One of the best ways for your business to get exposure and credibility is through public relations. Yet, hiring a PR firm can be expensive, easily running $5,000 to $10,000 per month.

Despite this, it's possible to do PR on your own. Keep in mind that a key to success is having an active and passionate founder or CEO who makes media relations a priority. This has been the case with many great leaders, such as Howard Schultz at Starbucks (NYSE: SBUX) and Marc Benioff at Salesforce.com (NYSE: CRM).

So, let's take a look at some of the steps you can take to improve your PR.

To Mike Vick or not to Mike Vick, that is the question, and the controversy that is surrounding athletic apparel giant Nike (NYSE: NKE).

Actually it isn't too much of a question, mainly because the company that once used Vick as a celebrity endorser dumped him and his products once he was arrested and charged with running a dog-fighting ring. Vick has spent his time in prison and has since been signed as a back-up quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles.

Well, earlier this week Mike Principe (one of Vick's agents) announced that Vick had recently inked a deal with Nike. This announcement caused quite a bit of Internet backlash toward the Swoosh, but there were many that thought the deal was "bogus." (That quote is from a tweet by CNBC's Darren Rovell.)

For Citigroup (NYSE: C) to regain the confidence of Wall Street it will have to start doing a few things right. Firing 53,000 people probably does not qualify. After that news, Citi hit another 52-week low at $7.80, down from a 52-week high of $35.29.

More losses won't help. Some bank analysts believe that Citi's consumer credit portfolio and derivative assets will cause negative earnings right through 2009.

Now, the big bank gave investors another reason to turn their backs as it closed one more of its hedge funds, which lost 53% of its value in a month. Taking the value of assets down that much in such a short period probably requires as much skill as showing an increase of a similar size. In other words, it is extraordinary.

According to the FT, "Citigroup is liquidating its Corporate Special Opportunities hedge fund after it lost 53 per cent of its value last month, marking the ninth time in recent months that the bank has had to close or rescue a fund." At its peak, the fund had over $4 billion in assets.

The point in this is not only that Citi keeps making mistakes. In addition, the bank might as well fire its entire public relations and corporate communications staff. They are of no use to the firm as long as it keeps cutting its own throat in front of the press and shareholders. Dispensing with the PR group could be part of the big, planned layoff. No one would miss them

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 24/7 Wall St.

One of the hardest things to do as an investor is sort through the hype: the financial media is a 24-hour operation and, I would argue, almost none of it is relevant to what really drives investment returns over the long run. But shrewd promoters know that, in the short run, hype and fluff can drive stock prices.

To help investors separate the cream from the crap, I've developed my own formula for determining how promotional a company's management is, relative to its fundamental strength. Ladies and gentlemen, I present the E/PR ratio. The formula for calculating it is simple: E/PR= Earnings per year/Press Releases per year.

Let's look at a couple examples. First, Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A), Warren Buffett's conglomerate. In 2006, the company put out 16 press releases and earned about $11 billion. So the E/PR ratio is 687.5 million. For every PR the company put out, it earned $687.5 million. The press releases generally concerned major acquisitions, Buffett's record-breaking pledge to the Gates Foundation, and quarterly reports. That sounds like a business that's focused on creating value for shareholders through operational success -- and letting the story tell itself. So far it's worked out well for shareholders, as investors who put just a few thousand dollars with Mr. Buffett at the beginning of his career are worth millions.

The Wall Street Journal [subscription required] reports that Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT), hoping to bolster its legal challenge, is now paying a PR firm to drum up public opposition to Google Inc.'s (NASDAQ: GOOG) $3.1 billion deal to acquire online advertising firm, DoubleClick. Microsoft hired PR firm Burson-Marsteller to drum up opposition to Google's DoubleClick deal. In Europe, Burson urged Internet companies to sign an online petition for a more "transparent and competitive Internet," according to the pitches.

