The Flack

With all the rasp attention given to the reunion of the original Apple-PC guys, it would be hard for most non-attending bloggers to find an editorial opening not already filled.

Nonetheless, I do have two observations about the Jobs-Gates gabfest at the D: All Things Digital Conference hosted by The Wall Street Journal:

1) This was one staged event in which the appearance of two CEOs actually had a multiplying effect in terms of generating media interest, hyperbole.

2) The Journal's media management and its own blog/vlog could be a model for controlled transparency at future press events.

To explain, Mr. Gates and Mr. Jobs certainly have not lacked in the number of respective high profile public appearances. Yet, together, they struck a resonant chord among the myriad chroniclers of all things digital that transcended what either could have achieved unilaterally. It was a magical media moment (Thanks, Rafat, for uploading your images on Flickr.)

As far as The Journal's own reportage of this reunion and other event highlights, the D blog had a sensible user interface and all the content required to satisfy inquiring minds. Sure, D also attracted more than a fair share of A-listers. Even Arianna and the politicos at Huffington Post jumped on the D-driven blogging bandwagon for this one. By providing unfettered access to the digital kingdom's true movers & shakers, The Journal made it most difficult for any snarkiness to surface. (And which blogger doesn't want to be invited back next year?)

Finally, I very much liked what George Lucas had to say about the proliferation of video content, and the two distinct flavors in which it arrives. Here's what Rafat heard from the creator of "Star Wars:

"There are two sorts of entertainment: circus and art. Circus is random...that is what is on YouTube. Throwing puppies on a freeway, we say it in film lingo. You watch it happen. It is voyeuristic. Sort of what American Idol is. Art is where a particular person contrives a situation and tells a story and hopefully that story reveals the truth behind the facts. Voyeurism only tell you the facts."

So I ask, are our digitally inclined client marketers better served through the creation of art or circus?

Labels: Bill Gates, D, D: All Things digital, George Lucas, Steve Jobs, Wall Street Journal

As much as I like and admire Todd Defren and Steve Rubel, I've been a little skeptical about the prospects for wide adoption of the so-called social media news release.

It's not that I believe the traditional press release delivers on the promise. It doesn't (except perhaps for those who take glee in seeing their releases carried intact on PR Newswire, Business Wire or Yahoo Finance).

It's just that the vast majority of practitioners (and their clients) seem perfectly content having the standard news release serve as the end deliverable.

Clearly, the prospects for "success" of any news release format, including those optimized for online discovery or regurgitation, will always be determined by the quality of the news itself...plus the manner in which language and multi-media assets are deployed to bring that news to life.

The latter piece deservedly caught the attention of the digital tinkerers in our profession, and from which the social media release was born. (The issuance of spurious and poorly-written "news" copy is a harder fix.) But if we can more quickly move to inculcate the profession to the value of streamlining and digitally optimizing the news release template to not only capture a bigger online footprint, but also the attention of the mainstream news filter, we will be providing a more valuable service.

Brian Solis, whom I've never met, but who resides with me in the Social Media Collective, yesterday posted a very thoughtful overview of the social media release (SMR) with some useful links and a case study in Social Computing Magazine (who knew there was one?). In it he writes:

"It’s no longer a matter of if, nor when, but now a matter of practice and evolution in order to determine success and failure."

Here's another excerpt I found telling:

"While the SMR represents an exciting mechanism to socialize news, let’s recap what the Social Media Release is not…

• It does not fix what’s wrong with most press releases nor is it designed to replace them


• It’s not exclusively for journalists or bloggers


• It was not created for PR to create new value for itself (that goes for social media in general)


• Social Media Releases advertised by wire services are not true SMRs and neither are the multimedia releases they offer (although they do have value)


• Even though a great template exists, SMRs can take many forms and include a variety of content plus social tools.


• SMRs are not about BULLSHIT or SPIN or controlling the message.

Again, a worthwhile read...

Labels: optimization, PR, public relations, social media news release, social media release

In an age when the lure of celebrity is like a drug -- and for some, literally -- it was refreshing to read about one talented young athlete who declared enough is enough. Allison Stokke, a record-holding pole vaulter from Newport Beach, Calif., became famous through no fault of her own. She now wants out of the spotlight.

Apparently, someone posted a photo of the attractive track star, which in turn spread virally online and off prompting thousands of e-mail messages to her My Space page, etc.

"'I just want to find some way to get this all under control,' Stokke told her coach. Three weeks later, Stokke has decided that control is essentially beyond her grasp. Instead, she said, she has learned a distressing lesson in the unruly momentum of the Internet."

Contrast this grounded pole vaulter with the whorish behavior of one Phoebe Price. Who? Ms. Price gives Paris a run for her money in the famous-for-being-famous category of faux celebrity. While Ms. Stokke is looking to free herself from the yoke of fame, the talentless Ms. Price can't get enough.

Finally, we have word of one person whose 15 minutes in the spotlight lasted way too long. In a move that many will applaud, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan has decided to hang it up and head back to California. I can't say I'll miss her, in spite of my initial support for her photo op in Crawford.

Labels: Allison Stokke, celebrity, Cindy Sheehan, fame, Phoebe Price, PR, public relations, viral

I told my sister to take me off her friends e-mail distribution list. The reason: I have too many e-mails to wade through as it is, and frankly, what she typically sends has more to do with self-discovery, the key to longevity, good parenting and the usual breathless, but fictitious conspiracies, e.g. "urban legends," that seem to thrive online. (An ill-informed Republican friend of mine recently forwarded me a preposterous claim that one Presidential candidate is actually a radical Islamist. Geesh!)

This morning, my sister sent me a three-year-old chain e-mail that may very well fall in that last category, but it also may not. It was a "call-to-action" decrying the obscenely high gasoline prices, and offered a "simple" remedy. The letter, supposedly written by "a retired Coca Cola executive...from one of his engineer buddies who retired from Halliburton," called for a boycott of one il company, ExxonMobil -- the biggest one:

"For the rest of 2007, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit. But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon and Mobil gas buyers. It's really simple to do! Now, don't wimp out at this point.... keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people. I am sending this note to 30 people. If each of us sends it to at least ten more (30 x 10 =300) ...and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10=3,000)...and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth group of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers. If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have been contacted! If it goes one level further, you guessed it..... THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!!

