Posts

Write 200 Lousy Words Per Day, That’s It

/0 Comments/in /by

Writing is drudgery for many people, which is part of the reason our clients let us do some of that writing for them. Often, the hardest part is just getting started, even if you write for a living.

As I’ve described before in this blog, at the start of a writing project we may become overwhelmed by all the information we want to include in our written content, or unsure of how we want to start, and it leads to procrastination and more stress. We end up either missing a deadline or we rush to put something out that could have been better.

The best recent advice I’ve seen about overcoming writing procrastination comes from an anecdote in the irreverent best-selling self-improvement book, “The Subtle Art of Not to Giving a F*ck: The Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Better Life.” In the book, author Mark Manson recounts a story of a novelist who had written more than 70 books. The novelist’s advice for how he is so prolific, according to Manson: “200 crappy words per day, that’s it.”

Of course, Manson points out, the novelist rarely stops at 200 crappy words because the action of generating those first few paragraphs motivates him to keep going. Even non-professional writers get in a rhythm and it can be as difficult to stop as it was to get started. The 200 crappy words almost serves as a warmup to the real workout of writing 1,000 or 2,000 words.

How to Get Started

Sometimes, however, even getting those first 200 words down is challenging; that is where research can be a big help. Simply going online to research the topic, even if it is something you are already very knowledgeable about, can be highly motivating because you will likely learn new information that will help support your content. Other times, research can reveal that a competitor or other thought leader has already written pretty much the same article or other high-value content. Don’t despair. You can read similar articles or content and then look for gaps in their information or it can inspire a different, fresher angle for your article, white paper or eBook.

The opposite dilemma can also occur. Sometimes there will be so much research and information, and so many topics you want to cover, that you cannot imagine how you will assemble it all into a coherent whole. Here is where outlining can help to get you started and keep moving.

The outline doesn’t need to be the precise order of the final draft; it is just to get ideas down. Simply list the topic heading you want to cover in a section, such as COVID-19, and under that heading list all the relevant ideas you want to include (e.g., effect on elective/preventive care, growth of telehealth, reimbursement changes from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, etc.). Once you begin the bare-bones list, you will find that you want to add more and more detail and can begin to envision how the finished content will be structured.

From Outline to Draft

As opposed to writing an article from beginning to end, an outline lets you preview if the finished piece flows logically, if there are potential gaps of information, or if sections should be shortened. Recognizing these deficiencies in the outline stage saves writing, cutting and rearranging time in the long run. Once the outline is completed, writing the full draft simply means expanding each item in the list to full sentences and paragraphs. Depending on how detailed the outline is, writing the full draft may take much less time than expected.

With the full draft completed, the real hard part of writing begins: editing. Reading and re-reading what you wrote, cutting and rewriting for clarity is not as much fun as putting all the words together, but is perhaps the most important part of the process. Since editing means you are close to the finish line, that may motivate you to keep going.

Everyone Needs an Editor

Have you ever heard of Maxwell Perkins? Me neither. I found him through a Google search. Have you heard of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway or Thomas Wolfe? Me too. It turns out Maxwell Perkins edited all of these authors, and even convinced Wolfe to cut 90,000 words from the final draft of one of his novels.

I mention Perkins to point out that even the best writers need editors. Editing is not just for proofreading for typos, grammar and misspellings, either. Rather, an editor’s value is providing high-level, constructive feedback about the content, structure and readability of the content. Most importantly, the editor needs to look at the content through the eyes of your intended reader. Is it relevant to them? Will it make sense? Does one idea flow logically to another?

Just Write

So the next time you need to write, gather your information and just start writing. Whether it is full sentences or just a list of topics and ideas you want to include in the content, the act of getting 200 lousy words on the screen will save you stress and time in the long run – and likely result in a higher-quality finished project.

Research: Be Careful What You Link To

/0 Comments/in /by

Stats and other evidence can look great at first, but after a little digging…not so much

A big part of the content we create for clients, whether it is a blog post, bylined article, white paper, or even an infographic, is research. It can be a collaborative process where the client will recommend statistics or a recent study they have discovered and want to highlight, but often it will be up the writer to unearth interesting data on their own.

Anyone who’s spent time researching online knows what an exhaustive process it can be. When searching on PubMed, for example, a writer can spend hours scanning study after study and still not find enough relevant data for the article they’re writing. Either the nature of the research does not quite relate to your content, it’s too dated, or it says nothing conclusive other than “more research is needed.”

Searching for recent results from a non-scientific poll or survey can be even more fruitless and risky. Part of the reason is healthcare information technology is at least a $227 billion industry, and it can be difficult to generate media and industry awareness of your company (unless you have a great partner like Amendola). That is why many companies will conduct their own survey or poll to generate media interest.

More often than I would like, while researching for one client I will discover the enticing results data was from a survey commissioned by a competitor. Such a conflict makes those stats, while tempting, off-limits. (But I am surprised how often I come across competitors who will cite one another’s research in their content.)

To avoid these mistakes and ensure the research you use in your content is relevant and accurate, consider these tips:

Get to the Bottom of it

I came across this stat recently that was perfect for a writing project I was working on: 85% to 99% of medical device alerts are not clinically actionable. I saw it cited in numerous medical journals and even in books with different attribution, with many citing it from The Joint Commission.

Although TJC did reference it, the stat originally came from a 2011 report from the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, which cites that figure to a study conducted by Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C. I highlight this example to illustrate how challenging, but also how important it is, to identify and link to the original source of the stat.

