The Flack

I imagine the folks at YouTube won't be taking Mark Cuban on their roadshow anytime soon. The brash maverick blogging mogul put a crimp in the #2 video site's efforts to primp itself for acquisition. In his inimitable fashion, Mr. Cuban let loose at a NYC advertising conference yesterday:

"'...anyone who buys that (YouTube) is a moron' because of potential lawsuits from copyright violations."

He continued:

"They are just breaking the law. The only reason it hasn't been sued yet is because there is nobody with big money to sue."

And let's not forget about this:

"There is a reason they haven't yet gone public, they haven't sold. It's because they are going to be toasted."

Other than his usual penchant for making headlines, one might speculate that Mr. Cuban's motivations for trash talking YouTube has something to do with his own newly launched digital video enterprise -- an endeavor that presumably has all the DRM issues satisfactorily covered. The inference, of course, is that Mr. Cuban is playing by the digital rights rules and YouTube is not. Still, it's ironic that Mr. Cuban's Broadcast.com (née audionet.com) made its name by pirating copyrighted content from radio stations nationwide.

With Mr. Cuban's remarks getting picked up by the world's biggest news wholesaler, you can be sure that YouTube's management, backers and PR team have a bad case of agida today.

But, hey, the caustic writing was on the wall: Mr. Cuban offered this advice to the seller and prospective buyer in a post last week on his blog titled "The Coming Dramatic Decline of Youtube:"

"A word of wisdom to the Youtube folks, sell if you can. A word of wisdom to a potential buyer, the minute the labels see even the hint of deep pockets they are going to come after you for all your worth. It will be a Lawyers Employment Act. Just ask Bertlesman about being the deep pockets behind Napster. Its not different this time."

PR YouTube Mark Cuban Advertising Week public relations DRM

One can't help but notice the confluence of Kazakhstani news wafting through the public domain these last few days. For starters, readers of The New York Times stumbled upon a four-page advertorial proclaiming Khazakstan's entry into the civilized world. It certainly caught my eye, but definitely not my attention.

In fact, does anyone really read or give any credence to these costly and propagandistic government advertising vehicles masked as editorial? No, but there is one group that surely values them: the paper's ad sales department.

Following his big photo-op with the two Stans (Paki and Afhani), our President will preside over a State dinner in Washington Friday night for the Kazakhstani president of this corrupt nation that appears immune to the notion of corporate governance. No matter. Clinking glasses and eating pork rinds with this administration's movers & shakers will signal Khazakhstan's western arrival -- for some.

Looking ahead, these two controlled communications endeavors pale in comparison to what's on the horizon for Freedonia, I mean Kazakhstan. Today's New York Times reports on just how confounded Kazak leaders are in dealing with Borat, aka Ali G., aka Sacha Baron Cohen.

For those of you living in Atlanta, Mr. Cohen's mouthful of a new film "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" looks at America from the eyes of a fictional Kazakhstani reporter.

"And Kazakhstan’s government is flustered all over again. That the film had its premiere at the Toronto Film Festival this month in advance of a visit to the United States this week by the country’s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, only made matters worse, and a denunciation by the Kazakh Embassy in Washington led to a flurry of newspaper articles asserting — wrongly, the embassy said — that Mr. Nazarbayev intended to complain about “Borat” to President Bush. The embassy has said the country will continue to portray itself in a more positive light with television commercials and newspaper advertisements, like the one that appeared yesterday in The New York Times."

Much to the likely chagrin of the Kazhak government, the film enjoys some of the best advance word-of-mouth this season. Wouldn't you agree, Caryn? This is in spite of some early (and intentional?) WOM of an anti-Semitic plot line. I expect it will not only do boffo at the box office, but it will do wonders for those who still believe the independent nation is part of the Soviet Union. (Though it's still in essence a Russian republic, right?)

Be that as it may, those charged with helping the world correctly spell Kazakhstan would best be served to go with the flow. Don't fight Sascha. Lighten up. Screen the film. Embrace the film. Exploit the film.

In fact, produce your own irreverent video clip (with music) and post it on YouTube the day the film bows. (Though I would suggest using a different writer than the one you used for the newspaper advertorial.) Lighten up and you might just reap greater dividends (at a much lower cost) than a four-page newspaper advertorial.


PR Sacha Baron Cohen Kasakhstan public relations Borat Groucho Marx

I've been meaning to comment on WSJ scribe Wendy Bounds' piece from a couple of days ago on the changing face of public relations. It's a must-read for those grappling with some of the new digital tools at our disposal, let alone the question of whether traditional media relations is quickly becoming an outmoded practice.

In fact, I'm moderating a panel next week on the 100th anniversary of the news release (who knew?) where we'll likely debate the relevancy of the century-old communication tool.

