Fibbingest

Tweet

Is fibbingest the antithesis of truthiness? ValleyWag ME Owen Thomas reports today that Business 2.0, on the brink of extinction (or execution, depending on how snarky you wish to be), may be revived...if only to attract an outside buyer.

While working on his item, he sought comment from one of Time Inc's PR reps, but apparently took issue with the poetic license the rep used to deflect interest in the story.

"Great Moments in PR: Meet Danielle Perissi, Time Inc's fibbingest flack."

Not to be outdone, the blog that invented snarkiness well before Perez or Jossip burst onto the scene, gleefully linked to Thomas's anti-PR rant .

Well, the good news is that Business 2.0 may not have reached the end of its rope. The bad news is that some PR person garnered some minor notoriety for trying to (disingenuously) protect the interests of her bosses, and I quote:

"As usual, she issued a denial that any changes were afoot. Well, no, that's too kind: I should say, rather that she lied baldfacedly and, what's far worse, unconvincingly about the matter. I don't know why I bothered to call her. Or why colleagues at Time Inc., a company full of journalists with no patience for inept flacks, tolerate her. Oh, right -- they don't."

Keith, how did you miss this one?

Orange Not Green

Tweet

I used to do some PR/community relations work for Home Depot. The work entailed helping the pioneering big box retailer gain a bigger presence in the New York market. As expected, area mom & pop hardware stores feared for their very survival.

We were charged to provide all relevant parties with historical data on the true impact the big boxer had on moms and pops in other markets. Guess what? The impact was relatively minimal, which paved the way for the retailer to win approvals for stores in Queens and Yonkers.

I also remember how enamored I was with Home Depot's fresh, community-minded culture -- one that empowered local and regional managers to fund worthwhile causes in its communities, e.g., fixing up a local ball field, that sort of thing.

More recently, Home Depot has glommed onto the enviro bandwagon, but with decidedly mixed results. The first cracks appeared with a less-than-flattering New York Times piece titled "At Home Depot, How Green Is That Chainsaw?" The piece questioned the veracity of the chain store's claims of environmental friendliness across its many SKUs.

Then today, The Times (again) reported on how some eco-minded, digitally savvy activists (rightfully) challenged the Atlanta company to pull its advertising from Fox News, a network that has done more than its share to discredit the science behind global climate change.

"A short video by Robert Greenwald, 'Fox Attacks: The Environment,' has been viewed more than 380,000 times since it was posted on YouTube on July 9...the video highlights Fox News clips, in this case experts claiming that global warming caused by pollution is, among other things, a 'hoax.'"

Thus far Home Depot -- a big NASCAR favorite -- has refused to pull the spots in spite of the apparent contradiction with the company's massive "Eco Options" marketing initiative. The reason:

"'It’s not our place to judge Fox News’s position or any other media outlet’s position on global warning,' responded Ron Jarvis, vice president for environmental innovation at the retailer, based in Atlanta. 'Nor will we try to influence that position with our advertising dollars. We’re advertisers, not censors.'"

A specious argument, me thinks, but one that surely will play well in Talladega.

Second Life's Two Minds

Tweet

Sure, Second Life has garnered an inordinate amount of media attention since hitting the big time over the last year or so. But just like the Mittyesque avatars who frequent the joint, opinions about the now big-branded virtual world tend to be of two separate minds.

Consider the rather skeptical view proffered from one mind at Wired. Frank Rose's piece, titled "How Madison Avenue Is Wasting Millions on a Deserted Second Life," reports:

"Created by an underfunded startup using a physics engine that's now years out of date, Second Life is made up of thousands of disconnected "regions" (read: processors), most of which remain invisible unless you explicitly search for them by name. Residents can reach these places only by teleporting into the void. And even the popular islands are never crowded, because each processor on Linden Lab's servers can handle a maximum of only 70 avatars at a time; more than that and the service slows to a crawl, some avatars disappear, or the island simply vanishes."

Not exactly the kind of environment the mass marketing set counts on to capture eyeballs. But I'm not one to believe everything I read. Consider the Newsweek International piece that also popped this week. It's title and lead say it all: "Alternate Universe: Second Life is emerging as a powerful new medium for social interactions of all sorts, from romance to making money. It may be the Internet's next big thing."

