The Flack

Greg Miller opened the panel discussion before a packed and overheated room of PR execs gathered for the Bulldog-sponsored 2007 PR Agency Summit at the Williams Club in NYC.

He ran through some Google-centric slides, with a warning to the attendees to pay attention to the search, advertising, intelligence-gathering monopoly...or perish.

He finished, looked over at me; I turned to Rubel who gave me the "be my guest" look. I took the podium with my double-spaced musings on the yin yang of the modern PR world.

Sure we need to be on top of all the social media tools and networks that drive out clients' reputations, let alone their business successes and failures. On the other hand, I have a hunch that an embroiled CEO would rather be in the trenches with a seasoned PR exec with good instincts than one who knows how to set up a Twitter account.

What's more: clients still clamor and pay big bucks for media results, especially that good old-fashioned ink and airtime. (Question: why don't advertisers measure their success based on the appearance of the ad they created?) PR people have it so easy...for the time being.

It matters little to today's typical practitioner that the MSM's ability to spur action has diminished and will continue to do so. Clients still pine for The Times, Business Week and NBC "Today." Of course stories in those outlets become digital fodder for the blogs and other digital domains, hence the claim that social media is squarely in the driver's seat is spurious.

Still, the fact remains: the masses are migrating online and have the power to seek and consume whatever content they want...when, where and how they want it. Growing, and making more discoverable, a client's online footprint will eventually overwhelm traditional media coverage in terms of building brand reputations, selling products or enhancing stock price. Reality notwithstanding, times are flush for traditional publicity shops, and will be so for the foreseeable future.

BTW Mr. Rubel did not take the podium. From his place at the dais he steadfastly held his ground that command-and-control is dead and geeks shall rule. He also said that this is our industry's moment to shine and extolled the audience: Carpe Diem! Our 45-minute session ended. A group of agency HR directors took our places.

Labels: Agency Summit, Bulldog Reporter, Greg Miller, Peter Himler, PR, public relations, social media, Steve Rubel

In failure and success, fire the PR person! Well, I'm not so sure that's how it played out, but a look at the changes in the corp. comm. depart at Nintendo of America would make one wonder.

I mean who'd a thunk (other than this blogger) that Wii would become the must-have-above-all video-gaming sensation, and SONY PS3 would be gasping for a air and grasping for a price break? From The Flack (Nov. 26, 2006):

"Hey, if the ultimate underdog Rocky Balboa can make a comeback this holiday season, you better think twice before putting Nintendo down for the count."

Even so, Nintendo's PR department has been wiped clean. Here's doozy of a quote on Wii's success from SONY's Phil Harrison:

"Yeah, I don't remember reading anybody's analysis predicting this two years ago or even a year ago to 18 months ago, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. We work in an entertainment business, basically, and entertainment has elements of fashion, and it has elements of the latest cool thing."

Did I hear that Halo 3 raked in $170 million in sales ...in its first day? No matter. It's still a game where teenagers try to kill as many opponents as messily and noisily in as many environments as virtually possible. Only this time with better graphics.

Labels: gamers, Halo 3, Nintendo of America, PR, public relations, SONY PS3, video games, Wii

As Ad Age ad guru and NPR "On the Media" co-host Bob Garfield continues his blogging crusade against his local cable company, he might be pleased to learn that the object of his disaffection drew a fine this week for airing a "video news release" without identifying its source. Hmmm. Is this even against the law?

Quoting from the Philly.com article: Comcast, based in Philadelphia, said it would contest the agency's action.

"We did not receive any consideration, benefit or payment" for airing the video, said spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice.

As this blogger has previously pointed out, it is the ethical responsibility of the PR pro to clearly identify the source of any content he or she provides to a news organization, BUT it is the outlet's journalistic responsibility to make that information known to its audience.

Apparently, the local Comcast-owned all-news cable channel, home to the sleepy cable repairman, didn't do so, which prompted the PR-haters at the Center for Media & Democracy to file a complaint with a compliant FCC.

