WWE Smackdown

Tweet

Some years ago, I received a call from a management recruiter seeking a senior communications executive for "one of the nation's biggest entertainment companies, primarily in television." The recruiter refused to name the company until we met.

I really wasn't looking for a new gig since I was enjoying working with the C-suite (in the age of the regal CEO) and on some other high profile assignments. Nevertheless, the opportunity sounded fun, so I agreed to meet. Five minutes into it, she revealed her client: the WWE (that's World Wrestling Entertainment). Geesh. This is entertainment?!

It was a very short meeting. I just couldn't see myself transitioning to the world of smackdowns from work that included supporting a corporate sponsorship of the Van Gogh exhibit at the National Gallery in DC, the royal wedding of Prince Pavlos of Greece to Marie-Chantal Miller, and the new CEO of the world's largest toy company following his predecessor's untimely (but much deserved) demise. In fact, I couldn't even see myself attending a WWE event.

Here's a quote today from the WWE's current PR person:

"'We are very actively working to eradicate the use of steroids and performance enhancing drugs in the WWE,' WWE spokesman Gary Davis said. 'Today’s action is part of that effort.'"

Now, Gary, we all knew the WWE had troubles the moment we learned of wrestler Chris Benoit's (pictured) steroid-induced murder-suicide rampage. But, the WWE's action yesterday to anonymously suspend, not expel, only ten of the 160 WWE performers for illegal steroid use doesn't seem to nip the problem in the bud, does it?

This story will grow, not only because I suspect steroid use is much more rampant than WWE thus far admits, and certainly more than other "professional" sports, but also because WWE's initial actions (and statement) are woefully inadequate to quell the maelstrom.

WWE, where is your flamboyant leader now when you really need him? Donald, don't you now see the folly of your ways? Hey, on the other hand, maybe this is one sport where steroids are an acceptable ingredient in its overall artificiality?

A Cacophony of Content

Tweet

I've had MSNBC as my home page for five years, or more. It has served me well given the range of sources from which the news portal derives its 24/7 fare.

One would expect to see a selection from NBC's news programs, and its siblings CNBC, MSNBC-TV and the network's local broadcast affiliates. Add to that the Washington Post and Newsweek, Business Week, the major wire services, MSNBC.com's own reporting, and soon, in a deal announced yesterday, the fab feature material from CondeNet. Ad Age reports:

"Included in the new partnership are CondeNet sites Style.com, Men.Style.com, Epicurious.com and Concierge.com, as well as content from Conde Nast mags Vogue, Glamour, Self, GQ, Details, Men's Vogue, Vanity Fair, Gourmet, Bon Appetit, Conde Nast Traveler and Conde Nast Portfolio."

Now it ain't The Week or even Google News, and it doesn't serve the same purpose as my RSS reader, but the editors at MSNBC.com are blessed with some of the best sources of news, feature and multimedia content around today from which to concoct (i.e., package) what may be the Web's most authoritative and complete online news destinations (in spite of the Hulu's great expectations).

Now the site just needs to cut a deal with SI for sports, cajole the Scooper Jeannette Walls back to the fold, and get rid of that annoying Palm ad that intrusively unfolds from the top of the home page marginalizing the day's headlines.

TV Guides

Tweet

Business or glossy: magazines are the subject of today's post. We took special notice of the recent bad news from circulationdom's main keeper, the PIB. On average, the nine leading business books dropped an average of 10.3% in ad pages from a year ago.

"Only two magazines in the category are showing ad-page growth, Fast Company and Inc. Business Week is down 12.6 percent, Fortune is off 17.5 percent, and Business 2.0 has slumped 34.1 percent, leading to rumors of a shutdown."

Media Life magazine published an insightful Q&A with Steve Greenberger, executive vice president and media director at SLG Advertising in Greenwich, Conn., who shares his take on what's ailing the category, why Inc. and Fast Company’s gains may be fleeting, and the gadfly in the mix, Portfolio.

Separately, but not entirely unrelated, comes a curious piece from my old friend Brian Steinberg, former advertising reporter for The Wall Street Journal who now toils as TV editor for Ad Age. The headline of Brian's piece, which tells of three planned half-hour ABC specials "previewing" the network's fall lineup, raised my (and probably a few others') eyebrows:

"ABC Enlists Mag Editors to Help Promote Fall Lineup"

Now we all know how magazines benefit from (and covet) TV time to promote their own text and images about to hit newsstands. But, the idea that TIME Inc.'s popular titles Entertainment Weekly and People, along with an ailing TV Guide, would allow an organization on which they all report "use" them as promotional pawns in the run-up to the fall season, strikes me as, well, journalistically suspect:

"'ABC has run previews of this sort before, but the magazine editors' critiques bring a new element to the formula. The three shows "create positive word-of-mouth on upcoming series," said Marla Provencio, exec VP-marketing, ABC Entertainment.

Spoken like a true marketing person. I just wonder how balanced these journalists will be in their "critiques" of the fall programming. Are they being paid for their appearances in these entertainment preview programs? And what benefit does the magazine really derive other than the magazine's brand appearing in the super below their reporters' cheerful faces? I mean they're touting someone else's product not their own.

In the end, it matters little since both parties to the promotion view this co-marketing deal as a win-win. Now let's look for ads for the network's new series in the magazines' fall preview issues.