Heady stuff, but quite contradictory to Mr. Rose's magazine's presumably more wired take (in spite of its Conde Nast parentage). The breathlessly voluminous Newsweek piece went on:

"The medium sucks people in. A recent Dutch study found that 57 percent of Second Lifers spend more than 18 hours a week there, and 33 percent spend more than 30 hours a week. On a typical day, customers spend $1 million buying virtual clothes, cars, houses and other goods for their avatars, and total sales within this virtual economy are now growing at an annual rate of 10 percent."

Gartner Research pumped on the bandwagon:

"By 2011, four of every five people who use the Internet will actively participate in Second Life or some similar medium, according to Gartner Research, which recently did a study looking at the investment potential of virtual worlds. If Gartner is to be believed (and it is one of the most respected research firms in the field) this means 1.6 billion—out of a total 2 billion Internet users—will have found new lives online."

So who's to believe? Beats me. I still have a hard time finding the right wardrobe to wear in that world. And, once I do, fat chance I'll be headed over to drink from Coca-Cola's virtual cup. I mean, as of this week, you can't even gamble there any longer.

Raw PR

Tweet

The Social Media Collective got its dander up a few weeks back when one of blogdom's more respected pundits had the audacity to use her authoritative blogging pulpit to advance the interests of a paying client. She disclosed the arrangement, but nonetheless took a beating in the online court of public opinion.

This blogger didn't see what all the fuss was about, and frankly, was probably "guilty" of the same crime, i.e., using his space to wax poetic on various paying clients from time to time -- always with full disclosure of the relationship.

In my last post on this conundrum, which, by the way, has existed since the nascent days of PR people-turned-"citizen" journalists, I even suggested that prospective clients might be tempted to favor an agency based on the agency's having an A-lister on its staff. "Put him on the account, and the business is yours!" (At least until he refuses to share the client's virtues with his readers.)

A post yesterday from authoritative PR/marketing blogger David Parmet, a friend, popped in my RSS reader this morning. In it was a promotional plug for his client Raw Digital. At the end of the post, we see the disclosure, but wonder whether the topic would have found its way onto David's blog as a stand-alone, i.e., without the fee:

"We’re launching Raw Digital with a special event in NYC tonight. Our first bit of coverage is here. More to follow…"

Time shifting viewing habits. Appointment TV. Video for all media channels 24/7.... Timely and relevant topics to marketers, for sure...I guess. Anyway, aren't we just extensions of our clients' communications arms? And didn't someone proclaim the death of the traditional media filter (by trumpeting our new-found ability to bypass it)?

Personally, I don't believe we've reached a point when an optimized press release and post by an influential blogger/PR person (in that order?) alone can carry the day. Maybe we need to add the burgeoning influence of one another's social network(s). The Microspersuader had a good post on this earlier this week (in which he plugs a client of his firm's).

Nevertheless, the courting, engaging, pitching (or whatever you wish to call it) of the media filter continues to merit "core competency" status for the PR pro...at least for the foreseeable future.

Cardboard Buns

Tweet

The authorities in China don't take too kindly to cardboard buns . They announced strong measures against a TV news program that staged a segment featuring steamed buns stuffed with cardboard, soaked in caustic soda and seasoned with pork flavoring...fabricated by the station to garner higher ratings.

That's all? Have we got a reality show for you!

The lead in Xinhua News Agency's English-translated story read:

"China's propaganda departments on Monday reiterated that all media staff must 'strictly follow news ethics' and persist with the 'authenticity of journalism' days after the infamous cardboard bun expose was labeled a hoax by the government."

I was especially enamored by the use of the term propaganda in describing the government agencies. Unlike our own, here's one government that calls a spade a spade.

Come to think of it, imagine working for "The Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee?" Sounds like a film or TV studio. Nevertheless, it was one of the three Chinese government entities that issued an edict that:

"...reminded state media and provincial-level publicity departments in charge of local media to 'brush up on journalistic ethnics' and 'maintain the image and social credibility of the Chinese media. Authenticity is the lifeblood of journalism while fabricated reporting is its arch-enemy,' it said."

Sounds nice. Is the Chinese government actually warming to the precepts of a free media as articulated in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Hardly.

"All media organizations must ensure the authenticity of news sources and facts and regulate the flow of news editing such as the use of public contributions and Internet resources, it said, adding editors are not allowed to run stories that have not been verified. The statement also required reporters to 'take press cards while covering new events.'"

So how does a Chinese blogger get a press card anyway?

