For the past 15 years, I have tackled hundreds of ultra events including the Ironman triathlon. I do these, in part, because they help reduce stress, but they have taught me important lessons in both PR and life. Here are a few are worth sharing:

1. Proper training is critical

A few years back I raced a half-Ironman in grueling heat. I never should have been at the start line; I hadn't trained properly. I ultimately finished the race, but ended up in the medical tent. I laugh about it now, but the consequences could have been severe. The same holds true for folks who are getting their start in PR. Sometimes the work might seem mundane. Certain days might be better than others. But if you train and mentor properly -- it will pay off at the end.

2. You can make it happen

Every year I try to pick an event that scares me. This past year it was swimming to Alcatraz. I then go about methodically putting in the time to accomplish the goal. The same holds true in business: don't be afraid to pick an audacious goal. However, once you do, be sure to break it down to parts and understand what it takes to bring it to a successful conclusion.

3. Don't "bonk"

A “bonk” is otherwise known as “hitting the wall.” There is a professional equivalent to bonking -  burnout. It's something we have all likely seen or experienced at one point; PR is a high-pressure business. But it is important that when we recognize the symptoms, we step back, and gain some perspective.

My athletic pursuits have enriched me in a variety of ways, including the unexpected benefit of also teaching me more about business and life than I ever thought.

Howard Solomon is managing director of Ruder-Finn/West

A question I am being asked more frequently is “Is there a way to make an unflattering Internet mention of you or your firm disappear?” 

The answer is technically “no,” as that would be like getting rid of a condo in Ft. Lauderdale. From a practical standpoint, the answer is, you can make the unflattering mention very difficult to find. Using methods of DSEO (defensive search engine optimization) one can “bury” the negative comments in a digital fog bank that will bring scads of positive comments to the forefront and make finding the “bad” words very difficult to spot. 

This is another important tool in the public reputation management toolbox. A brand is a firm or a company's most valuable asset. When it is threatened by a bad review, a negative link, or a malicious blog post, DSEO can neutralize the negativity.

All this is fine and good, but what about the ethical considerations? Is that the way the Internet was intended to be used and does DSEO take place within the open spirit of Web 2.0? DSEO is expensive, so does that give a marketplace advantage to the haves versus the have-nots? So, I begin and end with some big questions. Let me know what you think.

Jay Jaffe, president/CEO, Jaffe PR

I recently spoke at a state Continuing Legal Education program about how law firms prepare social media policies. At the end of the program, during the traditional question-and-answer period, one hand shot up in the back of the room, and I was immediately transferred back in time with a question that was déjà vu all over again. 

“How are firms dealing with the issue of professional responsibility as they apply to the world of social networking?” 

I thought to myself, “Isn't this the exact same conversation that I participated in 20 years ago when I addressed an [American Bar Association] panel about the rules of professional conduct as they applied to print advertising?” 

And, what may we all have learned from the lessons of print advertising that still apply today, as we deal with many of the exact issues in social media? I felt back then the same way that I feel today. 

We could not look at the subject of advertising in 1994 as an issue that was homogeneous for the broad legal community. Personal injury lawyers were advertising on television, but we could not look at this the same way we viewed large, corporate firms sticking their toes into the world of print advertising.  

The same holds true today. Is there a one-size-fits-all solution for entering the world of social media? I don't think so. I didn't think so about the subject of large law firm advertising almost 20 years ago and I certainly don't think that way about social networking. I believe that firms today need guidelines, not rules, and the marketplace itself will eventually determine what works and what is appropriate.

Jay Jaffe, president/CEO, Jaffe PR

I can't help wondering if a possible solution to stop the decline of newspapers has been right under our feet all this time.

Consider this microcosm of the newspaper world. Every morning, residents on my street are greeted with colored plastic bags, each holding a different newspaper: white for the major daily, blue for The New York Times, pink for the Wall Street Journal, and – once a week – clear for the weekly community paper.

The white bag used to rule, sitting on the sidewalk in front of nearly every house. Today, white, blue, and pink bags are scattered around with no real majority, but the clear bag – fully paid subscriptions only, no comps – is a uniform sight up and down the street, week after week.

My informal focus group of neighbors reveals why: people want the news that affects them – school happenings, new retailers, town issues, and the like. They're perfectly happy to get the national and world news on the fly, wherever they find it, whether in print, broadcast, or online. 