Apple Gift-Givers: Beware

Tweet

I love Apple products. Oh sure, the battery on the iPod has had its issues, and New York's most ubiquitous cell phone carrier doesn't appear even close to foregoing CDMA for GSM, and thus, iPhone compatibility -- no matter how much soldering takes place.

Maybe it was the love affair we had with our very first home computer, a Macintosh LCII with a Motorola 68020 processor and a 40MB hard drive. Kid Pix was the consummate revelation!

Last year, we inched back to the fold when I bought my #2 son the new 15" MacBook Pro, making him the first in our family to own a Mac since I donated the old LC to a computerless family we knew.

In fact, with everything I'm hearing about Vista, I'm ever closer to trashing my three-year-old Dell Dimension for one of the sleek new silver iMacs. There's one problem, however: I'm really angry at Apple right now, and here's why:

My #2 son is heading off to college and an old friend asked what he could buy him as a gift. I suggested going online to the Apple Store and pick out something that would complement his MacBook Pro. He chose a backpack made especially for the laptop.

The backpack arrived, and we soon learned that our son already owned one. We called Apple to ask for a credit, and the rep refused. He would only issue a credit to the purchaser! Huh?

We explained (pleaded) that this was a gift and we really didn't want the giver to know that we're returning his gift. No dice, Apple held fast. Company policy. We said we'd think about whether to send the backpack packing. The next day, my friend called to say that he understands that my son wants to return the gift. "Homina, homina, homina..."

A few days later, my brother went by the Apple Store in the mall and also bought my #2 a college going-away gift -- a $50 Apple gift certificate. How nice, or so we thought. My son decided to use the gift certificate to add to his iTunes collection. He logged on to the iTunes Store, but no go. A call to the Apple customer service rep yielded the following verbatim quote:

"The gift certificate doesn't apply to the iTunes Store. They are separate stores owned by the same man."

You can be sure he wasn't referring to Jeff Bezos! This is from Amazon's site:

"You can return multiple gift items from the same order. We'll issue you store credit in the form of an e-mail gift certificate. Don't worry--we won't tell the gift giver about your return!"

Wispa Campaign

Tweet

We all know about monitoring and mining the online "conversation." All the big agencies, many of the digital-minded boutiques and quite a few PR vendors offer products that purport to keep real-time tabs on how a company's product, service or reputation fares in the true court of public opinion.

The real skill, however, lies less in capturing the qualitative and quantitative aspects of your brand's buzz -- important steps indeed -- but more in what to do about the information after you've collected it. Creating or managing viral buzz remains the holy grail, if not a pipe dream, for marketers.

London-based ad/marketing reporter for the International Herald Tribune Eric Pfanner today reports in sibling paper The New York Times on one company's curious reaction to the online conversation about one of its discontinued products -- a conversation in which the company apparently played no role fomenting.

Cadbury Schweppes stop making its Wispa chocolate bar four years ago due to flagging sales. Ten days ago, after the noise on FaceBook and YouTube reach a threshold, the company took action:

"After nearly 14,000 people joined 'bring back Wispa' groups on Facebook, the food conglomerate Cadbury Schweppes announced on Aug. 17 that it would reintroduce the candy bar in October."

The story validates what Citizen Marketers and Creating Customer Evangelists author Ben McConnell had to say at the Community 2.0 Conference I attended last year. The point, of course, is that no one created anything here. The story germinated organically from the citizenry, which in turn catalyzed an operational response:

"'This is the first time that the power of the Internet played such an intrinsic role in the return of a Cadbury brand,' the company said."

Personally, I think Cadbury should be commended for its listening skills. Even so, now that the company is resurrecting its beloved brand, can (or should) it also reclaim the marketing stewardship thereof?

"Maybe, said Mr. Heiselman of Wolff Olins, 'it took discarding the brand for people to really want it. This is a good example of consumers’ owning the brand, versus the corporation.'"

The Beet on Joost

Tweet

My friend and sometimes collaborator Andy Plesser recently caught up with Liz Gannes, the editor of Om Malik's increasingly influential spinoff site NewTeeVee.

Could it be that NewTeeVee has usurped TVNewser now that Brian Stelter graduated college and moved on to The Times as a media reporter? Not so fast, says Laurel, whose Jupiter-infused mediabistro recently announced Mr. Stelter's replacement (at Michael's no less).

Anyway, back to Andy's interview with Liz for Beet.tv, a must-view site that has done an extraordinary job of vlogging the architects and chroniclers of Web 2.0. (Just scroll down the right column of the site, if you don't believe me.)

In today's post, Liz, holding the mike, waxes on the much-ballyhooed Joost. Andy paraphrased:

"Joost so far has shown it can excel at raising money, getting itself on the right side of alliances, and winning attention. Other things are also very important...say, user experience."

The interview was captured at the beginning of August from the Always On Stanford Summit, but its assessment of Joost is not inconsistent with some of the more recent, and sobering coverage of the Viacom-infused digital video start-up. The issues appear to revolve around the limited programming. I think I read that one beta tester dropped out after seeing the slim pickings, while a jaded journalist questioned whether there would be sufficient broadband penetration to accommodate Joost's aspirations for full-screen, full-length programming fare.

But rather than talking about codecs and what ISPs are doing to boost joost -- this IS a PR blog after all -- I ask: can Joost be overexposed? Has all the rapt attention set the bar too high to meet expectations. Will Newton's theory come in to play? And if Joost trips off the roost, will it be forever tainted in the People's Court? Stay tuned, TV fans.