As punishment for this journalistic transgression, which pales in comparison to the daily fare we see on Fox News,

"The head of Beijing Television Station was publicly reprimanded and the editor-in-chief was given a warning. One deputy editor-in-chief was given a demerit, said the statement. All three were asked to compose self-criticisms. Police arrested the reporter."

A demerit? More ominously, I wonder if the Jayson Blair of Beijing TV will now be executed? Stay tuned.

Promises Unkept

Tweet

"A call to Lohan’s publicist was not immediately returned." Well, even if it was, what can a publicist possibly do or say in response to news of her client being arrested (again) for DUI and cocaine possession???

This (not-unexpected) turn of events comes on the heals of Ms. Lohan's (second) high-profile release from the obligatory Hollywood rehabilitation facility. In fact, the Promises Malibu Alcohol and Drug Rehab Treatment Facility may have a PR problem of its own given the failure rate of its prominent patients. Didn't that other celebrity train wreck also "graduate" from Promises?

Well, Perez and soon the mainstream media will be all over this one -- not so much for the surprising nature of the news, but more for the salacious prospects of Ms. Lohan following in the footsteps her partying princess pal Paris. Maybe Lindsay's Dad, who attempted to bring Jesus to his daughter and feels partially responsible for her waywardness, can offer some jailhouse tips of his own.

What's especially unfortunate is that of all the bubbleheads that dominate the tabs, celeb glossies and gossip blogs, Ms. Lohan actually had talent and a tremendously bright future. Wasn't she once compared to La Liz? Now she's reduced to faux-celebrity born out of infamy, and there's little Leslie Sloan Zelnick or anyone can do to gloss over this sad reality.

That List

Tweet

A number of bloggers were just pinged by Todd Andrlik of ToddAnd's "Power 150" list of top marketing bloggers, which was the subject of this blog (#119) a while back.

The news: Todd is teaming up with Ad Age to institutionalize the list. He reasons:

"The Ad Age partnership will help make the Power 150 an even greater tool (and more powerful) since Ad Age has a dedicated staff, a giant readership, and more resources than I do."

One of those resources, of course, is the publication's inimitable editor Jonah Bloom who once toiled in the same capacity at PR Week. As you might expect, Jonah's quite current on the changed and changing marketing environment in which we ply our trade.

Just last week, he sent out a query asking for feedback on AMC's new critically acclaimed series "Mad Men," which takes a retro look at the ad business in the 1960s. (Think Darren of "Bewitched" and Leonardo DeCaprio as a Pan Am pilot in "Catch Me if You Can.")

"What, if anything, does it do for today's marketing world?" Bloom asks.

Minimally, the top-down, command-and-control marketing mindset of Mad Men -- which is set in an era when a new cigarette campaign raised few eyebrows -- stands in stark contrast to today's marketing paradigm where the smart crowd seeks to create a dialogue with those to whom it hopes to sell.

Anyway, much luck to Todd's list, and keep on shaking things up, Jonah.

Screening Critics

Tweet

Been on the road much of the day, so apologies for the late posting. I also missed the Publicity Club of New York luncheon today where editors from Allure, Fast Company, Self, Quick & Simple and Wired shared with the New York PR crowd their editorial plans for the holidays.

This piece in today's L.A. Times caught my eye for two reasons: It begs the question this blog previously has covered regarding which journos merit press credentials, access, preview screenings, etc. in an age when simply everyone's a journalist.

The second issue involves the time-honored practice by film studio publicists of granting media access, but only as a quid pro quo for other give-backs, e.g., press and review embargoes, limits on interview questions, etc.

As all journalists migrate to the web, 2oth Century Fox's PR department has discovered that its simplistic delineation of journos into one of three media channels -- print, broadcast and online -- has backfired. The Chicago Film Critics Association is boycotting the studio for limiting online access to film screenings. Other cities' film critics association are joining in the boycott.

So if Fox lets any reasonable credentialed reporter into its screenings, will we see some shrill film director crying foul when the critic breaks the review embargo before the film's release date? Stay tuned.

Michiko Unembargoed

Tweet

"All Things Considered" had a segment last evening on the hyperbole and hyper-security by Potter publishers Bloomsbury and Scholastic to keep the lid on Harry until 12:01am this Saturday. The publishers' efforts are so intense (and threatening), it begs the question, "why?"

I mean if the book or even pages seeped out, does anyone really believe, at this juncture in the epic series' evolution, that a leak will cause Deathly Hallows to fall short in the sales department? Hardly.

