The Flack

OK I finally relented and activated my FaceBook account. I've resisted for too long, mostly because my three boys think it's creepy for their Dad to be tooling around on what heretofore has been their dominant online lair.

After hearing this news, my #3 son informed me that he programmed my settings so that I would be invisible to him, his older brothers and all their collective FB friends. I guess that's fair. It would be a little smarmy for this boomer to be chatting up their millennial minions.

With the number of social networks multiplying at a Ning-a-fying rate, how does one choose which online community will best serve his or her personal and professional interests?

To hear Chris Anderson tell it: "...the world does not need another mass market social network..." (eg, FaceBook or My Space). Anderson droned on to say that "micro-focused social networks" are where it's all headed, especially from a CPM perspective.

I do know two social networks that I've come to truly despise. If you do anything, avoid Hi5 and Naymz like the plague...because the plague is a most apt metaphor for how these two seemingly non-discretionary online "communities" ensnare their victims.

Recently, both my wife and sister received effusive evites to join Hi5. By clicking on the link, each unknowingly set in motion an invitation "from them" to their entire AOL Mail contact list to join Hi5. How insidious is that? Shame on you Hi5!

Recently, this mild-mannered PR pro received several invites from some fairly influential friends to join another social network called Naymz whose motto reads: "empowering reputable professionals." Could the editor at Ad Age, a senior reporter for the Wall Street Journal and the head of a respected PR consultancy actually have taken the time to personally seek my membership in this dopey sounding social network? Highly doubtful.

So to Hi5 and Naymz: you're officially designated the "wooooooorst social networks of the weeeeeeeek." Readers, be forewarned.

Labels: chris anderson, FaceBook, Hi5, my space, Naymz, Ning, online communities, PR, social networks, viral marketing

In what can only be characterized as a cleansing of his soul, Politico today broke the exclusive that former Bush mouthpiece Scott McClellan, a once-frequent subject of this blog, has penned a tell-all. And we hear it won't be pretty for his former puppeteers.

"The eagerly awaited book, while recounting many fond memories of Bush and describing him as “authentic” and “sincere,” is harsher than reporters and White House officials had expected."

You have to give McClellan credit for eventually telling it like it is after three years of spinning it like it isn't. We're still waiting fo Mr. McClellan's first PR boss at The White House to fess up after deceiving the nation into war, among other things. Ari Fleischer's book was just an extension of his misguided years serving a corrupt administration.

Conversely, the title of McClellan's book tells it all: What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception (Public Affairs, $27.95). In it:

• McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.

• He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.

• He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be “badly misguided.”

• The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them — and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts.

• McClellan asserts that the aides — Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff — “had at best misled” him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity.

By contrast, when some star-struck PR group invited Mr. Fleischer to New York to promote his book to a sold-out gathering of PR lemmings, I was tempted to remind him that PRSA's code of ethics mandated resigning a client if the client knowingly lied. What did he think about that? (I held my tongue.)

McClellan, to his credit, finally comes clean, sort of, but only after the Bushies unceremoniously cut him loose.

“I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood,” McClellan writes. “It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively. I didn’t learn that what I’d said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later."

Huh? He didn't learn that what he said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later. Hmmm. Highly dubious.

Labels: Bush, media, PR, press secretary, public relations, Rove, Scott McClellan, spokeseman, White House

I was over at Converseon today and told the crew that I was considering a post on the time sync that is Twitter (and pretty soon, FriendFeed).

I know. I know. Twitter tweets are only 140 characters, so how much of a distraction could it be? A lot. Wasn't it TechCrunch's Mike Arrington who today elicited hundreds of comments on his A-List blog after posting just a single word - Twitter?

I usually have it running in the background as I'm trying to get some actual income-producing work done. And from time to time, I'll jump in the fray or observe from afar a cool gadget or possible lead for a blog post. (@DaveWiner's tweet tonight provided one that I'll write about tomorrow.)