Pickin Fights

Tweet

Back in the day, when glossy tech magazines reined supreme, I happened to represent the once pre-eminent publisher in the space. Our client expected a steady diet of non-competitive media attention for its portfolio of titles.

To this end, during the Macworld Expo in Boston, we cajoled a couple of beantown TV stations to CompUSA to meet one of our client's Mac-enthusiast book editors for a package featuring a head-to-head comparison of a Wintel machine versus a Macintosh.

Separately, and shortly thereafter, my Intel client bolted the chipmaker's PR team for Apple Computer. She soon contacted me to request a proposal for the then marketshare-losing Cupertino company. Thinking about the ease with which we convinced those Boston TV stations to take the Pepsi Challenge, we proposed the same strategy as the linchpin for a prolonged Apple PR campaign.

It fell on deaf ears. (Today I can only smile when I see the bloated PC guy commercials.)

The strategy to pick a public fight with the recognized market leader remains an effective one indeed. Just think Avis. This morning's New York Times reports on how the dominant cable TV brand today finds itself fending off incendiary (but newsmaking) attacks by its less esteemed rivals.

"Showtime, the next biggest pay-cable channel, has had some of its executives go so far as to use a new title for their biggest rival: 'HB-Over.' Matthew C. Blank, the chairman of Showtime, said, 'I've heard that term used for HBO both outside and inside our network.'"

Of course, my old friend, the media-savvy Richard Plepler, wasn't daunted by the PR-fueled assault:

"As for the rest of its lineup, Richard Plepler a co-president of HBO, offered a long list of accomplishments, topped by the channel’s continued dominance of the Emmy nominations. The channel has also seen its subscriber numbers increase this year, according to a survey by Kagan Associates."

Frankly, I don't think HBO has much to worry about given the success of "Entourage," "Modern Love" and, my personal favorite, "Flight of The Conchords," but market leaders shouldn't be complacent. Some rival with nothing to lose will see the PR upside by nipping at the heels of its major nemesis.

Stupid Pet Tricks

Tweet

Well, it worked! Didn't it? In spite of Gizmodo's snarky assessment of the "PR stunt" from the Samsung PR team in Kiev, the image of mimes maneuvering a giant hand holding a globe made of cellphones popped onto the vaunted pages of the chronicler of all things digital.

In fact, Gizmodo used not one, but two images, one of which showed a non-descript camera crew capturing the "news." Must have been the hired help for the obligatory B-roll that may eventually find its way onto the airwaves and online video-hosting sites. Also must have been a slow news day in the Ukrainian capital.

For me, there's a non sequitur in all this given that mimes generally are not known for their auditory prowess (something to which I assume Samsung aspires), i.e., "a pin dropping." Perhaps the company wishes to make a connection with Cingular's fab ad executions wherein one end of the conversation is left dangling uncomfortably as the other end suddenly goes mute.

Come to think of it, isn't there a new Mr. Bean movie out? Too late, however, for a cell phone product placement.

What Me Worry

Tweet

My wife and I recently had dinner with a friend who's one of the nation's top real estate executives. In addition to consulting, she's taught her professional calling at Harvard Business School, Columbia, Yale, etc. Anyway, during the course of the conversation, she named Brazil,China and Russia as the markets experiencing the biggest real estate booms right now.

We all know about China, and Brazil certainly is understandable, but Russia? How can a country that has shunned democracy, and its most redeeming tenet -- freedom of the press -- flourish from a Western-style economy? In fact, the increasingly menacing dictator Putin just banned the BBC from the public airwaves labeling the esteemed news organization "propaganda."

And let's not forget about that nation's practice of locking up dissident journalists in psychiatric institutions, or worse, using covert death squads to eliminate them once and for all. (I wonder if I'm putting my life at risk by posting this?)

Come to think of it, China also has embraced a market economy, yet has shunned America's First Amendment while doing so - though not to the same degree as Moscow. Today, the AP moved a piece on a new government-sponsored TV series titled "Believe in Made in China" produced for Central China Television's economic channel. (Gee, George, that Armstrong Williams endeavor sure seems to pale in comparison.)

The first 90-minute segment of the multi-part series featured the head of a quality watchdog criticizing the recent furor over the quality of Chinese exports as "demonizing" China's products.

"'Personally, I believe it is new trend in trade protectionism. Although recalls are necessary, it is unfair to decide that all products made in China are unqualified,' Li Changjiang, director of China's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, said on the 90-minute segment."

I'm not sure what all this says about PR, except for the fact that, for better or worse, we rely on a free and open media to consider (and hopefully report) our clients' points-of-view. Government control over that media, while good for enterprises and institutions touting the government line, is bad for democracy, but apparently less so for capitalism.

Black Tie PR

Tweet

From its outset, this blog attempted to ferret out the often obscured role public relations plays in business, politics, culture, sports, technology, media, entertainment and style. Some days, the headline makes that role quite clear; Others times it's more subliminal.

Two stories that fall squarely in the former category popped on the front page of yesterday's New York Times. The first piece, titled, "Debaters Plan Carefully to Keep Foot Out of Mouth," addressed the conundrum the candidates face when venturing off-script in a debate scenario:

"Each candidate has a personal way of preparing, with an eye toward gaining an edge in the debates and, by extension, with the voters. Sometimes, the deliberations are over when to improvise, so their answers do not seem too canned, and they do that with varying amounts of success."