So which is worse? Fighting a negative viral campaign or a $4000 fine from the FCC? All in a day's work for the PR team in Philly.

Labels: Bob Garfield, cable TV, Comcast, FCC, PR, PR Watch, public relations, VNR

So whose great idea was it to bring in a former lawyer, I mean a former district attorney, to take over the PR reins at CNBC? (I mean would you vote for Fred or Rudy as President?) Maybe the content-sharing deal with News Corp-owned Dow Jones is headed into litigious waters?

All I know is that the current holder of the VP/PR position is as close to central casting as one could find. He's a former journalst with Newsday, Variety and the Wall Street Journal (where he derided his fair share of publicity hounds). He also toiled alongside me at Burson--Marsteller before heading over to the client side of the PR business.

When the NBC gig arose, he was like a pig 'n...well you know. He found his higher calling. Glad to hear he's staying on to head media relations, but scratching my head on the creds his new boss brings to the party.

Labels: CNBC, Fox, Fred Thompson, lawyer, PR, public relations

It's no secret that the brave new world of 2.0 is awash with myriad conferences and industry gatherings covering just about any subject that could hold sway with one's imagination. But guess which industries have the most to gain (or lose) from these social media-fueled confabs? Right. Advertising and PR.

With that said, New York City's the place to be this week. No, not if you plan to travel in by car since the UN is back in session and the world's most dangerous man arrives on our shores to create his share of hate-inspired havoc.

This week is Advertising Week 2007. Ad Age (and former PR Week) editor Jonah Bloom pretty much sums up for The Times's Stuart Elliott how far the indsutry has come from the days of Mr. Peanut:

"It's not that the icons aren't a fun part of the industry. But the industry is more sophisticated than that. An industry with smart tools to move the sales needle, that wants to attract smart people, was being represented by Mr. Clean and Mr. Peanut."

Today also marks the start of MediaPost's OMMA Conference, which has attracted a who's who of industry pundits to paint a picture of the new Online Media, Marketing and Advertising world. The conference's subdued subtitle: "Worlds Collide: All Hell Breaks Loose." Here's OMMA's description:

"2007 has been a watershed year for the media, marketing and advertising industry, with online resurgent, and with its rise, new challenges for traditional media and advertising models. The effect has been two worlds with very different economic structures colliding into one. Digital agencies are taking the lead and are becoming the centerpieces of organizations ranging from Publicis to Microsoft. Traditional agencies – both media and creative – are reshaping and reimagining themselves in a digital blueprint."

Later in the week, this blogger will participate in Bulldog Reporters' "PR Agency Management '07 Summit" Not to be outdone, The Conference Board will host a two-day'er called the "2007 Corporate Reputation and Communication Conference: Influencing the Opinion and Behavior of Your Organization."

And last but not least, The Publicity Club of New York (of which this blogger serves as president) will play host at a Thursday luncheon in midtown to editors and producers from Money magazine, Kiplinger's, WCBS-TV News and Consumerist.org.

Who can keep track? Maybe Iran should consider holding its PR conference in New York this time next year?

Labels: advertising, Advertising Week, Conference Board, conferences, Iran, marketing, Mr. Peanut, OMMA, PCNY, PR, public relations

The moment the Wall Street Journal News Alert crossed my desktop Friday night, I thought of Harry Potter's final splash, and how the dastardly New York Times spoiled the book publisher's marketing ploy, I mean plan.

You see, The Journal upset the apple cart by purchasing Alan Greenspan's new tome and running with a piece on it in spite of the publisher's meticulously crafted PR/marketing plan that called for the news to hold through the weekend.

I immediately thought about penning a follow-up post to the one I did on the Times's pre-release release of the Potter news, but was in weekend mode, so I passed.

Well, today, Motoko Rich, writing in The New York Times, did just that. She outlined the challenges publishers face nowadays keeping the media tight-lipped so the orchestrated publicity plan produces maximum awareness and sales.