Some folks appear to have nothing better to do than live and breathe Twitter all day every day. Are they getting paid-per-tweet? Perhaps they lack bosses or clients? I mean this blogger barely has time to pop out a blog post, let alone keep up with the endless dialogue string on this most quirky platform.

The FT today suggested that some of the Web 2.0 gestalt is strangely reminiscent of the dot-coms when it comes to producing revenue. In a piece mostly about widgets, Chris Nuttall and Richard Waters wrote:

"The difficulties of the widget companies point to a broader problem that has beset the crowded Web 2.0 landscape. The wave of "social media" companies that has arisen since the middle of this decade, many of them characterised by user-generated content and new forms of communications, has changed the way millions of people interact and entertain themselves online. Yet, by their nature, these new forms of behaviour are proving extremely difficult to turn into hard cash."

The piece concluded:

"It is only natural, he adds, that the winners in this race for audience attention will end up with "mass adoption and user attention before you necessarily recognise where the revenue comes from." That was the thinking behind a few winners - and many losers - from the first generation of consumer dotcoms at the end of the 1990s. Something similar looks in store for Web 2.0."

Steve and Heather update their homage to Steve Rubel from three years ago in a piece called "Beyond Blogs" from the current issue of Business Week. The two take a less myopic look at the social media universe. They too, however, conclude:

Even if the bubble bursts—and we predict it will—the power of social media to transform our businesses and society will only grow.

Both are most worthwhile reads, as are, I confess, the 150 pontificators I follow on Twitter.

Labels: FriendFeed, Mike Arrington, Richard Waters, social media, TechCrunch, The FT, Time sync, Twitter

When Jeff Bewkes took the helm at Time-Warner, media watchers and pundits were quick to pontificate on the trials and tribulations of the entertainment giant's long-time jewel in its TV programming crown, HBO, (versus thorn in its TV programming side, The CW Network).

With its milestone programs "Sex & The City," "The Sopranos" and "Six Feet Under" all now well, six feet under, how could HBO fend off its rivals and maintain relevancy?

The answer: put a "do-er " with a New York sensibility in charge and watch what happens. (This is because good PR and brand-building are derived from positive tangible action, not positive wordspin.)

Now I must admit, I'm a bit biased here, but newly named HBO co-prexy Richard Plepler is an old friend. He also a take-charge kind of guy who exudes confidence and smarts. His name may be familiar to "Sopranos" watchers as the character "Dr. Plepler" who treated Tony in the hospital after being shot by "Uncle Junior." But now, if you haven't noticed, Plepler is making a real-life star turn with a number of dynamic moves of his own.

The HBO mini-series "John Adams" was a triumph. This Sunday's HBO movie "Recount" has garnered advance rave reviews. The network cut a milestone deal to offer its programs on iTunes at variable price points, and it just hired New York Times political columnist (the former Times theatre and TIME Magazine film critic) Frank Rich as a program consultant.

These bold decisions spell good tidings and continued brand esteem for a cable network many had written off. HBO is now expected to (re)claim its share of Emmys this year. They should also silence the naysayers who were (too) quick to write an HB-Obit. Hopefully, they'll take notice and recant.

(One more thing: Richard rose up the ranks at HBO from his beginnings in the corporate communications department. There is hope.)

Labels: Apple, HBO, John Adams, PR, Recount, Richard Plepler, Sopranos, spin, Time-Warner, TV programming

It has become so commonplace nowadays for journalists -- mostly of the citizen variety -- to "out" PR pros or firms whose story queries are either ill-suited to their tastes or grammatically challenged, or both. If the spammers, I mean senders only took a few moments to check out the space to which their clients aspire, our lot would likely be spared such public abuse.