Adjacent to that piece on page A-1 (below the fold) sat a second PR-centric story that exposed the quandry Wikipedia faces in deciding whether institutions and enterprises have the right to edit entries, now that some enterprising software developer opened the curtain to reveal the IP addresses of the less-than-objective (revisionist?) editors. From Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales:

"'If someone sees a simple factual error about their company, we really don’t mind if they go in and edit,' he said. But if a revision is likely to be controversial, he added, 'the best thing to do is log in, go to the 'talk' page, identify yourself openly, and say, 'I’m the communications person from such and such company.' The community responds very well, especially if the person isn’t combative.'"

Those two stories alone merit more considered analysis and debate, but it was a piece buried in the "Week in Review" section that really raised my PR antennae. It concerned the deliberations, or rather the PR implications surrounding the upcoming nuptials of the first daughter to a former Karl Rove aide. Times reporter Kit Seelye astutely posed the dilemma:

"The country is at war, of course, and Mr. Bush’s popularity is low. So surely the White House itself is asking the logical question: How would a White House wedding go over?"

And the ususal suspects weighed in:

"'If weddings ceased when we had difficult foreign relations or outright war,' said Judith Martin, also known as Miss Manners, 'very few people would be married. It is not considered frivolous to get married.'"

And of course, we heard from Kennedy social secretary Letitia Baldridge:

"'She’s a feisty young lady, but the whole tradition of the White House will fall down on her,' Ms. Baldridge said. 'I’m sure she’ll conform.'"

Frankly, I think the deliberations extended well past what to wear and who to invite. I'm sure this administration is presently mired in how to time this affair to boost the President's record-low polling numbers, if not the 2008 election itself. Ms. Seelye notes:

"Miss Nixon and Luci Baines Johnson (who actually got married in a church but held her reception at the White House) were married during wartime, and were boons to their father’s political fortunes, at least temporarily. It always helps a president — especially beleaguered presidents — to be seen as a family man, and few moments are as poignant as when a father is giving his daughter away."

Keep an eye on this...

A Picture is Worth...

Tweet

My buddy Howard Bailen directed me to a piece in today's Globe & Mail that reported on a new study that showed "how the compensation of 1,500 CEOs of companies in the United States rose in the year after getting featured in the media."

The three key findings from the Univ. of Colorado B-school's study:

"A single article featuring a CEO in a major business press such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Fortune or Business Week raised his or her compensation - including salary and bonuses - by an average of $600,000 (U.S.)."

"Getting on the cover of Forbes, Fortune or BusinessWeek was good for a raise that averaged $1.1-million."

"The more positive mentions in the business press in a year, the greater the increase in a CEO's compensation."

Makes sense to me. (See above images.) Surprisingly, the Leeds School of Business study also found that:

"Negative coverage, however, was almost never followed by a reduction in the pay package. In fact, even if the story was slightly negative, the executive was likely to see an increase in compensation."

Sanjay, Jeff, Bernie and Joe: have faith. Right, Martha?

Corrective Inaction

Tweet

In a post last evening, Slate media critic Jack Shafer takes us into the imperfect world of printed newspapers, and specifically a topic on which this blogger previously has pontificated: when journalists make factual errors.

Mr. Shafer shares an analysis from the University of Oregon School of Journalism's Scott Maier in which UofO researchers checked the accuracy of the news coverage of ten U.S. metropolitan newspapers -- 3600 stories in all:

"Starting on an arbitrary date, researchers clipped from each newspaper every locally produced and bylined story from Page One and the metro, business, and the lifestyle sections until they had collected 400. The study culled no sports stories, opinion pieces, columns, or reviews."

The researchers then contacted a primary source cited in the story to more deeply fact check what ended up in print. Shafer writes:

"The results might shock even the most jaded of newspaper readers. About 69 percent of the 3,600 news sources completed the survey, and they spotted 2,615 factual errors in 1,220 stories. That means that about half of the stories for which a survey was completed contained one or more errors."

Why are we, the beleaguered PR pro, not surprised??? How often are we asked by our clients and bosses to seek (e.g., demand) corrective action?

Even if we had a reasonable case -- based on facts, not innuendo or tonality -- would the printed correction remedy the damage left by the original offending article? Doubtful. Worse, Maier learned that newspapers, by and large, took no action on the majority of correction requests:

"...130 of the news sources reported having asked for corrections, but their complaints elicited only four corrections."

If there's any consolation in all of this, it lies in the fact that ultimately most media consumers will derive their news and information from 1's and 0's -- an environment that's presumably easier and more instantly remediable, assuming we're listening.

A Piece of the "PR 2.0" Puzzle

Tweet

The Times (of London) Online today proclaimed that:

"...a new industry is springing up to allow companies and individuals to track how they are perceived on the web - call it PR 2.0."

Reporter Rhys Blakely's subhead:

"Blue-chip companies, billionaires and pop stars turn to software solution to protect their reputations online."

Actually, Rhys, this is only a small part of what we in the PR biz commonly (and annoyingly) call PR 2.0, though it's clearly a vital piece of the puzzle.

"Monitoring the online conversation," or as my buddy Rob Key says "conversation mining," may be more precise terms for this first step in protecting one's online reputation -- whether it manifests on Wikipedia, a rogue website, the blogosphere, FaceBook, Amazon or the myriad other consumer or detractor-generated sites.