Why does Microsoft oppose the deal and why is it hiding behind Burson? Microsoft does not want Google to strengthen its competitive position in the online advertising industry -- and DoubleClick, which serves online display advertisements, would surely help Google expand its online advertising dominance. Microsoft has been hiding behind Burson in Europe because it has just lost a European Court upheld a ruling that found Microsoft had abused its near-monopoly position in PC computer software.

The irony of Microsoft's efforts to block competition through the courts and the media was not lost on the Journal. In the 1990s, Bill Gates enjoyed tweaking competitors which similar tactics by rivals as it cemented its own power in personal-computer software, and those efforts factored into its run-ins with antitrust regulators.

But current Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer lacks Gates' competitive chops, so he's struggling to use the means of a second rate competitor against the market leader, Google. Those clumsy means will only make Microsoft look bad.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates,. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in Google or Microsoft securities.

Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG), Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO) and many tech companies regularly promise to give reporters a sneak peak at their newest products features provided that they keep their mouths shut for a designated period of time. It's called an "embargo" and it's gotten way out of hand.

Embargos often are found on a slow Monday morning. The Yahoo announcement today that it will allow users of its email service send free text messages to mobile phones is a case in point. Reporters from AP, Reuters , and USA Today each appear to have gobbled up the press release that Yahoo's flacks spoon fed them Sunday without a glimmer of skepticism. None mentioned the deal they struck to get access to the news.

Sunday is the favorite day for embargos. Odds are that reporters will do what the companies want since their sources who might point out that this announcement isn't a big deal aren't in the office. Companies also pre-brief friendly analysts that will help them spread their message. The same idea works in mergers and acquisitions. This is how "Merger Mondays" got started. No one can manipulate the market when it's closed on Sunday. Big medical journals release research using embargos as well as well.

I don't mean to pick on Yahoo!'s announcement today. For all I know, this could be the biggest thing since sliced bread, but I doubt it. In today's media age, embargoes are becoming increasingly stupid. I can't tell you how many times I honored embargoes only to see a post on a blog about a "a big announcement coming", promising more details to come once the news was "officially" released.

Reporters -- me included -- honor these embargoes because they are worried that companies won't leak them the big news if they don't write about little things. The flacks and the journalists scratch each other's backs and the reader winds up the loser.

First of all, I can't believe I just typed that headline. Actually, of course I can. Keith Richards - storied guitarist, half of the venerable song-writing team that brought us "Satisfaction" and "Start Me Up," and perpetual name on the celebrity death pool lists - has admitted to snorting cocaine laced with his father's ashes. Since the senior Richards didn't die until 2002, this unconventional use of human remains didn't occur when Keith was in his young-and-stupid heyday, but obviously transpired sometime during the past five years.

Richards, who perhaps thought the move was a touching tribute to his passed-on paternal figure, told this tidbit to British music magazine NME, adding "My dad wouldn't have cared ... it went down pretty well, and I'm still alive." In a rush for damage control, the Rolling Stones' manager brushed it off as an April Fool's joke, calling it an "off-the-cuff remark."

Keith is known for decades of wild living and excess, so this latest detail, if true, isn't even really that shocking. No word yet on Walt Disney's (NYSE: DIS) official reaction, however. May 25 marks the release of the third installment of the Pirates of the Caribbean series and will feature Keith Richards in the role of Teague Sparrow, Captain Jack Sparrow's (Johnny Depp's character's) father.

Beth Gaston Moon is an analyst at Schaeffer's Investment Research.

My fellow bloggers have weighed in on Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s (NYSE: WMT) "Threat Research" operation, calling it "paranoid" and questioning whether it made any "sense." Let me add a third word to describe this Keystone Cops operation: wasteful.

Wal-Mart has the right to defend itself against criticism. It has the right to make sure that employees aren't violating company policies. But does the world's largest retailer need its own mini-FBI? No.

The company seems to be worrying more about silencing critics and punishing misbehaving employees than about selling goods that people want to buy. What's funny is that the company's obsessesion with controlling its image and penchant for secrecy seems to continually backfire.