Ahhh. If only life (and the economics of gas prices) were that simple. It reminded me of the devilish issue P&G had years before the Internet. Apparently, some consumers came to equate the P&G logo with Satan. P&G learned about it from calls into its consumer hotline. To contain the problem, we arranged media interviews in the affected geographies for a P&G spokesperson to recount the logo's true origins.

As for ExxonMobil's PR team, the containment approach will not work. Online viral campaigns like this have few, if any geographical boundaries. My bet is that the giant oil profiteer will do nothing...except offer some mumble jumble about market fluctuations. But then, of course, that's if people ignore the online call-to-action. Hint hint.

PS To keep my sister happy, I have posted on this in lieu of forwarding the e-mail to 30 friends. Now if you link to it, you'll be doing your part.

Labels: boycott, ExxonMobil, gas prices, move-on.org, PR, public relations, viral marketing, word-of-mouth

Happy Memorial Day everyone. Hmmm, isn't that an oxymoronic expression, especially when one considers the constraints placed on journalists by a DoD intent on restricting coverage of this war, and by so doing, dishonoring those who sacrificed their lives and livelihoods fighting it?

This is from The Times's David Carr's "Media Equation" column today:

"If Joseph Heller were still around, he might appreciate the bureaucratic elegance of paragraph 11(a) of IAW Change 3, DoD Directive 5122.5: 'Names, video, identifiable written/oral descriptions or identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without the service member’s prior written consent.'"

James Glanz, the incoming Baghdad Bureau Chief for The New York Times, had this to say:

"'As the number of reporters there dwindles further and further because of the difficult conditions we work under, the kind of work they are able to publish becomes very important,' Mr. Glanz said. 'This tiny remaining corps of reporters becomes a greater and greater problem for the military brass because we are the only people preventing them from telling the story the way they want it told.'"

Even so, I was "happy" this Memorial Day Weekend to have caught a PBS special about an elderly group of World War II fighter pilots who traveled from all parts of the country to attend their last reunion around the dedication ceremonies of the World War II Memorial in our nation's capital.

It was especially poignant for me, having spent eight years (and just about every skill in my PR arsenal) to work alongside the American Battle Monuments Commission to bring the World War II Memorial to life that glorious sunny day on May 29, 2004. (See picture above.)

Some 160,000 octogenarians gathered on the National Mall to hear from the likes of Tom Hanks, Pres. Bush, Tom Brokaw and Sen. Bob Dole, while Presidents George HW Bush and Bill Clinton sat in the audience. But the day was not about the politicians, celebrities and famous newscasters on hand. Dedication Day belonged to those who fought selflessly to save the world more than 60 years earlier, and who were dying at a rate of a thousand per day.

No matter how much this administration deceived the American people into attacking Iraq, and regardless of how Mr. Bush and his followers continue to fog the reality of this historical blunder, today we must honor our past and present soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation.

Labels: Iraq, journalism, media, Memorial Day, PR, President Bush, public relations, veterans, World War II Memorial

To promote the opening of The Who's "Tommy," my first boss convinced entertainment impresario Robert Stigwood to hold the film's premiere party in New York's 57th Street subway station. The connection between the NYC subway and the movie (or its vinyl origin) always escaped me -- except tied to the lyric: "Tommy, can you hear me?"

Nevertheless, the choice of this underground venue drove the kind of boffo media coverage, e.g. ROI, that more than justified the lavish and logistical expense. (Also, it probably gave many of the glitterati in attendance their first look at a New York subway station.)

Flash forward to a more recent "underground" news conference in which the choice of venue reaped prominent headlines, but soon also produced a backlash. The New York Times headline sums it up:

"2nd Ave. Subway’s Photo Op Cost the M.T.A. $89,000"

Holding a groundbreaking ceremony for a new subway line in the subway tunnel certainly made more sense thematically than a black-tie movie premiere:

"'The groundbreaking ceremony for the Second Avenue subway was a historic event that won’t be forgotten by those in attendance and the thousands of New Yorkers who watched on live television,' Jeremy Soffin, a spokesman for the authority, said yesterday in a statement. "Costs were incurred to hold a safe event in such a unique setting, but we believe it is important to expose the public to our infrastructure to better understand the transit system that drives the regional economy.'"

Still, isn't this the second gaffe by a New York transportation authority in which the initial headlines soon catalyzed a negative public reaction? Lesson learned: government agencies, non-profit organizations, academic institutions, and others in whom the public trusts, need to be very wary of appearing to betray that trust.

BTW -- the MTA should be thankful that the story omitted the PR agency fee when calculating the $89,000 figure spent on the subway event. Five figures definitely looks much better than six.

Anyway, take the weekend off. Enjoy your time with friends and family. New York's expecting some sultry July temps this weekend.

Labels: "Tommy", 2nd Avenue Subway, move premiere, MTA, news conference, Port Authority of New York, PR, public relations, The WHo

This appeared yesterday in one of the lead chroniclers of the tech sector:

• "Publicity is, in effect, free advertising."

• "The downside of free publicity is that you cannot control what is said about your company, product or service."

• "Newspapers, business periodicals, TV and radio stations, and magazines can all offer the publicity for which you're looking."

• "The hook: In most cases, you need a hook to attract publicity. A hook is the characteristic that makes you, your product or service unique. "

• "Whenever it might be appropriate, remember to send a photo of yourself -- and your event, if there is one -- with any publicity requests. Photos tend to personalize the request and give the reporter someone to relate to."

Am I missing something here, or is this piece (via www.allbusiness.com) from SFGate, the San Francsciso Chronicle's website, a bit anachronistic? You'd think that even a dead tree journal in the center of all things digital could come up with something a little more au courant.

Labels: PR, public relations, Publicity, San Francisco Chronicle, SF Gate, Tech PR

The beauty of the blogosphere lies in the diversity of opinion one can find...with the right search engine, of course.

Two widely divergent POVs emerged today on the subject of search, and specifically the revamp of blog search's big brand name -- Technorati.

A-list bloggers, the Scobleizer and the Microspersuader, seemed quite at odds on the re-make (for relevancy) of Technorati. From Mr. Scoble:

"Technorati is so superior to all the other blog search engines now that it isn’t even funny. Why can 45 people at Technorati beat Google yet Microsoft, with its billions of dollars, can’t get any traction?"

