The Flack

Cause-related rock impresario Bob Geldof made big news today with his announcement of "Live Eight," an eight-city concert event featuring some of the biggest names in the music biz -- from "Fitty" to Bono to Sir Elton. AOL will stream the live July 2 concert with hopes of reaching 1 billion people.

Did I mention the cause? Borrowing some brand equity from the "G8 Summit" in Scotland later that month, "Live 8" hopes to push the issue of poverty in Africa to the top of the geo-political agenda. A million-person protest march is planned.

Having worked on Quincy Jones's "We Are the Future" all-star concert in Rome a year or so ago, I can say that it takes an extra effort to cut through the celebrity clutter to make a meaningful statement about, and real contribution to the cause at hand.

"The Tribute To Heroes" concert in the days following 9/11 didn't need much explanation. We all knew who was benefiting. But this is different. Mr. Geldof & company might put the issue front & center by filling the media pipeline with stark images and informed interviews detailing what's really happening in Africa. The march will help (as long as it doesn't turn into the anarchy of Seattle's WTO meeting some years ago).

Maybe The Times's Nick Kristof will lend a hand by recounting his harrowing tales from Darfur.

Finally, I wonder if 50cent would sit for a half-day of message training on Africa?

I was interested to read this morning that condom ads will bow on network television this evening -- after 9pm, of course. This is a story that will certainly generate stiff opposition. It goes smack against the very vocal and politically influential pro-abstinence (and virulently anti-condom) crowd. It comes on the heels of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU against the Silver Ring Thing organization. Look for a number of politicians flexing their muscles on this one in the coming days.

I tried to relax this Memorial Day weekend since the weather in New York finally took a turn away from the dark side. (It's OK for a blogger to take a a weekend reprieve from posting. Right?). I was tempted, however, when I saw the AP story on the Gold Star Mothers' rejection for admittance into the organization of a mother whose son was killed in Afghanistan (fighting for the USA). The grieving Mom is not a U.S. citizen.

While I understand that the group has rules for inclusion, it was the insensitive quote from the organization's president that spelled big PR trouble: "We can't go changing the rules every time the wind blows."

My vote: a Lead Star for the Gold Star Mothers.

PR Week's "PR Person of the Century" Harold Burson has lately described our industry in Dickensian terms: "the best of times, the worst of times."

Between the new reputational lows from agency scandals or the bridge-and-tunnel party promoters who many now believe epitomize what we do as professionals, the PR industry remains a most misunderstood calling.

When I think of the best and worst of times, I'm led to the Bush Administration. Most in our line of business, I dare say, believe that the PR practices deployed by this administration may be the most efficient (and effective) in history. They give kudos to the masters of spin in the White House. Nothing sticks. Agendas advance.

Conversely, following the massive corporate scandals, there is a growing movement within the business world for greater transparency in constituency communications. "It's the right thing to do," many proclaim. Those who embrace it are reaping the rewards for their new-found corporate social responsibility.

So what is good PR: the ability to command and control the message? Or a fresh openness and honesty that embraces those whose lives your decisions affect?

Enjoy your Memorial Day weekend.

The news today that Viagra may cause blindness in a small number of users has had the expected negative impact on the share price of the ED drug's maker, Pfizer. This will be short-lived -- unless of course the class action lawyers smell blood (excuse the pun). Without second guessing the world's largest pharmaceutical company, Pfizer appears to be working aggresively and responsibly with the FDA to put Viagra's surprising possible new side effect into perspective.

(However, as of this writing, I don't see the statement on the company's home page.)

Both the number of incidents out of the whole user population and the number of patients in the clinical trials were provided to the news media. Also, from its statements, Pfizer seemed amenable to altering the warning label and committed to invest in research to fully determine whether there is a causal relationship. This story will persist for the time being given Viagra's folk hero status.

Also, this deflating news comes on the heels on another big Viagra story -- that of convicted sex felons qualifying for Medicaid reimbursment for their Viagra prescriptions. I wonder which story will have the greater impact on sales of the popular drug?

Talking about "Access Hollywood," I flipped the dial in early fringe last night to see what competitor "Extra" was up to. I was aghast. While "Access" was promoting its upcoming Scientology infomercial featuring PR command and control celebrity Tom Cruise, "Extra" was airing its own infomercial for a line of cosmetics under the guise of its regular "Hot New Stuff" segment.

Either this was a brilliant PR "placement," or the manufacturers of the featured products were advertisers on the program. It likely passed muster with "Extra" because some B-list celebrities were featured even though their financial relationship with the touted products was murky to say the least.

It's no wonder FCC member Jonathan Adelstein is putting pressure on TV programmers and marketers to tone down the insipid practice of product placement. I know Access and Extra are not governed by the same rules as TV news programming, but I also suspect that most consumers don't make the distinction.

Scientologists everywhere rejoice! In exchange for virtually unfettered access, "Access Hollywood" gave mega star Tom Cruise a 30-minute infomercial last night for the controversial cult. The Church's phones and offices this morning no doubt are besieged with inquiries about how to sign up.

Yes, full "Access" interviewer Billy Bush included a couple of obligatory criticisms of the Cruise-annointed "religion" started by L. Ron Hubbard (whose very existence is a mystery), but any way you cut it, Tom had a free ride. The sad fact is that most journalists today will demur in exchange for access to epic celebrities and top newsmakers.

Now, you ask, why the picture from "A Few Good Men?" I was thinking that with all the U.S Army's problems meeting its recruitment numbers, having someone like Mr. Cruise touting its attributes unchallenged on national TV could help. Oops. I forgot about the Army's most recent celebrity poster child - NFL star Pat Tillman. That certainly didn't work out.

About two years ago, I was seated at a dinner next to a young Time magazine reporter who was leaving the newsweekly to join a soon-to-be syndicated TV program called "Celebrity Justice." As she was telling me this, I was scratching my head thinking that this show is taking the concept of "niche programming" to the limit. It will never succeed.

