The PR Conundrum

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/1005/taxes-financial-aid-college-roughing-up-middle-class.html

I'm going to go out on a limb here - because I know that in the business of public relations, which is my business - and has been for many years - calling a journalist on the carpet for misrepresenting your point of view, can cost a PR person valuable contacts.  In a recent interview for Forbes magazine, I talked about my financial situation.  My attempts to refinance my home--the difficulties of trying to make money after a job loss.  I was candid.  The writer tried to be helpful.  He pointed out that were I employed at full salary I would not be entitled to tax incentives, scholarships, etc.   Small consolation, I told him.  I am looking for full-time employment.  Ideally for a job that pays what I was making at my last job.  Or close to that.  And if that means high taxes, no incentives, and no handouts, it's fine by me.  I believe in giving back to society.

I asked him not to make me look like I wanted handouts.  I assured the writer that the "goodies" I am "entitled to" didn't matter.  I prefer to be fully and gainfully employed.  "If it means my daughter goes to a public college, that's OK," I assured him.  At one point, I told him to find another person to profile.  I sent him this email on September 1st:

"sorry to give you a hard time, but like I said, priority #1 here is keeping myself out of the street and keeping my kids fed and cared for...But just to whine about why if I do get a job, Casey can't go to Pratt on financial aid...well, that's not really my concern or situation at all. 

I am not being defensive here - but this has never ever been a priority for me.  Where is it written that every child deserves the opportunity to go to a name brand school?  What makes a name brand school better than a no-name school?  And who says that every kid that doesn't go to a name brand school won't be successful in life?  And that every kid that does will have doors open for them?

I have a running trail that takes me past some of the most affluent and sprawling mansions in Scarsdale, including Beyonce's.  I don't feel an entitlement to live in those mansions and I don't envy the people in them.  And I do love running past them and admiring their pretty gardens. I applaud the people who do live in them and I hope that they plow their money back into the economy so that I can someday be hired -- maybe by the very company where they serve on the Board.  I hope that their affluence fuels new jobs and fosters consumer confidence and that they buy their kids name brand items in the boutiques all over my neighborhood so the stores will hire me to handle their PR.  Let their kids go to Harvard, Yale and Princeton.  And let those homeowners fund the endowments that give really poor kids the opportunity to go to those schools and make something of themselves. And my kids will go wherever I can afford to send them.  And they will make something of themselves and I will be proud of them - and spring for a great bottle of champagne when they DO graduate!  I am blessed to have what I have and I don't want any more than I am entitled to.  Please do not paint me to be someone who feels victimized.  I'm not a name brand person.  Just a hard working single mom who wants a job real soon!"

Well, my protests went ignored.  The person described in the cleverly-worded article in Forbes is not me!  Instead of painting me as someone seeking an appropriate salary so she could support herself, it portrays me as someone who is torn between the prospect of being employed and being eligible for tax breaks, college scholarships and other incentives.  It simply isn't so.  It never was.  In the online story, not a single quote of mine was published.  My quotes would have painted a very different picture.

Here is the truth.  I have been out of a full-time work, but freelancing out of my house, keeping myself afloat, and I will gladly take a job at my last salary or close to it - as long as it is enough to cover my expenses and give me benefits.  It would be lovely to have some paid health insurance - and real vacation time - perhaps some sick leave.  While I enjoy my work as a PR consultant - and I'm darn good at everything I've done and I do, I enjoyed a steady paycheck and the benefits of full-time employment.

I was raised with a strong work ethic and I love my  work - always have.  I do it because it's cool to do what you love and actually get paid to do it.  And I am OK with giving Uncle Sam his share of what I owe him.  And if my daughter doesn't get to Princeton on scholarship, there are other schools that I can afford.  It's all good.

Comments

[Joan Stewart, The Publicity Hound]

Judith, I don't know how long ago the interview occurred or when it was published.

But if I were in your shoes, I would most definitely:

--Write a letter to the editor of the magazine, stating the inaccuracy and setting the record straight. You want to be on the record with your corrected comments, particularly because a future employer might have read the original article.

--Call the direct supervisor of the person who interviewed you and state your concern. It sounds as though the writer had his mind made up about what he wanted to write, and he was baiting you, hoping you'd go along with his agenda.

Too many PR people are afraid of stepping on reporters' toes. But in this case, it is absolutely warranted.

P.S. I would not call this reporter or anyone like him "a valuable contact." If he does this to you, he'll do it to your PR clients, too.

[Sheri Rice Bentley, APR]

I agree somewhat with the above comment. As a PR consultant, I always counsel my clients to tell the story they want retold by reporters, and to be clear. There is no "off the record". But if they are still misquoted, to (gently, respectfully) set the record straight. I'm not entirely sure about contacting the reporter's supervisor, that feels like it might burn a bridge. I would also use this as an opportunity to go back and revisit how I might have made sure the reporter didn't miss my intent. I wouldn't blacklist the reporter unless you were absolutely certain they baited you. And if so, then I agree, why worry about a future relationship? We don't have to stand for that, and it's not journalistically ethical.

[Steven Spenser]

I must have read a different article, because I didn't find any text that indicated you want entitlements or handouts.