As my previous post pointed out, why would any news organization, after freely purchasing an embargoed book, agree to honor that artificial embargo, and by so doing, serve as a pawn in the book's marketing plan anyway? As Motoko explains:

"The task of unveiling a big book— especially one with great news interest or enormous popular demand — has changed dramatically in recent years as players in an increasingly competitive news media seek to be the first to unveil content, and the Internet makes it more difficult to keep books under wraps."

Still with that competition at a fevered pitch, and the Internet making it oh so easy for a book's essence to seep out, many formerly willing mainstream outlets are beginning to rethink their traditional agreements:

"'It takes the wind out of our sails when a reporter gets the book before we go on air, there’s no doubt about that,' said Jeff Fager, executive producer of '60 Minutes.' He added, 'We’re probably going to go into this kind of agreement less often unless the publishers do something different in the way that they distribute the books, making it more difficult for people to get copies of the books before ‘60 Minutes’ broadcasts.'"

One difference between Dr. Greenspan and Ms. Rowling: the former Fed chief likely didn't throw a hissy fit when hearing of the newspaper's breach of his publisher's PR plan. I suspect this kind of news paled in comparison to his usual fare.

Labels: Alan Greenspan, embargos, JK Rowling, marketing, Motoko Rich, PR, public relations, publishing

At a time when the U.S. was embroiled in another unpopular war, this 11-year-old was summoned along with his fellow summer campers to a giant bonfire presided over by "The Blue Mist," the adopted name of the camp's owner. We suspected something big was up, but didn't realize how big.

Sure enough, the Blue Mist solemnly announced that summer's historical pinnacle, its veritable denouement, "color war," was to be renamed "color contest." Furthermore, water guns were now officially banned from the grounds since "...water guns lead to real guns."

Now, admittedly, this was a bit over the top. And who knew that the Blue Mist was a practicing pacifist at his core? Nonetheless, that fateful gathering was forever embedded in my mind.

Flash forward to today. I have steadfastly refused to allow my boys to succumb to the purient lure of video gaming. Sure, Madden and Tiger Woods are cool, and so is Nintendo Wii for that matter. I've even come to reject the notion that water guns lead to real guns. However, I do believe that video game violence does have some relationship with real-life violence.

My personal beliefs notwithstanding, I finally caved and purchased an XBox 360 Elite for my 15-year-old...some 40 years after that epochal campfire. I also bought two games: Madden and Halo 2. Guess which disc spins incessantly? You're right, and I'm disgusted.

As we approach the hyperbolic debut of the next-gen of the impossibly popular Halo series, plans for its boffo marketing campaign have started to seep into the public (and competitor's) domain. The goal of the campaign is to make Halo 3, as in 3-D, more tangible:

"Xbox's Halo 3 is exiting the digital world, with a global campaign paradoxically aimed at making the world of the game tangible--as in 3D--with the conceit that the Halo wars really happened, or will have happened. Rather like Orson Wells' famous 'War of the Worlds' theatre vérité, the campaign for Halo 3, a game depicting an apocalyptic battle between humans and invading aliens, attempts to treat the fictional characters of the game and its battles as future history."

Call it what you will, Microsoft, but as I observe my son and his friends "compete" physically with one another and virtually against strangers, I'm convinced that:

The single overriding goal of this misnomer of a game is to KILL as many opponents as messily in as many environments as possible.

Teenaged boys can't seem to get enough of it. It's totally addictive, and in my opinion, totally unhealthful, if not sinister. Where have all the flowers gone?

Labels: Camp Greylock, Halo 3, marketing, Microsoft, PR, public relations, video gaming, violence, XBOX 360

Social Media Collective member Robin Carey pinged the socially conscious group today to announce Amazon pre-orders of Brian Solis's new, fun-titled book "Now is Gone," in which the Valley PR man:

"...explores how New Media (and Social Media) are forcing the evolution of PR through a rich set of meaningful interviews, case studies, and comprehensive discussions."

