Everyday PR

Remember the one homeowner in your neighborhood that was always a stick-in-the-mud on Halloween?  The house with no lights on, tin foil over the doorbell or a note on the front door that said “We’re Not Home”.  Well, we’re THAT homeowner. In a matter of hours, hubby will break out the yellow crime scene tape to wrap around our front yard on garden stakes to try and keep trick-or-treaters from walking on his newly seeded lawn.  The tape, initially, misunderstood as a sign that someone inside was just found with an axe in their head, is an ongoing attempt to keep up property values in this terrible housing market. Yes, we’re Halloween scrooges. 

As I’ve stated in previous blogs, I don’t have or even know any children. However, as a former child, I do remember dressing up like a ballerina for one Halloween, so I’m not totally oblivious to costumes.  Is Halloween all about giving free candy to a bunch of children – and some really old-looking children - followed by subsequent dental bills?  I know the day began out of superstition and tradition, but it just seems to have evolved into yet another commercialized way to get people to spend money.  On the other hand, in today’s economy, maybe pretending to be someone or something you aren’t is a good thing. While I’ll avoid smearing those homeowners who decorate with chainsaws, zombies, graveyards and blood,  I just wonder what children are learning from today’s Halloween rituals.  

Am I missing something, or are we past the point of no return?  You tell me!

There’s a whole generation of people who has either grown up, or are growing up, on the Internet. Their consumption and online behavior are all about abundance. Read more.

To avoid the inevitable rush, I’ve already cast my votes for this year’s elections.  But unlike previous voting decisions, I actually factored in branding, messaging and the integrity of television ads so that I could vote for the candidates with the least offensive ads.  I’m so unimpressed with the lack of creativity and the surplus of personal attacks that I could spit.  ABC’s Nightline even developed awards for this year’s nastiest ads.

The bombardment of meaningless ads is overwhelming.  The messages are confusing, if not total lies; the attacks are theatrical, many with paid actors; and no significant issues, much less solutions, are mentioned.  In the few political campaigns I worked, we would do a lot of things, but we would never mention the opponent by name lest the message be misunderstood; now the ads are so convoluted that I have no idea which candidate the ad is endorsing.  I actually took notes with me to the voting booth.

Where are the professional public relations strategists?  Where are the issues management experts? And where are the minds of consciousness to properly advise candidates?  Instead, the ads are a cacophony of sophomoric “he said/he said” (and I use that pronoun androgynously) that no wonder the job ratings of elected officials is so low.  If you believe all the ads, you’re given a choice between a gun-toting wife beater and a convicted baby killer.  Nobody is offering solutions to issues like unemployment and housing.  It’s more like a contest of one-upmanship on who can dig up the most dirt on their opponent or shirk all blame on the predecessor, be it local or in the nation’s capitol.   Then these folks have the nerve to say they “approved this ad.”  Well, if you did and I know everyone doesn’t see everything (think John McCain) before airing, then you’re not getting my vote. Finally, if that’s how you have branded yourself as a regular person, then why should I believe that you’re going to be a thoughtful decision maker, conscientious collaborator and problem solver if voted into a position of power?

How has this season of political advertising affected you or your vote?

UPDATE:  October 25, 2010

NPR issues second apology for its handling of Juan Williams’ termination.  Read the latest.

ORGINAL POST:  October 22, 2010

NPR’s firing this week of longtime analyst Juan Williams is baffling.  The guy’s response to FOX’s Bill O’Reilly’s question regarding Muslims apparently didn’t sit well with NPR, even though Williams was answering as a political contributor on an entirely different medium. Per a statement from NPR, ”His remarks on The O’Reilly Factor were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”   The statement did not reflect Williams’ follow-up comments saying that he had to be “careful” to stress that he was not talking about all Muslims when he criticized some and that America was not at war with Islam. He also compared blaming all Muslims for the actions of extremists to blaming all Christians for the actions of Timothy McVeigh. 

