Everyday PR

As public relations professionals, one of our responsibilities is to keep it real with our clients and organizations.  While we need to understand the big picture, we also need to maintain the appropriate perspective regarding controversial issues.  In other words, let’s keep the level of hysteria to one that’s accurately reflecting the situation at hand.  There’s almost nothing worse than an out-of-control client being guided by an out-of-control counselor, PR or otherwise.  While the following clouds have their fair share of controversy, let’s take a look at the silver lining of each.

Bristol and Levi's engagement theoretically means a silver lining for their son.

1)   The Cluster – Yes, it’s the most catastrophic disaster in decades; yes, it’s painful, if not criminal, to see the countless people being completely displaced by this never-ending series of they said-they said; and yes, people lost their lives for what appears to be a profit motive.  Ironically though,  some Gulf residents who previously spent all day fishing are now cleaning up all day for BP for big bucks, keeping jobless and insurance claims to a minimum.

2) The Betrothed - Brisol and Levi announce their engagement.  As much as the story makes for tabloid fodder, at least their baby will have a father figure in his life.  I’m not saying what kind of father as I’m keeping a forgiving perspective unless given reason otherwise.

3) The Vacationers - In recent weeks, President Obama has been chastised for playing golf on a Saturday and vacationing with his family in Maine as opposed to dealing with the controversy du juor.  Personally, I’d rather have a leader whose mind and body are rested, enabling clearer thinking and decision making that affect the rest of us.

4)  The Publicity Hound – While LeBron James recently became the focus of the world, he and his team get credit for arranging such an ordeal that overshadowed everything else happening on the planet, even if only for a few minutes.  On the upside, his style raised millions for the Boys & Girls Clubs of America.

5) The Queen of Denial – So Lindsay Lohan is in “obsessive denial” about have to go to jail for repeatedly breaking the law. On the upside, the streets of Los Angeles will probably be safer for the next several weeks.  And by the way, Lindsay, the courts don’t recognize acceptance or denial – they’re funny like that.

Granted, the silver lining is longer in some controversial clouds than others.  What other linings are out there, or am I the hopelessly glass-half-full person?

I’m a recovered glass-half-empty person which means my dose of optimism often can make others growl with disdain.

While the tools of public relations have evolved over time, the basics of research, planning, implementation and evaluation remain the most effective approach to accomplishing specified goals.  And what if your goal is to be elected President of the United States?  Then you turn to the best, brightest and most successful strategists and public relations thinkers like Barack Obama did for his 2008 presidential campaign. 

Smart Choice was one of several Clinton campaign slogans.

Based on the best-seller book Game Change by political reporters John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, here’s what I believe to be the backbone of success for the Obama campaign:

1)  Research – Know your audience.  Some politicians did (like Clinton’s large female voter base), and some didn’t (John Edwards never did get how his supporters didn’t like any philandering behavior).  From focus groups to ad testing, Obama’s camp got it right.  They tested messages in various formats and presentations before any public unveiling.  Conversely, McCain’s campaign conducted little to no research (which happened to match the amount of budget they had for such a fundamental).  Ads often hit airwaves without the candidate having seen them.  

2)  Planning- It was literally hours before McCain settled on Sarah Palin as the VP selection.  The lack of proper vetting and preparation made what as supposed to be a ”game change” announcement a short-lived bright spot. In addition, the GOP strategy lacked an overall anticipation of issues, key talking points, message consistency and ability to stay on point.  Clinton’s staff, on the other hand, appeared to overly plan, as in changing the campaign’s slogan several times in as many months. 

3)  Implementation – After initial campaign overload by Obama strategists, they adjusted their approach and schedule, which showed the ability, and more importantly the adaptability, to be fluid during this phase.  Both the Clinton and McCain camps seemed to be shooting it from the hip especially as they got closer to the  election. 

4)  Evaluation - My respect for Clinton shot way up after reading the book.  She was the only one quoted as actually having a decent reason to want to be president, and she was fiercely protective of her daughter, which tells me about her character.  However, at the end of the day, Hillary’s biggest liability was Bill, hence the painful delay in conceding to Obama.  McCain, on the other hand, fought the good fight even though he likely knew the outcome of the battle.  I respect the fact that he’s not a quitter.

