Everyday PR

To all the people who’ve commented, bantered, quipped, watched, read, forwarded and/or subscribed to EveryDayPR,  coffee’s on us this week.  You’re all deserving of the Virtual Cup of Joe Award. Thanks so much for your support!

If you haven’t already subscribed, please consider doing so by clicking the word on the left of your screen.  Have a great weekend!

Last week’s debacle regarding the age at which women should first get a mammogram is great fodder for a case study showing the need for organizations to seek professional public relations help before they open their mouth.  One day an independent federal panel issued new guidelines stating women don’t need to get a mammogram until age 50. The next day, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says ignore the panel’s recommendations. Mixed messages? Yes. Consumer confusion? Yes. Politically embarrassing? Yes. Preventable? Maybe.

Do I get a mammogram, do I not, do I get a mammogram, do I not...

First, breast cancer is an emotionally charged issue.  Second, what base of credibility does this federal panel have, many of whom are academicians and none of whom are radiologists or oncologists? Third, who on this continent doesn’t know that October was National Breast Cancer Awareness Month with the key message that early detection is the best defense? 

As a public relations counselor, I’m in no position to address the clinical pros and cons of the panel’s recommendation.  However, I can speak to the panel’s need for professional services like mine to anticipate the controversy that followed the announcement.  Did the panel fully realize that its key message completely contradicts what women have been told about mammograms for the past decade?  When you’re introducing a message that’s suggesting people change their mindset, you need to take that into account.  Discussions could have included topics like public opinion research, health care alliances, physician partners, anecdotes from cancer survivors and political support.  Were organizations professional industry groups given a heads up on the information?  Were political leaders, especially those serving on committees related to health care, briefed prior to the announcement?

These questions exemplify issues that professional public relations practitioners bring to the table.  Our objective is not to change the message. Our objective is to present that message in an understandable way, to address questions before they’re asked, to comprehensively communicate to all target audiences, to leverage like-minded relationships, and to serve the public interest.

It’s easy to Monday morning quarterback last week’s game of “Do I/Don’t I Get a Mammogram?”  It’s also easy for decision makers to include public relations to make sure their game strategy is the best for the team.  Thoughts?

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s recent $250,000 fine against Tennessee Titans Owner Bud Adams isn’t that surprising as much as it is disappointing.  You’d think an 86-year-old public figure would know not to repeatedly flip off his opponents in this day and age of technology, but knowing and caring are two different things.  Adams is just the latest bad boy from the NFL. From excessive celebration on the field to felony convictions off the field, Goodell’s In Box must be stacked with violations just waiting for his signature.  It’s not like the rules of the game  aren’t written down somewhere. So when grown men act like children, treat them like children.  That’s why I propose changing Goodell’s title from Commissioner to Principal.  Remember, aging is inevitable; growing up is optional; and misbehavior gets you sent to the Principal’s Office.  Two cups of coffee for you, Roger Goodell, as this week’s Virtual Cup of Joe recipient.

The virtual Cup of Joe Award from EveryDayPR spotlights our pick of the week for a public relations performance –  good, bad or ugly.  If you’d like to make a nomination, contact shart@hartpr.com or www.Twitter/susanhartpr.

Maybe “kill” is too strong a word, but the changing content landscape and numerous publishing options are presenting significant challenges for trade pubs. Some are being forced to change their business model and old habits.  Read more.

Kudos to President Obama, particularly his speech writers, for giving his best speech  at Tuesday’s memorial service for the victims of Fort Hood, Texas.  In times of tragedy, words are of little solace.  However, the Commander-in-Chief deftly stepped up to the plate and delivered a moving speech that sought to comfort the families and friends who lost loved ones during the shooting rampage just days earlier.  The President poetically recalled details of each of the 13 American fatalities, giving further significance to their life and military service.  Neither writing nor making that kind of speech can be easy.  As this week’s recipient of the Virtual Cup of Joe Award, both the President and his speechwriters need at least three cups of coffee each to recover from what were undoubtedly late night hours. 

The virtual Cup of Joe Award from EveryDayPR spotlights our pick of the week for a public relations performance –  good, bad or ugly.  If you’d like to make a nomination, contact shart@hartpr.com or www.Twitter/susanhartpr

UPDATE:  White House Communications Director Anita Dunn stepped down this week as expected.  Communications Deputy Dan Pfeiffer will replace her at the end of this month. Although Dunn is returning to her job in the private sector, she will continue to serve as a consultant to the White House.