The bigger question (and challenge) for PR 2.0 wannabes lies in how exactly an individual or enterprise goes about modifying his or her (or its) online profile once the reality rears its ugly head. We've seen optimization schemes that elevate one's ranking in the Google organic results, and in so doing, relegates detractors to the second or third page of that vaunted list.

Then, of course, there are those who advise their clients to "engage" the blogosphere the moment these opinionated troublemakers diss you, your company or your product. With hundreds and thousands of authoritative A-listers, plus the millions in the long tail -- any one of whom can do serious reputational damage -- the practicality of scaling such an individualized solution is daunting indeed.

Finally, and most promisingly, newsmakers can help themselves by morphing into news producers, in effect bypassing the traditional news filter. We've seen CEOs make news on their blogs, SMPRs, and the creation of compelling digital content optimized for discovery and consumption by only those intent on finding it.

The Times piece ended its partial picture of PR 2.0 as follows:

"Significantly, 'traditional media' sources, such as newspaper websites, are given a greater weighting than a Wikipedia page in the formulae that monitor a subject's reputation ranking. The papers, it appears, are still seen as more influentional [sic] in the court of public opinion. That will let the old PR industry rest a little easier - for now."

Hmmm. As I said, just a piece of the puzzle.

Gillmor, Winer, Scoble...

Tweet

Shel Israel pointed to his Naked Conversations' pen pal's heartfelt post yesterday in which the inimitable blogging A-lister and general good guy Robert Scoble threw his hands up, and his keyboard down, to lament the sorry state of discourse on his blogging and twittering platforms:

"Much of what I read over on that Silicon Valley gossip site lately isn’t true and they have demonstrated over and over that they really don’t care about the truth. It really depresses me cause I thought blogging would be a tool for humans to get smarter, not stupider. Depression isn’t fun."

Inspired in part by the physicality of holding a 19-day-old baby (something you can't do in Second Life), Scoble has decided to take a "sabbatical" to sort things out:

"In our book Naked Conversations I wrote that a good blog is 'authoritative and passionate.' Truth is that when I looked at Steve Ball’s baby I realized I’ve been neither. I’d rather go hang out with someone who is building something interesting."

Having met Mr. Scoble on a couple of occasions, and having tried to keep up with the revolution on which he so assiduously reports, I can say with conviction that he is among the most authoritative and passionate persons I've met in this space, which brings me to the bigger question:

If Robert Scoble can hang it up, albeit he says temporarily, where does it leave the rest of us?

His post yesterday reminded me of the post in which another citizen journalist pioneer Dan (We the Media) decided to cease sell his blogging experiment Bayosphere blogging as if to say "What's the point?" Fortunately, Dan's voice did not retire to blogger heaven. He directs the Center for Citizen Media, a project affiliated with Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet & Society and the University of California-Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. He continues to blog here.

Then there was Dave Winer who ruminated in March 2006 about hanging it all up. (He didn't.) From CNET at the time:

"Winer, who helped develop and promote, is just one of several high-profile to leave the game of late. Jason, the daring soul who quit his Web design job in the hopes that micropayments from readers would support him, recently called it quits. And that followed Dan Gillmor's news that he'd be ending his San Francisco Bay Area-focused blog, Bayosphere, to explore new projects."

Scoble's lament is a little disconcerting for the many millions who churn out reasonably passionate copy day in and day out -- for little or no money. For many, Scoble was the inspiration. Let's just hope the Scobleizer is true to his word when he says:

"I’ll be back blogging when I can add value again...and while I’m not blogging I’d love it if you left some ideas on things you’d like me to learn for when I get back." (Filed under: scoble @ 3:13 am #)

Ta Ta, Suckers!

Tweet

It's no big surprise that Karl Rove is out. Frankly, his tenure as this administration's master media manipulator should have expired long ago (or at least following the mid-term elections).

From a PR perspective, this man alone has done more damage to the reputation and credibility of the PR profession than 50 Abramoffs. But that's a post for another day.

I'm more attuned to how Mr. Rove's demise was orchestrated, and the glimmer of what lies ahead at the soon-to-be Murdochian Wall Street Journal, which broke the news as an exclusive in a friendly interview on its editorial page.

The interview, in which Mr. Rove takes a trademark nasty dig at the leading Democratic Presidential candidate, is accompanied by a surprisingly short (636 words) story in the paper's news hole that took its essence from the editorial wherein the story's subject held court.

So let's head back to the White House PR situation room earlier this summer where Karl, Dana, and the other communications controllers are sorting through the (least damaging) media options for Bush's biggest buddy yet to bail:

DP: An interview on Fox News?

KR: Nah, the liberal blogosphere would have a field day, though they probably will no matter how we spin it.

DP: What about a news conference?

KR: Nope, too little control. Too many skeletons in my closet.

DP: How about our friends on The Journal's editorial page?

KR: Hmmm. Now that would be a rather novel approach -- to use a most subjective editorial environment to break a major news story.

DP: I agree. And the imprimatur of The Journal would give it plenty of news cache. Most Americans don't distinguish between news and commentary.

KR: Absolutely. It would be much more credible than a love-in on Sean Hannity. I have another idea.

DP: What's that?

