, dislocation is the aim of strategy; its sequel may be either the enemy's dissolution or his easier disruption in battle."
But then, a few bullets in Baghdad might end this war before it begins.
Washington's strident saber-rattling; the pre-positioning of its armed forces in the theater of conflict, its stepped up aerial attacks on Iraq's anti-air defenses and a not too stealthy campaign to remove Saddam by "other means" (such as a bullet in his brain) appear to me as more indicative of its intent to win victory with the least fighting than as imminent preparations for a lightning war.
The United States seems bent on frightening Saddam into submission by threatening his life and promising the overwhelming destruction of his armed forces, which is the foundation of his power. Saddam's surrender without the need of combat would achieve the United States' military aim of overthrowing him and dealing a serious blow against international terrorism.
That would be the best result possible for a world alarmed by the economic disaster that might result from a prolonged war against Iraq. It might also be the world's best in win-win solutions.
Should Washington's campaign to unseat Saddam without resorting to war fail, however, the Allies should be able to destroy the Iraqi army in about a week, according to Western analysts. Former US president Bill Clinton has said that he'd be surprised if the Iraqi army lasted more than three days.
No pushover
But war plans rarely go according to plan in war and the Iraqi armed forces might not be the pushover it appears on paper. And, of course, there is the threat of Iraq's still invisible WMD (weapons of mass destruction) that determined UN weapons inspectors have been unable to uncover despite a month of intense effort.
Although suggesting that wars are fought to minimize fighting appears astounding (or totally absurd), this view does hew to military logic and does have historical precedents. The perfection of strategy, as the noted British military thinker Sir Basil Liddell Hart pointed out in his famous body of work about warfare, "would...be to produce a decision without any serious fighting."
The aim of (the) strategy, he said, "...must be to bring about this battle under the most advantageous circumstances. And the more advantageous the circumstances, the less, proportionately, will be the fighting.
"The perfection of strategy would be, therefore, to produce a decision without serious fighting. History...provides examples where strategy, helped by favorable conditions, has virtually produced such a result."
Decisive example
A decisive example of the perfection of strategy was the German Army's blitzkrieg against France and the Low Countries from May to June 1940. The Wehrmacht's six-week campaign led to the conquest of western Europe at extremely low cost: 60,000 casualties against an Allied loss of more than one million men.
I cited this example with no intention of drawing parallels between Nazi Germany's campaign to dominate Europe and Washington's current effort to unseat a maniacal dictator. What I sought to emphasize was that clever strategy can achieve decisive battlefield victories no matter who its originator.
Liddell Hart was an apostle of this perfection of strategy, which he termed the "strategy of the indirect approach." It is a strategy that uses political, psychological and physical means to attain victory with a minimum of fighting.
In looking at the options available to Washington, it is apparent that the most favorable outcome for the Allies would be Saddam's removal before any war takes place. The second most favorable outcome would be the rapid defeat of the Iraqi armed forces, if possible, through the strategy of the indirect approach.
A cursory look at the map, however, shows the immense problems faced by Allied planners. The only invasion route into Iraq available now is by Kuwait, which lies southeast of Iraq.
Grim prospect
The Iraq-Kuwait border is just over a hundred miles in length, making any Allied attack on Iraq a frontal one. Without Saudi Arabia agreeing to the use of its territory to launch flank attacks on Iraq, the Allies are faced with the grim prospect of assaulting prepared Iraqi defensive positions along the most obvious invasion routes. Should Iraq decide to make a determined stand on its border, the battle to ram into Iraq might prove too bloody despite Allied superiority in armor and advanced weaponry.
Once clear of the border, however, the Allies will have free rein into Iraq. An early stand by the Iraqi army at the border will only lead to its early destruction.
Iraq, on the other hand, appears to favor a strategy of trading space for time, much like the Russians did against the Germans in World War 2. It might give up territory to conserve its military strength and try to inflict as many casualties on the Allies as possible. Winning against the Allies is out of the question.