In answer to the question on the vitality of traditional media relations, one would only have to look at the myriad firms that continue to flourish by courting mainstream media with client story pitches. As long as there are journalists who derive story ideas from the PR channel and there are clients who pay for this service (just consider the long tail), the practice will survive.

But don't be fooled. Increasingly, we will see a paradigm shift toward using online word of mouth techniques to drive awareness, buzz, and...mainstream media coverage. As Ms. Bounds notes:

"Recognizing the swing, a new breed of public-relations specialists is emerging to help time-pressed small-business owners navigate the options (for a price, of course)."

Can a standard news release sent only to mainstream media build awareness? Sure. Can digitally optimized and RSS-enabled communications alone drive awareness? Sure. PR pros need to recognize that these different approaches are not mutually exclusive. It's how they're used in tandem that will produce the greatest ROI.

As Ms. Bounds observed in her piece, which was ostensibly written for small business owners, but have applications across the board:

"Still, new media options can actually help reach and pique the interest of the mainstream press, and the combined push on both fronts can garner a small business unprecedented levels of attention."

Of course this is only possible if one takes the time to acquaint oneself with weblogs, SEO/SEM, social media, del.icio.us, AdWords, RSS, flickr, wikis, digital video, digg, YouTube, conversation mining, virtual reality, the geospatial web, huh? Unfortunately, many of our brethren still resist.

(That's PR industry pioneer Ivy Lee pictured above.)

PR weblogs digital PR social media public relations press release

As Mel Gibson committed career suicide last month with his anti-Semitic ravings, word from Dallas this morning has perennially bad boy NFL'er Terrell Owens trying to commit actual suicide.

Early reports implied that his trip last night to the emergency room was brought on by a bad reaction to painkillers for an injured hand, but later police reports confirm a suicide attempt.

Terrell Owens' publicist, Kim Etheridge, said of the incident, "This is not serious."

Out of the loop, or programmed by TO's lawyers, agents, and others (with a financial stake in the talented star's future) to "make it go away?" Your guess is as good as mine, though I suspect the former.

Unfortunately, and sadly, this is not something from which one can easily hide, nor rebound anytime soon. Without being privy to the specific details -- these will emerge as the day goes on -- chances are that good will ultimately come from this.

Mr. Owens will finally get the mental health counseling his past behavior and actions have long demanded. In terms of career preservation, time will only tell.

Update: Owens denies all.

PR media Terrell Owens Mel Gibson public relations

Location: The White House PR Strategy Room

Players: Karl Rove, Dan Bartlett, Tony Snow (dressed somberly)

Topic of the Day: Gradual loss of momentum following ABC's "boffo" "Path to 9/11" broadcast.

Challenge: Re-take the conversation to drive Republican Congressional campaigns.

Partial Solution: Enlist "Path" screenwriter to weigh in.

(Failed) Back-up Solution: Have Fox News' Chris Wallace bait, then ambush Bill Clinton.

Back-up Solution 2: Deploy Condi (not in her exercise outfit) to dictate talking points to New York Post, for a quid pro quo cover story.

Outcome: Unfolding on your desktop, Blackberry and at your local mainstream media outlet as we speak.

Isn't it nice to have such sympatico news organizations at one's disposal in the media capital of the world? Well, at least Ms. Rice paid a separate visit to the newspaper of record...albeit with a different message track.

PR Karl Rove Condi Dan Bartlett New York Post public relations Fox News Tony Snow Chris Wallace Bill Clinton

Media trainers have long advised their subjects to avoid white shirts (they glow) or bold stripes (they dance around) on camera. It wasn't unusual for an executive to arrive at a session proudly armed with the knowledge that "light blue works best on TV. Right?"

Today's camera technology has pretty much eliminated the standard dress regimen for TV interviews. News arrives, and can be delivered, in many shades. The new challenge, it seems, is to match the color with the substance of the discussion.

The White House's lead face to the media apparently tailors his wardrobe to suit the expected tenor of the day's events. According to today's Online Journal:

"Discussing Syria recently, he wore a serious white shirt and maroon tie. When the president gave an upbeat press conference in the Rose Garden after a surprise visit to Iraq, Mr. Snow wore a cheery pink shirt and light blue tie."

This new mix 'n match approach adds a new wrinkle in the pre-interview discussion on what to advise newsmakers to wear on TV.

I just wonder what Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's media consiglieres were thinking when they signed off on his disco outfit for addressing the U.N. General Assembly. Here's how The Times's Maureen Dowd pointedly captured the moment last week:

"A guy who showed up to address the United Nations without even bothering to wear a tie, so casual in a disco-looking cream suit and open-necked pink shirt he looked like he was going to kick back later in Chelsea."