I was wrong. In fact, America can't seem to get enough of celebrity trials, or any trials for that matter. It's shadenfreude run amok. (Didn't you catch the picture of Phil Spector and his latest do?) Nowhere do these trials have the potential to change an industry than those involving the Internet. Scott Kessler writing in Business Week lists the pivotal cases. "I've been covering Internet stocks for more than five years and cannot remember a time when legal disputes and resolutions were having a greater impact on the industry and its companies."

Celebrity justice aside, the legal wrangling involving corporate misdoings or Elliot Spitzer quickly eat up the business news hole. The blogosphere, however, tells a different story. In it, AIG's Hank Greenberg doesn't hold a candle to an Internet-related case like the feds shuttering BitTorrent's hub. (Score: AIG, 7431 postings; Bittorrent, 22,478 postings)

The press junket or "fam trip" (as in familiarization trip) are stalwart tools in the PR practitioner's tool chest. Travel PR pros send journalists (who can accept it) to the destinations or properties they represent. Movie publicists bring feature reporters to a central location to queue up for "controlled" star interviews. (The bigger the star, the more control.) And the tech PR folks, not to be outdone, gather their beat reporters to open the curtains on their most buzzworthy offerings. One of the most famous all-time media gatherings was for Microsoft's launch of Windows 95.

The latest tech fam trip took place at Google's headquarters and was cleverly branded the "Google Factory Tour." From what I understand, Google, while adequately responsive to journalists' yearnings for the inside scoop, has traditionally been reticent to fully open its doors to the press. (Can you blame them with Microsoft and Yahoo as competitors?)

Last week, they did, and the resulting media coverage was boffo. Does this mean that sudden media access after lack of access is a strategy worth exploring? (Think Segway.) Over exposure can hurt. Measured exposure is the way to go.

Over the years, those of us who have endured in this industry are frequently asked to comment on how companies or individuals in the harsh media spotlight are handling their public relations dilemmas. Should Martha Stewart have agreed to appear with Barbara Walters? Did Merck do the right thing in so publicly withdrawing Vioxx from the market? Is Newsweek's Mark Whitaker behaving as transparently as the public expects from a trusted news source?

The number of "PR pundits" willing to comment are in no short supply. The danger, however, in opining on the crisis du jour lies in the likelihood that the Monday morning quarterback does not have access to the other team's injured reserve list. To comment on a crisis communications strategy without knowing all the facts available to those actually making the decisions, is second guessing.

The news yesterday that runaway bride Jennifer Wilbanks has been indicted contrasts nicely with word from the Richard Scrushy trial of a possible jury impasse. How might you ask are these two related -- other than the possibility that Ms. Wilbanks checked in to one of Healthsouth's facilities following her marital meltdown?

From a PR perspective, Ms. Wilbanks shunned all interviews and appeared to have little if any in the way of professional PR help. (Her jilted fiance did appear on NBC "Today," however.) As the facts surfaced about Ms. Wilbanks' less-than-innocent past, her public image eroded faster than the ice shelf in Antarctica. (Shades of Kobe.) Scrushy on the other hand appeared on "60 Minutes" to proclaim his innocence. In fact, his eagerness to mug before the cameras put even Donald Trump to shame.

Am I saying that Scrushy's pre-trial posturing led to the possible deadlocked jury or that Ms. Wilbank's second disappearing act led to her indictment? (Her Crest White-stripped smile only carried her so far.) It's hard to measure exactly, but certainly worth considering.

I feel for my old friend and colleague Sue Geramian. As the in-house communications person for magazine publisher Gruner+Jahr during the Rosie lawsuit debacle, she had to endure a career's share of tumult, including testifying at the trial. Now, her company is being sold to Meredith Corporation for $350 million (after G+J steadfastly claimed it was not for sale). Does this mean that Sue will move to Meredith's headquarters -- in Des Moines, Iowa!? Knowing Sue, I doubt it.

I must have missed the Sunday "Styles" story by L.A.-based New York Times scribe Mireya Navarro on all the "hype" surrounding Tom and Katie and the motivations behind it. In fact, I posted an item on the value of pairings in Hollywood to one's career and buzz factor. (Wednesday, May 11, "The Art..." Scroll down.)

What fascinated me was that nearly two-thirds in a survey by arch-rival weekly celebrity glossies recognized "P.R." or "publicity" as the prime motivation. Maybe P.R. is coming out of the closet (though PR in Hollywood is quite a different animal that in the Beltway or on Wall Street).

I did enjoy Cruise's publicist staunchly defending her client's alleged "stammering" on Oprah when he couldn't remember how he met his new true love. My bet: their agents work at the same talent agency and struck a deal.

Newly deposed HP CEO Carly Fiorina (pictured with Gwen Stefani in the previous posting) has let it be known that she intends to write a book. The purpose, of course, is to control how history recounts her tumultuous ride atop one of the most venerable brands in Silicon Valley. Why leave it to the news media to tell your story when you can do so yourself?

I didn't understand Ms. Fiorina's fall from grace. Yes, I recognize that she could not make the HP-Compaq merger work. And, from her first days on the job, she had powerful detractors questioning the merger (and her other decisions, I'm sure). Nonetheless, I love the company's edgy advertising and its clever ties with celebrities (see Lance Armstrong posting below), not to mention its surprise OEM version of the iPod just in time for the holidays. Word is Ms. Fiorina will join the non-profit sector. Let's hope this endeavor will allow her to fully tell her side of the HP story.

As watchdog groups pressure the PR industry to be more transparent, and the news media takes a long hard look at its own standards and practices, those of us charged with marketing communications soon may have to embrace marketing versus communications. Stuart Elliott, advertising columnist for The New York Times, today examines the increasing commercialization of music.

Is this a PR function or a marketing function? Should PR practitioners follow the lead of some of the larger agencies to create strategic partnerships with product placement companies? Will paid product placement in entertainment programming supplant "free" product placement in news programming?