Although the incident, or answer to a question as I’d call it, appears to be an excuse for terminating someone already on the you-know-what list, NPR’s knee-jerk reaction seems hurried and sloppy.  The decision reminds me of this year’s earlier gaffe by the feds in firing Shirley Sherrod when decisions are made without taking into account the big picture or corporate reputation.  Williams’ statements didn’t seem to violate any NPR editorial policies, but if you’re a target for firing, you’re going to get nailed at some point.  No virtual Cup of Joe to NPR for making a hasty decision to accomplish a greater goal of getting rid of anyone who doesn’t behave according to your specific – and indirectly federally funded – puppet strings.

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.com/susanhartpr.

About 57% of online adults say they feel more connected to people now via social media, and 56% say they find they keep in touch more with friends now than in the past. Although people may feel more connected, they are not actually seeing people more.  Is that good or bad? Read more.

With today’s news about Facebook privacy, I shudder to think about the steps I have taken to jeopardize my own privacy.  I consider myself to have average technical knowledge – just enough to be dangerous.  But it’s that average level of intelligence that I fear most and that I wish I could undo some things in cyberspace. 

Be young, be foolish, but don't be posting this for public consumption.

A few learning opportunities that might be helpful to others include:

*   Established a secondary e-mail address on something like G-mail.

*   Use that e-mail address for electronic purchases.

*   Here’s a thought:  don’t buy anything over the Internet.  Couldn’t work for me since I detest shopping.

*   Give serious attention and time to things like Privacy Settings.

*   If a phone number is required, give a fake one or an old one.  Same thought regarding e-mail address. Don’t know if that would work, but why not try?

*   Reconsider the whole social media situation, especially from a personal perspective.  Some updates just fall in the “TMI” category.  I only want the “Need to Know” updates. And what’s up with men from my past turning into public broadcasters of all things emotional, a la Alan Alda, when I remember them as total jerkwads, but I digress.

*   In regard to Facebook, if you post your most recent PAR-TAH photos and define your interests as “I like to party and have fun”, you’ve given up your privacy, alienated yourself from any serious job offers and embarrassed your parents.  Of course, I’m just grateful that this technology wasn’t around when I was a lot younger.

*   Invest in the most sophisticated spam filters available.

*   Get a Mac.

What other technical things would you do differently or recommend?

Maybe it’s just my non-conformist nature or my accrued independence or my dog-on-a-bone opinions, but when someone tells me I HAVE to do something, I automatically go into the “you’re not gonna tell me what to do” mode unless I’m convinced otherwise.  When the federal government tells me that I’m required by law to spend my resources their way, my heels start digging in to China and back.  The fact that I, as a life-long, tax-paying, law-abiding American, MUST do something strikes at the very core of my freedom of choice as I’m perfectly capable of making that choice myself. So I applaud U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson for ruling that nearly half the states in the union can proceed with a lawsuit seeking to overturn the health care reform laws.  Three virtual Cups of Joe to Judge Vinson for at least considering the legal possibility that shoving something down our throats and telling us how to behave might actually be unconstitutional.

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.com/susanhartpr.

Well what kind of public relations blogger would I be if I didn’t put in my two cents on the Gap’s recent logo implosion?  While I know how painful it can be for outsiders to pass judgment on internal creative decisions, I can’t help but wonder about the basics here – as in the fundamental tenets of marketing and public relations.  It’s not at all about whether or not the new logo was well received - it’s about the process of change. 

A few questions I’d like to ask  the Gap include:

1)   What feedback and/or data indicated that  a new logo was needed?  Whenever a client tells me they want to make a change in logo, graphics, or product line, for that matter, I always ask for the rationale.  Just because the client is tired of seeing the same logo (or ad, product display, etc.) doesn’t mean their target audiences are.  And unless somebody died, the business was acquired or somebody was convicted, there really needs to be a solid and logical set of reasons to make a logo change.

2)  What research and rationale are there to support a change? As one friend put it,  ”Changing the Gap’s logo is like suggesting a change to the American flag. Maybe they don’t realize it, but the Gap’s logo is so iconic and so many people are emotionally attached to it, especially all those moms who love BabyGap clothing and Gap Kids.”

3)  What about a plan to launch the new logo?  There was a plan, right?

4)  Did the plan begin first with internal communications from the top to the store manager level?  Most people initially are adverse to change – not the change itself, but the fact that it’s a change.  With ownership and buy-in from internal audiences and front-line consumer representatives, the resistance to change usually can be minimized.  In fact, the loudest naysayers often turn out to be your biggest advocates.