As the psycho Mr. Ahmadinejad strives to woo westerners with his casual attire, let's not forget how dangerously duplicitous this man really is. His actions speak louder than his outfit, evidenced by his hard line crackdown on non-Islamic dress in his own country.

As for Tony Snow, what he chooses to wear is meaningless compared to the true meaning of his daily briefings, assuming the press corps even gets there.

PR Tony Snow media training television news Mahmoud Ahmadinejad public relations United Nations

The first group has names like: "cleanupnj, "usedtobeblue" and "Amadeus NJ."

The second group has names like: "the Competitive Enterprise Institute," "the International Policy Network" and "the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change."

The first group posted misleading and defammatory items on a blog run by the campaign of New Jersey Democratic candidate for Governor Robert Menendez.

The second group published misleading reports designed to muddy the debate on global climate change.

The first group was fingered by the Menendez campaign as having ties to the Republican candidate Tom Kean Jr.

The second group was fingered by The Royal Society, a 1,400-member organization that dates back to the 1600’s and has counted Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein as members, as having ties to Exxon Mobil.

Kean campaign spokesperson Jill Hazelbaker adamantly denied the charges:

"'I’ve never e-mailed them nor posted on the Web site,' she said on Wednesday. 'It’s a blog. You can’t believe what’s posted on blogs.' She declined to make Mr. Kean available to discuss the matter." (Though, he ultimately did.)

Exxon Mobil deftly disputed the allegations:

"...the Royal Society had 'inaccurately and unfairly described our company.' It added: 'We know that carbon emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change — we don’t debate or dispute this.'

In spite of its denials, the evidence, in the form of a traceable IP address, was irrefutable.

" The Kean campaign’s technical adviser said that the Internet protocol, or I.P., address that linked the posts to the Kean headquarters was an old one, 'from over a month ago.' But an e-mail message Ms. Hazelbaker sent to a reporter on Wednesday shares the same I.P. address."

In spite of its denials, the evidence, in the form of payments to these groups, was irrefutable:

"In 2005, Exxon Mobil sent $2.9 million to 39 groups active in the United States that spread misleading information about climate change..."

Astroturf comes in many shades.




PR public relations astroturfing Bob Menendez Tom Kean Jr. Exxon Mobil Royal Society global climate change

Did you know this?

"There are laws that restrict government agencies from paying for publicity without congressional approval. They include a 1913 statute that bars spending "to pay a publicity expert unless specifically appropriated for that purpose."

This little item emerged as part of an investigative AP story that castigates Mr. Bush's nominee for Transportation Secretary for allegedly spending some $7.8 million for outside PR services when she headed the Federal Highway Administration.

"The contracts, obtained by The Associated Press, describe the work to be performed in language such as 'position the brand' and 'develop a core identity."

Sure sounds like PR-speak to me. Assessing this story, I was of two minds. First, it seems that so many appointees in this administration are inordinately focused on image enhancement and courting public opinion than they are on governing and creating tangible programs that help people. They just don't seem to understand that "if you build it, they [the public] will come."

Take positive action and the PR will flow naturally. Just ask NYS Attorney General and Gubernatorial candidate Elliot Spitzer. He'll win this election based solely on the merits of his work (and the positive PR that ensued). Let's not forget Donald Trump's whose presidential ambitions once seemed plausible in the wake of his audacious effort to re-build NYC's Wollman Skating Rink, or Rudy Giuliani's current aspirations after his decisive actions following 9/11 (though some now dispute that).

My second impression was a little more disconcerting...at least from the perspective of a PR careerist. Why is the use of public relations invariably viewed in a negative light? Why do so many journalists cast the retention of a PR firm as an effort to distort or obfuscate the truth? What if the government introduced a new drug benefit program without any accompanying effort to alert and educate those who'd benefit from it? What if the Tsunami alert system detected an underwater earthquake, but there was no PR plan in place to get the word out?

The AP reports:

"...the Bush administration spent more than $88 million on PR contracts government-wide in 2004, a 128 percent increase over the amount spent in 2000..."

Much of this is legitimate and warranted. Still, I believe this administration's over-zealous misuse of PR -- versus creating legislature and programs that elevate (and protect) all -- may have enriched the PR industry, but at the expense of its reputation.

PR public relations Transportation Secretary Giuliani Trump Spitzer

More and more PR firms are getting clued in to the viral value of seeding key bloggers with news of their clients' products and services. I had previously linked to a Scoble (pictured) posting in which the A-list blogger extolled the virtues of such a strategy, e.g., start with 40 bloggers and build buzz from the ground up.