From a PR perspective - and Stuart's story is proof -- the teaming of stars with commercial products is nothing new and often makes news in and of itself. This is where the PR person's core competencies come in to play. (I remember working on the news conferences featuring the Gloved One and Sir Elton for Pepsi and Citibank, respectively.)

But this is different. We're talking about more fully integrating the commercial product with the celebrity (and his or her work), not just an appearance by the star in a short-lived ad campaign (like Paris and Carl's in the posting below).

Back to America's #1 party girl, the legitimization of Paris Hilton never ceases to amaze me. It makes little difference that she behaves like trailer park trash, or that her mind is vacuous, or that she has appeared in a raunchy porn video. She continues to land mainstream spokesperson and acting roles. There is a reason for this, of course, but I'll get to that in a minute.

Ms. Hilton's most recent "star" turn is for a new sandwich for Carl's Jr. fast food chain. Like her latest theatrical film appearance in "House of Wax," those that hired her have done so solely for the publicity value. (Did you really think it was her acting ability?) This is buzz for buzz's sake...period.

Still, the Carl's Jr. role has precipitated unforeseen interest from the Parent's Television Council, which intends to mobilize a million people to protest the scantily clad Ms. Hilton in the fast food chain's ads. I wonder whether this will translate into burger sales? It doesn't really matter. Who ever heard of House of Wax or Carl's Jr. before Paris?

I had breakfast this week with Doug Simon of (D.S. Simon) fresh off his testimony before a Congressional Committee investigating the ethics of using of corporate or government-produced video in news programming. Doug's firm specializes in packaging independently produced news stories. Following the Karen Ryan affair and Armstrong Williams debacle, the PR antagonistas are freshly emboldened in their quest to shut down the VNR (and PR) industry altogether.

Doug's firm conducted a survey of TV news producers. Less than half acknowledged that the videos they receive identify their "sponsors," e.g. who's paying. This is a problem for our industry, but also for those journalists who don't know enough to question the source. After enduring their share of deceptive PR pitches, the bookers at the network morning shows finally know enough to ask the PR firm who's paying its fee to book the "celebrity" spokeseperson.

The practice of producing and distributing video for news consumption is not the problem. It's akin to the creation and distribution/syndication of press releases, audio sound bites, and webblog content. Newsmakers are entitled to issue their news in its most applicable format. However, if Doug's data is correct, both the PR and journalism industries could do a better job to ensure transparency, i.e., full disclosure, perhaps taking its lead from the SEC .

As today's Wall Street Journal takes a sobering, but hopeful look at the state of old media in the brave new world of new media, the folks at Atlanta's most famous brand have been buying up online real estate under the iCoke banner. Smart move given the rates at which Coke's youthful consumers are migrating to the web and other channels to quench their thirst for digital content. Can the most famous beverage in the world gain the same kind of viral buzz as Apple? Wait and see.

New York Times ombudsman Dan Okrent's final column yesterday contained a list of topics he intended to cover during his 18-month reign, but didn't. It's a good read. I took interest in his chastisement of The Times's opinion columnists Safire, Krugman and Dowd, but not for ideological reasons as much for Okrent's call to the paper's publisher to hold them to higher journalistic standards.

I wonder how many Americans really distinguish between the news hole and the opinion pages? Yes, of course all of us New York cognoscenti know the difference, but I'm talking about rank and file Americans. Do they recognize that Hannity, Colmes, Stewart and O'Reilly, or Dowd, Krugman, Brooks and Safire, do not abide by the same rigors or rules as those on the "news" side of their media enterprises?

When a PR person wishes to advance a client's or his organization's point of view, it is not uncommon to enlist columnists or commentators to advocate for that point-of-view. Will Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken ever comply to more rigorous journalistic standards in their daily rantings and ravings? Unlikely. But I do think Mr. Okrent is on to something.

The AP is reporting that America's second favorite party girl, Tara Reid, has a new series that's been green-lighted to air on E! Entertainment Television. "Wild On" will take viewers to the front of the velvet ropes to catch the silcone-enhanced, foul-mouthed, trouble-making, would-be porno star Reid make mischief on the club circuit. (There's only so much we can do as image-makers to gloss over the seamier side of one's personal life.) Anyway, Reid's primetime cable splash could be bigger than even Lizzie Grubman's "Power Girls" on MTV!

Ms. Reid's contribution to America's cultural lexicon contrasts with the news today that the Best Buy consumer electronics chain has caved to a threatened boycott by the Christian Brother Investment Services if the store did not take measures to limit the sale of video games that the investmnent fund deemed offensive, e.g., "Grand Theft Auto," "Halo," and others. Both E! and Best Buy obviously have their bottom lines in mind.

Lorne Manley, writing in today's New York Times, examines the question of unnamed sources and how mainstream news organizations are siding with the White House to curtail the practice. Not exactly. Scott McLellan, the White House flack, would like to end the media's use of non-attributable sources altogether, while the leading news organizations wish to establish a more stringent set of rules to curtail a practice that allegedly fuels public mistrust of the media.

As a public relations executive whose raison d'etre is to advance the interests of his "client" (this Administration), Mr. McLellan's call for an end to this practice is understood. After all, judging from the number of tomes published by those leaving the government, I imagine there are many other Beltway insiders who have stories to tell. From the media's perspective, its ability to serve the public interest will be severely hurt should the practice end completely.

Frankly, I do not believe that the use of unidentified sources is something the lay public even knows or cares about. Whether this practice contributes to its growing mistrust of the media has yet to be proven. However, mistakes and bias in reporting do.

The tampering of J&J's Tylenol is without doubt the most cited case in the annals of crisis communications. Today The New York Times used it again in the context of lessons learned for Newsweek to pay heed. The quote by the PR industry's eminence grise, Harold Burson (a mentor to this blogger for more than a decade), and counselor to J&J back then, eloquently captures the underlying tenets of good crisis management: "We expressed genuine regret and took the hit, and made an honest effort to get the facts out. And we tried to behave with the public interest at heart..."