Not only is it the most accurate way to present the data, but you may discover that by getting to the root of the source it may not be reliable or from an organization (i.e. competitor), that you want to draw attention to in your content.

Find the Context

Avoiding information from a competitor is an excellent reason to scrutinize the source of data. But after you determine where the information is coming from, the writer should also investigate the context around the data so you can further evaluate its credibility.

Some organizations will issue press releases, or mention in blog posts or bylined articles, “astounding” results from a survey or research they’ve conducted. In reading the full report or study it came from, you will learn that its PR or marketing materials carefully omitted important context, which creates a misleading perspective.

For example, you may find survey results that show “90% of physicians are considering retiring within the next five years.” However, if you dig deeper into the survey, you may find that the survey question was only conducted on physicians age 65 or older. While that may be an exaggerated hypothetical scenario, it shows how risky it is to feature data without investigating the context.

Science or Pseudo-Science?

As New York Times reporter Carl Zimmer pointed out, thanks to COVID-19, many more people are reading scientific papers, but are finding them difficult to understand. Although I’ve been reading these studies for many years, I, too, occasionally struggle to interpret findings that I can incorporate in the content we create.

Fortunately, article abstracts typically offer enough information to help decide if you should keep reading. Abstracts also provide insight into the scientific rigor behind the study, such as if it is a randomized controlled trial, which is the gold standard for medical research.

Even in such trials, if it includes only a very small or narrow population of patients, it may not apply to what you’re writing. The publication itself should also be considered. A peer-reviewed publication is ideal, as is information published in prominent journals such as JAMA, Science, The New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet, although even some of these journals have taken some credibility dings lately in the rush to publish COVID-19 research.

You are the Gatekeeper

Regardless of the quality of the data or the publication, you are the ultimate gatekeeper: Do you find the information and publication credible? Will it be meaningful and interesting to the prospective reader of the content? If so, then include it.

The great part about finding lots of meaningful research data is that it can help accelerate the writing process. With lots of information to include, it is just a matter of organizing and presenting it compellingly… but that’s for another post.

Substance Over Spin

/0 Comments/in /by

Despite all of the metrics and data at our fingertips these days, public relations is still more art than science when it comes to attaining the ultimate goal: media coverage.

Sure, reports that show impact after the fact are indispensable and all the information at our fingertips has made the task of gathering this analysis much more comprehensive. The number of unique visitors per month (UVM) to news sites, conversion rates, click-throughs, etc. are all important. But what it is measuring and analyzing is the media placement the PR team has earned.

When it comes to media outreach, it is all about the intangible ability of the PR specialist to communicate a story, pull someone in, and generate enough interest that the journalist wants to learn more. There is no algorithm or artificial intelligence that has cracked that code.

In the media relations world, you need to master subtlety, conciseness, creativity, patience, and common sense. Who are the reporters you are contacting? What is their preferred method of being contacted? What’s their beat? What have they written about recently?

Yes, we have tools that make this research much easier than it used to be. Honestly, I can’t imagine doing this job 40 years ago. The legwork had to have been exhausting. But, when it comes down to it, you are the one making the connection and, hopefully, securing the interview and/or placement.

As any PR vet will tell you, there is one thing serious reporters hate: spin. It’s an easy trap to fall into. The cliché among reporters is that anyone contacting them on behalf of a company, be it for a thought leadership article or an interview, is trying to use them as a mouthpiece for the company, product or executive they represent.

While your job is certainly to raise awareness for your client, you cannot be a part of their sales team. You are telling their story and demonstrating what makes them relevant and interesting. Members of the media will automatically roll their eyes at hyperbole, spin and overt self-promotion.

During my years in PR, I have seen examples of this plenty of times. You work with a client who insists on promoting a product launch to a reporter at a national publication, who inevitably responds (if they respond at all) with one word: “pass.”

The same goes for thought leadership. If you offer an interview by saying, “Ms. XYZ can talk to you about how their widget is revolutionizing the world of widgetry,” any reporter worth their salt will hit delete immediately.

If you say, “The world of widgetry has faced a multitude of issues during the past year due to end users dealing with (for example) data breaches. Ms. XYZ can offer concrete steps these companies can take to become more secure,” now they’re listening. If you can recruit one or two of your client’s customers to attest to the effectiveness of this approach, it drastically increases your chance of garnering interest from the media. 

When it comes to byline articles and op-eds, the same rules apply. If Ms. XYZ writes a piece littered with references to how great her company and its solutions are, it’s not going to fly with most publications from trades to large national publications. I have seen self-promotional op-eds turned down many times. I have also seen them rewritten with the self-promotion removed, and that same publication reversing course and running the article.  

This is all a balancing act. You have to meet the journalist’s standards and the client’s expectations at the same time. For both, it comes down to clear and honest communication.

You need to be armed with the reasons a reporter should be interested in your pitch, and you need to make sure your client understands that issue-driven not product-driven coverage is what will give them credibility in the industry.

Maybe someday companies will be able to enter information into an AI platform that writes the perfect pitch. Human-to-human media relations will become a profession of the past.

But let’s not dwell on that. I don’t want to give Zuckerberg any ideas and I want to keep my job.

The bottom line is we are storytellers, not spinmeisters. It takes nuance and authenticity. If you can pitch substance over spin, the results will speak for themselves.