Subsequently, the Wall Street Journal acknowledged the organizers of New York's Fashion Week for their fashion-forward thinking in giving bloggers media credentials to cover this ultra chic fashion fest. Then today, that Brazen Careerist Penelope Trunk dropped me a note recognizing Gloria Steinem's "smart" publicist for offering up Ms. Steinem to ten bloggers to promote her new radio station.

Taking a page from the traditional PR handbook, Steve Rubel exhorts the PR community to do its homework before endeavoring to court said blogging community. "No one should pitch a blog without reading it for at least a week." He also suggests using Wikipedia to learn more about the blogger being targeted. Who knew that the dynamic consumer-generated encyclopedia includes personal and professional information on some 400 bloggers? (No. The Flack didn't pass muster.)

Of course, there are no shortage of established resources that offer personal and professional info on mainstream journalists. In fact, I remember some years ago when a reporter for The Wall Street Journal took a special interest in the "insidious" practice of storing information on journalists in some PR firms' proprietary media databases.

How shocking and big brotherish was the newspaper's impression of the practice. The reporter called our firm for a comment. As it turns out, I knew this reporter from high school, and had a vivid memory of this reporter getting caught in a much-compromised state by my friend's mother in the basement of my friend's home.

Now wouldn't it have been great to fold that little tidbit of information into this reporter's profile listing in our database before sharing? Imagine the reaction.

We ultimately declined to take part in the story, but I still think longingly about our plans for the "reveal."

PR Steve Rubel media journalism public relations blog relations Wikipedia

In what was likely the most hyped media story of the last year, Howard Stern's move to Sirius was heralded as the coming of age for satellite radio. Of course, that was before Mr. Stern's over-sized ego finally strut its stuff.

Rumors now abound that the original shock jock (sorry Imus) is not satisfied with his relatively smaller audience and lower Google juice. He is said to be in talks with a couple of local New York terrestrial stations to begin re-broadcasting his puerile show. Huh? Did I hear terrestrial???

With all of Mr. Stern's trash-talking of terrestrial at the time of his big move, could it be that he may once again be heard on the free radio dial? Could Stern pal and Sirius president Mel Karmazin be in on the deal? Of course, Mr. Stern blames all his woes on a vast PR conspiracy:

"Terrestrial radio is so scared of this broadcast that they've even hired a full-time publicist to slander and disparage me and try to make me look like a failure," Stern told Sirius listeners last week.

That's right, Howard. Blame some publicist. We're used to it. I just wonder whether your move back to terrestrial will swing the pendulum of fans with you...especially after The Times just wrote the death knell for old fashioned radio. But then again, there's Pandora, Last FM, etc on the horizon. Stay tuned to your dials or iPods or cell phones or satellite dishes or whatever.

Update: Sirius denies rumors:

"There has never been any discussion of Howard Stern in any way, shape, or form being anything but exclusive to Sirius. Published reports suggesting otherwise are wrong," said Sirius spokesman Patrick Reilly. Stern's agent was not immediately available for comment.

PR Howard Stern
radio Sirius terrestrial

Lest we wonder what goes on behind-the-scenes in the war to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi public, a lengthy first-hand account arrives today, via AlterNet, from an Oxford-educated aspiring journalist hired as an intern in Iraq by the Lincoln Group.

You may remember the Lincoln Group as the DC-based firm that came under fire for implementing this administration's brand of pay-for-play "media relations" strategy in that Civil War-torn country. The then-resonant story has since faded into the media and public's rear view mirror, but the practice undoubtedly still continues. Here are a couple of excerpts from "I Was a PR Intern in Iraq:"

"Jon quickly sketched out my new I.O. [Information Operations] responsibilities. An Army team inside the Al Faw palace, another of Saddam's former residences, would send me news articles they had cobbled together from wire stories and their own reports from the field. It was my job to select the ones that seemed most like Iraqis had written them. I was then to pass these articles along to our Iraqi employees, who would translate the pieces into Arabic and place them in local newspapers. Jon told me that the U.S. Army could hardly carry out this work in their military uniforms, so they hired Lincoln Group, which could operate with far fewer restrictions. It was a bread-and-butter contract, he said, that paid the company about $5 million annually. I asked if the newspapers knew that Lincoln Group or the U.S. military were behind these articles. They did and they didn't, Jon said. The Iraqis working for us posed as freelance journalists, but they also paid editors at the papers to publish the stories -- part of the cost Lincoln Group billed back to the military. 'Look,' Jon assured me, 'it's very straightforward. You just have to keep the military happy.'"