I believe that Newsweek's top editor Mark Whitaker is acting in the same spirit of J&J's CEO James Burke when the latter allowed a "60 Minutes" crew into his company's crisis war room. Whitaker and his team have made a genuine effort to demonstrate transparency as they set out to unearth what went wrong.

Still, while the crises that befell both Tylenol and Newsweek ended in death, the analogy is not a good one. J&J was victimized. Newsweek, probably not.

Can the magazine play the victim card to regain public trust? Yes. But media fragmentation and rampant ideology make the prospect much more dicey...at least compared to a time long ago when a single "60 Minutes" segment could silence all naysayers.

The enigmatic Nick Denton, who threw cold water on the blogosphere in a recent New York Times interview, turned out at the Radar re-launch party only to have a custard pie smashed in his face. It seems Denton's usually caustic blog -- Gawker -- hasn't been so kind to Radar, the new magazine co-owned by real estate magnate and Daily News/U.S. News publisher Mort Zuckerman.

The Post's eminently readable media reporter Keith Kelly ran a smashing account of the affair with photo of a soiled Denton who accused the party planner Nadine Johnson, ex-wife of "Page Six" honcho Richard Johnson, of planting the pie thrower. Ms. Johnson, through a spokesman(!) declined credit for the publicity stunt. "It was merely a wardrobe mulfunction," she demurred.

Drew Kerr, a talented PR guy specializing in magazines, also denied that the pie-thrower was a stunt.

Whatever. It made for a good photo and some edgy blogossip.

(BTW, the picture above is a recreation, as is Ms. Johnson's quote, if you hadn't surmised.)

Cause-related marketing is nothing new. Purchase a product, and the product's manufacturer will donate a portion of the proceeds to a worthwhile cause. I remember some years ago working with Mastercard on its "Choose to Make a Difference" program wherein a user of the credit card could earmark a portion of his or her expenditures to one of four designated charities. The promotion was designed to spur greater use of the credit card during the busy holiday shopping period.

Lance Armstrong is a legend. Everyone knows his yellow wristbands. (47 million have been sold for goodness sake!) As HP seeks to regain some of its lost luster, the company has astutely aligned itself with the six-time Tour de France winner. Fifty bucks from the purchase of an HP-AMD Livestrong notebook will go to the Lance Armstrong Foundation to fight cancer.

Smart (and certainly a less expensive celebrity "get" given the philanthropic tie-in).

Joey Buttafuocco watch out! The L.A.-based lawyer who just revealed his secret life as a porn star will soon be America's next faux celebrity. Look for him on the TV talk show circuit. (If Pam and Paris can do it, why can't he?)

Not likely if you read today's USA Today profile of eHarmony founder Neil Clark Warren. It seems the underpinnings of Mr. Warren's profitable enterprise lie in heterosexual Christian matchmaking. Janet Kornblum, the San Francisco-based scribe who has covered the Internet for America's favorite newspaper for as long as I can remember, reveals a side of the fourth most popular online dating service, e-Harmony, of which most (cognascenti) are unaware. I wonder if this distinctly non-PC heritage will help or hurt e-Harmony's reputation or sales? Given the direction this country is headed, I suspect it'll be a boon for Mr. Warren and his wife of 46 years (who heads marketing).

Poor Michael Bloomberg. (That's a figure of speech.) Several months ago, just as the IOC Selection Committee was poised to descend upon our shores, the most hated man in New York sports revved up his PR machine to try to de-rail the linchpin of NYC's campaign to land the Games -- a new stadium on Manhattan's west side.

Yesterday, Olympics icon Peter Ueberroth delivered a bi-partisan ultimatum: build it or they won't come. New York Governor Pataki, whose own PR woes rival those of Mr. Dolan's, has a real conundrum on his hands. Their names are Bruno and Silver.

What's difficult from a PR perspective is that all of this political wrangling is playing out in the open -- as it should. It's just that those making the decision this July are watching (with bemusement, no doubt) New York City air its dirty laundry.

Yes, this Administration has every reason to be concerned over the leaked photos of Saddam Hussein in his skivvies that graced the cover of The Sun in the UK and today's New York Post. They make him look human! (He wears briefs, btw.) The surprise release of these intimate images comes on the heals of news that the evil dictator is penning his memoirs -- another humanizing endeavor. It's unclear to me who's driving Mr. Hussein's re-emergence, but it most certainly won't hurt him in the court of public opinion prior to his real trial. Of course, if Mr. Hussein turns out to be as abrasive and recalcitrant as Mr. Milisovic, then appearing in his underwear will make no difference.

The fab photos and prominent product mentions in Ruth La Ferla's New York Times story today is, for many in marketing, reason alone to shell out the big bucks for rotating celebrity endorsers. The challenge of course is measuring the brand or sales impact a newsworthy celebrity will make. Does the publicity the endorsement generates make it a worthwhile investment?

On the other end of the cultural spectrum from Seventh Ave., the folks at NASCAR will be the first to tell you that sponsorship of a winning driver equates directly to the sponsor's product sales. I guess what's new/news here is the rapidity with which companies change spoksepeople to keep the image fresh. How long was Bill Cosby a spokesperson for Jello anyway?

Donald Trump is so ingrained in America's celebrity culture that few remember exactly what catapulted him there in the first place. I do. It was his bodacious offer and successful effort to re-build an ice skating rink in NYC's Central Park on time and under budget after the city failed to do so over a period of seven years. Mr. Trump's triumph was the tipping point that almost made his hint at a U.S. Presidential run plausible.

Yesterday's news conference to build a new World Trade Center was an attempt by Mr. Trump to re-create his moment of true glory. (I don't consider "The Apprentice," his three wives, or his bankrupt businesses as reputation-building achievements.)

As a brash young real estate developer with everything to gain, the Wollman Rink project was a win-win all around. The Donald we all know today will not gain the positive PR spin he seeks from yesterday's media fest. He will, however, get plenty of ink and airtime -- not all of it good.