I'm not sure how I feel about getting a commercial come-on via SMT, but I'm sure Brian's book will be a worthwhile read given his always astute musings on the state of PR 2.0.

Separately, but also a worthwhile read, is IBM distinguished engineer Mike Moran's new tome "Do It Wrong Quickly: How the Web Changes the Old Marketing Rules," which this blogger has been fortunate to represent. In the book, written for anyone who aspires to become a "millennium marketer," Moran walks the reader through all the new tools and tactics required for success in a disintermediated marketing landscape.

He turns the old "plan then execute" mindset on its ear, favoring a non-stop cycle of refinement where failure (or "doing it wrong") is a necessary and accepted step on the road to marketing nirvana. I mean in the old marketing paradigm, one can spend beaucoup bucks and still see a campaign fall flat. Whereas on the Web, if the messages don't mesh, pull 'em down and try something else til you get it right. Makes sense.

Mike even accepts GM's Chevy Tahoe Web marketing misstep wherein the automaker got the CGM advertising bug, until all those C's began dissing its distinctly un-Green SUV. That's OK. Right, Mike? Chevy learned from "doing it wrong," and has moved on.

Labels: advertising, Brian Solis, CGM, Chevy Tahoe, Do it Wrong Quickly, IBM, marketing, marketing 2.0, Mike Moran, PR, Social Media Today

Few could miss the news a week or so ago when Southwest Airlines forbade a Hooters employee from boarding a plane without a wardrobe re-adjustment. Well, two things emerged from this dopey incident: 1) the skimpily-dressed waitress has had a major career boost (e.g., 20 minutes of fame).

Now this sure sounds familiar, but in the reverse. Remember the fame thrust upon that Qantas Air stewardess who bedded Ralph Fiennes in the lavatory during a transoceanic flight? I digress.

2) Southwest, one of the more revered airline brands in an industry where scant few deserve that adjective, took it on the chin for its puritanical ways in banishing the waitress from the flight. The airline thus decided to re-adjust its outfit by announcing a giant fare sale to "honor mini-skirts," i.e., make lemonade out of lemons.

It issued a double-entendre-laced news release announcing so-called skimpy sale fares of $49 to $109 each way, available for 10 days. The timing thereof coincided with the Hooters waitress's appearances on NBC "Today" and "Dr. Phil."

Good for you, Southwest. Clever, fun, irreverent, and I bet you sold lots of flights as a result. Of course, the provocateur wasn't drinking the lemonade. She rejected Southwest's attempts to make light of a skimpy situation. I guess fame and an apology from the airline's CEO didn't measure up. She's looking for a cash payout. This is America, after all.

Labels: Dr. Phil, Kyla Ebbert, PR, public relations, skimpy, Southwest Airlines

In a newly surfaced post by Joe Wilcox in eWeek's Microsoft Watch, we're treated to a pretty good look at how Microsoft PR has evolved.

In it, the writer attempts to get his arms around the Redmond company's migration from the mode of traditional message manager (through the filter of the trades) to an approach that allows the thousands of company-sanctioned blogs to serve as the de facto corporate channel for disseminating news.

"It's quite common now for Microsoft to make major product announcements via blogs, and it's not uncommon for the posts to be the only communication--no press release. With close to 5,000 employee bloggers, I'd argue that blogs are now Microsoft's major communications vehicle for reaching pretty much everybody."

As admirable as that may sound -- and few will dispute Scoble and his band of Channel 9'ers positive impact on Microsoft's public image -- this reporter contends that the employee-created news is not all what it appears to be:

"Employees are certainly a group over which Microsoft can exact some control and that can spin information to the company's advantage. Many of the employee blogs are PR. They are Microsoft spin."

Mr. Wilcox cites a post yesterday by Nate Clinton, Windows Update program manager, as a prime example of this "coordinated" PR-blogging effort:

"Microsoft provided three paragraphs of comments for our follow-up story on the Windows Update controversy. The comments appeared almost word-for-word in Clinton's post; we received those comments before the blog posted."