Though many believe (including this blogger) that the sacred secrecy that preceded Steve Jobs' theatrical unveil of the Apple iPhone did much to hyper-fuel demand...and sales once the 1's and 0's turned into molecules at retail. It's an effective marketing strategy, but not without its risks.

To wit, I and others were surprised to open today's edition of The New York Times to discover Michiko Kakutani's embargo-breaking full review of the final book in the Harry Potter series. (She liked it.) The review was incongruously adjacent to a story about a lawsuit brought by Scholastic against an online bookseller that broke the sales embargo. In her review, Ms. Kakutani wrote:

With each installment, the “Potter” series has grown increasingly dark, and this volume — a copy of which was purchased at a New York City store yesterday, though the book is embargoed for release until 12:01 a.m. on Saturday — is no exception.

So it gets back to the question of why the draconian embargo, and how its artificiality prompted one journalistic enterprise to cave. If Scholastic had a valid, e.g., non-commercial, reason to make such demands of the media (think JAMA news), I suspect The Times would have been more compliant. From the publisher:

"'We will be relying on the support of the media to allow the fans to read the book for themselves rather than having to see reviews that may have been based on fake postings on the Internet,'" said a spokeswoman.

But, as some of us know, The Times, and others, instinctively bristle at the notion of being played as pawns in a publisher's (or any enterprise's ) marketing plan.

Update here

My Fine Feathered Friend

Tweet

It was great to see the news of the sale of my buddy Laurel Touby's mediabistro.com to Jupiter for a cool $20 million+.

This straight-shooting go-getter, usually seen in her trademarked pink feathered boa, worked round the clock to build the brand and a vibrant community well before the word community hit cliche status.

While the business is profitable, I suspect Jupiter's primary attraction had something to do with mediabistro's massive database of media and marketing professionals.

Then let's not forget about the influence of some of mb's blogs like FishBowl NY, LA and DC, and the must-read TV Newser -- now without its newly graduated (from college) founding editor Brian Stelter who's headed to The Times.

Laurel, all I can say is that it's on your dime next (and every) time we dine!

Commercial TV News

Tweet

I find this one hard to believe. Researchers at The University of Oregon just promoted their study linking local TV station news content and the stations' advertisers:

"'Stealth advertising' counters Tivo ad skipping."

Sounds good. The researchers attempted to draw a link between news decisionmakers and those advertisers courted by the stations' ad sales departments.

The story lead read:

"Advertisers’ messages are infiltrating small-market television newscasts at about the same percentage that owners of digital video recorders are skipping the commercials, say researchers at the University of Oregon. What’s disturbing about this trend of 'stealth advertising' is that viewers seldom are aware of potential slants in coverage because the connection of a story to an advertiser rarely is disclosed, said Jim Upshaw, a professor of journalism."

In other words, Prof. Upshaw and company painted some kind of insipid payola scam of collusion between local TV advertisers and news programmers. I say wait a minute.

Yes, those packaged fluff pieces or on-air interviews almost always have some ulterior commercial motive. I mean what do you think broadcast media relations pros do anyway? They try to get their clients' products, services and spokespeople on TV. In fact, it's not just the booking, but the advance prep work -- on both sides of the equation -- that enable the commercial mention to seamlessly manifest.

The aspect of the research I found highly suspect was the collusion part -- at least when it comes to network-affiliated news programs. Have things gotten so desperate that a station's news director or evening news producer will base his or her decision to cover a story on whether it involves a current or potential station advertiser? I think not.

The study's headlines touted the existence of such collusion, but I think it way overreached. In fact, the researchers concluded by admitting:

"'Further research should broaden scholarly understanding of the complex relations between television advertising and television journalism,' they wrote. 'One aim should be to expose decision-making factors that can allow unlabeled commercial elements to bob in a stream of ‘objective’ news content.'"

Ahah! More study is needed to make the connection. Just what I thought.

Thanks to my most media-savvy friend, former colleague and Publicity Club of New York conspirator Lisa Kovitz for the heads up.

PR and The Public Editor

Tweet

We all know that today it's imperative to keep track of when (and how) the online conversation drifts to news (or innuendo) about a client's brand, product and service.

That said, PR people still have their work cut out for them just keeping mainstream journalists in check. If not us, on whom can one rely to ensure that the facts are the facts? The blogosphere? I think not.