From Mr. Rubel:

"The improvements are nice, but I have to admit that I don't use Technorati nearly as much as I used to. Link authority was a good metric a year ago, but it's not nearly as worthwhile today when you consider all of the centers of influence one may wish to search and track. Link authority doesn't tell me who's an influencer on Facebook or which video artists are rising on YouTube. It was great in 2005, ok in 2006 and really has faded from relevance in 2007."

More from the Scobelizer:

"Google, on the other hand, with its billions in revenue and thousands of PhD’s should be ashamed that it isn’t as good as Technorati."

More from the Micropersuader:

"In short, this means the heyday of dedicated "live web" search engines like Technorati is coming to a close."

Of course, these contradictory contentions arrive with a heap of qualifiers, so best to read the full text of their posts before forming an opinion. Or you can read what others have to say:

• Information Week
• The Washington Post
• Search Engine Watch
• Social Computing
• Search Views
• Social Media Club
  

Or we can put the two in the ring and have them duke it out.

Labels: blogosphere, Google, Micropersuader, PR, public relations, Robert Scoble, Scobleizer, Search, social media, Steve Rubel, Technorati

Some of the early coverage of Michael Moore's latest docu-film "Sicko," which the filmmaker screened in Cannes over the weekend, has begun to wash ashore. The early buzz is pretty good, but I'm sure the media tsunami will reach a crescendo as we approach the June 29 opening.

This blogger posted on it just about two years ago at a time when big pharma and the big health insurers were gearing up to do battle. In fact, I know of one drug company that prescribed an entire unit to keep tabs on what was expected to be a scathing indictment of the industry. The AMC blog reports that the film is "kinder and gentler" than what was anticipated.

"The film is a call to action," Moore said, "The film is meant not for Michael Moore to go and do it, but for the American people to go and do it."

Milt Freudenheim, The Times's pre-eminent insurance beat reporter, reports that Mr. Moore and company hired Clinton mouthpiece Chris Lehane as the film's spokesperson. He also previewed a bit of Moore's whistle-blower marketing plan.

"To ride the Cannes momentum ahead of the film’s United States release, the team plans to start running newspaper advertisements superimposing health insurer logos on tombstones and to use the Web to solicit whistle-blowers from the ranks of insurance company employees."

What struck me as PR-noteworthy was one industry group's initial response to the film:

"'If the movie results in members of Congress and governors putting this issue squarely on the table as the No. 1 priority, we will be part of that discussion and will welcome it,' said Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group in Washington."

Smart, Karen. Perhaps Michael Moore's less-than-shrill approach this go-round will produce as a side effect, dialogue, and...change? Ms. Ignagni strikes the right chord by refusing to condemn this film and its famously caustic filmmaker on an issue that few in this country will argue doesn't need a strong dose of medication, if not a defibrillator.

Labels: Cannes, health insurance, marketing, Michael Moore, movies, PR, public relations, Sicko

Chris Roush, who pens the Talking Biz News blog for SABEW (Society of American Business Editors and Writers), today shared the wisdom of two unconventional speakers at the organization's annual confab.

FBI agents Tony Caruso and Gregg Harmon gave the biz scribes in attendance their tips for good interviews:

...be "good listeners" and avoid making "mistakes by jumping to wrong conclusions, being inattentive to the person they’re talking to, being impatient, doing only one interview and losing their temper."

(The Jack Bauer school of interviewing didn't come up.)

Compare and contrast the agents' advice with the observations that appeared in a column of someone not unaccustomed to the ways of the Feds. Howard Kurtz, Washington Post media reporter and host of "Reliable Sources," began his column today with:

"The humble interview, the linchpin of journalism for centuries, is under assault. It is a transaction that clearly favors the person asking the questions. A print reporter writes down someone's answers, then picks and chooses how much, if any, to use, how to frame the quotes and where to put any contrary information. Television correspondents slice and dice taped interviews in similar fashion."

Gosh darn! Now I know why clients rarely like their quotes. But have faith -- the rules of media engagement are changing.

A while ago, this blog reported on Mark Cuban's pathbreaking move to self-publish the unedited e-mail exchange between himself and the M&A reporter for The New York Times. Cuban was distinctly unhappy with how his printed remarks jibed with what he actually said (or meant).

Then, a few weeks ago, we slogged through a long rant from the pedantic professor Jay Rosen (pictured above) who complained how his Times-printed quotes were used to meet the journalist's agenda, not his own. The professor, who seems to have a thing for his hometown broadsheet, sounded strangely like all those hyper-sensitive clients who believed they were wronged by the evil media filter.

Since this blog is ostensibly written for the PR set, the redeeming take-away can be found in a quote from the provocative professor:

"'The balance of power has shifted,' says Jay Rosen, who teaches journalism at New York University. 'Everyone used to be landlocked, and the media was the outlet to the sea of public discussion. But now there are many routes. . . . Readers have more power because they have more sources, and sources have more power because they can go direct to readers.'"

All the usual suspects chimed in on the debate:

"Jason Calcanis [sic], chief executive of Weblogs Inc. [double sic], says on his blog that 'journalists have been burning subjects for so long with paraphrased quotes, half quotes, and misquotes that I think a lot of folks (especially ones who don't need the press) are taking an email only interview policy.'

Veteran magazine editor Jeff Jarvis adds at his BuzzMachine blog: 'Are interviews about information or gotcha moments? . . . Isn't it better to get considered, complete answers?'"

Since it's his column, Mr. Kurtz weighed in with these weighty words:

"But let me say a word in defense of face-to-face discussions, or even telephone chats. When you see someone's expressions or listen to someone's voice, you get a sense of the person that words on a screen lack. A back-and-forth in real time often leads to illuminating moments. And, of course, typed answers can be rather bloodless -- and they make it impossible for me to write, he said with a smile:)..."

Though he does demure a bit:

Since journalism is the art of compression, it's not a bad idea for news organizations to post transcripts or videotape of entire interviews so readers and viewers can judge the process for themselves.

So there you have it, or maybe not. The persistent professor prolonged the punditry by posting this today.

Labels: Chris Roush, Howard Kurtz, Jay Rosen, journalism, PR, public relations

The May 1 issue of Harvard Management Update featured an article titled "Why PR Matters -- And What It Can Do For You." It was written by Kevin Sullivan, a former journalist who heads marketing for a national law firm based in Atlanta. Mr. Sullivan does an admirable job in describing the tenets and power of public relations to drive business, employee recruitment and company morale.