Whenever the purveyor of a new product or service can involve the consumer in its marketing, the prospects for generating news coverage are that much greater. It could be the local casting call for the next "American Idol," the introduction of "Halo 2", or what we're witnessing this morning: multitudes of fans lining up to be the first to see the final episode of Star Wars." Virtually every local TV news program and newspaper in the country, if not the world, coveredthis phenomenon in the days leading up to the film's debut. Add to it the premiere event at New York's Ziegfeld Theare, the critical reviews, interviews with the stars, leaks of the film's trailers and an online buzz campaign, and it spells big big box office.

One of the hardest decisions in public relations is weighing when to leave well-enough alone. When Steve Jobs took a very public exception to his new unauthorized biography, it boosted book sales. When the William Morris Agency sued the New York Post's "Page Six," it only drew more attention to the negative item the gossip column reported about the company. Now, as if we haven't heard enough about Jane Fonda, we learn that a Kentucky theatre owner is boycotting the showing of Ms. Fonda's new movie "Monster-in-Law" to protest her activism during the Vietnam War. While the theatre owner doesn't seem upset with the domestic comedy itself, his action may just have the reverse effect. It puts the film back in the news now that the two initial media blitzes -- for the movie and Ms. Fonda's new book -- are behind us. (I hope Jane has points in the film.)

What's ironic about all of this is that during the media blitz for the book Jane apologized for her visit to Hanoi during the war saying it was a big mistake. I guess the theatre owner wasn't appeased.

Dear Richard,

Why does the usually plugged-in "Page Six" deem it noteworthy that Ron Torossian, who seems to get more publicity for himself than his clients, has raided one of the least-respected, but most exposed "PR firms" in New York -- Lizzie Grubman PR -- for a junior staffer no less? In the real PR industry, these two firms rarely turn up on the radar. Do you think a New York Times profile of the former and an MTV series on the latter makes what services they provide respectable?

I promise not to retain Bert Fields to seek a retraction, but for the future, you should know where these two firms stand in the PR industry pecking order.

Your old friend,

Peter

I don't pretend to be an expert on the roller coaster ride called the telecom industry, but I do know that in the broadband space, the dominant cable companies now have a real threat on their hands. It's called fiber, and it's not the kind that will lower one's cholesterol. (In fact, broader bandwidths may actually increase one's dormancy in front of a PC or TV.)

In 1993, when the world was a different place, I had the opportunity to preside over a New York "media tour" for then Intel Corp. CEO Andy Grove. I knew who he was and so did all of Silicon Valley, but the revolution had yet to be televised, so he was virtually unknown in the MSM -- especially on the east coast. Our charge: introduce him to mass media magazines, e.g., editors at Conde Nast, Hearst and elsewhere. (After all, consumers could be made to care about the newly introduced Pentium chip.)

I remember quite vividly the roundtable meetings we held with those editors. I also remember Mr. Grove boldly prediciting that "...one day, you'll see cable coaxial plugged in to the back of your PC..." Following the meeting, I quietly asked him whether consumers will ever see fiber running in to their homes. He quickly and emphatically answered "No."

As I gaze out the rear window of my home, I'm amused to see the Verizon workers laying fiber for its new FiOS service, which promises unparalleled speeds for data delivery, and TV programming by the end of the year.

How things change!

Conde Nast is the most influential magazine publishing company around. With 17 titles ranging from Vanity Fair and Vogue to Details and GQ (not to mention sister publications W and The New Yorker), the privately-held company also has a pretty mean PR machine. No, the publicists for its individual titles are not nasty (only some are), they just know how to churn out good column fodder.

The most recent coup is a story in today's USA Today revealing a career-resurgent Ellen DeGeneres's tale of abuse as a girl as published in the new issue of Allure. Much of the success (e.g. media access) that Conde Nast's decentralized PR staff enjoys is related to the clout the company has with the media types who thrive on this fabulous brand of editorial publicity. The story today is written by Cesar Soriano, the long-time "Lifeline" columnist for the "Life" section of USA Today. Others include a syndicated Liz Smith, and of course, the venerable "Page Six," whose items are frequently picked up worldwide.

Of course the editorial fodder isn't planted until the magazine is about to hit newsstands, Timing and single-copy sales are everything.

I have learned over the years that the prospects of emerging unscathed at the dinner table following a pro-life v. pro-choice debate are slim. So when the subject comes up, I have a rule in my home: talk about something else!

I read however with some interest the story today of Terri Schiavo's parents visiting with the Pope to personally deliver a photo of Terri in exchange for the Vatican's support of their daughter during the recent media maelstrom. (I hope it wasn't the same one used by her parents to portray Ms. Schiavo as if she was conversing with her Mom.)

I wonder how the idea for this very effective photo op emerged. So much for 15 minutes of fame. With a determined PR advisor, the media spotlight shines on.

Yes, I know Oprah is one of the most reverred, benevolent and social-minded celebrities in the world. One cannot underestimate how much attention and support her involvement in a humanitarian cause can bring to that cause. Still, I'm scratching my head at the over-the-top party she threw for herself this past weekend that "featured" all the African-American female role-models who influenced her life.

The cost of the event was in the stratosphere for sure. The media coverage on "ET" and elsewhere was breathless. Cojo even was hired to opine on the women's evening gowns at the white tie affair. To what end, I ask?

Wouldn't her money (or the evening's focus) have been better spent on a more philanthropic endeavor as opposed to the superficial glitterati of a red carpet? Perhaps the purpose of the event was to showcase the accomplishments of these 25 role-models? If so, you wouldn't know it from the media coverage.

He is a very viable candidate (that young man at the far right of the picture). Instant name recognition, good looks, a legal pedigree with credentials in education reform at the state level... Ed Cox will give Hill a run for her money. Yes, I know, New York leans left. Even so, Mr. Cox's astute initial messaging that "having bi-partisan" representation in Washington will benefit all New Yorkers is credible and has the potential to really strike a chord.