The foto's cutline accurately indicates that you would prefer to get a new job at your previous salary. The article states that you're looking at jobs that pay half that amount because you're "desperate."

But the reporter didn't write that you *want* the benefits a lower salary would entitle you to. He just wrote that you "would be wise to take" a lower-paying job. He then went on to explain how it could benefit you, using your situation as an example of his argument.

To me, none of this makes you appear anything like the drag on society you're concerned about coming off as, so I don't think you have anything to worry about. This article is neutral about you. If anything, if portrays you as concerned for your daughter's well-being because you're willing to take lesser-paying work. Nothing wrong with that in this economy.

The only factual statements about you contained in the entire piece:

1) "Judith Lederman would like to find another $120,000-a-year job. But Casey, her high school senior daughter, will qualify for $19,000 a year more in college financial aid if mom has to settle for half that salary."

--Note: Casey *will qualify* --IF-- you have to settle; doesn't say you're after more financial aid.

2) "Eighteen months after being laid off, Judith Lederman, a 50-year-old divorcee who lives in Scarsdale, N.Y., is ready to consider jobs paying half the $120,000 she earned as a publicity manager at Lord & Taylor."

--We already know you live in Scarsdale. Assuming you have, indeed, been laid off for 18 months, are 50 and divorced, then this is an accurate description.

--Since you are, presumably, willing to work at half your previous salary, I don't see anything prejudicial about that statement, either. Good on you for being flexible.

3) "That's mostly because she's desperate..."

--Only you can tell us whether "desperate" is an accurate description.

4) "...a middle-class single mom..." (Another accurate description.)

5) "At $120,000 she...wouldn't qualify for the five-year $12,000-a-year cut in her mortgage payments she's applying for..."

--Here is the only mention of any financial strategy you might be pursuing. If you are, indeed, applying for a reduced mortgage payment, then this does not seem prejudicial.

The article has additional references to your *situation*, but they're not statements about *you* or what you've *done* or indicative of your *intentions.*

A) "While the first $60,000 of her income would be lightly taxed, the next $60,000 would be hit with what is in effect a 79% tax rate."

--This is plainly painting a scenario that *could* occur, and is not reflective of your current circumstances or intentions.

B) "Given a choice between a part-time or easy job paying $60,000 and a demanding, stress-ridden job paying $120,000, Lederman would be wise to take the former."

--This is a statement of opinion by the writer; it's not identified as yours, and cannot be construed by any careful reader as indicating that you would take such a job to be eligible for handouts.

C) "In the tougher job she would be contributing twice as much to the economy. But she wouldn't be doing herself much good."

--This is a statement of opinion, and (once again) obviously not yours. The writer is editorializing, using you as an *example.*

D) "It would make more sense to take it easy and spend more time with her high school senior daughter, Casey."

--Yet another opinion. It doesn't say that you *are* taking it easy, or *will/would*.

E) "How did a middle-class single mom wind up with a 79% marginal tax rate? At $120,000 she would pay $16,500 a year more in federal and state taxes, wouldn't qualify for the five-year $12,000-a-year cut in her mortgage payments she's applying for and would be eligible for $19,000 a year less in need-based college financial aid."

--This simply notes that you *would* be eligible for less aid *if* you went that route. Again, it doesn't indicate those are your intentions.

F) "At first blush it would be hard to argue with anything that might help Lederman get back on her feet."

--Again, Forbes is not stating that you're after such handouts, only using you as a peg to set up the argument that it then proceeds to knock down.

============
Plainly, the reporter had an agenda, and used your situation to introduce it. But if you called to complain, the reporter would simply take you (or his editor) thru the same point-by-point analysis I've just presented. At the end, he would be justified in saying that you were not in any way defamed or misrepresented.

I used to be an editor and free-lance writer with AP and The Seattle Times, but I'm not taking Forbes' side. I'm merely pointing out that you haven't been smeared, and thus I would strongly urge you NOT to complain to the magazine.

If anything, you just got valuable publicity, because the article plainly indicates that you were valuable enough at what you do to have been earning $120,000 with a prestigious company.

If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't be pleased to have potential employers know that I would be willing to settle for so much less; you've automatically lowballed yourself in potential salary negotiations.

But in this economy I don't think anyone would think less of you for being flexible enough to take any good job that comes along, even if it's for much less than previous salary levels.

Good fortune to you!

Steven Spenser
Principal
Praxis Communication/Seattle
PraxisPR@comcast.net
www.linkedin.com/in/stevenspenser

[JOBS_frend]

Hi, I congratulate you on Merry Christmas!

[Realestate]

Interesting site, always a new topic .. good luck in the new 2011. Happy New Year!

[Rental]

Hi Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

[Rental]

Happy New Year! The author write more I liked it.

[Hotjobs]

Hi Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, a cool site I like

[Golf Tips]

I certainly enjoyed the way you explore your experience and
knowledge of the subject! Keep up on it. Thanks for sharing the info

[Meratol Review]

This is amazing information! As I am more in to social networking I never looked at the blogging boom stats :) Thank you for sharing!

[newport coast homes for sale]

He pointed out that were I employed at full salary I would not be entitled to tax incentives, scholarships