KR: POTUS promised to help in any way he can. Let's follow the Journal story with a Presidential presser to reinforce our strategy. Fox News will carry it live. Now that's what we call News Corp. media synergy!

DP: Bravo. You'll go out in style. I only ask one favor. Save one of those job offers for me. I'll be ready late next year or early 2009.

Audi 'n Rush Hour

Tweet

I love Audis. We've owned about five over the last decade including my current twin-turbo 250 S4 Avant. We bought our first at a time when the German luxury automaker was still recovering from the near-fatal PR disaster that "60 Minutes" manufactured.

To this day, those claims of unintended acceleration remain unproven, and more likely were fueled by intended litigation, and the riches gained therein.

Nevertheless, Audi is back...big time. Surprised? I'm not. The lower you sink, the higher you'll rise if you stay focused and keep your foot on the accelerator.

Just take a look at Jeff Sabatini's over-the-top review today of the Audi R8 (pictured), a $112,000+ sports car soon to bow on these shores. The seasoned Wall Street Journal automotive writer gushed and gushed and gushed,

..."on my own list of amazing cars driven over nearly a decade as an automotive journalist, I figured the R8 stood fairly near the top."

But of course, if I were the PR guy handing over the keys for a cross-country spin in a sleek, never-before-seen, silver six-figure sports car to a writer likely earning a five-figure salary, I'd expect at least a few kind words.

He wrote: "At Audi headquarters in Germany, they're hoping the 187-miles-per-hour, 420-horsepower R8 will be mentioned in the same breath as the Aston Martin V8 Vantage, the Ferrari F430 and the Lamborghini Gallardo." Done!

Now contrast Jeff's wet kiss with Manohla's Dargis' New York Times kiss off of "Rush Hour 3":

"It’s a generically crummy action flick. It’s ugly. It’s noisy. It’s stupid."

The reviewer could not have been more effusive in her distaste for this film. Even so, she admits:

"Like a lot of big-ticket productions 'Rush Hour 3' will flood into theaters this weekend (gobbling up more than 3,700 of the nation’s approximately 38,000 screens) and, because of its ubiquity and its brawny advertising muscle, will pull in a sizable chunk of change. Bad reviews won’t make a lick of difference to its box office..."

Well, I for one won't be seduced by the stupid trailer. The Times critic still holds sway over me. In fact, so does The Journal critic and his praise for the Audi R8.

Come to think of it, I promise to write about the R8 again (and again and again) in this very precious space if permitted a test drive during my upcoming vacation. You listening over there in Germany? (Maybe I'll add a few keyword tags so you can find my offer. I've no shame.)

Tight-Lipped

Tweet

I really hadn't read New York Magazine, well, since the days when my buddy, MSNBC.com's newly retired Scooper Jeannette Walls , penned the once-venerable Intelligencer column.

I know. I know. Former Timesman Adam Moss has worked miracles in resuscitating the moribund glossy weekly. Didn't it just garner more than a fair share of magazine awards ?

Anyway, there it was -- a copy of the new issue nestled among the bills, college notices, and retail catalogues that manage to squeeze their way through the narrow brass slot in our front door. I had forgotten that with my mediabistro Avant Guild renewal, I gained a free annual subscription to New York and one other magazine that has yet to get past the brass.

Inside was a telling piece titled "Hillary Control" in which the writer reports how "The women of 'Hillaryland' have constructed a carefully managed, always on-message, leakproof campaign," but then questions, "...is this a good thing?"

I didn't think much of it at the time, except in my affirmation that "command and control" remains alive and well in this supposed new age of transparency and two-way communication. With regard to Patti Solis Doyle, Hillary's former scheduler who now stands at the center of Sen. Clinton's inner circle of advisors, aka "Hillaryland":

"Patti is also the chief enforcer of the family code: no leaks, ever. She expresses admiration for the way George W. Bush’s campaign team controlled its message, and, given her druthers, would run this race no differently. 'We are a very disciplined group, and I am very proud of it,' she says with a defiant edge. Patti cites as one of her biggest achievements the fact that Hillary’s campaign launch in January was planned and executed with military precision. 'There were so many eyes and ears waiting for her to say something about whether she would run. That what we managed to pull off was a creative, professional rollout of a presidential campaign without anybody really knowing about it [in advance] — I don’t want to say it was the hardest thing I’ve done, but it was one of the things I’m most proud of.'"

For many Democrats and non-Democrats alike, there's no shortage of disgust over the years of hubristic opaqueness emanating from the Bush White House (and those who speak on its behalf). Still, Patti supposedly admires "the way the Bush campaign controlled its message..." I found this very curious, but soon filed it away in my mind's internal hard drive.

Watching Keith Olbermann self-aggrandizing re-cap of his duties as host of, yet another, Democratic debate, there it was: the Hillary soundbite that seemed to echo the communications mantra captured in the New York piece:

"So you can think big, but remember, you shouldn’t always say everything you think if you’re running for president, because it has consequences across the world."

It reinforces the notion that today's ideal communications paradigm isn't so black & white. As much as there is a call for full transparency, there are legitimate reasons for asserting control over what emanates from the mouths of individuals, institutions and enterprises. Could some benefit from opening their mouths wider...so all the silver fillings (and even some of the cavities) are exposed? You bet.

I'm comforted, however in the knowledge that no matter how close Mrs. Clinton plays it to the vest, it'll likely pose a vast improvement over what we've endured these last seven years.