Hillary (and your advisors): don't underestimate this one.

In a crisis, words and promises will only partially deflect the harsh media spotlight. It is decisive action by a company or institution that will put to bed a festering problem. When Harvard president Larry Summers inadvertently opened up the proverbial beehive with his gender-bending comments, it almost cost him his job. It certainly took its toll on the reputation of this nation's leading academic institution.

Four months have passed and the story finally has slipped quietly out of the MSM and into the news archives. (Time has a way of healing.) Yesterday the university announced that it will spend $50 million over 10 years to promote diversity -- a recommendation of the task force convened to study the problem. This is smart. Some will say that with an endowment of $20 billion , $50 million is a drop in the bucket to Harvard. I say it is enough to close the chapter in this overplayed saga.

I love Lara Spencer! I admit it. Not only is she effervescent and nice to look at, but for PR pros, her increasing ubiquity on national television is making her one of the most important, if not prolific, broadcast journalists working today. Forget Katie or even Diane, Lara is the one.

Yes, I know E.T.'s "The Insider" is fluff, and what does "Antiques Roadshow" mean to PR pros anyway? But Lara's long-standing presence on "Good Morning America's" no doubt helped it catch up to NBC "Today" in the ratings. She certainly will be missed there.

Keep an eye on Ms. Spencer. She's going places. (Even Kelly Ripa doesn't hold a candle.)

After enduring his share of bad news over the years -- from the supremely nasty child custody battle to the sinking fortunes of his once-almight cosmetics giant Revlon, Ron Perelman finally received some good news today...in court. Morgan Stanley, which has enough troubles of its own, was ordered to pay Mr. Perelman $605 million for the sale of his camping goods company Coleman in exchange for equity in Sunbeam, among other things.

Shares of Sunbeam, huh? This is the company "Chainsaw Al" Dunlap decimated, leading to Dunlap's personal and professional demise. This was a bad man. I remember taking a call from Chainsaw when he was still seen as an honest and fiscally prudent businessman. A colleague had organized an interview for him with CNBC at a studio near his Florida home. The car CNBC sent to collect him was late. He called our firm, and somehow wound up with me. "Where the *#%@ is my car," he barked! "Find the car or I'll have you fired!" I had no dealings with him prior to picking up the phone that day.

Anyway, Morgan Stanley will appeal today's ruling.

Martin Nisenholtz, New York Times Co. senior vice president and head of New York Times Digital, today presided over a significant announcement in the evolution of the online version of The New York Times. Come September, TimesSelect, as it is called, will debut at $49.95 annually for access to select op-ed columnists, news stories and archives.

Unlike the WSJ Online, home subscribers to The Times will NOT have to pay anything extra to take advantage of this special access. Martin is interviewed today about it on paidcontent.org.

With online revenues outpacing off-line revenues, today's announcement is a good move financially for the newspaper-of-record. It ensures a second "robust" revenue stream moving forward. I wonder, however, how this new firewall will affect The Times's enviable ranking as one of the most linked-to news sites.

This story is fascinating on many levels. It comes at a time when the MSM is under increasing attack for the veracity of its reporting and the use of non-attributable sources, let alone from a vigilant Administration that prides itself on its ability to control the message. What interested me, from a PR perspective, is how Newsweek's small "Periscope" item surfaced in the Muslim world to begin with, as well as how Newsweek went about admitting its mea culpa.

On the first count, it seems that the Newsweek item claiming the Koran was flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo was introduced at a news conference by a former cricket star-turned-anti-government-politican in Afghanistan. Ahhh. The power of a celebrity endorser! This news conference was picked up by Afghanistan radio and from there it permeated the general populace.

As far as the apology, editor Mark Whitaker, one of the most respected voices in journalism, directly addressed the mistake via a 1500-word explanation in today's issue of the magazine, while Washington Bureau Chief Daniel Klaidman made the rounds on television. (I caught him on "CBS Evening News" Sunday night.) This pro-active effort to have its side of the story explained will continue in the national media for a couple of days, and live on in the blogosphere and thought-journals for much longer given the deadly impact the item caused.

Of course, those in the Muslim world do not give credence to Newsweek's explanation, instead believing that the retraction has been fabricated by the U.S. government. Nonetheless, Newsweek, and its parent The Washington Post Co., is doing the right thing to explain the circumstances that led to this most unfortunate error. It's hard to say what long-term affect this ill-conceived gossip item will have on the Newsweek's reputation. It certainly won't help efforts by the MSM, including The New York Times, to re-build readers' trust.

Journalists are fallible and the most esteemed news organizations swiftly deal with their fallibility in an open and aggressive way, which is what Newsweek is doing. We're certain to see more of this.

After making some progress in the reputation department, the practice of public relations has taken it on the chin of late. C.J. Gregg, Allison Janey's character on NBC's "The West Wing" was a strong role model for our industry, to the point where academia even took notice for the study of the profession. Most recently, however, MTV and the ubiquitous Lizzie Grubman, coupled with the scandals over "insidious" VNRs and journalists on the take, have thrust us back in to the realm of snake oil salesmen.

It's no wonder the public sees PR people as crass and manipulative. The downward plunge continued when the network that brought us "The West Wing" broadcast tonight's episode of NBC's "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" featuring "a pushy P.R. person," e.g. a total bitch, as a murderous villain (played by Jenna Stern). Barking at her underlings, and "servicing" her client, a potential gubernatorial candidate, seemed to be her greatest professional attributes.

Rodney, if you can hear me up there, we know your plight.

Malcolm Glazer 

Tampa Bay Buccaneer owner/businessman Malcolm Glazer's quest to buy one of the most venerable names in all of pro sports -- Manchester United -- has hit unprecedented resistance in the UK (and elsewhere). He may look like an Irish leprechaun (is there any other kind?), but as an American -- and I believe an Orthodox Jewish-American -- his acquisition has prompted the kind of personal attacks rivaling the best that a resurgent anti-Semitic and anti-American Europe has to offer.