At Media Bistro's Media Circus, I had a chance this week to catch a very entertaining Noah Shachtman of Wired's Danger Room blog. He talked about the early days of blogging, i.e., when "what I had for breakfast" blogs abounded, and shared his humble beginnings churning out content from his basement on a subject near and dear to him: "what's next in national security." (He also revealed that he and moderator Manoush Zomorodi fellow speaker BlogHer founder Elisa Camahort are college buddies, though he didn't recognize her "without the keg over her.")

In his post this morning, Noah joined the ranks of the many who've taken PR types to task for their misguided ways. But these were not any old pitches that found their way onto Noah's readers' radar. These happened to originate from a couple of fairly savvy New York-based enterprises that clearly lazed their way into his e-mailbox.

We'll give the publicist for that New York City nightclub impressario a break. Anyone attempting to exploit Lindsay Lohan's good name for some cheap publicity can't be expected to conform to the tenets of modern PR.

But publicists at Howard J. Rubenstein and American Media's Men's Fitness magazine should definitely know better. I just can't see how HJR's pitch for new voting machines in Florida or the magazine's "Fittest American" issue qualify for the Danger Room.

But on second thought, tampered-with voting machines did bring us George Bush and with him, severely compromised national security. While America's fittest Governator has called for closing the border altogether to immigrants, in part to enhance security. With a little creative modification, these pitches could have worked after all.

Labels: Bad Pitch, Danger Room, Howard J. Rubenstein, Men's Fitness, Noah Shachtman, PR, public relations, Wired

I had a chance to attend yesterday's opening day of Media Bistro's Media Circus where MB founder Laurel Touby traded in her boa for a ringleader outfit, top hat and all. I manage to twitter a bit on the blogger panel, and then grabbed some digital audio with Robert Scoble who, since we're talking hats, wears many these days.

In case you hadn't kept up, the Scobleizer and his Naked Conversations co-author Shel Israel have been video-blogging for FastCompany. He's also a prolific Twitterer, produces (and stars in) vid segments for Qik, and still manages to keep his blog fresh (and refreshed).

Robert shared news of a new venture he and Shel are poised to launch called WorkFast.TV, which, in his words, will be all about:

"...the future of work, how the Internet is changing how we work together, and look at the tools that are enabling this change, things like Google Docs and Spreadsheets to Concept Share to Zoho..."

I also had a chance to ask him about Twitter's value to PR pros. Here's what he said:

"PR is in the business of relationships, right, and, you can meet people face-to-face once-in-a-while, but you can't hang out at [Tech Crunch founder] Mike Arrington's house every night, right, (even if you wanted to, he'd kick you out)...but if you want to build relationships with a lot of people, and be able to scale that, Twitter is crack...if you're in PR and you're not on Twitter, particularly in technology PR...if you're not on Twitter, you're doing yourself a disservice."

Anyway, listen to the full interview here. (RT 7:26)

Separately, I tried to muscle my way ahead of PR Newser's Jason Chupick to grab some sound with Wired editor Chris Anderson, but to no avail. Jason, however, did his usual good job. (I guess he had an "in" with the show organizers.)

Labels: chris anderson, media bistro, Media Circus, PR, PR Newser, public relations, Robert Scoble, Twitter

Have you ever been asked to defend your chosen profession's contributions to society? It's a no-brainer for physicians, environmentalists, scientists, firemen, technologists, etc.. But what about the lowly PR practitioner? What do we offer that elevates mankind?

Without getting too philosophical here, I suppose our value lies in the work we do to more effectively inform various publics on issues that can affect their lives.

I think of United Way of NYC's work to educate needy New Yorkers that they qualify for food stamps. Or Greenpeace's efforts to expose illegal whaling. Or any efforts to communicate to a community-in-need following a natural disaster.

On the other hand, Denise Richards' appearance on "Larry King Live" to gain an upper-hand in her custody battle with her ex-husband does NOT qualify as benefiting society. Nor does the oil industry's efforts to defend its outrageous profits on the spurious ground that they are not inconsistent with other industries.