Iraq will seek to prolong its battlefield resistance to further weaken the United States and world economy and to inflame the morale of Muslim radicals around the globe. That Iraqi media has made much of defending Baghdad and other strategic centers indicate this might be the most profitable strategy for Saddam.
The Allies lost some 1,000 men and women in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, popularly known as Operation Desert Storm. Doubtless that Saddam is eager to increase the Allies' bill for conquering Iraq a second time.
Of course, my armchair generalship might be 360 degrees off the mark, but the reality of terrain as it now stands seems to favor a head-on assault by the Allies. The spring of 2003 has been bandied about as the most favorable time for any attack but that now seems unreasonable since UN weapons inspectors will remain in Iraq until early 2003.
With the loss of the favorable campaign season, the Allies are left with the difficult choice of either isolating Iraq until late 2003 or early 2004 or fighting in the intense summer heat next year. The UN attacked Iraq on Jan. 16, 1991 and forced an Iraqi surrender 100 days later.
The indirect approach, however, remains possible. In what form and where it must take place is up to Allied planners. It would be comforting to hope that Washington's top leadership will take into account that the true aim of the strategist "is not so much to seek battle as to seek a strategic situation so advantageous that if it does not of itself produce a decision, its continuation by a battle is sure to achieve this. In other words, dislocation is the aim of strategy; its sequel may be either the enemy's dissolution or his easier disruption in battle."
But then, a few bullets in Baghdad might end this war before it begins.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Print Publicity 101
Print publicity is the cheapest form of advertising open to any company.
It’s free—if you know how. But first, you’ve got to learn how the print media operates. You’ve also got to remember that the working press is a corps of intelligent and decent professionals battling against time every day of every year.
The men and women who work in daily newspapers labor under the intense pressure of immutable deadlines. Editorial offices are a madhouse in the late afternoon. That’s deadline time for stories.
Phones ring non-stop. Everyone seems hunched over his or her keyboard madly typing away. A perspiring few stare blankly into space awaiting divine inspiration.
Your company’s press release arrives into this bedlam. If it’s on paper and is addressed to a specific editor, your release goes to that editor’s inbox pile. And it stays there until the editor gets to it.
You also have to fall in line if you email the release. Editors are deluged with emailed press releases. Now what?
Where your press release goes from here depends on how you “prepared” your release for publication. By “prepared” I mean going through a process that gives your release a better than even chance of getting published. Here’s that process in a nutshell.
1. Make your release easy to read so the editor won’t have to waste his time re-writing it. Writing a press release is never easy. If you didn’t take journalism, or if you had news writing but never took it seriously, you’re in deep shit this early. Better find someone who knows how to write news.
But if you do know how to write, you’re best served by using the five “Ws” (Who, What, When, Where, Why) and the “inverted pyramid” format (the most important news in the first three to five paragraphs; the rest of the story is background).
Keep the language simple but pack the story with information and quotes from a company boss, if possible. But make sure the most important info goes into the first three to five paragraphs.
That will make it easier for the editor to edit your story (without taking out the “meat” of your story) in case he runs out of layout space. Also, do create an appropriate title for your story.
Paragraph and make your paragraphs short. As a guide, make each paragraph consist of three short sentences. That’s the equivalent of about one printed inch in a newspaper.
Editors who can’t understand your press release, or who know they’ll have to spend a lot of their limited time re-writing it, will normally set the release aside.
A few matters of form: prefer Times Roman 12 points with 1.5 inch spacing when typing hard copy on MSWord. Also include your name and contact info (telephone, email) to establish your credibility. Proofread your story for mistakes.
Remove “honorifics” such as Mr., Mrs. and Ms but retain professional titles (Dr., Atty.). Refer to your company in the third person (not “our company” or “my company”).
2. Address your press release to a specific editor. You must never send out a press release addressed “The Editor.”
A broadsheet has a lot of editors. Sending it to that nebulous entity, “The Editor,” is the best way for your release to get lost in the newsroom forever.