Fortunately, Mr. Glazer has a solid and surprising track record with the Bucs. Under Glazer's watch, the Bucs have a new stadium and won their first Super Bowl. From a PR perspective, these accomplishments may be all Glazer needs to persuade United's rabid fan base that he's the one.

Citing pressure from its members, the Niemen Foundation at Harvard cancelled the scheduled media training session for Chinese officals who had hoped to brush up on the U.S. media in preparation for their playing host to the 2008 Olympic Games. It's incredulous to me that media training, message development, etc. is still viewed insideously by members of the fourth estate. Who doesn't do this nowadays, and doesn't a well-trained spokesperson for a corporate, government, NGO or non-profit enterprise make for a better-informed and more articulate interview? Clearly, trained journalists have sufficient moxie to cut through any spin.

WMA 

I recently met the in-house PR guy for the William Morris Agency, Chris Petrikin. He is by my estimation a solid communications professional who has served both on the media and clients sides of the dance. Chris now appears to be caught in the middle of a very public spat between his bosses who have taken umbrage with what they believe is an attempt by their competitors to use the New York Post to "villify" the venerable talent agency. Specifically, WMA has targeted the feisty tabloid's famous gossip column "Page Six, which has published highly unflattering, if not unsubstantiated and materially harmful information about the state of the company.

WMA has gone so far as to bring out its big legal gunslinger Bert Fields (who is in The Times twice this week) in an attempt to seek a printed retraction from Mr. Murdoch's perennial money-losing, but widely-read (by the cognascenti), New York City tabloid. Howard J Rubenstein, mouthpiece to just about everyone, refused to comment on behalf of his longstanding client Rupert Murdoch, because this is now a legal matter.

I feel for Chris. By filing a very public lawsuit and agreeing to an interview with The New York Times, Mr. Fields has drawn more attention to WMA. Even if WMA doesn't have any woes to speak of, and I thought Chris's comments in The Times were perfectly reasonable, just the media attention such a lawsuit would garner would raise questions.

I won't delve into the catalyst that served as the tipping point for all of this, but the seemingly unrehearsed, unfortunate comments by newly-installed WMA president Dave Wirtschafter's in a recent interview in The New Yorker was certainly ill-advised. My feeling is that proving malice will be difficult, and that this lawsuit will only serve to exacerbate WMA's PR woes.

I will try my best not to politicize this space, even though personal bias seems to be encouraged in this medium called the blogosphere. Yet, one can't help but have noticed how the wayward plane in Washington dominated the headlines yesterday and today, severely diluting the "news" of Macauley's testimony. (Those in the PR profession know all too well how breaking news can affect one's best laid plans to garner media attention. In this case, Macauley, you lucked out.)

How the evacuation was handled (or mis-handled) has overridden all other news on the cable networks. CNN aired over and over scenes of panicked White House workers evacuating, with armed police running wherever they were running to.

I found it curious to learn that while all of this was happening -- smack in the middle of the work week, on a a beautifully sunny Wednesday afternoon -- our President was bicycling at some nature reserve in Maryland. Go figure. I also found it amusing to learn that while the White House was being evacuated, someone forgot to alert the press corps about the imminent danger -- a Freudian slip perhaps?

.

Enough with the weddings. Let's cut to today's unsettling testimony of child actor Macauley Culkin at the Michael Jackson molestation trial. WHAT DID YOU EXPECT THE STAR OF "HOME ALONE" TO SAY? That the gloved one took off his gloves while the two coddled in Neverland? Of course he wouldn't admit that he "inhaled" -- even under oath. That would be a major career-ender.

Now here's where it gets sticky (excuse the pun) from a PR sense, and where practitioners will likely diverge on strategy. Many would advise him to lie, lie and lie some more to salvage whatever hopes he has of landing another film role. Others might tell him to come clean (assuming the gloved one was true to form), and play the victim role. "I was left at Michael Jackson's home alone."

Is there a compromise here? I don't think so. He did shockingly admit to sharing a bed with the gloved one -- when he was 9 or 10(!) -- which is incriminating in and of itself. At least, he can claim childhood innocence, unlike others caught with their pants down, e.g., Hilton, Grant, Love, Abdul, Lowe, Janet J...

What's perverse about the celebrity culture in which we live is that today's bizarre testimony may even help Culkin get back on track with his career. He certainly will get good TV time.

Oh That Dress! 

Choosing the right partner in Hollywood is as important as choosing the right agent. The bigger the name, the bigger the boost to one's career. Tom Cruise's new (virginal) squeeze Katie Holmes (who, you ask?) will no doubt be coming soon to a theatre near you. However, the bigger the names, the greater the chances the relationship will disintegrate. Think Jen/Ben and Jen/Brad, but less so Jen2/Ben. After all, Jen 2 is pregnant with his child.

Forget the florist, dress designer and entertainment, today the most important contributor to a celebrity wedding is the public relations advisor. The deft management of how the news and pictures are released so that they permeate the public consciousness has become an art -- Douglas/Zeta-Jones, Jones-Reynolds notwithstanding.

So when A-list celebs, Rene and Kenny, surprised their distinctly different sets of fans by tying the knot under the public radar, it was big news. The photo of Kenny kissing Rene's hand on the beach, appears to have been released by the dress designer (!) Carolina Herrera's PR team via The AP (most likely in exchange for the cost of the dress).

Let's keep an eye on what other media deals have been struck in the days ahead. As far as the lasting power of this most unlikely couple: my prediction is less than a year.

While Paula sought salvation for her troubles via a carefully scripted appearance on "Saturday Night Live," and subsequently as a guest host on "ET," the Runaway Bride, who can pick and choose any program on which to make her national TV debut, seems to be going for the sympathy vote. Today she checked into a local hospital for "physical and mental" issues -- more the latter, I'm sure.