"Gina then had the idea of placing a Lincoln Group team permanently in a U.S. base near Ramadi or Fallujah, where they would operate one half of a satellite uplink system that would send footage or sound recordings to Baghdad. At the other end, Iraqis working in the company's Green Zone villa would receive the footage and splice it into whatever form was required. Breaking news, the thinking went, could then be rushed to a TV station and aired immediately.

To explore this option, Ahmed and I visited a number of upstart production companies in their heavily guarded compounds. We found one company that would produce one of our half-minute TV spots for as little as $10,000. At Iraq's national station, Al Iraqiya, located within Baghdad's old Jewish ghetto, an English-speaking commercial director said he could air the spot during the station's nightly news, the most expensive time, for only $2,000. Production and distribution together, then, would cost us around $12,000. The amount Lincoln Group was charging the military for developing, producing, and airing each commercial had already been determined: just over $1 million."

The whole article is well-written and a worthy read. I must admit that the rules of media engagement vary from country to country, but the practice of overtly purchasing news coverage goes counter to my PR sensibilities. Hopefully, it will re-raise a few eyebrows.

PR journalism
politics public relations pay-for-play Lincoln Group

Boy, is Jim McGreevey taking it on the chin. The former married Governor of New Jersey had a fab opportunity to promote his new book (and himself) with an appearance on the premier book-propelling program, "Oprah."

Now I'm not one to know first-hand the social or political orientation of the typical Oprah audience, but I can guess that they wouldn't take too kindly to the notion of a husband's mano y mano tryst as his wife lay in a hospital bed after the birth of his child. As the Post's always irritable Andrea Peyser summed it up: he's a "whore."

"I've been told that audience members, though sworn to secrecy, were visibly appalled by this grotesque airing of too much information."

Maybe in choosing Ms. Winfrey, Mr. McGreevey's publicist reasoned that "Brokeback Mountain's" popularity among women would prevail here, or maybe Mr. McGreevey just spoke too extemporaneously. In either case, what was meant to be a book about honesty and redemption may now be irrevocably tainted by a less-than-flattering reception.

But, again, maybe a little controversy and buzz -- even bad buzz -- will accrue to book sales. Isn't this the publisher's overriding goal? (Who slipped an advance of the book to The AP anyway?) It's another example of a publisher looking out for its commercial interests at the expense of the reputation of the publication's subject. Right, Tom?

PR Oprah Jim McGreevey Tom Cruise public relations Book PR

Coming back to the fashion crowd, albeit the antithesis of New York's Fashion Week, I'm sure you're all familiar with Bluefly.com. Apparently, the online clothing discounter, in an effort to bolster brand awareness, created a new allegedly risque digital video ad -- a year after the first -- and charged its PR firm to: "go out and make it viral..." again.

One ink-stained journalist, from the bastion of all things retro, posted the PR pitch on his newspaper's weblog. The sell?

"Bluefly is launching a provocative ad campaign entitled "We're Gonna Be Late" following their controversial Spring ads, which also featured tasteful nudity. Based on network responses, they cut most of the provocative scenes for television, even though the content on their programming is just as sexy, if not more so."

This come-on piques the recipient's purient interests to peak at the new, err...old creative, and even take a look at the un-cut version. (But then of course an unfiltered search nowadays on YouTube would yield a much more scintillating selections.)

Net net: sex sells. I just wonder whether this approach is getting a little tired. Even my old HotJobs.com client changed its Super Bowl creative year after year after year.

PR viral BlueFly Fashion Week public relations HotJobs

It's my blog, so...

If you're in New York on Thursday, Sept. 21, the Publicity Club of New York, an organization with which this blogger is associated, is hosting a luncheon featuring five top tier consumer tech journalists. They are:

• David Carnoy, Executive Editor, CNET Reviews
• Brett Larson, Technology Reporter, CBS2 New York
• Jim Louderback, Editor-in-Chief, PC Magazine
• Debbi Porterfield, Technology Columnist, Gannett News Service
• Peter Rojas, Editor-in-Chief, engadget

Seating is on a first come, first served basis. Details and reservations can be obtained via the PCNY website.

PR consumer technology journalism news PCNY public relations media

Just out of college, I was toiling for a small entertainment PR boutique in NYC. One of my first clients was the city's perennial highest-grossing tourist tr-- restaurant Tavern on the Green. We also handled its sibling -- the original First Avenue singles mecca Maxwell's Plum (not to be confused with its other, more austere eventual sibling the Russian Tea Room). Both were owned by the late, less-than-austere Warner LeRoy, son of motion picture scion Mervyn LeRoy.

Anyway, we were charged with alerting the paparazzi should, by chance, a celeb saunter in for a quiet meal. And saunter they did. A week didn't go by without the tabloids running a couple of photos of some film, music, theatre, or TV star entering, leaving or, God forbid, seated in the Crystal Room with his or her family. It was celebrity exploitation at its best, and I was told that Mr. LeRoy couldn't have been more pleased.