If you’ve read Game Change, what other fundamentals did you find?  If you haven’t read it, you should.  Ample political poop for all sides  of the aisle.

Nike’s unveiling last week of a new ad featuring golf-pro-turned-tabloid-fodder Tiger Woods caused quite the buzz.  And much like the game of golf, people seemed to either love it or hate it.  In polling my colleagues, I wanted to test my theory that reaction to the ad may be generational: professionals younger than 40 were much more positive about the ad and its objectives (although unclear) than those over 40.  Here are some of the reactions from public relations and communications experts from across the country that generally support that theory.

“In a lot of ways, I think the ad was a bold move. Had Nike came back with a stereotypical ad with Tiger on the golf course, it may have appeared trite and would have ignored the giant elephant in the room. I think this was Nike’s way of addressing the situation so they could move on and put the scandal behind them.It also didn’t hurt that the ad is somewhat controversial with the inclusion of Tiger’s father. Controversy always has a way of generating buzz. The bottom line is that this ad is not going to sell a lot of Nike apparel, but then again, that wasn’t really the point, was it?”  Laura Click, Nashville consultant

“Bravo Nike for taking a stance on showing they still stand behind Tiger (who is, let’s be real, the greatest golfer of all time), but that they don’t condone his behavior. What a fantastic way to show the world they have integrity!” Gini Dietrich, CEO, Arment Dietrich.

“A little creepy to hear a dead guy’s voice, but brilliant.  A lot of the chatter around the Tiger situation was what would his father say.  I think he ‘asked’ some important questions, and I’d like to hear Tiger’s answers.  Maybe the next ad.” Abbie S. Fink, Vice President/General Manager, HMA Public Relations.

“The commercial did not work for me on a number of levels. Mainly because the ‘Did you learn anything?’ question appears to not be answered. You darn well better have a ‘Yes I learned something…’ response to close the loop. Otherwise, you open yourself up to brand parodies ‘Do you learn anything? Yes, just do it.’ I also see Tiger just standing there and not reacting to the key question, like my oldest son does when I am telling him something and he doesn’t get it. He is standing there, listening and then will move on. Basically the ad catches my attention – but it doesn’t work for me.”  Mark W. McClennan, APR, Vice President, Schwartz Communications

“My first reaction was is this a joke or is it for real?  When I realized it was real, I thought it was ill-advised.  It seemed contrived, and I’m not sure what it was supposed to prove.  I now wonder if it was Nike’s way of helping Tiger move on with his life.”  Aileen Katcher, APR, Fellow, PRSA, Katcher Vaughn & Bailey Public Relations

“The ad did nothing to help Woods or Nike.  There is no ethical stance from the subject or the sponsor.  With the help of some very creative people, Nike and Woods worked together to create pure manipulation. I did see a brilliant ad, as well as faux contrition supported by crass commercialism. A pained-looking Tiger reacting to his dad’s words never would have seen the light of day if that conversation actually took place.”  Bob Reed, Element-R Partners LLC

“I think it’s odd, eerie and buzz-worthy. What more could you want in an ad? It doesn’t make me feel any differently about him; it just happens to be a good ad.” Margie Maddox Newman, Flack Rabbit.

“College public relations students agreed that the ad was creepy and exploits Tiger’s dead father. But, from a Gen Why perspective, they think it will sell Nikes!” Susan Barnes, APR, Fellow, Instructor

According to this blog from the New York Times, the data indicate the ad seems to be working via online measurement indicators.  Another poll  claims the opposite, and Brandweek has weighed in on the topic - all of  which begs the question of how old were those polled to collect the data.

Want to add your two cents?  Send us a comment!

Raise your hand if you haven’t failed at least once in your life.  According to Steve McKee, author of When Growth Stalls and regular BusinessWeek columnist, we’re all failures, including him. Before the economic downturn, his own company initially flourished but then plateaued, which makes his experience relevant to all business owners. While I’ve posted on Steve before, here are some new nuggets of knowledge gleaned from his recent talk.  

Author Steve McKee

* The absolute worst time to reduce spending on R&D and marketing is in a down-turned economy.  Think of a race car driver entering a turn on the track.  He (and I use that pronoun androgynously) has to put on the brakes and be attentive to the surrounding cars so that he can best position himself to gain a lead once he’s out of the turn.  Organizations that apply the same principal of focusing on their task during the turn (developing new products/services, revising products/services, preparing for market launches, maintaining visibility, etc.) are much better equipped to take the lead and gain market share after the turn, in this case, the recession.  

* External market tectonics can wreak havoc on an organization’s original mission.  It’s not just about the economy; it’s about how changes in consumer behavior affect traditionally stable businesses.  For example, people are spending less on funerals for friends and loved ones, but the sky is the limit when it comes to paying for pet burials.  

* Top reason for stalled growth continues to be an internal lack of managerial consensus.  In the words of Margaret Thatcher, “A lack of consensus is the absence of leadership.”  

To check out the health of your company, take this free self diagnosis.  While failing isn’t the worst thing that can happen, it possibly could be avoided.

Last week’s tragic death of SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau reminds me of something I heard from my first newspaper editor: “if it bleeds, it leads“.  Brancheau’s death was within days of the suicide mission of a pilot into an IRS building that also killed an innocent victim. Both stories sprouted multiple legs, ample controversy, man-on-the-street interviews and repetitious headlines that continue as of this post.  In the middle of all this was a grilling of Toyota executives about car safety and a seven-hour meeting of Congressional leaders to discuss health care reform.  What about the legs on those stories? 

Officials start the investigation process of the Austin plane crash.

It’s both sad and simple.  Once the president of Toyota cried, viewers became disinterested.  Since the health care topic is dull and convoluted, mainstream media got bored (and SeaWorld happened).  Yet health care impacts just about every American, unlike isolated incidences of violence, accidental or not. 

What does this say about the media and our society in general?  Sadly it says we haven’t changed a lot.  We’re still voyeuristic; we’d rather watch blood and guts; we’d prefer to see someone else publicly fail; and we’re trained to feed on pablum more than substantive news.  

What do you think?

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?

Pretend that the United States Congress is your client – scary thought, I know, but work with me.  The goal of your client is to communicate via a grassroots effort the specifics of an issue, gather feedback regarding said issue and accurately report findings of said issue to the CEO.   What kind of public relations tools would you provide for your client to accomplish that goal? 

Solely based upon the drama of media reports of recent town hall meetings, I’m not convinced that our elected officials were adequately prepared.  These individuals were charged with addressing what has became a controversial, confusing and convoluted debate on an 1,018-page health care proposal near and dear to most Americans.  Between the loud shouting and near fistacuffing, it’s hard to tell who was more prepared – the politicians or the participants. 

For future meetings, elected officials might find the following public relations tools useful:

*  Q&As – Shouldn’t leaders be given a list of Q&As of key concerns to better prepare them to speak intelligently on the bill?

*  Handouts – How about a handout of top points with page numbered cross referencing to the proposal?

*  Influencers – Did any politician or their staff meet with community leaders to solicit feedback, ascertain concerns and explain position?

*  Hotline  – What about a telephone hotline for constituents to call to get either a call back or a recorded explanation of key issues?

*  Database – Did people sign in with qustions and contact information so Congressional staff could respond to their concerns following the meeting?

*  Social Media – What did our elected officials doing via social media to inform, engage and educate?

Lack of preparation will continue to serve as a source of drama for media coverage. In the meantime, I strongly suggest that we maintain a regular exercise and healthy eating program every day to decrease the chances of us having to use health care in the future.

The news that Apple’s Steve Jobs recently received a liver transplant once again begs the question – how important is disclosure?

Graphic courtesy of Harvinder Singh

Simply put, publicly traded businesses are required to disclose what the laws tell them to disclose. Ralph Norton of New York’s Davis & Gilbert LLP says there is nothing requiring the health status of a senior executive to be disclosed. “Absent a specific disclosure requirement, a company has the right to say nothing,” says Norton. 

Securities Expert Gary Brown of Nashville-based Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC  says the analysis should begin with the company’s risk factor disclosure, a requirement of publicly traded companies in their regulatory filings.  In the case of Apple, the company disclosed its reliance upon one or more key personnel in its 2008 10-K, with updates in its January 20o9 10-Q and April 10-Q, making specific references to its CEO, his medical leave of absence, and the fact that he “has been involved in major strategic decisions during his leave.” 

“Given this disclosure, it would appear that Apple has concluded that Jobs’s health is appropriate for risk factor disclosure, and the only real issue is whether the current risk factor disclosure is sufficient or whether it is materially misleading,” says Brown.  If, on the other hand, a company were to conclude that the health of an executive did not warrant risk factor disclosure, while there may be no legal duty to speak, if the company chooses to speak on the subject, it must do so “truthfully and without material misstatements or omissions.” 

As public relations professionals, we counsel our clients and organizations every day to be forthcoming, transparent and open.  Apple’s silent treatment may be legal, but that doesn’t make it smart in today’s market.

There are some things in life – ants, tattoos and weird relatives, for instance – that will never go away no matter how hard you try to destroy them, remove them or ignore them.  Enter technology and its countless social media legs. 

Like tattoos, social media is here to stay.

As professional counselors, we are responsible for advising our clients and employers on how to best accomplish their business objectives.  Before we can credibly provide such guidance, we have to understand the many facets of social media – hard to do considering the frequent sprouting of some shiny, new leg.

A recent study found that more than half of the 500 top executives surveyed resist social media because they fear its affect on productivity.  Other barriers include security, apathy and fear.  Conversely, two-thirds of early technology adopters reported increased customer satisfaction, improved reputation in the marketplace, and two in five companies directly associated higher sales through using new forms of media.

At the 2009 Counselors Academy Spring Conference, a key theme was social media, but not about tools like Twitter or Facebook. For example, Mark McClennan of Schwartz Communications focused on objectives, audiences and strategy of a business and how technology can help reach organizational goals.   Another expert, Joe Thornley, echoed with “social media is about community, relationships and consistency. More and more companies are turning to targeted communities to market their products and services.” 

So like ants, tattoos and weird relatives, technology isn’t going away.  Or as one of this country’s founding fathers Thomas Paine said, “Lead, follow or get out of the way.”

The newspaper industry hasn’t bottomed out yet, but it will.  Experts have pointed to various causes of the demise – the Internet, printing presses, cable news, editorial leanings and the list goes on.  But most newspapers are like everybody else – they’re in business to make money. So why isn’t anyone talking about the probability that some unsound fiscal decisions have been made?  

Newspapers - will they become as vintage as manual typewriters?

The largest newspaper chains – Gannett, Scripps Howard  and McClatchy – are publicly traded.  That means it’s all about the shareholders.  It’s about generating enough revenue (mostly through ads) to pay for the people and the presses.  It’s about incurring more debt and slashing payrolls to meet shareholder expectations, even though newspaper stocks have plummeted in recent years from dollars to pennies per share.  

Candidly, the quality of content also has declined, another reason lacking in discussion (of course, why would editors report on that?).  The over-recycling of news, along with dependence on wire services, weakens a daily venue that’s supposed to represent its community.  Reporters are being asked to do more with less, so much of the content is like day-old bread.

Having begun my career as a reporter, the situation saddens me.  I started out writing (using carbon copy paper) city council stories on a black manual Underwood Typewriter that was already vintage when I used it.  Even though my boss drank vodka and orange juice from a thermos and chain smoked all day, I wouldn’t trade my journalism days for anything.    

Having also worked for a NYSE-traded company, I know you can’t please your customers, your employees and your shareholders at the same time all the time.  So, in regard to cause of death, what came first?  A movement toward a decreasingly credible and traditional resource reflective of the community, or mismanagement at the highest level to please shareholders at any cost?  Regardless, there are no winners here.