One problem: the piece and its accompanying podcast could have been published in 1970.

It made no mention of the transformative effects of digital PR. Missing was any reference to consumer generated media, online communities, RSS, blogger engagement, YouTube, optimized press releases, loss of brand stewardship, digital video, etc. (Also absent were other disciplines that define the profession such as organizational communications, public affairs, constituency relations, investor relations, labor relations, etc.)

If one were to believe Harvard Management Update, public relations equates to media relations, and mainstream media relations at that.

From the podcast:

"...public relations, or media relations, as many people prefer to call it, is truly one of the most cost-effective ways to market a company, product or service..."

Mr. Sullivan recounted his PR work for a software company:

"...first we contacted trade the media...we sent them simplified media kits, which told the story about our company...we made it clear that we had experts...and third we contributed articles to trade publications..."

"The approach worked very well for us. Our president was very soon doing media interviews, and doing frequent media interviews..."

"The PR fed upon itself...with each successful story placement, it made it that much easier to get the next one..."

Talking about PR's payoff at his law firm:

"In the past, the firm counted media hits...in the dozens. In 2006, we had more than 700 media hits. Those 700 hits reach an audience of about 170 million people. Now if we had to buy that same amount of media attention through advertising, it would have cost us nearly $3 million dollars...however, some PR professionals argue that the real value of that so-called free-earned media, should be multiplied...now using a conservative multiplier of three, you could argue that our PR effort was really worth about $9 million to the firm... "

Back in the early 90's, I represented a big consumer technology firm whose PR Director took me aside one day to solicit my predictions on the prospects, by media outlet, for a particular story in terms of "likely," "fair," or "unlikely." I asked him why, and he told me that his bonus was based on whether his publicity projections bore fruit.

Now, don't misunderstand me. I'm not casting aspersions on a PR discipline that has been very good to me over the years. In fact, this blogger continues to assert that the tenets of traditional PR remain valid, valued, and quite lucrative. There's nothing quite like a little mainstream media coverage to assuage one's client, and even move the needle.

Yet, the fact that the sea change in our industry didn't surface in this discussion of PR, except perhaps for the manner in which it played out on my desktop, makes me believe that a digital divide does exist in our profession. I'm just not sure whether it's geographical, by industry, or simply a matter of the curious versus incurious.

At a recent teleseminar on social media, one of the industry's most digitally astute professionals confided that, in spite of his agency's growing reputation for online savvy, it still reaps the overwhelming majority of its income from traditional PR work, e.g., generating mainstream publicity for its clients. In other words, compadres, don't neglect your database of journalists...just yet.

Labels: Harvard Business Review, Harvard Management Update, media relations, PR, public relations

A quick Google search on the term "buzz marketing" yielded 1.1 million results. I bet few actually have the ingredients to the elusive elixir for generating actual buzz for one's product or service.

Opening a copy of today's New York Post, there it was: the formula for generating buzz. It came in the form of A-list funnyman Jerry Seinfeld who's been on hiatus for the better part of a decade, albeit for his taped turns on Fox each night.

To promote his Dreamworks' animated fall feature "Bee Movie," Mr. Seinfeld dressed as a bumble bee and took to the skies for a photo-op at the world's most famous film fest. (Who said cajoling celebs to promote their work is hard?)

"Anything I hate," Seinfeld said through his body mike, 'it's publicity that smacks of any kind of desperation."

The net result: boffo buzz.

Elsewhere in The Post, I come across another even more curious item in which some PR consigliere -- Rubenstein, perhaps -- likely played a role in the roll-out of some embarrassing (to the paper) tidbits of news. The story reported a number of ethical improprieties alleged by a fired "Page Six" alum, including some nocturnal naughtiness by the newspaper's top editor.

The Post chose (or was advised) to publish the allegations on a Friday atop the gossip column-of-record -- not to generate buzz for a salacious story -- but rather as a pre-emptive measure to thwart any incremental coverage by some less benevolent chronicler of the Murdochian daily. Familiar PR strategy. (Apparently Gawker agrees.)

Update: The New York Times took the lead and ran with the story smack dab on its front page. (No not the Seinfeld piece.) So much for trying to cut off the story's legs.

Labels: Cannes, Jerry Seinfeld, New York Post, Page Six, PR, public relations

Steve Lohr's piece in yesterday's New York Times "Small Business" section explored some forward-looking online advertising scenarios for the SEM crowd. The so-called "quants" have raised the algorithm stakes to now let display ads find their online target, or more precisely, let the target find the most psychographically appropriate ads.

Last year, this blogger posted on the changing dynamic between the advertiser and its online prey shortly after reading John Battelle's The Search. But Lohr takes Battelle's prognostications a step further:

"Indeed, many in the industry regard display advertising that can reach specific audiences as the next big online opportunity — the postsearch wave, the Internet ad market 2.0."

Talking about algorithms, if you live or work in Manhattan, you've likely seen the billboard teaser campaign that plays on that hard-to-spell word. I do find the Ask.com campaign alluring, but it also says something about the "quants" and their growing algorithmic influence over our lives.

"These players are actually hybrids, possessing varying degrees of media smarts. They often operate thousands of miles apart, with the ad experts in New York and the quantitative analysts, or quants, as they are called, on the West Coast. Together, they are changing the nature of display advertising on the Web."

One of the quants I visit from time to time keeps tabs on online behavior. LeeAnne Prescott of Hitwise just posted a most timely analysis showing an uncanny seasonal correlation between the search terms "swimsuits" and "diets." I guess the itsy bitsy teenie weenie yogurt ad creative has taken its toll on the public consciousness.

Labels: advertising, algorithm, ask.com, Hitwise, John Battelle, PR, public relations, Search Engine, SEM, Steve Lohr, The Search

Not unrelated to the item below, the folks at engadget posted a story this morning from a "tipster" reporting a delay with Apple's iPhone and Leopard operating system until later this year.

It took a while for Apple PR to quash the unfounded rumor. Could the department not have been monitoring "the conversation" as closely as it should?

Two questions arise: would an MSM outlet published an item like this based on a such a tip? (In engadget's defense, the tip spawned from an erroneous Apple internal memo.)

And, how long did it take for Apple PR to kill the erroneous story? I mean, it was engadget, after all!