One of the biggest challenge we face lies in getting across a client's counter point-of-view to a thoroughly predisposed reporter, or worse, getting that reporter (or his editor) to publish a correction after an error-laden piece appears. Hint: an article's tonality, no matter how painful, does not provide a basis for a retraction. Factual inaccuracy, well, that's another story.

I had the great personal and professional fortune to spend eight years on the PR program that helped bring the National World War II Memorial to fruition in our nation's capital. The project involved just about every tool in this PR pro's toolbox.

One of the more frustrating aspects of the campaign involved our work countering the misinformation disseminated by a small, vocal group called "Save the Mall," which opposed having the Memorial built on the National Mall. Their efforts deprived hundreds of thousands of veterans from ever seeing the Memorial finished.

At one point, we forced a retraction from the local all-news cable station, which ran a preposterous segment purporting that the Memorial's construction would compromise the aquifer under the Washington Monument causing it to topple. The station took the bait (unchecked) from a Save the Mall press release. Geesh.

Deploying its two veterans (versus our millions), the group succeeded in selling the media a bill of goods. The media swallowed -- hook, line and sinker. (Sounds familiar.) Our frustration was such that we even conducted a qualitative analysis of the most influential newspaper's coverage of the issue. Over 18 months, the news hole of the Washington Post (not its op-ed contributors or columnists) quoted those opposing the Memorial by a margin of three-to-one.

The Post's Metro reporter refused to budge, so, as a last resort, we thought we'd share the analysis with the Post's ombudsman. The client ultimately nixed the idea. I wish he hadn't.

Yesterday's Public Editor column in The New York Times reminded me of that incident. It looked at the efforts of News Corp's top corporate communicator to soften the newspaper's nearly 4000-word profile of his big boss. It was clear that Gary Ginsburg played the primary (if not solitary) role in interfacing between the paper's reporting staff and the subject the paper so zestfully sought to expose.

What I didn't expect was the appeal by Mr. Ginsberg, whom I know and respect, to The Times's "Public Editor" Clark Hoyt after the piece was published, which is usually a last resort. Surprisingly, the ombudsman accepted "the case:"

"Gary L. Ginsberg, executive vice president for corporate affairs at the News Corporation, objected strenuously to the articles. He appealed to me to look into whether 'the primary motivation for doing such an extensive investigation ... was in the end self-serving and commercial.' Or, as he put it, wasn’t The Times just trying to scuttle Murdoch’s acquisition of Dow Jones out of fear that he would make the Journal a much more formidable competitor?"

In the end, Mr. Hoyt assiduously rejected most of Mr. Ginsberg's assertions, concluding:

"The Times stories were tough but accurate, no tougher in fact than articles in The Journal and in other newspapers and magazines covering a very big business story. But Ginsberg’s complaints are another reminder of how difficult it is for a newspaper to cover a competitor, who can always cry foul."

Personally, I give Gary credit for keeping the newspaper-of-record on its toes, and for attempting to do so based on his factual analysis of the piece - not innuendo. I hope his bosses appreciate the effort in spite of the outcome.

Media Theatre

Tweet

PR people often are charged with devising gimmicks to capture journalists' increasingly short attention spans. We've certainly seen a fair share of ill-conceived ideas over the last year -- from the reunion of Joey and Amy to one candidate's afternoon stroll through the streets of Baghdad.

In the theatre world, one would expect some real showstoppers. To build buzz for one show, for example, one producer hired well-heeled types to ride the elevators of Saks Fifth Avenue for a week, loudly chatting up the show's virtues.

Having personally toiled in the PR trenches for the Broadway opening of "42nd Street," I was blessed with seeing a legendary Broadway impresario work his media magic. While the show was in previews, David Merrick conducted a very public battle to keep those journalistic "snakes" out of the theatre before opening night. At one point, he installed a cage full of actual snakes in the theatre's lobby, which ignited a media firestorm that further fueled the advance word-of-mouth.

But even Mr. Merrick couldn't have done a better job choreographing a "Lullaby of Broadway" wherein the mustached producer strolled on stage during the curtain call on opening night to solemnly announce the death that day of the show's revered director. It silenced everyone in the theatre, and garnered an award for AP lensman Dick Drew with his image of Mr. Merrick on stage -- a stunned cast as his backdrop.

Flash forward to a modern version of the theatrical stunt. The producers of a new off-Broadway play is offering free tickets to anyone who can demonstrate his or her virginity. Huh? Yes, you heard me correctly. A hypnotist has been hired to verify the claims. Gee, I wonder what Mr. Merrick would think. Have a good weekend.