Before you even write the release, however, call up the editorial department of the newspaper or newspapers you intend to send the release to. Identify yourself and your company and say you’re writing such and such a press release and whom should I send it to?
Jot down the editor’s name and his position. Ask if you should send the release by email or hard copy. Many broadsheets prefer email (it eliminates re-typing) while a few prefer hard copy.
Address the release to that specific editor in the subject line of your email along with the title of your press release and your company name. In the hard copy, legibly write down the editor’s name on the upper right hand part of the first page.
3. Do follow up your press release. This is probably the single most important factor in getting your release published if you’re unknown to the editor. “Huwag kang mahiya.”
Call the next afternoon, identify yourself and politely ask the editor if he got your press release. If he says he did, ask politely if he’ll use it. If he says he didn’t get the release, ask if you could re-send it and how you should send it. Follow up but don’t be “makulit” by phoning the editor everyday.
4. Re-issue the press release to the same editor if the release hasn’t been published after a week. Re-write the press release to make it read better. The editor might have forgotten receiving your first release and might not have seen the re-issue.
5. Increase the odds of your press release being published. You can issue it simultaneously to the seven English broadsheets, the top business paper and the two top English tabloids. That's 10 newspapers and odds are your release will see print in at least one or two of them.
It’s free—if you know how. But first, you’ve got to learn how the print media operates. You’ve also got to remember that the working press is a corps of intelligent and decent professionals battling against time every day of every year.
The men and women who work in daily newspapers labor under the intense pressure of immutable deadlines. Editorial offices are a madhouse in the late afternoon. That’s deadline time for stories.
Phones ring non-stop. Everyone seems hunched over his or her keyboard madly typing away. A perspiring few stare blankly into space awaiting divine inspiration.
Your company’s press release arrives into this bedlam. If it’s on paper and is addressed to a specific editor, your release goes to that editor’s inbox pile. And it stays there until the editor gets to it.
You also have to fall in line if you email the release. Editors are deluged with emailed press releases. Now what?
Where your press release goes from here depends on how you “prepared” your release for publication. By “prepared” I mean going through a process that gives your release a better than even chance of getting published. Here’s that process in a nutshell.
1. Make your release easy to read so the editor won’t have to waste his time re-writing it. Writing a press release is never easy. If you didn’t take journalism, or if you had news writing but never took it seriously, you’re in deep shit this early. Better find someone who knows how to write news.
But if you do know how to write, you’re best served by using the five “Ws” (Who, What, When, Where, Why) and the “inverted pyramid” format (the most important news in the first three to five paragraphs; the rest of the story is background).
Keep the language simple but pack the story with information and quotes from a company boss, if possible. But make sure the most important info goes into the first three to five paragraphs.
That will make it easier for the editor to edit your story (without taking out the “meat” of your story) in case he runs out of layout space. Also, do create an appropriate title for your story.
Paragraph and make your paragraphs short. As a guide, make each paragraph consist of three short sentences. That’s the equivalent of about one printed inch in a newspaper.
Editors who can’t understand your press release, or who know they’ll have to spend a lot of their limited time re-writing it, will normally set the release aside.
A few matters of form: prefer Times Roman 12 points with 1.5 inch spacing when typing hard copy on MSWord. Also include your name and contact info (telephone, email) to establish your credibility. Proofread your story for mistakes.
Remove “honorifics” such as Mr., Mrs. and Ms but retain professional titles (Dr., Atty.). Refer to your company in the third person (not “our company” or “my company”).
2. Address your press release to a specific editor. You must never send out a press release addressed “The Editor.”
A broadsheet has a lot of editors. Sending it to that nebulous entity, “The Editor,” is the best way for your release to get lost in the newsroom forever.
Before you even write the release, however, call up the editorial department of the newspaper or newspapers you intend to send the release to. Identify yourself and your company and say you’re writing such and such a press release and whom should I send it to?