Flash forward to today. The owner of chi-chi Beverly Hills boutique Kitson has sued US Magazine for NOT giving the store photo credit on its glossy pages. The suit alleges that the weekly purposely omitted the store's name and photo-shopped out pictures of its shopping bags in its reportage of celeb comings and goings.

The suit claims the lack of publicity is costing the store $10,000 per week!

Now do you think this legal ploy will put Kitson back on the "ins" with US? Gee, let me think about it.

My advice: consider tipping off The Star, People or In Touch Weekly for your celebrity exploitations. All three have L.A. bureaus.

PR paparazzi Kitson celebrity public relations Warner LeRoy

Ahhh, Fashion Week in New York. Oops. I mean Olympus Fashion Week in New York. How positively glam one must be to get invited to one of the Bryant Park shows...and be offered a seat under the tent, no less.

Well, the big news at this year's event has 20-something fashion bloggers gaining a foothold in the media pecking order.

Their journalistic ascendance is akin to the FishBowl DC reporter gaining a press credential for the White House daily presser. The fashionistas seem to have gotten hip to what Silicon Valley and the Beltway have known for sometime: media buzz can percolate from the bottom up and spread virally from there.

Today's Wall Street Journal takes a look at the 40 some odd bloggers who managed to get some respect this year. Wasn't 40 the number of bloggers that the Scobleizer recommended to start building buzz? The Journal reports:

"Many public-relations firms that draw up guest lists for designers are doing their own research. Alison Brod, a New York publicist who represents designer Jill Stuart, now has an employee focusing exclusively on blogs, tracking their impact on sales, among other things."

It reminded me of the early days of photo syndication. Who could forget Dave McGough who parlayed his NY Post regular photo gig into a international celebrity photo syndicate?

Back then, we turned away any photographer who did not have a legitimate assignment from a recognized mainstream photo desk. Then along came (citizen photographers) from big and small photo syndicates like Gamma, Sygma, Sipa, Retna, LGI, etc., and we had to open the door wider given the pick-up their images soon enjoyed. (Today that world is dominated by Corbis, Getty Images, and Wire Image.)

So how does one determine which bloggers to let in and which ones to leave out?

"...one company plans to launch a new fashion blog-ranking system called GlamCentral that will use criteria such as "most viewed," "most linked to" and "most commented on."

Smart, though it sure sounds familiar. If you have the pick-up (e.g., link relevancy), you're in. If not, keep workin' it. You'll get past the proverbial velvet rope.

PR weblogs blog relations Fashion Week public relations photo syndicates

As Mr. Bush's 9/11 exploitation (re-election) campaign goes full throttle with canned "surprise" appearances in a city decidedly more-at-risk than it was on 9/10/01, the rest of the world also grapples with the dangerous new reality wrought by his policies.

From Gaza, we learn of the formation of a coalition government wherein the terrorist group Hamas will join forces with (the less overt terrorist group) Fatah. Meanwhile, Israel, which endured its share of condemnation in the court of public opinion for its ill-fated foray into Lebanon, has appointed a new PR chief: "Miri Eisen is Israel's Karl Rove in a skirt, high heels but far more attractive and with better sense of style..." Geesh.

In reading the story of her appointment, it was clear that Ms. Eisen has made her fair share of on-camera appearances. And, in fact, it sounds like her command of the English language is impeccable and northern Californian accent-free -- a presumed plus. (How's her Arabic, I wonder?)

Still the analogy to Mr. Rove -- the mysterious and manipulative mastermind we rarely see before the cameras -- may be a bit of a stretch. Does the beleaguered State of Israel really believe Ms. Eisen's telegenics, diction and elocution are what's needed to cure its perceptual ills? I have no doubts that Ms. Eisen will serve as a credible and even persuasive spokesperson, but as a PR/media strategist in the merciless mold of Rove, I'm not so sure.

* Public Relations (in Hebrew)

Postscript: My friend and sometimes colleague Marco Greenberg shared with me a related piece he penned last January for Jewish Week. (In so doing, he pointed out that Hasbara mean "explaining" in Hebrew. Thanks, Marco.)

PR Israel Miri Eisen Bush Hamas public relations 9/11

Not to obsess or anything, but when I first signed on to Blogger, I filled out one of this blogging platform's canned profile questionnaires, which included the following:

Question: "You've written a hit musical! How will you avoid having fame go to your head?"

Answer: "Avail yourself to no media interviews! Let your body of work speak for itself. Delay succumbing to the allure of fleeting fame."