5)  What kind of feedback did test marketing receive?  Seriously, I’m looking for documentation.

6) What was the budget?  If the Gap has the budget necessary to change everything from store signs to clothes tags to collateral (and there must be thousands of collateral pieces), then a logo change must have been viewed as a serious expenditure.  In addition to paying New York-based creative team Laird + Partners for its creative work (it’s irrelevant whether or not people liked the new logo), a logo change means big bucks.  Now that those bucks don’t have to be spent, what’s going to happen to that budget allocation?  I suggest a “We Changed Our Mind About a New Logo” sale, or a pre-holiday ”What Were We Thinking?” clearance?

It appears that some fundamentals of communications were overlooked by the Gap.  It also appears that the power of social media is either alive and well, or the Gap wasn’t on solid ground in the first place. And it appears that the whole situation has created a lot of buzz.  The bottom, bottom line for the publicly traded company?  Neglible movement in the stock price, and that’s what overrides most  of this discussion.

Thoughts?

By now, most of you know I’m a card-carrying member of the public library.  And if you’re not taking advantage of one of the best public services this country has to offer, change your behavior immediately.  Without these latest library finds - Nuts by Kevin & Jackie Freiberg; Captive by Jere Van Dyk; and The Finer Points of Sausage Dogs by Alexander McCall Smith, I would be unaware of the following factoids and/or interesting writings:

A small example of the finer points of a sausage dog.

*   Southwest Airline’s employee turnover rate is approximately 6.4 percent annually.

*   One of Southwest’s philosophies is an environment in which childlike curiosity and enthusiasm are emphasized.  The company believes that learning is a way of life (so do I, but they didn’t ask me).

*   Among its mantras, Southwest believes in getting people involved at an emotional level; take the competition seriously, but not yourself; and employees come first, then customers.

*  The highest tenets of Pashtun include hospitality, honor and blood vengeance, which completely contradicts the Koran’s command that a man must not kill another Muslim.

*  Under Pashtunwali, you are killed if you elope, and a woman is killed if it is rumored that she is an adulteress.

*  Common food for Taliban prisoners is rice, raisins, goat meat and green tea.

*  In some areas of Pakistan, kidneys sell for $50,000; femoral arteries for $80,000.  The younger the donor (volunteer or not), the better.

*  Smith’s Sausage Dog, a quick fiction read, illustrates a case of mistaken identity and the pride of a German linguist who refuses to admit that he’s not a renowned and recently deceased German veterinarian.  When approached by someone who had read the late doctor’s obit, the linguist claims that German media often publish obits before people actually die as an efficient way to avoid a backlog.

*  As the linguist continues to deny the error and drunkenly serves as the keynote speaker for a canine conference in Fayetteville, AR, with these opening remarks: “The sausage dog differs from other dogs in respect to its shape which is like that of a sausage.  The dog belongs to the genus of dogs marked by their proximity to the ground. In most cases, this is because of the shortness of the legs.  If a dog has short legs, we have found that the body is almost invariably close to the ground.”

See, reading can be informative and fun.  What are some fun reads for you this fall?

Tennessee Titans Assistant Coach Chuck Cecil flips off officials, and gets fined $40,000.  But VP Joe Biden’s “whisper” to Obama that health care reform is a “big f——- deal” is caught on audio, and nothing happens.  

Pro golfer John Daly’s profanity-laced charades regularly turn the air blue despite repeated fines by the PGA.  Yet during recent hearings on Goldman Sachs, U.S. Sen.Carl Levin must have said the word that rhymes with “gritty” a dozen times, and nobody flinched. 

Tennis star Serena Williams has a verbal meltdown during a televised match that cost her $10,000, a drop in the bucket for her, but a drop nonetheless.  But in 2004 when former VP Dick Cheney gave U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy some particularly personal advice that was awfully similar to what Coach Cecil suggested, no money changed hands. 

So what gives?  Why are professional athletes held monetarily accountable for their actions, but elected officials – the ones who are supposed to be governing our country – given a free ride?  Somebody please explain.  Until then, nobody gets a virtual Cup of Joe this week due to yet another consistent inconsistency in our society.

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.com/susanhartpr