On Sunday, a piece in Israel's ynet reported that the citizens of the communities bordering Gaza are fed up and taking matters into their own hands. The daily barrage of harrowing rocket attacks has fallen off the media radar. So much so that the community leaders have decided to pool their money to purchase -- not arms for retaliation -- but public relations for recrimination:

"Every one of the (local western Negev) councils will allocate a certain portion of its budget for PR," said a statement released at the end of the meeting.

So what will that buy?

"A committee will be formed to approach publicists and public relations experts, who will be hired to illustrate to both the public and the governing powers that difficult situation we are in due to the constant rocket fire.

"The public seems oblivious to what is really going on, a fact which undoubtedly affects the decision makers."

Some may still believe that a permanent peace can be found once Israel relinquishes its land for a Palestinian state, but I say not so fast.

How quickly did Gaza turn into a terrorist launching pad following Israel's withdrawal? It doesn't take rocket science to figure the same radical forces will eventually overtake an initially Israeli-tolerant government. Think Lebanon or the current surge of radical Islam in Kuwait.

The daily attacks in Sderot make a credible case for an even broader PR offensive to paint a plausible picture of can happen in spite of Israel's good will. Will YouTube videos be enough to demonstrate that Gaza is a warm-up act to what lies ahead in the West Bank should Israel make a hasty retreat? The jury in the court of public opinion is out.

Labels: Israel, PR, public relations, radical Islam, rocket attacks, sderot

Dear Hillary,

Yes, I see the daily e-mails from you, Terry, Bill, Chelsea and Geoff, but I'm afraid they've fallen short in pulling me back into your fold.

Do you remember the PR advice I offered up in January and February? Be authentic, lay off Sen. Obama, and direct all your attention to this administration's failed policies and criminal behavior over the past seven years.

Certainly you cannot dispute the treasure trove of mineable material that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice, Gonzales, Miers and so many others served up for the taking. Yet you missed the feast. If you only had considered how recounting their crimes would have aroused the passions of so many deluded, disgusted and disenfranchised Americans.

But nooooo. You instead chose to follow your poll-crazy PR consiglieres' algorithms to shape your message track. You permitted your PR machinations to overshadow your true (and widely shared) beliefs. You mistakenly took their advice to attack a charismatic and most affable Senator whose intelligence and ideology closely align with your own. (In so doing, you probably damaged your party's chances to capture the White House in November.)

It therefore comes as a welcome relief to finally see someone (e.g., your once Democratic opponent) stick it squarely to Mr. Bush and his surrogate-in-disguise John McCain yesterday:

"If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate that I'm happy to have anytime, anyplace, and that is a debate I will win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for," the Democratic front-runner said.

Hill, did you catch that? How did it sound? Struck a resonant chord, huh? How could your advisors have chosen to ignore the despicable donkeys in the room? I only pray that the misguided doubt they manufactured about Senator Obama doesn't linger into the general election.

Your truly,

A former supporter

P.S. Please take me off your email list.

Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Israel, politics, PR, presidential campaign, public relations, Terry McAuliffe

I've known Cablevision head of corp. comms. Charlie Schueler for many years, having worked on his business from time to time. The New York Observer, in its inimitable way, painted him in a rather negative light yesterday.

In essence, the snarky pink newspaper accused Mr. Schueler of preventing Newsday from doing its job, which, in the Observer's opinion, amounted to ambushing the newspaper's new owners at their homes. Schueler was angry (and rightfully so, in my opinion).

But to many on the Newsday staff, the attempt by the paper to introduce itself to the Dolans the best way it knows how was pretty roundly rebuffed, and that didn’t look good.

Mr. Schueler, on the other hand, offered this reasonable explanation:

“I did call the reporter and reminded him as I would any press outlet that it is the company’s practice that if you would like to speak to the Dolans or any other executive, you call the communications department, and we will be happy to arrange it if it’s possible,” Mr. Schueler said. “From time to time, I have had to make that call to News 12, the Post, The Times and others. It has nothing to do with Newsday — it’s the practice of the company and the same rules apply to everyone.”

Personally, I think Charlie is on the right side of this argument. Did Newsday's business staff make any attempt to go through channels to land the interview? Was the trespass option its first for gaining access?

On the other hand, one woulda thunk that the paper's new owners would have offered Newsday's business section first dibs on a meet and greet. They didn't, and there's the rub as articulated by Newsday blogger John Riley:

“Some newspapers have a vision of changing the world and making it a better place,” he wrote. “But it seems the Cablevision vision is Cablevision. Jim Dolan, who apparently couldn’t find the time to talk to Newsday, is quoted in today’s Newsday story from an interview with Channel 12, which he also owns.”

Having handled PR chores for Mort Zuckerman's acquisition of the New York Daily News some years ago, I have distinct memories of Mort doing the right thing when it came to building bridges with the news staff. Lessons learned.

Labels: Cablevision, Charles Schueler, Chuck Dolan, James Dolan, journalism, Newsday, PR, public relations

It was refreshing to see Susan Getgood acknowledge a "good" story pitch from a PR person (courtesy of Mir Kamin). I mean how many more blogposts can we bear maligning PR "pros" who blindly send their misguided and unsolicited story ideas into the overflowing e-mailboxes of beleaguered journalists?

How many PR blacklists need to be created before we get the hint? When will the PR puppeteers who direct their junior staffers to spam and conquer actually mandate that their charges study the target journalist's editorial DNA before hitting the send button?

As for the "good pitch" that Susan received from a most commercial enterprise, Outback Steakhouse, I had to chuckle. The pitch trumpeted the 20th anniversary of Outback's biggest-selling menu item -- the Bloomin' Onion ("15 million sold each year").

Promoting anniversaries are a tough sell in and of themselves, but one for the Bloomin' Onion? It reminded me of a call I received a year ago seeking help in attaining media attention for the anniversary of the invention of the Yukon Gold potato. At least that was a little less promotional.

But back to that onion. I happened to go to an Outback for the first time two months ago, and ordered one of those bloomin' things for the table. When it arrived, it looked fairly edible...that is until one of my dinner companions made this comment:

"Did you know that the Bloomin Onion has the most calories and fat content of any item on any fast food restaurant's menu today?"

"No, I didn't know that," I answered as I pushed aside the plate of artery-clogging vegetaria.

So to the publicist charged with promoting the Bloomin' Onion's 20th: please wish it a happy anniversary -- with all its 2210 calories and 134 grams of fat. And I truly hope your firm has a policy that allows employees to opt out of client work that they find healthfully objectionable.

Labels: Bloomin' Onion, Marketing Roadmaps, obesity, Outback, pitch letter, pr spam, Susan Getgood

"...according to a person briefed on the negotiations who would not be identified because the deal has not been formally announced."

This is from this morning's New York Times business story by the paper's youthful TV reporter and decoder Brian Stelter.

It pre-reports the deal between Apple and HBO to finally offer for sale the latter's programs on iTunes, but with a catch. Several may go for "...a price higher than the $1.99 that it now charges for all current television episodes."

Now I wonder whether that was an intentional leak or rather the product of some blabbermouth lawyer or PR type's effort to ingratiate him or herself with the New York Times reporter. Could it have been the same open source who tweaked Wired's antennae yesterday?

Whatever the case, Apple and HBO issued its formal, on-the-record news release today, as reported here by CrunchGear. Don't you just love the dual datelines?

NEW YORK and CUPERTINO, California—May 13, 2008—HBO and Apple® today announced that programming from HBO is now available for purchase and download on the iTunes® Store (www.itunes.com). New HBO programs on iTunes include the Emmy Award-winning programs “The Sopranos,” “Sex and the City,” “Deadwood” and “Rome,” as well as the critically acclaimed hits “Flight of the Conchords” and “The Wire.” The iTunes Store is the world’s most popular online TV store with over 150 million episodes sold and features the world’s largest catalog with over 800 shows (over 20,000 episodes).