In for a Penny, In for a Pound

Tweet

So, Debbie, I'll post a comment about GSK's new FDA-approved OTC weight-loss drug, if you send me a few samples. I can stand to lose a few.

Seriously, a debate is a-brewing over Ms. Weil's call in her popular blog for consumers to post comments on the drug's nascent website.

Apparently for some chroniclers of blogging ethics, it wasn't enough for Ms. Weil to disclose that she was on GSK's payroll: "Full disclosure: I'm working with GSK on the blog. And this was my idea to ask for Comments."

It's a worthwhile debate. Here are links to some of participants:

Pharmalot

Lee Hopkins

Desirable Roasted Coffee

Zest Digital

Of course all the added scrutiny prompted a follow-up post from Ms. Weil aptly titled "Using the backchannel of email to invite Comments on your blog."

Privately, several of us in the Social Media Collective have been debating the ethics of blogging consultants using their Google Authority to promote a client's product or service -- even with full disclosure. It was prompted by one member's questions:

"Is Weil over-stepping? Abusing her power in the blogosphere for commercial gain on behalf of her clients, or simply just doing her job?"

Another had this to say:

The problem I've always had with PR led blogging is that I can 'smell' the whiff of blatant opportunism and what I sense is a cynical disregard for truth seeking, collaboration etc. I care less what PR does but I do wish it would not come over with the holier than thou crap so many try and hoodwink folk with - worse still, as in this case, wholly misleading clients into a ready made shitstorm."

The debate continues, but I added my three cents:

I wonder what the reaction might have been if the call for online comments originated instead from a GSK-domain, e.g., a GSK employee blogger. Would the corporate blogger be held to the same journalistic scrutiny/contempt as did this outside consultant? Isn't Debbie just an extension of her client?

Frankly, I suspect that many companies, whose own blogs lack Google Authority, might even retain an A-list consultant/bogger with the hope of being mentioned.

In an early (May 2005) blog post, I raised the issue of "citizen journalist versus PR person" when the Micropersuader touted one of his firm's clients on his blog.

Some two years later, this journalistic conundrum just doesn't seem as pressing, given all the other more prominent transgressions we're seeing from the 4th estate. I mean even John Battelle used his vaunted editorial space to promote a commercial slogan from one of his big corporate sponsors.

BTW, he also took some serious lumps for doing so.

The Loudest Websites?

Tweet

No it's not a New York City subway map, nor some Google map mash-up. In fact, the image owes much of its graphic look to the Tokyo subway system.

It's admittedly an unscientific representation of the "loudest" 200 websites. An explanation (based on last year's list) can be found here. The illustration arrived on my desktop courtesy of my membership in the Social Media Collective, an eclectic group of really astute observers of the social media phenomenon.

Anyway, I thought the subject was worth a post especially in the wake of the news this week that Nielsen NetRatings has opted for "stickiness" over number of impressions as a means to measure a site's "importance." Apparently, the new system makes Yahoo and AOL more important than Google. Hmmm.

A Million Trees

Tweet

I was pleased to see American Express's "Members Project" anoint as one of its 50 finalists the virtual-to-actual tree reforestation program developed by my friend, colleague and sometimes client Rob Key of Converseon. (You've all seen the Scorsese spot.)

For those of you who didn't catch my post on "Second Chance Trees" around Earth Day, the innovative program allows visitors to Second Life to plant one of ten species of virtual trees (at a cost of 300 Lindens or $1.50) on a special island. The planting of the virtual tree triggers Plant-It 2020, an environmental group founded by John Denver, to plant the physical tree in the endangered rain forest to which it is indigenous.

So how does a "social media communications firm" spread the news of its auspicious achievement? With a social media news release, YouTube video, Flickr images, key links and all the media assets time-challenged journos need to effectively cover the story.

Hopefully the virality of the initiative will take root among American Express card members to spawn a vote for the program here.

Ethical "Media Conduits"

Tweet

New York's top PR man tackled the topic of ethics in PR in a Friday post on the Huff. Contrary to Ken Auletta's gushing profile of the PR power broker in the New Yorker earlier this year, Ms. Huffington's readers took a decidedly negative take on Howard Rubenstein's "remedy" for what ails the industry:

"Is this a joke? A Boy Scout PR guy? 'Bullshit Artist' is the relevant term, I believe."