Personally, I think it's pretty amazing that Microsoft has empowered some 5000 bloggers to talk about their work and their employer, and even to occasionally break news. I also don't question the company's efforts to protect its interests by weighing in -- either via traditional channels, or subtly and sometimes overtly through its empowered workforce.

But Mr. Wilcox also is not off-base when he insinuates that the company's blogger output reflects the corporate position more than the casual reader is led to believe. Let's call a spade a spade.

Labels: blogging, eWeek, Microsoft, PR, public relations, Scoble

Jeff Leeds of The Times today poses the question on everyone's mind (well, maybe not everyone's). Can brand Britney rebound from her self-inflicted career meltdown?

As I pondered this lofty question, I stumbled on a short piece involving yet another once seemingly doomed-to-oblivion celebrity.

The Oprah-diss-graced non-fiction fiction writer James Frey (pictured) has a new tome on the horizon, and it's the object of passionate pursuit by prominent publishers. We learn today that Mr. Frey's new agent -- from the powerhouse firm of Janklow & Nesbitt (that's Morty and Lynn among the literary cognascenti) -- cut an exclusive deal with Harper Collins.

Now I'm sure the book is not some masterpiece, but the author does have one vital ingredient for which others would give up their MacBook Pros: notoriety. Not just any notoriety, but the kind that begets "mediability" on a global scale. The bottom line is that Mr. Frey is instantly and eminently publicizable. From his new publisher:

"...Mr. Frey was a 'media lightning rod...my opinion about James Frey and whatever he did is beside the point.'"

Time, and a fickle public, have amazing healing powers. So, as I ponder the fate of one dazed and fallen pop star on the eve of her first album release in four years, I predict that Newton's law (e.g., "every action...") may just prevail. The media forces of nature will permit Ms. Spears to surprise all of today's naysayers to rise again. Right, Mariah?

Labels: books, Britney Spears James Frey. Mort Janklow, Lynn Nesbitt, Oprah, PR, public relations, publishing

So was it worth it? Apparently so, if you believe the demos disreputably delivered to MTV's Video Music Awards Sunday night. Sure, there were some notable highlights, including (pictured) Chris Brown's Michael Jackson turn, but the Britney fiasco "tainted" the whole affair, and in so doing, reaped a 23% ratings surge for the network.

At first blush, it was Britney's dazed and uninspired performance that catalyzed the conversation's critical wrath. But afterward, A-lister Kanye cleverly chimed in (self-servingly?) to re-direct the animus away from the troubled singer and toward the network, which strategically suckered the separated singer to center stage.

"Man, they were just trying to get ratings, and they knew she wasn't ready and they exploited her," the 29-year-old rapper said Tuesday.

So, the first news cycle dissed Britney, but in the second, MTV drew the harsh spotlight (for which it was caught with no explanation):

"MTV spokesman David French didn't immediately return a phone call from The Associated Press seeking comment."

Kanye hit the nail on the head, though admittedly the star must have been miffed coming home empty-handed.

"That's two years in a row, man...give a black man a chance."

MTV maintains its silence on the Britney exploit charge (for now), but quickly weighed in to mae sure its bread stayed buttered:

"MTV has a long and collaborative relationship with Kanye and we hope and look forward to continuing that meaningful relationship," MTV's statement said Tuesday.

This musical tale isn't over. The fickle media pendulum may swing back to Ms. Spears if rumors of her pre-performance fuel-up prevail.

Labels: Britney Spears, Kanye West, MTV, PR, public relations, ratings, Video Music Awards

MSNBC.com's savvy Internet-watcher Bob Sullivan today dissects a company that apparently sat in on one of Converseon founder Rob Key's* presentations at a search strategy or WOMMA conference.

Mr Key pioneered much of what's happening in the booming area of "search engine reputation management," if not the term itself.

Of course, the company on which Mr. Sullivan set his investigative sights appears to over promise, and may even find itself toying with Google's vaunted terms-of-service. And no company wants to fool with mother Google. Sullivan writes:

"DONE SEO (search engine optimization) is a Manhattan Beach, Calif., company that says it can improve any company's search engine results ranking. But on its 'search engine reputation management' page, it promises quite a bit more, saying it can make negative stories and comments go away."

Google weighs in:

"'There's nothing wrong with this in and of itself,' said a Google spokeswoman who asked not to be identified. 'As far as being within our webmaster guidelines, it's the same as any other web content. If you use spammy and manipulative techniques to get this positive content to rank highly, we may take action on it. But if you can write content or have content written about yourself and have it be interesting and compelling so that people link to it, it may indeed be relevant for searches on your name or business and may be a valid search result, above the negative content.'"

Done! SEO also may have made the tactical error of boasting on its website the ability to neutralize the bad kharma flowing from a presence on ConsumerWebWatch.org, the Internet arm of Consumers Union.

"Having a listing on ConsumerWebWatch.org that shows up on the first page of Google for a search for your company name can be devastating to your business," it says.

Still, there's nothing wrong with accentuating the positive...as long as it's done within the search engine's (or social network's) terms of service. I don't know how many times I've told my boys to pro-actively manage their presence on FaceBook!

How to elevate a company's primary content online, at the expense of rogue and misleading information, remains a gray area. Nonetheless, we shouldn't lose sight of this medium's singular beauty -- the ability to capture a diversity of voices and perspectives, not all sympatico -- when endeavoring this activity.

The motivation to consider deoptimization strategies should be driven more by the appearance of factually flawed information, and less by unpleasantness. Even ConsumerWebWatch recognizes the conundrum:

"'I sympathize with businesses that have to confront this issue,' he said. 'The state of user reviews on the Web is not pretty. There are people who give a hotel a bad review because they don't like color of the drapes, for example. But my concern is that there are other organizations and other journalists who do legitimate research, and as a result of these algorithms the relevance of their work decreases. It’s hard enough for consumers to make decisions and find information.'"

*Rob Key's a friend and sometimes collaborator.

Labels: Bob Sullivan, Consumers Union, ConsumerWebWatch, Converseon, Done SEO, Google, PR, public relations, reputation management, Rob Key, Search engine reputation management, SEO, terms of service

In a recent meeting with an environmental NGO, I was asked how far I might recommend the organization go to create news, i.e.., how outrageous or incendiary should their statements or actions be in order to garner headlines? I admitted that sometimes it's necessary to create a little theatre to break through the clutter. But I added that it's never OK to float a falsehood -- or is it?

In a recent audio segment titled "The Truth of False" that aired on NPR's "On the Media," co-host Bob Garfield interviewed Washington Post reporter Shankar Vedantam about his piece on some new psychological studies that show that:

"Good myths die hard...attempts to set the record straight may in fact be perpetuating falsehoods."

He cites a CDC announcement in which the Center issued a "true or false" report on the flu. It turns out that older people more readily remembered the falsehoods, and ultimately believed them to be true. So what does this mean for us PR types as we advise our clients on how best to rectify misinformation or ensure that what we say is received the way in which we intended it?

As we enter what promises to be a very nasty, media manipulative Presidential campaign, we should be vigilant in recognizing the purposeful disinformation emanating from nefarious PR types acting to denigrate an adversary or advance a political end. Think "swift boat," "Osama as radical Islamist," "WMDs exist in Iraq," or "the surge is working."

The very act of floating a piece of information, picked up by the news echo chamber, almost validates the information whether it's true or not, and often in spite of attempts to correct the falsehood. One of the Post reporter's final comments to Garfield offered this:

"One thing that I should mention, Bob, is that when you're trying to deny a falsehood, perhaps the most effective way of doing that is by not mentioning the original falsehood at all. In other words, if someone said that Bob Garfield is for child prostitution, the right response is not, 'Bob Garfield is not for child prostitution,' but rather say 'Bob Garfield is an outstanding journalist who believes...'"

Sounds like familiar PR advice: don't repeat the negative.

I can vouch for Bob Garfield as an upstanding citizen who, by the way, has embarked on a Jarvis-like rant on his blog today aimed squarely at Comcast. It's titled: "Comcast Must Die!" Brian, ignore Garfield at your peril. Remember your sleeping repairman's YouTube turn.

Labels: Bob Garfield, Comcast, disinformation, NPR, On the Media, political PR, propaganda, public relations, Washington Post

I received a call several months ago from a potential client who was jumping on the social networking bandwagon. Unlike the vertical business networks recently chronicled by The Journal's Jessica Vascellaro, this one had consumers in mind, and specifically the 64 million Americans born between the years of 1946 and 1964.

As a member in good standing of this franchise (born closer to the latter date, I might add), I decided to give the site a test drive to assess its relevance to my life and, its "mediability," i.e., newsworthy points of differentiation. I also called my friend Chuck, the nationally recognized expert on all things boomer, who was much more pessimistic about the site's prospects.

Supposedly it offered discounts to products and services appealing to this age group. You know, Pepcid, Rogaine, Florida time shares, retirement planning, long-term care insurance, cemetery plots... Within a day, I started receiving messages from some of the lonelyhearts whose less-than-appealing head shots peppered the site. (Is this what I look like?) The next day, the come-ons from paid escorts arrived. I cancelled my membership and struck the site from my new business prospect list.

In fact, I'm convinced that there are many social networks -- some I know, others I don't -- with the kind of membership, content and utility that will accrue to me personally and professionally. I'm just scratching my head on which ones.

I already belong to LinkedIn, which is an easy way to keep track of college friends and past business associates, though the site's functionality (and overall utility) leaves me underwhelmed. And, of course, there's FaceBook, which one of the social media cognoscenti recently questioned how anyone can call himself a social media expert absent a FaceBook account. (I'll tell you how after you have three teen-aged children with all their friends tooling around on the site.)

Three years ago, I joined the Omidyar Network, founded by Pierre Omidyar and his wife (fellow Tufts alums who are better known for other things). And shortly after that, I signed on for Tony Perkins' AlwaysOn: "the insider's network." While different, both had their redeeming attributes, albeit with a northern California sensibility. Then with great fanfare, the folks at Ragans, parent to PR News and filler of my emailbox, started MyRagan. I joined, but have yet to have reason to regularly re-visit. (Try swapping out the still video frame that's resided on the site's home page from day one.)

More recently, I received invitations from people I respect to join Doostang, allegedly "started at Harvard, MIT and Stanford," three universities that didn't take me (though my #2 son just began his freshman year at one of them). And then today, one of my Social Media Today collaborators "friended" me (and all the other social mediates on the site) for Quechup, "The Social Networking site to be on," that's irked a few folks through its viral hyperbole.

How's this? I promise to weigh the merits of membership in your social network, if you promise that I won't receive any messages from paid escorts.

Labels: AlwaysOn, Chuck Nyren, Doostang, FaceBook, LinkedIn, MyRagan, Omidyar Network, PR, public relations, Quechup, Social Media Today, social networks

The last time this blogger visited the subject of embargoed stories, it concerned the wallpapered coming-out party for a digital effects company called Contour (pictured). That company's technology was the subject of gushing feature profiles in The Merc News, Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, among others -- all on the same day.

I later learned that my buddy and sometimes collaborator, the indefatigable and ubiquitous Eric Schwartzman, played a role in orchestrating the trifecta. But let's not minimize the gee whiz factor of his client's technology, which gave vital resonance to his PR pitch.

Technology PR, and in particular consumer technology, are especially well-defined and robust journalism beats -- both of the mainstream and citizen variety. (Is there a difference?) The rules of media relations in this reporting area offer publicists greater latitude in defining the terms of engagement. I'm reminded of the iPhone video that Times' gadget guy David Pogue produced and starred in, or his remarks at the Bulldog Conference several months ago.

Today we're greeted with another embargoed trifecta -- emanating, as usual, from the Valley with backing from some notable VC firms. The result: concurrent stories on (yet another) VOD in-home box called Vudu. (Yes, more V-words.) The Vudu coverage all appared today in the nation's three largest daily circulation newspapers - The Journal, USA Today and The Times. Thanks, Rafat, for all three links in one easy-to-read post.

No need to dangle an exclusive here. Apparently, Vudu had enough mojo going for it to warrant even Giga Om Malik's shared attention. Notice his 9:53pm PT dateline? It coincides roughly to when the story popped on the big three newspapers' websites. Coincidence? Nah.

Labels: Contour, embargos, PR, public relations, Tech PR, Vudu

When Sen. Clinton's PR consigliere recently said in a New York Magazine piece that she admired the Bush White House's skills of message control, I'm sure many readers were left wondering whether this was a good thing or a bad thing (this blogger among them).

This Presidency has been the most opaquely deceptive in history. Still, a controlled approach to advancing one's policies has its virtues too. Imagine if PR was actually used to further the public interest?

Today, the big news from another Democratic candidate takes the latest Bush spin to the carpet. Sen. Edwards decries the PR tactics of the Clinton campaign, oops, I mean the White House and its well-oiled machinations to deneuter the widely anticipated Petraeus report. And you know what? The well-coiffed Senator from North Carolina is right to do so.

Once again, this administration has lulled the sleepy keepers of the media agenda into thinking and reporting that the war in Iraq has actually turned the corner. It's a full court press to stay the course, no matter what the General, Congress or any visitor to that country (except perhaps for Katie Couric) has to say. Even a review of the new, sanctioned book on Mr. Bush took to the front page of The New York Times offering a relatively sympatico look at Mr. Bush, the man.

In thinking about Sen. Clinton's advisor's comments on Mr. Bush's PR prowess, I'd have to concur that it is impressive. That's not to say that the public or world is better off as a result. Quite the contrary.

Labels: Bush, Gen. Petraeus, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, message control, PR, public relations

Alice Cuneo, writing for AdAge.com, reveals for her readers the winner of "the best job in marketing." What would you guess?

-- The Academy Awards and all those now-taxable goody bags filled with sponsored bling.

-- The Masters, the venerable golf tournament that happens to be held at a restricted country club. No problem. Just drop the TV advertisers and rake in the revenue from corporate hospitality.

-- The MTV Video Music Awards where the profanity finally succumbed to the 30-second delay. Now how do you bleep the pervasive wardrobe malfunctions?

-- The Olympic Games for which the price of a top tier sponsorship represents most companies' annual profits (if not revenue), and bears little relationship to company's financial straits, or does it.

While all of the above marketing bonanzas merit your consideration, Alice looked lower on the marketing totem pole to her choice for the best job. She named the Apple PR person as most deserved of the title:

"It's a cushy job because as a public relations person at Apple, you don't have to deal with the media at all. While it's no scientific measure, if you Google 'Apple did not return calls,' you'll come up with 2.35 million hits."

Now for the rest of us PR types who struggle to commandeer the limited bandwidth of journalists whom we've determined are prime for pitching, the Apple PR person has a different sensibility, according to Alice:

"...you're not expected to answer the phone. No risk of carpal tunnel, either, because answering e-mail is optional too! Those few times you do have to involve yourself with a reporter? Well it's time for mental fun and games. Figure out ways how to how to chew up their time without really being helpful. Things you can ask and/or demand: What is your story about? Can you write out all the questions you might possibly want to ask? Give us all of your information. Yes. All of it. And, by the way, we may or may not respond to let you know we don't have a comment."

Ahhh, if only all our clients had an iPhone or a record number of iTunes downloads in their DNA! We too could tell the media to piss off. Alice, have you considered changing your last name to Arrington?

Labels: Ad Age, Apple, Apple PR, marketing, Masters, MTV Music Awards, Olympic Games, PR, public relations

Labels: beach, Hamptons, Labor Day, New York, Westhampton Beach