Add this one to the Apple rumor mill on Digg.

Labels: Apple, engagdet, iPhone, Leopard, PR, public relations

Scanning through the business pages of today's New York Times, two items struck me as noteworthy. The first had Motorola chief Ed Zander, fresh from his victory fending off interloper Carl Icahn, doing his best imitation of media impresario Steve Jobs at a splashy, multi-media New York City news conference to showcase his company's latest mobile gizmos (not to mention the celebs retained for endorsement luster).

The second revealed the planned September introduction of the third installment of the wildly popular video game franchise Halo. That story resulted from some PR operative sharing a "draft news release" with the most appropriate reporter at the newspaper-of-record.

I was taken by the contrasting approaches M&M took to breaking their respective stories. Clearly, the Razr's edge could be found in the price Motorola paid to mount such a breathless event. Between the video presentations, A/V, venue, catering, PR firm's services, and the celebrities, we're talking seven figures.

"The phones were introduced at a dance studio in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan, and recorded video demonstrations included the singer Fergie, the soccer star David Beckham and the race car driver Danica Patrick."

The Halo team targeted The Times's resident gamer Seth Schiesel, who previously covered the telecom sector, for the early sneak:

"In a draft version of the announcement, Peter Moore, corporate vice president of Microsoft’s interactive entertainment division, called the release of Halo 3 'more than a video game release; it’s the biggest entertainment event of the year.' Microsoft is already starting to build publicity for the game. This week, online players are getting their first peek at the game in the form of a test, or beta, version that Microsoft is distributing over its Xbox Live Internet service. "

The cost: a phone call to Schiesel and Mr. Moore's time.

Both "announcements" produced coverage in The Times (and elsewhere) though the Motorola piece in The Times was accompanied by three photos. If Microsoft remains true to form, expect a much bigger PR/marketing investment at the time Halo bows publicly.

Until then, we should be mindful of when a newsmaking production reaches a point of diminishing returns. Could Motorola have achieved the same boffo news coverage without the extravagant extravaganza? Does existing gamer fanaticism for Halo permit a more nuanced approach to the public reveal? Will Halo be available for play on a Razr phone? Stay connected.

Labels: Halo, media, Microsoft, Motorola, news conference, PR, public relations, Razr, Steve Jobs

When "60 Minutes" arrived on the scene, many PR pros didn't quite know what to make of this new longer form investigative TV news program. We were not accustomed to having our charges ambushed -- as the tape rolled. The techniques of command and control had yet to flourish.

Many PR types counselors knee-jerked to the company's legal department to put the kibosh on a potentially libelous segment. But the C&C crowd believed that if caught early enough, even a predisposed "60 Minutes" piece could be softened or balanced.

To do so, however, required an effusively articulate, yet congenial executive armed with the facts and ready to rumble. (This was a time when the top tier news organizations actually sought balance.) If the news outlet could be convinced that the story premise didn't hold water, the piece could very well be killed.

Even so, the on-air investigative crowd soon recognized that the visible trauma inflicted on the interviewee made for better television than the veracity of the segment's story line...especially during sweeps. Unflattering close-ups, the element of surprise, and demeaning camera angles, along with creative editing all contributed to the ratings cause.

One technique we used to counter the news program's growing quest for drama entailed taping the taping. In exchange for access to our newsmaker client, we demanded (and were granted) the right to film the interview. When the news crews' cameras shut down, so did ours. We would then have unedited footage to make available on an as needed basis, but with few outlets on which the public could view it.

Flash forward to today. "The Lede" in today's New York Times online reports on how the Scientologists ambushed a BBC "Panorama" reporter, capturing him on digital video in an especially unflattering light. The church of Cruise, Travolta and others then built a website (albeit, a cheesy one), and turned to YouTube to pre-emptively discredit the Beeb in advance of the venerable news organization's forthcoming documentary on the cult-like organization.

The option to appeal directly to the church of public opinion didn't exist back in the embryonic days of investigative TV news. The news filter diminished any effort to counter-attack a negative story. That obviously has changed with the empowerment of anyone to make and disseminate content as they see fit.

Surprisingly, and ironically, the Beeb countered the ambush of its reporter by creating and posting its own anti-Scientology clip on YouTube. Oh, and it filed this report as well. I wonder which of the two will have greater legs?

Labels: "60 Minutes", BBC, crisis management, journalism, media, PR, public relations, Scientology, YouTube

The once-booming VNR industry is in the dumps. Much of its demise can be traced to the efforts of PR Watch and others to hold accountable the disseminators of privately-produced video "news," and the Congressional hearings that followed as a result. The issue: transparency.

At the time, this blogger commented that most, if not all VNR production companies, as a matter of policy, actually did reveal the sponsors of their distributed video (well, maybe not all). The problem really resided with the TV news producers who often failed to slug the sources of the footage landing in their Avids.

Today, independently produced video footage clings to life in local news programming, but the rise of do-it-yourself video sites offers the PR pro a multitude of other "placement" options (full disclosure still required).

You have the usual suspects, e.g., YouTube, Revver, Veoh.com, Yahoo! Video, etc, and then there's the paid model of The Newsmarket to which TV newsers presumably look for free video assets or ideas to enhance their news product.

But back to the problem of full disclosure, and the supposed obligation of journalists to identify their sources -- if not by name, surely by motivation. Michael Scherer, writing today in Salon, exposes the growing practice by the political campaigns to clandestinely seed "journalists" with opposition-damaging information. Think John McCain's rendition of "Barbara Ann" ("Bomb Iran.") or John Edwards' $400 coiffing.

"In recent months, such invisible releases of information have often dominated the news cycle and have become ubiquitous for reporters covering the candidates. Official e-mails from campaigns regularly arrive in reporter in boxes with subject lines like "n/a," or "not for attribution." Unsigned white papers are delivered with damning facts about opponents' fundraising reports. Information is passed along by senior campaign officials in hushed tones on the telephone, only after the reporter has sworn never to reveal the source."

Scherer admits that there are benefits to this seemingly nefarious practice, but transparency surely is not one of them:

"Both reporters and the campaigns benefit from this thriving black market of information, as does the public, in many cases, because noteworthy facts about the candidates are widely disseminated. But the growing profusion of campaign-driven stories has also sidelined traditional on-the-ground journalism, while at the same time misleading the public about the true source of information."