(Re)capturing the Friedmans

Tweet

I have mixed feelings about The New York Times's considerations to discontinue TimesSelect*. On the one hand, why shouldn't The Times charge a premium for its premium content?

The extraordinary expense entailed in producing that quality content mandates the adoption of new and different revenue models...especially in this day and (newspaper) age.

Times Select is a bold attempt to do just that. It's a way to monetize existing Times assets in a value-added package. Frankly, I believe that $49/yr. for full access to the paper's online content and its archives back to 1851 was a fab deal. But apparently I am in the minority.

Enter the terms "link relevancy" and "online authority" -- or rather the diminishment thereof for those columnists behind the TimesSelect firewall. If eyeballs-a-reading and bloggers-a-linking to Huffington Post produce respectable ad revenue, why couldn't Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd and Dave Anderson, for that matter, capture a well-deserved piece of that pie?

It was no secret that Mr. Friedman had his qualms about TimesSelect's limiting effect on his digital footprint. And few will deny how much the economics of the Web have changed in the last two years. Scott Karp, in a thoughtful post on Publishing 2.0, even declares the death of paid content (not you Rafat!):

"The new economics of media make charging for content nearly impossible because there is always someone else producing similar content for free — even if the free content isn’t “as good as” the paid content by some meaningful metric, it doesn’t matter because there’s so much content of at least proximate quality that the paid content provider has virtually no pricing power. As smart, talented, and insightful as the New York Times columnists behind the paid wall are, the are too many other smart, talented, insightful commentators publishing their thoughts on the web for free."

Many applauded the decision. Others attribute the rumblings from the Murdoch camp to free-up WSJ.com as the catalyst for The Times decision. Personally, I'm holding out hope that the eventual unleashing Mr. Friedman and the others will be the right economic and influence-boosting antidote to prove that these times still demand The Times.

*This blogger served as outside PR consultant for the introduction of TimesSelect.

Just Say Nope

Tweet

As Congressional Democrats struggle to muster the gumption to just say no to the whims of this wayward President, we have to admire one struggling 20-year-old camp counselor, who simply aspires to pay for his training in automotive repair.

Here's how it played out in the White House situation room:

Dana Perino: Mr. President, great news! A bridge collapsed in Minneapolis and only a handful were killed. Let's high tail on down there to show the American people just how compassionate you are.

W: Are you sure it's necessary. I mean it's no Katrina. Also, do I really have to leave Crawford in August? It' s just getting nice n' toasty down here.

DP: Look, let's not make the same mistake we did in New Orleans. And it'll be a nice reprieve from all the Beltway investigations.

W: How do I splain how all the money for domestic infrastructure improvements has been siphoned off to fight for freedom and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan?

DP: Good question. I have an idea. Let's organize a photo op with that camp counselor who pulled those kids from the bus. We don't even need a banner. The collapsed bridge as a backdrop should do us just fine. Also, he's Hispanic, which could score us some points on immigration reform.

W: Isn't that a dead issue?

DP: Whatever.

"Mr. Hernandez was not available to comment on the offer; Ms. Schwartz said he left town for northern Minnesota late on Friday, overwhelmed by the attention and concerned that his co-workers were being overlooked. He spent the weekend fishing.

When President Bush’s staff contacted him to request a photo opportunity, "He was just, like, ‘Nope,’ " she said.

A Vote for Wahabiism

Tweet

When the United Kingdom's University and College Union decided to inanely promote a boycott of Israeli educational institutions, the story, as outrageous as it was/is, did not have much in the way of news legs.

But isn't that rule, rather than the exception, for too many of today's most notorious scandals? I mean one would think a story about 190,000 AK47 rifles going missing in Iraq would last more than one day. Right? Wrong

Well, we live in an age when the publication of the Pentagon Papers would capture few imaginations. Perhaps the myriad misdeeds of this administration are so incredulous that we've grown numb from them all? Who was it that said: where is the outrage?

But back to the overtly anti-Semitic Brits. When the free press fails to stand up for the voice of reason, other tactics must be taken to rise above tyrannical silence. Enter the advertorial. Over the weekend, a group of esteemed Nobel laureates (aren't all Nobel winners esteemed?) condemned the so-called British academics in full-page newspaper ads. (They probably should have asked if the Brits would prefer Wahabiism.)

And, come Wednesday, the American Jewish Committee will jump into the fray with its own full-page ad featuring a compendium of university presidents, led by Columbia's Lee Bollinger, expressing their outrage.

Since the news media failed to give this story its just due, let's hope that these two advertorials revive journalists' good conscience, not to mention public consciousness. Right now, the Israeli press seems to be the only group of media following this story...and the blogging community, of course.

Pre-Empting Portfolio

Tweet

At least the story broke on a sultry summer Friday in August. Most of the city's movers and shakers have checked out to eastern shores to escape the city's oppressive temps and humidity.

But there it was -- trumpeted on the front page of New York's top tab in advance of the "news" breaking in Conde Nast's Portfolio.

In what has been a well-kept secret for too long, the Boss of New York's priciest sports franchise has aged -- big time. And with age, in the age of Alzheimer's, comes the loss of one's mental (and other) faculties.

What intrigues me most is not how a once vitriolic, but vital voice in the mosaic of New York has succumbed to the ravages of senility. But rather, how the fallibility of the once infallible Mr. Steinbrenner didn't make news before today.