Jot down the editor’s name and his position. Ask if you should send the release by email or hard copy. Many broadsheets prefer email (it eliminates re-typing) while a few prefer hard copy.
Address the release to that specific editor in the subject line of your email along with the title of your press release and your company name. In the hard copy, legibly write down the editor’s name on the upper right hand part of the first page.
3. Do follow up your press release. This is probably the single most important factor in getting your release published if you’re unknown to the editor. “Huwag kang mahiya.”
Call the next afternoon, identify yourself and politely ask the editor if he got your press release. If he says he did, ask politely if he’ll use it. If he says he didn’t get the release, ask if you could re-send it and how you should send it. Follow up but don’t be “makulit” by phoning the editor everyday.
4. Re-issue the press release to the same editor if the release hasn’t been published after a week. Re-write the press release to make it read better. The editor might have forgotten receiving your first release and might not have seen the re-issue.
5. Increase the odds of your press release being published. You can issue it simultaneously to the seven English broadsheets, the top business paper and the two top English tabloids. That's 10 newspapers and odds are your release will see print in at least one or two of them.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
How to make your employees your customers
I find it odd that Filipino companies or Philippine-based companies hardly every bother to sell themselves to their employees. But do company employees need to be sold on the company they work for, you might ask?
The straight answer is, Yes. Because employees are employees for only eight hours a day, six-and-a-half if your exclude the one hour lunch break and two 15 minute meriendas.
Beyond that, employees are individuals who work for themselves. And all of a company’s managers and staff are also customers who’ll buy a competitor’s products or patronize his services if they’re convinced these are better than their own.
Company loyalty means just that—employees are loyal to their company. That loyalty doesn’t automatically extend to a company’s products or services. Brand loyalty has to be earned, even from a company’s employees.
And even if a company’s products or services can’t be used by its employees (call center services, for example), a company still has to work hard at promoting itself to them. That’s a good way of keeping hard-to-find employees, especially in leading edge industries such as call centers and business process outsourcing (BPO).
How does a company promote itself to its employees? The answer is to give employees a steady stream of information in a personalized package unique to the company.
Ideally, this information should build company and brand loyalty; foster productivity; create support for the company’s goals; make clear the company’s stand on vital issues and contribute to the bottom line.
That package is the company newsletter. Nowadays it’s also the company Intranet. The company website? Not quite since websites are impersonal salesmen that sell to the world.
Company newsletters used to be a big thing in the decades before the PC (the 1970s and 1980s). Now, they’re going the way of the Philippine Eagle and the precious few that survive are finding it hard to soldier on in the face of anorexic budgets and lack of skilled staff (editors and writers).
The latter, I guess, is the key reason for the dying out of the company newsletter. There simply aren’t that many good English editors and writers in today’s labor pool.
Ask the broadsheets. One of my editor friends, who also teaches journalism, complains that writing two paragraphs of passable English is a daunting challenge for many reporter candidates. And some of these people graduated with degrees in journalism or English!
If mass media is finding it next to impossible hiring good English writers, imagine what it’s like for corporations. Companies won’t hire an employee specifically to be a newsletter editor or writer. I haven’t come across a single instance of this yet.
A company usually assigns the newsletter to its human resources unit, which is usually understaffed and overworked. HR then appoints the newsletter’s staff after frantically searching its database for employees with even an iota of English writing experience.
When this fails, as it most often does, HR either does the job itself or cancels the newsletter. It might also hire an experienced editorial consultant like me to assist in providing content and layout for the newsletter.
Producing a printed or online newsletter is always tough. Ensuring its continued existence is even tougher considering its investment.
But you’d have to weigh the cost of this investment by the value of what you stand to gain. Newsletters impart information, a commodity that has value only when read.
Information, if intelligently used, is the basic building block of all sales. You buy because you’re convinced—sold—on the information presented to you. Advertising only jazzes up this information.