In my mind, it's the proliferation of "advocacy journalism" -- on cable and especially online -- that spawned this practice. These pseudo, but influential journalists simply adhere to a different set of rules or no rules at all. Truth be told: Matt Drudge will never divulge his deceptively driven sources. And the partisan political PR pros, on both sides, know it and benefit from it.

Labels: Matt Drudge, politics, PR, PR Watch, presidential campaign, public relations, Salon, transparency, VNR

It's no secret that the 2008 presidential campaigns will fully embrace (and experiment with) many of the latest digital tools and strategies in disparate (and desperate) ways to engage the widening swath of online denizens old enough to vote. Over the next 18 months, we'll see many of their new media maneuverings emerge -- for better or worse.

All share the same goal: to differentiate themselves (and engage their followers) through branded content that has the capacity to "go viral." The burning question, of course, is whether one can manufacture online evangelism, especially for a "product" that lacks an existing fan base.

I mean it's one thing for M&M's or Starbucks to mount a social media endeavor that entices and empowers its established loyalists, but what about the relatively unknown brand...of political candidate?

I recently had lunch with Nicco Mele who played a lead role in creating the online strategy for the presidential campaign that's widely credited with opening the digital door in politics, or at least in political fundraising. That candidate happened to start with virtually no national brand recognition, outside his home state of Vermont. His simple blog, called Blog for America, eventually climbed to the upper echelons of the fledgling blogosphere in 2003.

Flash forward to 2007, and we find the campaigns again seeking the freshest ingredients that will catalyze the voting public to take notice and action. (Somehow, a blog by itself won't cut it.) Few, however, will disagree with the huge role digital video will play in the current campaign. A visit to Nicco's company's home page, produces a link and headline touting what may be "the greatest presidential ad ever."

The irreverent video spot, posted on YouTube (how tired), features New Mexico's Bill Richardson in a mock job interview for the nation's top job. In viewing the spot, I'm trying to figure out whether it's a goof or whether it's for real. If the latter, does it have the secret sauce to "go viral."

By linking to it, this blogger may have answered his own question. But let's not forget the attention the awkward ad spawned from one not insignificant mainstream media outlet.

Labels: Bill Richardson, politics, PR, presidential campaign, public relations, social media, viral video, YouTube

This blog occasionally reports on the media's obsession with the misdeeds of misanthropic celebrities -- though mostly in the context of how those misdeeds relate to the notion that "all publicity is good publicity."

Last night, Forbes.com posted a piece on a study that tested this axiom by measuring the effect of excessive media exposure -- good and bad -- on the celeb's reputation.

"And while overexposure may have less to do with the precise number of headlines than it does the public’s perception of the celebrity, the 15 stars on our list have proved that familiarity can, and does, breed contempt."

When asked whether it's the media (e.g., Conde Nast, Getty Images, Us Weekly, TMZ...) or the celebs themselves that drive the dance, one sensible Hollywood publicist Stan Rosenfield (whom I know from my earliest days in the biz) had this to say:

"'Blame the celebs,' says Rosenfield, whose clients include George Clooney and Robert De Niro. 'It’s like the juggler’s lament: The balls go where you throw them,' to cover you. And if you don’t (show up), they won’t.'"

Janice Min, who edits one of those glossies whose lifeblood runs with the trials and tribulations of the famous, and infamous, offered this:

"For certain celebrities, it becomes almost a survival instinct," she said of that need for attention. "And after a period of time out of the press, there’s sort of a hunger or craving to get back in."

Rosenfield offered Ms. Spears and her overexposed cohorts this advice for resuscitation:

"How can I miss you if you don’t go away?" he says. "Just go away."

I would add one thing. "Stay away."

Labels: celebrity, Lindsay Lohan, media exposure, PR, public relations, Stan Rosenfield

I finally got around to adding the Daily Dog to my Google Reader's PR folder. Tonight, there it was: a little beauty of an item issued by the firm whose principled principal will keynote next month's 2007 Media Relations Summit on the same panel with the heads of Omnicom's Ketchum PR, WPP's Ogilvy PR and Ruder Finn. (This blogger will be there as well doing some media moderating.)

This little gem of a news item trumpeted "a health & beauty industry event" called the "Bold Beauty Media Symposium" that will feature products from the host PR firm's clients "and beyond." I think the quote from the firm's founder just about sums it up:

"The health & beauty market is combined the biggest interest among consumers and 5W has a strong foothold in servicing this market information to the media and key marketing decision makers."

But there's more.

"5W has had its finger on the pulse of what's new – from the obesity explosion to the plastic surgery boom; the media looks to us for what's news tomorrow in the health & beauty spaces and we provide."

I think I'll pass on the keynote, even though I've always wanted to meet Ogilvy's PR chief Marcia Silverman, and Ketchum's Ray Kotcher is always insightful. (Maybe they'll stop by one of the media panels.)

Labels: Bulldog Reporter, Daily Dog, PR, public relations

I'm so glad that Rafat, Staci and the PaidContent gang are at the NCTA Cable Show. Hey, where else would they be other than with the likes of Parsons, Dauman, Roberts, Chernin, and others too glorious to mention? There are certainly less pleasant places to hang than at the Mandalay Bay in Vegas. Life is good.

Along with the pundits waxing on the current cacophonous and convulsive cable content climate, I was taken by Staci's chat with CNET's CEO Neil Ashe. We all know CNET (not to be confused with its IT-centric sibling ZDNet) as that online repository of all things digital -- from product reviews to tech news etc. But wait, hold your hard drives! Refresh.

CNET is broadening its horizons. According to Staci, Ashe's mission is to be "an interactive media company, not the tech publisher it once was." Case in point: the just-announced multi-year deal with NBCU-News Corp's Newsite Network to distribute and provide content (e.g., "thousands of video clips") . CNET already has a pact to distribute CBS Video. "For CNET, it highlights the transition from tech publishing to passion publishing with sites aimed at particular niches."

To make his point, Ashe relayed a user comment: "I was never really a CNET user but I’m using Bnet and Chow all the time." Both are recent launches. Ashe: "We’ll continue to demonstrate our ability to build these brands for different target markets." Bnet for business, Chow for food, you get the picture.

Long story short, mass market PR is dying on the vine. Niche content sites for every taste are flourishing. No longer will PR pros be measured by the number of media impressions they generate. It's the quality (and responsiveness) of the audience exposed to and consuming the fruits of our labor that will (and should) serve as the new barometer for our effectiveness as a communications discipline.