"According to the article, Steinbrenner repeatedly said, "Great to see ya," to nearly every question posed by a longtime friend during a recent visit."

Here's one possible explanation: both the Yankees boss and the publication breaking the news, including its boss, share the same high-powered PR consigliere. So with a most unflattering story poised to break in Portfolio, someone decided to pre-empt (on a Friday) the monthly's shocking details.

"Steinbrenner's spokesman, Howard Rubenstein, yesterday said the repetition 'might be a defensive mechanism. He doesn't want to give any interviews, and it's better to say, 'It's great to see you,' as opposed to 'Get lost,'Rubenstein said. 'I think George is in a good way. And it isn't right for someone to come in under false pretenses.'"

This pre-emptive, pre-weekend strategy is reminiscent of the brokering of the breaking of another highly embarrassing story about a client of said PR man. Hey, come to think of it, it worked: we haven't heard much about that one since. The hope is that this sad Steinbrenner saga will also fade from the front page and quickly into memory.

Jules Bistro

Tweet

Great turnout for Laurel last night at a very understated bar in the East Village called Jules Bistro. It was where she and Russ Baker apparently hatched the idea for Media Bistro, which Jupitermedia snapped up earlier this month for $20 million plus. (Headline: "Bistro Born in Bistro")

For those who don't know Media Bistro, it's an organization that offers career advice, seminars, job listings, social settings, and media news to an international community of journalist, PR and marketing types.

It also is parent to some authoritative industry blogs such as TV Newser, FishBowl NY, LA and DC, and Galley Cat. (Hey, Laurel, next time fly in FishBowl LA's Kate Coe.)

Upon entering the jazz joint, celebrants were greeted by some exuberant young people at a table with pledge cards and literature about The Real News Project, which Russ Baker (pictured at left) founded and expounded upon following Laurel's remarks.

Admittedly, I first confused it with Jay and Arianna's crowd sourcing journo initiative "Off the Bus," but soon realized that while both shared collaborative underpinnings, the Real News Project is unique in its aspiration to revive investigative journalism -- something few will disagree has seen better days.

"The Real News Project produces groundbreaking investigative journalism and timely, well-sourced, deeply explored accounts behind current events."

Baker himself has already done his fair share in this noble calling. (Would you expect anything less from Russ Baker?) What's more, for those who ponied up to support "Real News" last night, Ms. Touby agreed to match pledges -- two dollars for every one pledged. (Laurel, I hope my check for $500K doesn't bounce.)

Also on hand were Allen Salkin of The New York Times's "Sunday Styles" section (pictured on right) who mentioned to me that he was one of media bistro's first instructors on "how to pitch stories," a term that has different meaning for freelance writers than it does for the PR set. Laurel credited him with the idea that started mb's popular workshops.

I also ran into my Men's Lunch compadre Jon Fine who doubles as Business Week's astute media reporter and Laurel's husband -- but not necessarily in that order. The scruffy Fine confided in me that he's become a regular contributor to CNBC, which makes sense since that network's Dow Jones connection could soon be history -- no matter what parent GE says.

Biz Blogs

Tweet

Other than the fun of sharing one's opinion (whether it's sought after or not), the beauty of blogging often lies in the ability to caress, after the fact, how one's portrayed in the formerly indelible mainstream media.

We all know what happened after a brash Cubby-seeking maverick took issue with his less-than-positive profile by The Times's Andrew Ross Sorkin. He retaliated by simply posted on his blog the unedited e-mail exchange between himself and Mr. Sorkin in a bold move to set the record straight...sans the media filter.

Two years later, this issue resurfaced big time when a Wired magazine reporter's requests for a couple of live interviews were rebuffed in favor of an e-mail only exchange. The reporter passed.
In fact, many companies today smartly use their new media empowerment tools to correct misimpressions or factual inaccuracies. I'm not sure how much it will help the beleaguered CEO of Whole Foods, but he still gave it the old college try.

Earlier this summer, I spent a fair amount of time waxing on the state of business media for a forthcoming piece by USA Today's NY-based media reporter David Lieberman. After all, Conde Nast's Portfolio had just bowed, Rupert was moving ahead with the Fox Business Channel, and the big three -- Forbes, Fortune and Business Week -- were languishing (along with other dead tree mediums) in the ad-page department.

David and I talked about a range of issues including how business magazines with active (and revenue-producing) conference divisions are better positioned to weather this stormy transition before online ad revenue truly kicks in. We chatted about Portfolio's prospects, as well as the paucity of high-traffic business blogs. I noted that the blogs that really flourish tend to be in one of the following categories: technology, politics, gossip and consumer electronics.

David's piece finally broke yesterday, pegged to Rupert's triumph over the Bancrofts, and a quote of mine survived:

"You don't see a lot of stand-alone, business-specific blogs," says Peter Himler of Flatiron Communications, a public relations firm that specializes in corporate announcements. "It comes back to the audience for this kind of news. It's still wedded to traditional and mainstream media."

True, but it's worth noting (qualifying, massaging, finessing, back-peddling, spinning!) that there are a plethora of business-related blogs that come in just about every flavor. It's just that they don't, for now, command the number of readers or links enjoyed by the likes of a Huffington, Arrington or Levin.

So there. The record's set straight (at least in my mind). David's piece, btw, is a worthwhile read, my innocuous quote notwithstanding.