A newsletter or any other information carrier “sells” information to a market—a company’s employees—who are already half sold on the value of their product or service. The extra information provided by a company newsletter could push employees into becoming paying customers.
And there are also the other intangible advantages to the information provided by a newsletter. Advantages like improved productivity; stronger teamwork; a closer alignment with company goals.
A surprising bit of information is a recent report by U.S. retailers that TV is no longer the most influential advertising medium. Surprisingly, word of mouth and news inserts have replaced TV as more effective advertising media. Email and the Internet are also generating a lot of advertising buzz.
Word of mouth. Email. The Internet. Companies have these in abundance.
News inserts? That’s what newsletters are for.
The straight answer is, Yes. Because employees are employees for only eight hours a day, six-and-a-half if your exclude the one hour lunch break and two 15 minute meriendas.
Beyond that, employees are individuals who work for themselves. And all of a company’s managers and staff are also customers who’ll buy a competitor’s products or patronize his services if they’re convinced these are better than their own.
Company loyalty means just that—employees are loyal to their company. That loyalty doesn’t automatically extend to a company’s products or services. Brand loyalty has to be earned, even from a company’s employees.
And even if a company’s products or services can’t be used by its employees (call center services, for example), a company still has to work hard at promoting itself to them. That’s a good way of keeping hard-to-find employees, especially in leading edge industries such as call centers and business process outsourcing (BPO).
How does a company promote itself to its employees? The answer is to give employees a steady stream of information in a personalized package unique to the company.
Ideally, this information should build company and brand loyalty; foster productivity; create support for the company’s goals; make clear the company’s stand on vital issues and contribute to the bottom line.
That package is the company newsletter. Nowadays it’s also the company Intranet. The company website? Not quite since websites are impersonal salesmen that sell to the world.
Company newsletters used to be a big thing in the decades before the PC (the 1970s and 1980s). Now, they’re going the way of the Philippine Eagle and the precious few that survive are finding it hard to soldier on in the face of anorexic budgets and lack of skilled staff (editors and writers).
The latter, I guess, is the key reason for the dying out of the company newsletter. There simply aren’t that many good English editors and writers in today’s labor pool.
Ask the broadsheets. One of my editor friends, who also teaches journalism, complains that writing two paragraphs of passable English is a daunting challenge for many reporter candidates. And some of these people graduated with degrees in journalism or English!
If mass media is finding it next to impossible hiring good English writers, imagine what it’s like for corporations. Companies won’t hire an employee specifically to be a newsletter editor or writer. I haven’t come across a single instance of this yet.
A company usually assigns the newsletter to its human resources unit, which is usually understaffed and overworked. HR then appoints the newsletter’s staff after frantically searching its database for employees with even an iota of English writing experience.
When this fails, as it most often does, HR either does the job itself or cancels the newsletter. It might also hire an experienced editorial consultant like me to assist in providing content and layout for the newsletter.
Producing a printed or online newsletter is always tough. Ensuring its continued existence is even tougher considering its investment.
But you’d have to weigh the cost of this investment by the value of what you stand to gain. Newsletters impart information, a commodity that has value only when read.
Information, if intelligently used, is the basic building block of all sales. You buy because you’re convinced—sold—on the information presented to you. Advertising only jazzes up this information.
A newsletter or any other information carrier “sells” information to a market—a company’s employees—who are already half sold on the value of their product or service. The extra information provided by a company newsletter could push employees into becoming paying customers.
And there are also the other intangible advantages to the information provided by a newsletter. Advantages like improved productivity; stronger teamwork; a closer alignment with company goals.
A surprising bit of information is a recent report by U.S. retailers that TV is no longer the most influential advertising medium. Surprisingly, word of mouth and news inserts have replaced TV as more effective advertising media. Email and the Internet are also generating a lot of advertising buzz.
Word of mouth. Email. The Internet. Companies have these in abundance.
News inserts? That’s what newsletters are for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)