Last night, I came across Business Week's prognostigator for all things media Jon Fine's analysis of how to build a celebrity reputation and the media's role therein. He was especially enamored with Angelina Jolie whom he refers to as the "Media Master Manipulator" for her prowess in playing "The Game:"

"Unlike virtually all other celebrities, Jolie does not employ a publicist and in the past year has kept press interviews to a minimum. (She declined to comment for this column.) But the story she presents needs little augmentation."

How could this be? No publicist? Few interviews? (well, except for the multi-parter with CNN's Anderson Cooper). Mr. Fine postulates that by putting her philanthropic endeavors (and high-profile marriage) above all else, Ms. Jolie has succeeded in elevating her reputation into the stratosphere (and clearly out of the Hollywood bubblehead mode on which Paris and friends have the lock anyway.

"Paris Hilton got famous by keenly understanding and playing to what tabloids want, but Jolie did something more rare by using them as a springboard to reshape an image. (And, of course, expose fans to causes bigger than herself.) She did this by knowing what makes a celebrity story."

Again, the road to redeeming fame is much harder to attain than the one to fleeting fame. It has something to do with the importance of being earnest.

PR Angelina Jolie Paris Hilton public relations reputation management philanthropy

Journalists bristle at the notion of being manipulated. The moment their sensory nodes detect "the spin," the PR practitioner's carefully orchestrated "news" falls at risk of taking a decidedly negative turn. It's almost as if there's a chapter in J-School that warns future members of the fourth estate to recoil at any hint of artifice.

With this in mind, we arrive at today's story from New York Times scribe Caryn James in which she offers a perceptive, if not harsh assessment of TomKat's attempt to manage their way out of reputation hell on the tiny back of their first born child. Here's an excerpt from her piece titled: "A Rich Coat of Gloss on a Trajectory Spiraling Down:"

"The extravagantly orchestrated photo shoot reveals a media circus masquerading as ordinary life, and speaks to the devil's bargain some celebrities make with the public...Ordinary parents protect their children...that's an impulse the public can identify with in the celebrity game. Suri's parents might have gotten more mileage out of releasing a modest family snapshot and leaving it at that, shutting down the media frenzy without inventing a bigger show of their own. A show is clearly what they were looking for, but the entire over-the-top operation, the famous photographer, the photo so hyped it was revealed on Katie Couric's first newscast as CBS anchor Tuesday carries a whiff of desperation"

Let's not confuse creativity with poor instincts. Sure, photo-ops featuring the world's largest this or that remain valid, and will certainly produce a fair share of benign media attention...especially among TV newsers.

But for re-building tainted reputations -- with the luxury of the media anxiously awaiting their cue to sound the trumpets -- it's important to step back and carefully consider how the simulated scenario will play out in the court of public opinion, and then adjust accordingly.

After all, this is what seasoned PR people get paid the big bucks for, right? I'm sure the success of the Cruise baby PR machine wasn't being judged by the amount of boffo ink and airtime garnered for these ultra A-list celebrity clients. But then again, whose interests were really served here: the Cruise family's or the glossy monthly's?

PR Vanity Fair Suri Tom Cruise public relations Katie Holmes baby pics

Meandering through ProfNet , I came across this curious posting by a reporter for a big city newspaper: "Sports Teams Control Their Spin."

"College and pro sports teams are trying to control the spin around their product via the Internet (exclusive, subscription-based sites, blogs) and other sources, and are cutting back on the access doled out to traditional media (commercial TV, radio, print). What's the future hold for this trend? Upsides and downsides? Do fans have a 'right to know' about their favorite college or pro teams? Will there be backlash? Are fans upset about having to pay for slanted 'coverage' of their teams? What about league-run sources such as MLB.com and NFL Network?"

Am I missing something here? Aren't these social media sites supposed to foster dialogue with like-minded audiences? Or is it their true intention to cut out the filter of a crusty sports reporter? In either case, I was surprised to see a reporter grouse about how these tools are replacing traditional media relations to in effect "spin" their users' message track.

PR Week's Hamilton Nolan queried a range of media relations people on how media relations is evolving. Verizon's Eric Rabe said:

"In today's environment... every day you have to get up and reinvent how you reach people."

Eric Kraus of APCO admitted that:

"A lot of these properties online have blurred the line between editorial and advertorial. At a lot of responsible publications, there's clarity as to what's paid for and what's not... [but] at a lot more online properties, ads or paid material can be a lot more substantive and look a lot like news articles."

Wal-Mart's Mona Williams:

"As our company grew, and as expectations of others grew, we realized that we needed to tell our story or others would tell it for us. We've worked hard to identify different blogging segments," including conservatives, environmentalists, and labor and consumer advocates."