"Advertising, image-making is PROFESSIONAL LYING. Karl Rove sold us a rotten 'bill of goods' by image-making GWBush. Rove should pay with years of jail time for his MALPRACTICE!"

Such anti-PR vitriol (and the high-profile pedestal posed by the Post) likely prompted HJR to pen the piece in the first place. His glimpse of the profession, however, does have its shortcomings. First and foremost, it lacks any kind of explanation or historical analysis of what has led to the industry's woes today (versus at any other time).

For example, I would have liked to have seen some recognition of how the Beltway's brand of PR or the spread of astoturfing have led the profession to this especially ingnoble point in its history.

Also, his call for greater ethics and understanding says nothing that hasn't been said before by Harold Burson or Jack O'Dwyer. In fact, I can't recall a time in my 20+ years in the biz when someone or another was not sirening greater ethics among (and a better understanding of the work performed by) practitioners:

"...there has never been so much misunderstanding and misinformation about what PR practitioners actually do."

Also missing was a tangible game plan to confront these problems, e.g., accreditation, mandated transparency, etc.:

"It is up to us in the profession to meet the challenge of our image problem, seize the high ground we deserve, correct the misperceptions about our industry and protect the tremendous accomplishments PR has made over the decades."

Well, sure, who can't agree with that? So now what do we do?

Finally, I was surprised that in this day and age, Mr. Rubenstein made no mention of the changes sweeping our profession. He says:

"If the PR industry is to continue expanding its role as a conduit to the media, and through them, the general public, we must work harder to shift the perception and reality of the craft from that of a marginal or dubious trade to a mature profession."

Sure we serve as "conduits" to the mainstream media for our clients, but this assessment still has an anachronistic feel to it. Courting the media filter continues to provide a lucrative (and industry-defining?) source of income, but where does social media, SEM, digital content creation, monitoring the online conversation, etc., fall in Mr. Rubenstein's portrayal of the modern PR pro, let alone the ethical considerations therein? Apparently nowhere.

Saturation Point

Tweet

The headlines seemed contradictory:

"Shining a Light: Sometimes non-stop publicity is exactly what a hostage needs" - The Times of London (July 5, 2007)

"The Gripe: Too much publicity is an unforgivable curse" - Baltimore Sun (July 6, 2007)

Both reporters opined on the fate of two Brits, yet each viewed the advent of media attention in entirely different lights. The first commentary credited the steady flow of publicity for the eventual release of BBC hostage Alan Johnstone:

"But what truly distinguished Johnston’s case was its relentless exposure in the media, thanks largely to the BBC’s admirable refusal to let it slip from the public eye for so much as a day."

The second commentary demonizes the hyperbole leading up to the July 21 release of the last of the Harry Potter books:

"Advance publicity is one thing, but media overload like this can't do anyone any good."

When does the buzz begin working against the business goal, e.g., securing a hostage's release, selling books...?

And, of course, let's not forget the biggest publicity bonanza of all - the media mania surrounding the iPhone. Apple's carefully honed release strategy succeeded beyond anyone's expectations. Though I would argue that true innovation should demand all the attention. Think Segway (initially caled "FlyWheel").

But now that the free media ticket has substantially subsided, we're left with the iPhone's pre-release paid TV spots that permeate "The Daily Show," and elsewhere. (The best video segment was not exactly produced by Apple, though I'm sure the company liked it.) It was David Pogue's video take here.

With all the free, gushing attention, why continue to run the ads? In my opinion, the ongoing paid campaign could produce a public backlash. I mean who on this planet has not reached an iPhone saturation point? Some who weighed in:

i.ndustrio.us

ProNet Advertising

HuffingtonPost

Blonde 2.0

Palm Addicts

Wireless IT World

Food for Sport

Tweet

Libby commuted. Son of Gore arrested. Al Zawahri's 90-minute lunatic rant. Hamas's PR ploy. Three barges of fireworks over Manhattan.

Phooey!

It was that Belushi-inspired gorge-fest in Brooklyn that usurped all other newsmaking wannabes on the 4th of July.

Everywhere we turned, the mellifluous-sounding names of Joey Chestnut and Kobayashi succeeded in capturing the collective consciousness -- not only here, but abroad as well.

And why not? It had all the ingredients (and few fillers). Even Consumer Reports agreed by recently naming the Nathan's hot dog as the second best in America (behind Hebrew National).