It will be interesting to study how these contrasting approaches to reputation restoration will play out. While I don't think Paula spent time in jail for shoplifting, she does enjoy a fair share of less than savory behavior over the years.

So big whoop! Why is media-training for the Chinese authorities, hosts to the 2008 Olympic Games, considered such a scandal worthy of a news feature in The New York Times and an editorial in The Boston Globe? Perhaps it has something to do with the "spin class's" designers and their affiliation with the esteemed Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard. I bet the same curriculum conducted by a global PR firm wouldn't raise any eyebrows, in spite of the likely use of former journalists.

The practice of helping corporations, governments, non-profits and NGOs better understand and deal with the machinations of the news media so that their enterprises can shine brighter in the public spotlight is nothing new. I suppose New York City mounting a fake ticker tape parade up Broadway with the sole purpose of including it in a video to show the IOC, falls into the same category.

Again, media-training, message development, promotional stunts, etc. all are part of the reality of how news is made and delivered today. If only those responsible for developing the curricula at the big J schools would take notice.

Contrary to popular belief, PR professionals actually prefer journalists who exercise balance in their reporting versus those who don't. How many times have we been faced with an investigative reporter or TV news producer's request for an interview, knowing full well that the reporter's story premise is a foregone conclusion (in spite of controvening facts)? Or, what about the journalist who cares less for the pedigree/credibility of the messenger than a story's prospects for garnering a sensational headline, and thus a bigger audience?

It is therefore welcome news that the flag bearer for editorial integrity, The New York Times, ratcheted up the stakes for journalists everywhere by committing to be more forthcoming, i.e., transparent. The newspaper-of-record intends to shed further light on the news gathering process and publicly address the scrutiny it endures daily from all ideologies, among other noteworthy initiatives.

This announcement follows one day after the publication of a timely and thoughtful "editorial observation" from NYT staff writer Adam Cohen who dutifully laid out the salient differences between bloggers and journalists. Yes, I know Dan Gillmor calls it citizen journalism, but even so, do these citizen or grassroots journalists merit protection under the First Amendment? Adam makes a reasonable argument against these protections -- one that will not be settled easily or anytime in the immediate future.

Whatever the outcome, we all should embrace any effort to re-build public trust in, and the re-empowerment of, a news organization willing to aggressively feret out and expose social, political, or economic injustice.

So Paula's PR advisors finally came up with (or were invited and agreed to) a tactical and seemingly strategic solution to Paula's media woes: have her make fun of her own predicament by appearing on "Saturday Night Live." How does this irreverant approach jibe with her still defiant public statement? One bi-product of course is that both "SNL" and "American Idol" get ratings bumps during the important May Sweeps period! It's a win-win situation. If only this one appearance could quell once and for all Paula's woes. Will the internal investigation of her alleged breach of ethics result in her getting fired? Will Corey Clarke's "supportive" comments help Paula keep her day job? Do her advisors have any other tricks up their sleeves, e.g., a softball interview on "Larry King Live." Or will Macauley Culkin's on-again, off-again testimony at the Michael Jackson trial knock this story off the nation's news agendas? Stay tuned.

Paula Abdul is in a real pickle. You know it when her Beverly Hills publicist, Karynne Tencer, doesn't return repeated phone calls from Jacques Steinberg, The New York Times's lead TV industry writer. Perhaps The New York Times doesn't hold much water on the left coast?

Clearly, the weeks of speculation over ABC-TV's "Primetime" expose would have given Ms. Abdul and her handlers ample time to come clean or at least get her story straight. I remember first reading about Ms. Abdul's indiscretions on Jeannette Walls' always entertaining gossip column on msnbc.com.

The Steinberg piece is especially entertaining. He cleverly pulls quotes of fans posting to Fox's offical "American Idol" message boards, as well as to Corey Clark's own slick site. The best quote from the piece comes from Mr. Clark himself during an interview to promote the ABC Primetime special: "...the only thing the "Idol" machine has been doing has been maliciously attacking my name." Huh? What name?! Without "Idol," Mr. Clarke's career would be stuck in idol.

I also wonder whether all these revelations are designed (by Fox and the show's producers) to boost ratings. Whatever the case, this scandal pales in comparison to "Quiz Show." The reason: Corey Clarke is no John Turturro!

In a posting yesterday on blogger Steve Rubel's micropersuasion weblog, the author exhorts the fact that Bacon's, the media database company, has invited him as a "top journalist" to provide his contact information ostensibly so that PR pros can pitch him stories. He appears flattered, proud and a bit surprised that he -- a blogger -- has been annointed by Bacon's as a member of the fourth estate.

Yet, the day before, Rubel touts the fact that the agency paying his salary -- Cooper & Katz (run by two of the finest folks in our business, Ralph Katz and Andy Cooper) -- has won the Vespa Scooters account. Doesn't Steve's online promotion of Vespa go counter to his new role as a journalist? What is it, Steve: PR guy or journalist? I wonder if you can have it both ways.

Judging from the number of PR pros who attended today's BDI conference in New York City featuring Microsoft evangelistic blogger/vlogger Robert Scoble, it's clear that blogs' potential impact on the profession weighs heavy on many professionals' minds. To quote Scoble:

"word of mouth networks are far more efficient" for getting the word out, or "going super nova," citing the front page NY Times story on Microsoft's change in its HR policy toward gays.

"bloggers are amplifiers..."

By citing and linking to competitors, you are establishing your company's "authority in the marketplace...everybody benefits."

"Tell the whole story" in order to pursuade.

"I took some risk...asked for forgiveness later on."

A company's culture "is seen as a line in the sand."

"Rather it is a membrane that you can push -- it will snap back." But be careful. Do not push the membrane too hard without "building a relationship network behind the scenes...so when you push the membrane, people will be there to support you."

When Scoble told [Microsoft CEO] Steve Ballmer to "get a human face" [on the company], Ballmer "signed a dollar bill and gave it to me for coming up with the idea."