Maybe those colored plastic bags need to take a look at each other and think about how to take back their turf, on the sidewalk and on the newsstands, so to speak. Is the answer in the European model, where a few national newspapers prosper happily alongside local dailies that are truly local?

After all, news is more relevant when it's more personal, which is why those hyper-local Web sites seem to be attracting eyeballs. Perhaps the major dailies should consider doing what they're staffed to do best – becoming the go-to source for everything local – while leaving the world reporting to the national papers staffed to do that best.

Larry Meltzer is agency principal/creative director of MM2 Public Relations

It seems like “old media” and “new media” have been acting like two groups on the playground. “Old media” has been like the last kid to get picked for the kickball team – just a little too off-center to hang out with the “in” crowd.

But in the steady march away from the stodgy and toward the enlightened – one old medium seems to be regaining a glint of popularity. I'm talking specifically about the news release, that old standby that was probably the first thing we learned to write in our college intro class.

For a while, the news release seemed to fall out favor. Reporters wanted their own take on whatever our news was, so why bother with a mass-marketed document? But as the number of Web sites, blogs, and tweet-happy Twitterers seemingly doubled as we slept, they brought with them an insatiable need for ready-to-consume information.

And thus the kid hiding away on the playground suddenly found himself picked for the team. We gave the gawky kid the right shirt and sneakers, sprinkling news releases with bits of social media toppings – an embedded image here, a sound bite there, a video link over there.

Along the way, we found that what was once a one-day tactic took on a life after-the-fact. The news tends to live on in its virtual world, lending an assist when someone searches for our clients or organizations, and serving as a sort of library or archive of news and information to help our communications efforts.

Maybe it's time to go back to the playground and see what other unpopular “kids” are hiding behind today's in crowd. As they say, everything old is new again.

Larry Meltzer is agency principal/creative director of MM2 Public Relations

When the economy started its downward spiral and you watched your investments head in the same direction, were you “saddened” or “disappointed?” I'll bet that you used stronger language than that!

People don't talk that way. So why are we using this kind of innocuous language for our companies or clients in written communications?

An informal Google News search proves the point. Type in the phrase “We're saddened” or “We're disappointed” and you'll get pages of results with quotes from different organizations responding to some issue or situation.

Even President Obama, in the wake of the country's security lapse following the Christmas Day incident on a US airliner, responded with the relatively bland, “totally unacceptable.” Really??? Someone tries to take down a plane full of passengers, and that's the extent of our collective anger? I bet if the presidential dog did his business on the Oval Office carpet, the response would be stronger than “unacceptable!”

In our efforts to sound safe and inoffensive, this kind of vanilla language can put up walls between our organizations and the people we want to reach. Words, language, and communication need to serve as a bridge, to connect the writer with the reader. People want to trust, and they want to believe what we say on behalf of our organizations.

So with the new year in swing, resolve to take the “talk test” the next time you're carefully crafting a statement or quote. Read out loud what you write. If you wouldn't say it when you're talking, then don't write it that way!

Larry Meltzer is agency principal/creative director of MM2 Public Relations

Whenever a disaster occurs, CEOs and corporate communications professionals are thrust into action, determining if and how a company should get involved in relief efforts. The corporate philanthropic responses to the devastation in Haiti demonstrated a broad willingness by American businesses to help. One key question that companies needed to answer is, “Should we be first to give?” 

The benefits of giving first are obvious. The company looks immediately empathetic and proactive. It's easier to generate media coverage of a donation if you're among the first. And, companies are better able to encourage employees and customers to join them in giving if they ask first.

Sometimes, though, corporate “one upmanship” can transform a company's pledge from looking generous to cheap. AdAge has an interesting story this week on the subject. The story says Wells Fargo was among the first to support Haiti disaster relief efforts, making a $100,000 donation to the Red Cross. Within days, other financial institutions had made donations topping $1 million. 

As companies respond to humanitarian crises, they also need to take a second look at how their business practices can damage their reputations in the midst of their good deeds. Last week, a number of financial institutions were simultaneously making donations to nonprofits providing Haitian assistance and racking up significant transaction fees for donations their customers made. Eventually, most of the companies agreed to waive the transaction fees, but not before they were skewered in the media. 

Companies have to think and act carefully to ensure their disaster assistance efforts don't turn into reputation disasters.

Lynne Doll, president, The Rogers Group