ESPN aired the hot dog eating contest live, and thousands of other media outlets weighed in with reports of a lock-jawed Kobayashi losing his crown (and his cookies) before a cheering crowd.

It's unclear whether this annual ritual translates into incremental hot dog sales for Nathans (or ketchup sales for Heinz), but it certainly can't hurt. One glutinous winner: the sport of Major League Eating . The AP reports:

"Chestnut said he probably won't eat a regular meal until tonight. But normalcy will be short-lived. Next week, he's heading back to New York, where Pizza Hut is hosting an eating competition. Chestnut plans to be there."

Good for Pizza Hut! It's like getting Tiger Woods to commit to playing in one's golf tournament. Well, maybe not.

Independence Day

Tweet

Macy's Fireworks, Waterside Plaza, NYC - July 4, 2006

Three Martini Lunch

Tweet

The media fam trip is nothing new. Hotels, airlines and state tourism boards commonly build free, first-class trips for certain reporters into their PR budgets. Hollywood publicists may give even the travel biz a run for its money.

Most established news organizations, however, have strict rules that forbid employees to accept freebies. Not true for a broad and growing swath of the online media universe, which happily fall prey to the allure of the quid pro quo.

After all, how do you expect some 20-something gamer to diss the company that's treating him to first class air, an oversized hotel suite, and the jumbo shrimp bowl?

Mike Musgrove in today's Washington Post reports on the fabulous perks the video game industry bestows upon a multitude of bloggers and other online scribes whose generous prose can often make or break a new title:

"That's why game designers, like movie studios, have learned to lavishly court such tastemakers, the guys who write for the major blogs and magazines and play a key role in today's big-bucks video game industry."

Is this extreme hospitality that much different than courting bloggers with expensive new Nikon digital SLRs or hellified laptops?

"His other junkets include trips to India paid for by Microsoft and a five-day extravaganza in Las Vegas funded by Midway. There was also the shindig near his home base in Paris to promote a game in the Rayman series that included juggling lessons from circus performers."

Many PR practitioners today ask themselves whether the rules for engaging A-list bloggers are different than those used to influence influential mainstream journalists. The answer is yes and no. It varies from industry to industry and from media outlet to media outlet.

"'What we're trying to accomplish with an event like this is to have the undivided attention of the important people in our industry, that cover the industry,' said Pete Hines, vice president of marketing at Bethesda Softworks, whose Fallout 3 will be set in a version of Washington that's been scorched by war. "There are a lot of titles out there competing for attention.

It looks like Bethesda Softworks is getting that attention: Fallout 3 is scheduled to soon grace the covers of 20 gamer magazines, largely as a result of the event."

As the number of media outlets stratifies exponentially to suit every taste imaginable, don't count on the proverbial three martini lunch to dry up anytime soon.

A Dose of SEM

Tweet

You may remember Elinor Mills who made a name for herself by revealing a bit too much about Google CEO Eric Schmidt. This in turn prompted the search/advertising monopoly to banish her from its journalist-in-good-standing list.

Moments ago, Ms. Mills piled on an infectious story in which a Google Health blogger used all the attention that sicko Michael Moore has generated as a come-on to big pharma and the HMO industry to join the company's SEM parade, i.e., to buy a few Google AdWords. Google's health account planner Lauren Turner writes:

"Does negative press make you Sicko?"

Followed shortly by:

"We can place text ads, video ads, and rich media ads in paid search results or in relevant websites within our ever-expanding content network. Whatever the problem, Google can act as a platform for educating the public and promoting your message..."

Not unrelated, we couldn't help see a parallel in another search guru whose quest to monetize his blogger network entered a gray zone that prompted one of his veritable stars to jump ship. Tech Crunch's Michael Arrington resigned from John Battelle's Federated Media ad network over Mr. Battelle's use of his news hole (and writers who fill it) to benefit a sponsor.

In another somewhat related story, let's keep an eye on Yahoo's Susan Decker who's charged with monetizing the 500 million monthly visitors to the wayward portal's websites. Miguel Heft of The Times writes:

"Yet over the last 18 months, Yahoo has suffered its biggest slump since the collapse of the dot-com bubble. The company has been eclipsed by the phenomenal rise of Google, which handily beat Yahoo in the most lucrative business on the Internet: search and search advertising."

As advertising dollars cascade onto the net, the lines between church and state, advertising and editorial, will continue to blur. These events simply touch on just how painful that search can be for the right balance.