Labels: Cable Show, CNET, NCTA, Neil Ashe, PaidContent, PR, PR Measurement, public relations

With college graduations upon us, many soon-to-be former students remain in flux over their gainful employment. I would guess that the PR profession, in its many forms, will attract record numbers into the fold this year.

So how does one break into the profession absent PR work experience? One route may be by leveraging a passion -- whether it be music, politics, art, technology, finance, the environment or sports, etc. -- to open the door.

Huh? Let me explain. The PR profession is one of those rare callings whose skills can be applied to virtually any endeavor, enterprise, product, service or institution. (I suppose the accounting profession can make the same claim, but it just doesn't seem the same.)

It is also an industry through which one can marry his or her personal passion with his or her skills, i.e., have your cake and eat it too.

Played college baseball? Every major and minor league team has a PR office. Volunteered for some environmental work? There are hundreds of environmentally focused NGOs, let alone auto, energy, and chemical companies with robust environmental PR practices. Play music? Well, name a classical orchestra, opera company or any musical artist today for which PR does not strike a resonant chord.

Now here's one final warning: DO NOT accept a PR position for the money alone. Sure, if you can make a buck to ply our trade for something about which you are passionate, there's nothing better. But don't sell your soul. Cases in point:

• The DC based PR/lobbying firm that represents a nation with no regard for human rights or any other semblance of civilized society.


• The celebrity publicist whose daily chores consist of covering for a vacuous client (who's soon going to jail).


• The well-regarded PR executive who moved to Arkansas to defend a company with many oppressive employment policies.


• Any former Bush administration official who trades on his connections to gut sound environmental laws.


• The former White House press secretary who knowingly misled the public, albeit on orders from his superiors, to make a case for going to war in Iraq.

Finally, if you choose the agency side of the PR equation, know that agencies come in every size and flavor. Choose one with strong ethical underpinnings and one whose clients' objectives reflect your own.

Labels: college graduates, employment, PR, public relations

Conventional PR wisdom tells us that Ms. Hilton's 45-day lock-up will make the bubbleheaded caricature relevant once again. The AP grabbed a couple of PR types to offer up the usual observations in the age of celebrity:

"It will actually increase her star appeal in a very sick and demented way," said longtime publicist Michael Levine. "There’s a segment of our society that’s somehow engaged in the soap opera that is Paris Hilton, and this is a very compelling plot line in the soap opera."

"The premise of her fame is being naughty,” he said. "This is a career move for her. It simply fuels the fascination. She can only win with this," offered crisis manager Roger Gillott.

Now, what if some expert surprised us by opining that Ms. Hilton's jail time will actually hurt her "career." After all, the dimwit was driving her Bentley with the lights off -- legally drunk and with a suspended license. Shouldn't we consider all the lives lost due to DWI before casting our lot with this numb nut?

Fat chance. Rather, Ms. Hilton's time in prison will rival Martha's for sheer media frenzy. Stay tuned for her over-the-top re-entry into (faux) society when she's set free. "ET" and "Extra" already are chomping at the bit. One thing's for sure: justice will not have been served.

Paris, here's some PR advice: show some contrition for your latest transgression. (FYI - Contrition means "Sincere remorse for wrongdoing; repentance.") Elliot, don't you agree? I mean even New Jersey Governor Corzine gave himself a ticket for his moving violation.

Update: Hilton Sacks Publicist. After all he's done for her?! She deserves the brink. Publicist Elliott Mintz:

"Due to this misunderstanding, I am no longer representing Paris. For the record, I have nothing but love and respect for Paris and her family. Paris is a wonderful person and does not deserve the punishment that was handed down by the court. I only wish her my best."

Now what does he really think?

Labels: celebrity, DWI, Martha Stewart, Paris Hilton, PR, public relations

I don't know what to make of one L.A. publicist's efforts to create a bold name for himself in the Big Apple.

On the one hand, he gets a star turn in Radar online's "Flacklife" "FlackWatch." On the other, it points to a side of PR that would make Sidney Falco blush, let alone many others in the profession.

The Radar item links to this publicist's website on which the logos of fashion and retail's most celebrated names proudly rim the homepage. Impressive. Could these be his clients? No. Just window dressing.

Then, there's the obligatory language for business development. In his case, it's an appeal to celebrity and socialite wannabes with the following:

• "How to be a socialite in the USA" (Answer: "the way you talk," "the way you walk," and your facial expressions")


• "How to be a socialite in the UK" (Answer: same as above)


• "Help for teens that want to become famous" (You mean like Lindsay Lohan?)

At least the self-proclaimed "Uber Celebrity Publicist" is honest:

"With clients, I put them on a pedestal, and the world can see them. If there's nothing there, they are revealed for their phoniness. As of now, there have just been a lot of phonies and fakes who just want to be noticed and have a lot of money. I could use somebody with talent. But they never have the money."

Tacky.

Labels: celebrity, Hollywood, PR, publicist, Radar, socialite

So Canadian PR blogger Ed Lee and I exchanged a few emails on the subject of that Toddand ranking of top marketing blogs.

Ed was complimentary about this blogger's daily content, but he also (correctly) observed the disconnect between my (reasonably entertaining and I think informative) content and my metrics on that questionable barometer (to which too many of our brethren are beholden).

He cited my 110 ranking (of 150), small number of Bloglines subscribers (27), and a "paltry" ranking on Technorati of just 26, 491. (Hey, Ed, 26, 491 divided by 57,000,000 puts The Flack in the top .05 percent of all bloggers.) Even so, one of the top 50 bloggers on that chart (who shall remain linkless) , barely spits out two posts per month, while another PR blogger who hadn't posted since February, recently "earned" a ranking in the 80 range.

Ed's right. It's simply not enough to produce good copy and catchy images. If you build it...they may not necessarily come. Ed admitted that blog readers, for better or worse, like their "candy" short and sweet. (It reminded me of the fledgling USA Today's one-time "Mcpaper" designation.) Could it be my posts are cumbersomely indigestible?

My Aussie pal Paull, who'll soon land permanently on the island of Manhattan, went further: he believes that good rankings are "more a measure of online networking/link baiting/back scratching." But he also astutely observed that perhaps a high ranking is not the holy grail here. Maybe, he mused, the blogger has other reasons for posting -- like a passion for the subject matter. Hmmm.