The Wall Street Journal story about the "Bat Cave" make Wal-Mart look petty and cheap at a time when it's trying to win back customers that have deserted its stores for Target Corp. (NYSE: TGT) and other competitors. Investors have backed Target as well, sending its shares up about 18 percent over the past year compared with 4 percent for Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart has got to ask itself whether the information it gains from its "threat research" is worth the bad feelings it creates with customers, shareholders and employees. If Wal-Mart wants to repair its reputation, it needs to be more forthcoming about why it does what it does.

Maybe then it won't need a secret 20-person department to investigate threats both real and imagined.

Over the years, private equity has been very, well, private. Many firms avoided media calls. Some did not even have Web sites.

Well, as private equity deals get much bigger – such as with the HCA and Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. (NYSE:HET) transactions – it is impossible to keep things private. Now, the industry is front-page news. PRWeek covered the topic just recently.

The truth is, image-building can help with a variety of things like raising capital, finding new deals, and even crisis management (what if there are huge layoffs?). Something else: it could help to find talented employees.

I had a chance to interview Mark Stevens, who runs MSCO and is the author of the book, Your Marketing Sucks. According to him "for most of their history, private equity firms believed that branding was for corporate losers. But with more and more private equity firms competing for funds, capital flows first to those with the big brands. They are perceived as the stars that can provide the best assurance of high returns. May not be true but therein lies the power of brand equity."

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including the Complete M&A Handbook and the EDGAR-Online Guide to Decoding Financial Statements.

Stung by criticism that the benefits it gives employees are chintzy, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE:WMT) is striking back with a PR offiensive.

The top private employer released data today showing that 47.4 percent of its 1.3 million workers are covered by its health plans, up 8 percent. Another 43 percent get insurance from another source, according to Reuters. This is all part of the company's newest PR offensive.

Wal-Mart is trying hard to counter claims by its critics, that its benefits are so poor that workers are forced to rely on government assistance for their health care. This reputation turns off shoppers, particularly those in the middle class that the company wants to attract, and encourages states to try to enact mandatory coverage laws the company opposes.

Over the years, Wal-Mart's critics have claimed that the low prices it crows about come on the backs of its workers. This reputation has hurt the company's image, particularly among middle class shoppers who are finding Target Stores Corp. (NYSE:TGT) and other rivals more to their liking. Wal-Mart has tried PR campaigs to bolster its reputation before and will no doubt try them again.

Like everything else connected with Wal-Mart, there are two sides to the story. The union-funded Wake-Up Wal-Mart group has a much different take on the company's health care benefits. It claims that the retailer's health insurance is too expensive for most workers.

"Since the average full-time Wal-Mart employee earned $17,114 in 2005, he or she would have to spend between 7 and 25 percent of his or her income just to cover the premiums and medical deductibles, if electing for single coverage," the group says on its Web site. "The average full-time employee electing for family coverage would have to spend between 22 and 40 percent of his or her income just to cover the premiums and medical deductibles. These costs do not include other health-related expenses such as medical co-pays, prescription coverage, emergency room deductibles, and ambulance deductibles."

It's been an interesting week for me; that is, two global tech companies -- International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE:IBM) and SAP AG (ADR) (NYSE:SAP) -- are concerned about my abilities.

OK, first I got an email from one of SAP's communications vice presidents, regarding a column I wrote titled, "SAP Still Not Serious About M & A."

He wrote: "You know, with a little research, the readers of the Motley Fool might have had a more clear picture about SAP's strategy on acquisitions, and how that successful strategy has differentiated itself from the so-called pressure you seem to think that Oracle is putting on SAP. The number of assumptions (many wrong) about SAP and Oracle in your column deserve some balance so that your readers are getting an accurate assessment of the market, and the relative performance of SAP (16 quarters of organic growth) and Oracle (questionable).... Your readers deserve some balance and some accuracy about SAP and Oracle, lest folks wonder who really is "the fool."

Ouch! Yes, it is true that I've been bullish on Oracle and bearish on SAP. For the year, Oracle is up nearly 50% and SAP is up about 11%. I responded to him and emailed: "Thanks for calling me a fool."

His response: