A Jolt of Business Buzz Mojo
By Sean Teaford
If you are going to take credit for your achievements you must own up to your mistakes. Companies have recently demonstrated a lack of culpability in the face of fault products which has led to a disturbing trend as of late with regard to recalls. The line of thought seems to be that they acknowledge the problem, offer a solution, and tell the consumer to do it themselves. In fact, it has become so prevalent that if these troubled organizations banded together they could get their own show on the DIY Network.
Here are four ideas to kick off the season:
Episode 1: Sony – If your computer is still working, go to this site and download the software.
Episode 2: Apple – Put the bumper on your iPhone “or else it gets the hose again.” Can you hear me know?
Episode 3: Toyota – If your car stalls turn the engine back on.
Episode 4: GlaxoSmithKline / The Food and Drug Administration – If you think our diabetes drug Avandia is too risky either stop taking it or stop eating.
These four “recalls” are among the many DIY recalls that seem to be gaining in popularity. The response that these companies have had to their faults and their unwillingness to accept responsibility is in stark contrast to the corporate glory orgy that ensues when their products are a success. There is a clear disconnect with their actions and their need stay seated atop their pedestal has clouded their judgment.
When times are good, take credit for your success and praise the people behind the product. However, when something goes wrong, when a fault is found, take responsibility for the failure and work toward a reasonable solution that is the least disruptive to the customer. You are going to take a hit in the media regardless of how you handle the problem but by being up front you can lessen the PR damage in the long run.
PR professionals must remind their clients that even though faults are found in their product, trust with the media and the public can still be maintained if you are honest and straightforward. Don’t hand the customer a hammer and tell them to fix the hole in their roof; a roof that you installed with a loop hole filled limited warranty. You are the expert, the trusted source of products and information.
Have you noticed a trend toward DIY recalls?
Is it ever acceptable to give the customer the tools to fix your product?
By Sean Teaford
Firebrands are a calculated risk that can serve as a catalyst for tremendous change. Too many people get burned when they underestimate the potency of someone who has been bestowed with this nomenclature. Politicians and activists usually assume this role in society but, every once in a while, someone from outside these classifications is deemed a cultural phenomenon for utilizing this trait and beating back Goliath. During the past decade, “The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart has served as stone slinger in two notable conflicts.
The first came in October 2004 when he was asked to appear on the CNN program “Crossfire”. While the original purpose was to promote his new book, America (The Book), Stewart proceeded to criticize the show by calling it a forum that indulged in “partisan hackery.” While challenged by hosts from both political affiliations, Begala and Carlson, Stewart stood his ground, continued attacking, and continued to question the premise of the show. Partly due to his appearance, “Crossfire” was cancelled early in 2005.
Stewart returned to the ring in the midst of the financial crisis in March 2009. In the aftermath of the bank bailouts, Stewart proceeded to take former hedge fund manager and “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer and his network, CNBC, to task for promoting those faltering institutions as stable. Cramer shot back on numerous shows, including his own, until the feud came to a head as Cramer walked on to the set of “The Daily Show”. From the beginning Stewart barraged Cramer with damning questions and video clips leaving Cramer with no other option than to apologize.
Firebrands such as Stewart underscore the power of the media to effect change.
Even PR professionals sometimes underestimate the media or their client. When properly prepared for an interview and the issues surrounding the topic they are to address, clients can make a real impact on the outcome of current topics and trends. With the right media training and personality anyone can start a media firestorm. It is an immense undertaking but, in the end, your client can be in the be a firebrand as Stewart was on “Crossfire” or caught in the middle of a media bonfire as Cramer was on “The Daily Show”.
In your experience, do clients underestimate or overestimate the importance of preparation and media training?
Can overestimating the abilities of a client or reporter be equally detrimental to a PR campaign?
By Sean Teaford
A new study by The Rockefeller Foundation found that “Americans are less economically secure now than at any other time over the last 25 years.” In recent years, the bottom line has regained prominence in the American psyche. Financial figures and PR now have to be in harmony to gain public favor which has not always been the case…
Following the 1987 Stock Market Crash, F. Ross Johnson decided that it was time to put RJR Nabisco in play. The original plan was to execute a management led leveraged buyout of the company with backing by Shearson Lehman Hutton. By conducting a behind the scenes buyout, the strategy was to eliminate both public opinion and other potential bidders.
However, the plan got out and a bidding war soon ensued. A tsunami of bids rolled in and the numbers quickly launched into the stratosphere with back door agreements and threats of legal action became a weekly occurrence. Led by Henry Kravis, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR) eventually put the bidding out of reach by offering $31.4 Billion, a record at the time for a commercial enterprise.
This was a financial war with PR as an afterthought. Greed, excess, arrogance, and corruption became the key talking points in the media and the public agreed. Both sides came out the other end smelling like a septic tank. Subsequently, it is one of the prime examples of economic excess in the 1980’s.
This is not an isolated incident; financial conflicts have always existed and will always exist. In January of this year, Cablevision and Scripps became the latest adversaries in this ever evolving sequence of battles. While the financial situation was different, the media usage provided a more startling contrast.
Cablevision subscribers in the New York tri-state area rang in the New Year by having Scripps owned HGTV and Food Network channels blacked out. The dispute stemmed from Scripps proposed 200% increase in fees for the two channels. While the resulting cost of these two channels would be on or below par when compared to other networks, Cablevision stood its ground knowing that this could be the first of many retransmission fights.
The use of the retransmission story thread stemming from a dispute between News Corp. network Fox and Time Warner Cable allowed Cablevision to position itself in a “fighting for the people” light. By running a pointed “customer alert” on the blacked out channels, Cablevision circumvented the news room and addressed its customers directly.
By focusing on direct appeal PR efforts, they were able to control the talking points including their most prominent position of ‘looking out for their customers’ by repeating the mantra ‘we want to bring you these channels but, with what Scripps is demanding, we can’t do so without increasing our rates.’ In the end, Cablevision won the numbers war by winning the PR battle.
Without financial figures to back you up can you win the PR war?
What carries more weight in the media: money or PR?
By David King
So much news is about the media itself.
It was almost a year ago that after about eight years of receiving a prominent weekly news magazine, I finally put my subscription to an end after a reporter wrote a full-page story on how he pushed through crowds to get a free iproduct from Steve Jobs himself. I didn’t appreciate the reporting style where a professional in New York pushing through crowds was the center of a story.
Now I get a lot of my news from Google News and YouTube videos, but even YouTubers spend a quarter of their time talking about themselves and vlogging, another quarter criticizing the media and the remainder actually covering news.
So it was no surprise to me that Apple’s press conference to cover the iPhone 4 antenna issue wasn’t an event for disseminating news and information. The press conference itself WAS the news, because we all narrate events through our own looking glass. The press conference is how the media experienced the news and so their experience is passed on to the reader.
This is part of what creates a perpetual cycle that determines what’s news. Through the media’s prism, what news is big news is determined largely by how much coverage it’s getting. Therefore everyone keeps covering it. Dare I call it an infinite loop?
Once a story has been reported as much as the iPhone antenna issue, it becomes something reporters and their readers are familiar with and that contextual understanding gives the story a handle that’s easy for people to get a grip on. Alternatively, introducing news concepts, ideas, issues and companies is challenging and won’t grant the same number of click-throughs media companies and their sponsors are looking for.
What this means for the PR people pushing positive stories is that we have to really muscle our way into the light and use compelling validation that our company is “hot”. At a certain point, when the snowball is further down the hill, we can become the story that’s easy to get a handle on – the point of familiarity.
By Mike Gallo
This was a sad week for Yankee fans, who mourn the loss of arguably the most notorious figure in baseball.
George Steinbrenner built an enterprise by redefining the rules, securing the best players at any cost and inserting himself in the day-to-day, even play-by-play decisions of the franchise. His bombastic management style and sharp business acumen made him a brand unto himself, even earning a regular place on Seinfeld.
Who can forget the episode where “Big Stein” becomes enamored with George’s calzone? “Costanza, get me couple of those calzones right now! Big Stein wants an eggplant calzone!”
As we look back on his fantastic legacy, there’s a lesson in it for PR. Few businesspeople make such an impact on their field, as to find their way into mainstream media the way Steinbrenner did.
He was a rare breed. He shot from the hip. He did what he thought was best, regardless of how it would be perceived, and he wasn’t afraid to make very pubic, unpopular decisions. He fought with managers and players, enforced unpopular policies but through it all, he brought home an incredible SEVEN World Series titles. The proof is in the pudding.
In PR, we try to promote corporations, executives, ideas, in a way that thrusts them into the spotlight. We use terms like ”thought leadership” often, and sometimes lightly when you really stop to think about it.
How many executives can truly be considered thought leaders? How many are as hard-driving as Steinbrenner, daring to push the envelope at every turn and redefine an entire industry?
PR can only take a brand, or an idea, or an executive, so far. Right? Can thought leadership be created, or are people just born leaders? Who are today’s thought leaders, and what are they doing right?
By Hugh Burnham
As LeBron James sat across from ESPN’s Jim Gray at a charity event during an hour-long special on ESPN titled ‘The Decision.’ I started to feel queasy. It was clear that whoever was advising James – and for all his massive talents, he is only a 25 year old kid – was giving him the wrong advice. James was trying to increase his own brand exposure, but instead he came across as a narcissistic, insensitive prima donna.
All day, reports had been leaking that LeBron was going to Miami after word spread that LeBron had rented cabanas at a high end South Beach hotel for Saturday night. You just knew that no one was going to leave the Boys and Girls Club in Greenwich, Connecticut feeling happy. Except maybe LeBron. The fact that the interview took place at a charity seemed forced to begin with. LeBron had grown up close to Cleveland in Akron and people had watched him play as a youngster. He was a hometown hero in every sense of the word. Larger than life.
The incredible insensitivity which LeBron showed, by underestimating the impact of his decision to leave on the city of Cleveland, turned him into an overnight pariah. LeBron may have done the right thing for himself, but by failing to call his former employer to let him know the whys and wherefores of his decision, and electing to be the ring leader in a media circus, he insulted a small town which had little reason for optimism and made a mockery of the city.
The execution of the event itself was horrible. Richard Sandomir of the New York Times panned the order and the timing of Gray’s questioning, pointing out that it took exactly six minutes and 18 questions before Gray asked on what team James would next be playing.
After reading reaction from around the web (my favorite was Andy Roddick’s tweet, “lebron is working an awesome abe lincoln beard in this interview!!! tight!”) its clear that the choice to produce “The Decision” was not a great one. While the vitriol it produced from Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert was over the top, the show turned sentiment against LeBron and not in a small way.
So what’s the moral of the story? The next time you are a superstar athlete with a decision that is going to produce a big reaction, its time to consider a smaller microphone and a more sensitive approach. If LeBron had simply called the teams he did not select, given them time to prepare a reaction and explained his decision, without all of the hoopla of the self serving production he orchestrated, he probably would have come off more sympathetic. Had he showed some grace to apologize to the people of Cleveland and said goodbye and showed them the love they deserved, they would not have burned his jersey and treated him like Benedict Arnold. Its hard to be 25 and to know the right things to do. That’s why big stars have PR advisors. Turns out LeBron’s PR advisers let him down.
How could LeBron have handled things differently?
By Sean Teaford
Next week, Major League Baseball will throw its 81st annual PR and marketing party (aka The All-Star Game) where every team, no matter how horrendous, will be represented. Every team has an elected or selected official to serve as the face of their franchise and fan base. Sometimes President Selig makes his presence known (i.e. the 7-7 tie in 2002) but, for the most part, the members of the Major League Congress determine the outcome of the contest.
Sadly, many of those proud representatives will never be seen again in the mid-summer classic while others will return many times over as rented out lobbyists for numerous cities and states. However, all are working toward the same goal, year in and year out, to put on the best show for the viewing public and provide the biggest PR and marketing boost possible for MLB and their team (and, in some cases, for themselves).
Unlike the MLB All-Star rosters and the “We Are the World” PR style, PR campaigns outside of the MLB bubble are not democracies. No company is entitled to a spot on the media roster, everyone has to fight for placements and, in the end, the one with the most interesting story angle will be featured. However, just like the super stars who have flocks of voting followers, some companies and brands (i.e. Apple, Microsoft, etc.) take publication precedence over lesser known companies regardless of whether or not they are the ‘most deserving’.
This is the reality of PR. Campaigns take a tremendous amount of time and effort. Media coverage is not a right. PR is not a democracy where everyone’s opinion will be heard. Journalists only take note of those that can speak loudly and clearly in the right place and at the right time.
So don’t strain your voice or waste your patience rooting for the AL or NL to win. Instead, save your voice, bide your time, and think about what you want to say so when the time comes, you’re ready to get the media’s attention. Otherwise, you’re just a random fan ranting in the stands.
Are there other instances where a PR democracy exists?
Can a commentator overshadow the story just like when a broadcaster becomes the face of a franchise?
By Sean Teaford
Independence Day has been a nationwide celebration of patriotism and pride since the “Declaration of Independence” was debated, revised, and approved by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. Celebrations on this day have blossomed over the years ranging from dinners, speeches, and musket salutes on the first anniversary to the modern marker of cook outs and fireworks. This is the day that brings me to pause and contemplate the singing of the anthem that highlights the annual spectacular, “The Star-Spangled Banner”.
Francis Scott Key’s “In Defense of Fort McHenry” was originally published as a broadside poem in the fall of 1814. The original purpose of the piece was to pay tribute to American service members whom he witnessed while on a mercy mission from the deck of the HMS Minden as they fought against the British in a battle of the same name used for the poem’s title during the War of 1812. The poem rapidly spread across the United States, published in a plethora of papers from Georgia to New Hampshire – the epitome of 19th century viral marketing.
That same year, Thomas Carr of the Carr Music Store in Baltimore decided to publish the poem music from a popular song at the time, “To Anacreon in Heaven” by English composer John Stafford Smith. Carr then re-titled the song “The Star-Spangled Banner”. It is this arrangement that served as a PR jingle to promote patriotism throughout the remainder of the war and the rest of the 19th century.
However, during the first 100+ years of its existence, “The Star-Spangled Banner” was one of three unofficial songs that we considered hymns of American officialdom: “Hail, Columbia” was used at official ceremonies; “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee” served as an unofficial anthem; and, “The Star-Spangled Banner” slowly gained momentum in both previously occupied duties thanks in large part to public opinion.
It wasn’t until November 1929 when Robert Ripley included the fact that “America has no national anthem” in his syndicated serial cartoon “Ripley’s Believe it or Not!” that the public was made aware that a void existed. John Philip Sousa provided the PR spark that poem needed to be ascended by publishing an op-ed favoring Key’s “soul-stirring” words. In 1931, President Herbert Hoover singed the law adopting “The Star-Spangled Banner” as the national anthem.
A song that once served as an inspirational PR ballad to support the United States during a time of war rose to prominence through a viral marketing campaign that swayed public opinion and, eventually, was publically backed in a public PR push through the media by a beloved composer to become the official PR jingle used by the United States as the country’s national anthem.
What other examples are there of a song or jingle being the most memorable result of a significant war or time in history?
What other historical events provide PR insights that are still relevant today?
Does anyone remember the other three stanzas?
By David King
Your client wants to tell a corporate growth story, without disclosing revenue. The media wants validation but the company is protective of their customers. Technical press want to know how it works and why it’s different, but that’s intellectual property.
In a perfect world, these issues would be resolved through a balancing act. One that is delicate, majestic, well-trained and walks right between risk and reward.
In the real world, it’s an endless tug-of-war. At one end is the agency that is (often) gruelingly focused on getting as many hits as possible. On the other end are the business contacts who more often than not will prioritize business risks over PR at every turn.
The tug of war is not ideal. It’s grueling, hard-work and mentally straining. Pull too hard and people get upset, but too softly and you can’t get results. It’s also a real-world necessity. One that we all must master.
Being “results-driven” isn’t just a corny tagline at Gutenberg. We live and breathe a culture of results. That may make us bias, but we think we have a very reasonable set of guidelines for finding balance.
- Revenue. Any kind of company profile story needs to know how big of a company you are – private or not. However what we should be more wary of is any kind of financial data that could indicate how big your margins are. If customers know how much profit you have, that’s how big of a discount they’ll ask for next time around.
- Customers. Having the agency reach out to customers is immensely effective. It sets a different tone when the agency calls, one that we’re here to help, to provide them with a service, not to sell. The agency and corresponding sales contacts should work closely together to make everyone comfortable with the communications to customers.
- Intellectual property is certainly not something you want to hand out, but organizations sometimes need to think more critically about what intellectual property really is. In most cases you can tell someone how a product works without telling them how to follow in your footsteps.
There’s probably dozens of other common balances we have to find. Let us know in the comments below your experiences with balancing between risk and reward.
By Sean Teaford
Despite the current emphasis on green initiatives and clean technology, people are still tending to lean toward immediate gratification rather than long term gain. The recent recession and the resulting bailouts and cutbacks have demonstrated a significant preference for current bank account balances and stock portfolios. While it is important to achieve a balanced ledger, the steps that have been taken to reach that goal are ill conceived and will be paid for by future generations.
Unfortunately, education has been the prime example of this dilemma. Several states, including New Jersey and Michigan, have attracted national headlines with their ‘restructuring’ of educational systems. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has instituted a $475 million cut in education funding this year with an additional $820 million to be cut by the end of the year which was recently upheld by an appellate court . And, as was reported by Sevil Omer on msnbc.com, the city of Detroit will be closing 32 schools by the conclusion of this academic year and 13 more over the next two years.
Each time cuts like these are made it is said to be “necessary” or “the best possible solution” to fixing the current problems. Those terms are being used so that those listening will have a false sense of security and a feeling that this is the best thing for the future. Feel good statements and slogans are nothing new. From cure all tonics being sold town-to-town to “Beyond Petroleum”, putting the public at ease and selling half brained ideas is a scheme that has always been and will always be utilized. Short term gain both financially and in public opinion will always take priority over the long term effects of campaigns and actions both in the political and corporate world.
Balancing short term and long term gain is crucial to any PR campaign. The client must be established as an industry leader in any given field by providing valuable insight into current events relevant to their expertise. Outlandish ideas about how to stop the oil leak in the gulf will, most likely, get you quoted a lot but if there is not real substance to your claims or if the solution simply isn’t feasible you will quickly be discredited and forgotten. However, if you provide consistent quality insight into the environmental clean-up process or the corporate investigation of BP, you will become a source that is used many times over by the media not only during this crisis but any future story that is relevant to your field of expertise.
PR and Education are investments. While applying cuts to them now will put money in your pocket now, the long term gains are far more rewarding. More often than not, it takes a lot of time and tremendous effort before your investment is realized and the dividends begin to flow.
What are the long term effects of educational budget cuts on the media? Is this the end of an “educated audience”?
How do you serve a client that focuses solely on short term PR gains?
