Everyday PR

Now that the Weekend of Whitney is over, I wonder what network execs are planning next because I’m very interested in the criteria used to determine what celebs get what level of media coverage from a brief mention, a la Danny Gans, or nonstop live coverage, a la Whitney. As a professional public relations practitioner, I also want to figure out how I would advise a network on this subject.

In recent memory, Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston garnered truckloads of coverage. Both had phenomenal careers and were immensely talented; both fell from grace; and both were known drug users. So are those key factors for ad nauseam media coverage? If so, I don’t recall such homage given to Heath Ledger or Amy Winehouse.

So how does cause of death factor in regarding to funeral coverage? Is there a sordidness test to pass?

Maybe it’s a talent thing – is that a leading indicator? Does this mean that when Barbra Streisand, Tony Bennett, Glen Campbell, et al, die, their services will receive uninterrupted coverage?

But wait, all those folks are white, so what about race - is that a criterion? Hmmm…..

But wait again, not all those folks grew up in a Protestant church. (I was kind of surprised to hear the networks allow all the references to God and Jesus Christ during Whitney Weekend). For example, Streisand is Jewish. Will that be a good or bad thing in determining the level of coverage her eventual passing receives? What if the person is Muslim? How will that play into the decision making process?

What about the person’s affect on society? There are countless individuals who have made remarkable contributions to society. Billy Graham, Bill Gates, David Ho, Henry Kissinger,  Lech Walesa, and the list goes on.  Will these folks get media coverage equitable to the contributions they made to others?

I’m glad I’m not responsible for making these decisions. However, I would caution executives to think about, if they haven’t already, how they’re going to handle media coverage of future deaths of famous people in all walks of life.

In fact, I now know that my advice to decision makers is to start developing a checklist of criteria for coverage – the kind of list that you’d be proud to have splashed on the front page of all newspapers; the kind of list that you’d be able to truthfully state that it’s a “fair and responsible” set of criteria in the public’s best interest; and the kind of list that you’d be able to defend when the family of the next famous celeb wonders why you’re not scheduling a crew to attend.

Any other advice for network executives?

This 1:48 second video is a must see for anyone trying to explain public relations, specifically the importance of the most authentic and appropriate messages. The title of “The Power of Words” says it all. View video.

The best public relations move in recent days for the Susan G. Komen Foundation was to announce its about face on Super Bowl weekend. By the time the last of the pizza and beer had been consumed, consumers were rehashing Super Bowl bowl ads.

In an unusual turn of events, the color of pink was not positively supporting the Susan G. Komen brand last week.

Last week’s nightmare of “they fund us, they fund us not” isn’t about funding at all. It’s about who the Susan G. Komen Foundation is. It’s about the organization’s values, priorities and purpose. It’s the up close and personal part of branding that decidedly determines who you are and what you stand for regardless of public sentiment.  And therein lies the multi-level problem for this pink-until-you-puke group.

Based on last week’s turn of events, the group doesn’t seem convicted about its core brand.  Sure, there are multiple strategic questions such as:

*  Didn’t they consider the 2009 HHS debacle regarding age guidelines for mammograms?

*  Didn’t they anticipate the types and depths of backlash?

*  As a colleague in Chicago astutely suggested, didn’t they even contemplate phasing out funding for Planned Parenthood as opposed to a huge announcement?

Even if those and other vital circumstances were debated ad nauseam, the reality is that a wonderful cause - to save women’s lives – was founded in 1982 following the unimaginable pain of losing a loved one to breast cancer.

And that’s the point – the purpose of the organization is to help women be healthy. If you’ve hung your hat on that mission, then own it. If society, fundraising and/or the political climate impacts that bottom-line point, then either adapt accordingly or stick to your guns. Too many businesses lose sight of their fundamental purpose and end up with much less conviction, which leads to counterproductivity, inconsistent branding and, in this case, headline news.

Just be who you are. Know who you are. Own who you are. I promise, you’ll be much more effective.