OK. Enough said. Here's a tidbit that's short and sweet: AOL retains PR agency-of-record in India, and the release announcing the news has two grammatical errors. To quote the agency head:

"Time Warner, owner of AOL [sic] is the world's leading media company and we are delighted that AOL has chosen us as their [sic] Media and PR partner..."

An inauspicious beginning, I'd say.

Labels: AOL, blogging, Bloglines, linkbaiting, PR, public relations, Technorati, Toddand

Last week, I happened to catch one of the unfair and imbalanced Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo" segments (not to be confused with the pilfered name of Joshua Mica Marshall's influential blog).

This particular one-sided O'Reilly diatribe railed against George Soros. (A few days earlier, it was Bill Moyers.)

In the Soros segment., the host showed a chart of the organizations to which Mr. Soros donates to advance his positions on various issues. (It failed to mention Soros's recent $3 million donation to fight TB.)

Nor did it make any mention of the much more insidious money men who opaquely operate on Mr. O'Reilly's side of the political spectrum. In fact, our President just appointed one of them as his Ambassador to Belgium -- unscrupulously bypassing Congress, which would have rejected him based on his lack of qualifications for the job (except as a big Republican donor).

But getting back to Mr. O'Reilly (with whom a client of this blogger did battle in the immediate aftermath of 9/11). As the Ivy League researchers in the previous post were examining the racial bias of basketball referees, several researchers in the journalism department at Indiana University were looking at Mr. O'Reilly's journalistic technique.

They "...studied six months worth, or 115 episodes, of O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo" editorials using propaganda analysis techniques made popular after World War I."

Their conclusion:

"O'Reilly is a heavier and less-nuanced user of the propaganda devices" than the notorious Father Charles Coughlin (pictured above) whose "sermons evolved into a darker message of anti-Semitism and fascism, and [who] became a defender of Hitler and Mussolini."

While frankly I'm not surprised, by the imbalance of Mr. O'Reilly's daily rants, it is very disconcerting to think that:

"A 2005 Annenberg Public Policy Center survey found that while 30 percent of Americans viewed Washington Post and Watergate reporter Bob Woodward as a journalist, 40 percent of respondents considered O'Reilly to be a journalist."

Next time you catch Mr O'Reilly, or any so-called "news" show on Fox News Channel, count the number of guests who represent an opposing, yes, liberal, point of view.

Labels: Bill O'Reilly, Bob Woodward, citizen journalism, Father Charles Coughlin, George Soros, Indiana University, PR, propaganda, public relations, Talking Points Memo

My old friend Gary Zarr, a Rubenstein alum who recently left the top PR and Biz Dev slot at the American Museum of Natural History to run marketing and PR for the NBA, has his first crisis on his hands.

It involves a new study by some Ivy League economists who claim a racial bias on the part of NBA referees -- on both sides of the equation, but more pronounced by Caucasian refs against African-American players.

"...during the 13 seasons from 1991 through 2004, white referees called fouls at a greater rate against black players than against white players." Furthermore, there was "a corresponding bias in which black officials called fouls more frequently against white players, though that tendency was not as strong."

The prominence given the study in the paper-of-record no doubt is fueling the crisis, which prompted both NBA Commish David Stern and the league's head of basketball operations to quickly and emphatically weigh in with the league's own study:

"We think our cut at the data is more powerful, more robust, and demonstrates that there is no bias," Mr. Stern said.

"'The study that is cited in the New York Times article is wrong,' president of league and basketball operations Joel Litvin told The Associated Press on Tuesday night. 'The fact is there is no evidence of racial bias in foul calls made by NBA officials and that is based on a study conducted by our experts who looked at data that was far more robust and current than the data relied upon by Professor Wolfers.'"

The NBA's timely, data-supported response, which attempts to undermine the Ivy researchers' methodology of using three-man referee crews versus individual refs, may help ameliorate the prospect of a full blown crisis. But that, of course, depends on how the headline writers play the story and whether others come off the bench to join the game. As of now, the NBA website's news section is conspicuously void of any reference to the story.

Labels: crisis management, NBA, PR, public relations, racial bias, referee

I don't mind the Wall Street Journal and New York Times' news alerts periodically popping on my desktop (as long as their purveyors don't get too trigger happy). So far, both have been judicious in what they've chosen to send.

Take the two WSJ Alerts that moved moments ago, separated by a mere three minutes. The first hit close to home for the publisher of the Wall Street Journal:

"News Corp. Offers $60 a Share in Unsolicited Bid for Dow Jones."

Trading in the stock is halted on the big board.

Now this news will soon command a fair share of attention (to put it mildly), so I'll refrain from adding my two cents except to opine that it likely wasn't Barrons or Dow Jones or Marketwatch that seduced Mr. Murdoch. The News Corp CEO no doubt wants to bond more closely with his idealogical soulmates on the editorial pages of The Journal.

The other News Alert concerned Lord Browne of BP's sudden resignation as CEO of the world's #2 oil company. Now this blogger has written (with great admiration) about Lord Browne and his break with big oil to reinvent BP as a more (much more) environmentally conscious company. In fact, I even played a small role in helping those revelations get the attention they (and Sir John) deserved.

The more recent news out of BP -- most notably, environmental issues over faulty maintenance of BP's Alaskan pipeline -- hastened Lord Browne to announce his decision to step down this July. Today, however, I am scratching my head by the CEO's sudden ouster for reasons allegedly having to do with a threat by the London tabs to expose his private life.

"In my 41 years with BP I have kept my private life separate from my business life," Lord Browne said. "I have always regarded my sexuality as a personal matter, to be kept private. It is a matter of deep disappointment that a newspaper group has now decided that allegations about my personal life should be made public."

Since when does one's sexuality constitute a reason for dismissal? My left coast PR friend Howard Bragman just sent me a piece in which he's profiled about his work helping professional athletes come out of the closet. Would any of his clients been forced to resign in a modern society as a result of their admissions?

Either there's something more to this news, or the UK has taken a page from its former territory where Richard Gere's being sued for giving some Bollywood babe a few pecks on the cheek...on national TV, no less. Stay tuned.

Labels: BP, Dow Jones, Howard Bragman, Lord Browne, News Corp., PR, public relations, Richard Gere, Wall Street Journal