Do blogging and blog relations open doors to dialogue, or can communications pros truly "manage" these often unwieldy disciplines to better advocate (channel) their clients' points-of-view? What happened to the goal of real transparency for enterprise communicators?

Personally, I'm not convinced that the blogging or courting bloggers will ever displace traditional media relations. Still, PR pros will have to learn to distinguish between the exploding choices in communications tactics to determine which ones best suit the business objective at hand.

Even Steve Rubel notes that MSM relations is here for the long haul:

"I don't think it means that traditional PR is going away. I just think that there's a whole new set of skills and learning that needs to be applied here."

So there you have it. Hamilton's piece in PR Week is worth a visit.

PR weblogs blog relations social media public relations media relations

Beware the first write of history. I mean who didn't think the Jon Benet Ramsey case was solved, only to learn what a delusional wacko the accused turned out to be? (Actually, he was a wacko regardless of his guilt or innocence.)

Today we learn that the famously-villified French head-butter Zinedine Zidane, was actually provoked by his Italian World Cup foe. It turns out that Marco Materazzi made a slur about Zidane's sister prompting the head-butt seen round the world.

"Materazzi disclosed that after he held his opponent's shirt, Zidane said: 'If you want, I'll give you the jersey later.' 'I responded that I preferred his sister, it's true,' Materazzi said. 'It wasn't something nice, true.'"

I'm not so certain Zidane can rebuild his tarnished image based on this new piece of information, but I know there are millions who might have more sympathy for him knowing what they now know.

My advice, Zinedine, take advantage of your new 15 minutes of global media interest to right this wrong -- on every talk show available to you. Also, tomorrow's re-match might be media leverageable.

PR Zinedine Zidane Marco Matarazzi head butt public relations World Cup 15 Minutes

I'm always amazed by the cries of condemnation from seemingly sophisticated media chroniclers upon learning of some public relations initiative.

The latest example, of course, comes in response to reports of the Pentagon's RFP to mount a $20 million, four-year program to qualitatively analyze the global media coverage of the conflict in Iraq.

While I am no fan of how the Pentagon has conducted this war, one would have to admit that a more balanced media portrayal of the U.S., coupled with the truth about extremist Islam, can only better inform the Iraqi (or Saudi or Iranian) people about the dangerous direction in which they're being led.

In my mind, the question is less about collecting, analyzing and quickly sharing what is being "reported" -- essential steps for mounting an effective PR campaign -- and more about what shape the resulting PR campaign takes. If the administration continues to cross journalistic boundaries by paying for positive stories, then the Pentagon deserves all the criticism it receives.

As for the size of media monitoring contract, perhaps Wonkette had it right:

"Pentagon to Spend A Gazillion Dollars on Iraq Equivalent of 'Slate.'" "Hey US Command, tell you what: give us, like, one million bucks, and we'll get ya started with fucking Google news alerts and Bloglines."

Gee, can Google News Alerts also scan each story across multiple languages and provide a qualitative assessment? I don't think so...just yet. Wonkette's one million bid, while healthy in PR terms, will fall woefully short. This undertaking will be a human timesink.

PR Pentagon media monitoring Iraq public opinion public relations journalism

As September arrives, much of the PR community will find itself playing catch-up to grab what little MSM space remains for their event, product and people news.

The competition is fierce: "I should've been out there in July!" laments one frustrated publicist. Adding to the frenzy, here's an item from yesterday's Jossip :

"We hear from a pretty well placed source that Graydon Carter is going to extremely great lengths to protect his Suri photos. Even placing armed guards outside the printer, and forcing everyone who works there to sign a confidentiality agreement that they won't let a single Suri pic slip before the cover hits stands."

In an effort to avoid the much bally-hooed Brangelina baby leak, Vanity Fair one-upped the glossy weeklies to score the first actual images of Baby Suri.

Little Miss Cruise merited none other than Annie Leibovitz as her pixilated portraitist. I'm sure Ms. Leibovitz's pics will be much better than the voyeur shots of little Suri posted earlier this month on Pop Sugar.

Not to be counted out of the Suri baby frenzy, US Magazine had a forensic specialist show its readers what the silver-spooned tyke might look like 20 years hence, while People had a first-hand description, as did many others. Do you think this armed guard item from "a well-placed source" was a plant? You do the math.

VF vet publicist Beth Knesiak has a hot property on her hands, just a month after her magazine put the buzz-worthy (accent on the word buzz) rehabilitated waif-model on its cover.

Suri, see you in September...in a Washington Redskins jersey, right?. Wasn't that part of the deal???

Have a good weekend everyone. We're expecting a deluge in New York.

PR Vanity Fair Suri Tom Cruise public relations Graydon Carter baby pics