October 23, 2009  In the 1990s, I worked for a NYSE-traded corporation that privately managed prisons. The company was often the target of investigative reporting and editorial opposition.  At one point, the CEO told me to stop returning media calls.  I pretended I didn’t understand.  So I know what it’s like not to be liked.  I strongly urge White House Communications Director Anita Dunn and her colleagues to stop trying to polarize the media because of opposing viewpoints and/or an inability to control everything that’s written or aired about her boss.  The decision to disengage FOX News has become an issue in and of itself, and that means less media coverage for real problem solving for this country.  This isolationist/confrontational strategy has never worked for any sitting President, and it’s way too early in this administration to start drawing such divisive lines in the sand.  Sorry, Ms. Dunn, your virtual Cup of Joe is dry as newsprint.

The virtual Cup of Joe Award from EveryDayPR spotlights our pick of the week for a public relations performance –  good, bad or ugly.  If you’d like to make a nomination, contact shart@hartpr.com or www.Twitter/susanhartpr

I’ll let you in on a little secret – I hate American Idol.  I’m probably the only person in the world who can’t stomach the show.  The one and only time I saw the program was during some auditions when they repeatedly showed close-ups of painfully sad individuals whose least problem in life was an inability to sing.  While this post isn’t about my taste in TV (I also hate Sex in the City, Survivor, Saving Grace and The Simpsons), it is about first impressions of network entertainment – and I use the term “entertainment” loosely.

Everybody understands the importance of first impressions.  To the viewer, the opening dialog, visuals and sounds are among the factors that must be compelling enough to capture one’s attention.  The situation also must be in keeping with that person’s values system, sense of morality and comfort level.  Nobody goes to a church or synagogue if they don’t agree with what is being taught.  It’s the same with first impressions of today’s programming on the Noise Box (as my Dad calls it).

Call me a dinosaur, fuddy-duddy or whatever. Today’s TV programming just seems either sleazy or sophomoric.  When I do watch television, I want to be entertained by well-written scripts, likeable characters and cerebral plots.  Then again, I’m a huge football fan so I’m glued to that Noise Box every weekend during the season.

What television shows left you with a good or bad first impression and why?  I’m open to a change in viewing habits.

After 81 years and some $5 billion in annual sales, the Walt Disney Company is on the verge of changing the personality of the iconic Mickey Mouse character into one who’’s described as “cantankerous, cunning, naughty and a little selfish”.  Well that’s just great.  What’s next - bullying, rudeness and a little disrespect?  Mickey Mouse is a beloved American personality who continually captures the hearts of countless children around the world.  The Mickey Mouse brand is so powerful and far reaching that parents have eaten, slept and you-know-whated Mickey Mouse at Disney theme parks to please their children enamored with the character just the way he is.   Aren’t children exposed enough to selfishness and deceit without changing the oldest Disney character in history?  It appears that Walt Disney Company has lowered its standards to change Mickey Mouse to Money Mouse.  As this week’s recipient of the Virtual Cup of Joe Award, we’re not giving you anything to wash that bad taste you must have in your mouth.

The virtual Cup of Joe Award from EveryDayPR spotlights our pick of the week for a public relations performance –  good, bad or ugly.  If you’d like to make a nomination, contact shart@hartpr.com or www.Twitter/susanhartpr

President Obama recently declared the country to be in a national State of Emergency, a move typically reserved for natural disasters. New York Governor Patterson and New York City Mayor Bloomberg made similar declarations.  Both decisions had to do with expanding available health care sites and professionals to deal with patient care and vaccinations.  But how many people heard, much less understood, that part?

My problem is semantics.  The President uses the “E” word (emergency) while Secretary of Health and Human Services Sebelius simultaneously says the swine flu continues to be “very mild” for most people.  What’s a parent to do?  They have to decide whether or not their child should be vaccinated because the government sends out an emergency message, their family doctor advises the opposite, and their pediatrician says something altogether different.  It’s like asking people if they believe in UFOs – everybody agrees UFOs are a definite maybe.

Make no mistake, I am not downplaying the fatal impact of the swine flu at all.  But I am suggesting to be careful about the choice of words. Instead of declaring emergencies, in which this country just seems to be in one perpetual state, how about announcing an Advisory of Temporary Health Care Waivers or an Alert for Additional Vaccine Resources?  Wouldn’t that better identify the purpose of the declarations?   

What do you think?