I'm not sure I would have closed the lead paragraph with that hyperbolic boilerplate, but the stats do impress. As for HBO Video prexy's Henry McGee's quote, which follows the lead graph, I'm sure the vaunted HBO PR team could have done better than:

"We’re very excited to make these legendary HBO programs available on the iTunes Store.”

Henry may be excited, but his Cupertino counterpart one-upped him in the histrionics department.

“We’re thrilled to bring this incredible lineup of programming from HBO to the iTunes Store,” said Eddy Cue, Apple’s vice president of iTunes.

PR jargon both, in my estimation. Now Brian, in which of the four news release "flavors" would you place this one?

Labels: Apple, Brian Solis, Brian Stelter, CrunchGear, Digital Video, HBO, iTunes, news release, PR, public relations, Sex and the City

So here's a certifiable techno geek-turned-journalist named Matt Haughey doing his best imitation of Chris Anderson.

Instead of blackballing misguided PR types by name, he's deployed Gmail's filters to eliminate whole domains from his e-mailbox. As a result, entire PR firms are punished for the amateurish and admittedly annoying transgressions of the few:

"So for now, I’m moving to filters in Gmail. The entire PR agency domain goes into the From: and you set it to delete immediately. Instantly, no more PR spam from Alice, Bob, or Steve, forever, and I don’t have to ask to opt-out of something I never opted into."

And who can blame this beleaguered blogger?

"And to people working in PR, some bloggers do seem to post the things you send, but in four years of daily PR email blasts that now number in the thousands, I recall one or two being something I was actually interested in."

Even so, there are some pretty big firms with some pretty newsworthy clients being listed n the PRSpammer wiki.

Now if yours truly could only get Erica from Kulesa Public Relations to read my musings. She too might learn that her client Sales Spider is (way) outside The Flack's editorial purview. Wait a minute. I also use Gmail...hmmm.

Labels: blogger relations, blogging, Gmail, Gmail filter, Matthew Haughey, PR, spam

Leave it to Slate to prolong the debate over the use by the news media of "experts" with financial ties to organizations whose POVs they espouse. So what's wrong with that? What media pundit today isn't advocating for one side of an issue or another?

The problems arise when the news organization neglects to inform the audience of the spreader-of-such-information's ties that bind and blind.

We all know about the recent outing of the Pentagon propaganda program through its prominent position on page A-1 of The Times, followed by its subsequent decision to end the deception. What surprised me about the Slate piece was the name of the news organization it outed as failing to disclose the industry affiliations of its four experts, nor that of the program's host.

The show: National Public Radio's "Infinite Mind." The segment: "Prozac Nation: Revisited." Here's a take from yesterday's Slate piece, which was co-authored by New America Foundation's resident journalist Shannon Brownlee, no stranger to this subject, and picked up today by PoynterOnline:

"Credible, that is, except for a crucial detail that was never revealed to listeners: All four of the experts on the show, including Goodwin, have financial ties to the makers of antidepressants. Also unmentioned were the "unrestricted grants" that The Infinite Mind has received from drug makers, including Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of the antidepressant Prozac."

Reading further, we learn that the program's esteemed host, a former head of the National Institute of Mental Health, runs an organization that's funded by big pharma:

"In addition to the show's unrestricted grants from Lilly, the host, Goodwin, is on the board of directors of Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, an industry-funded front, or "Astroturf" group, which receives a majority of its funding from drug companies."

Oh. BTW: that organization is run by Peter Pitts, a guest on that segment, who has one other title:

"...he is the senior vice president for global health affairs at the PR firm Manning Selvage & Lee, which represents Eli Lilly Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and more than a dozen other pharmaceutical companies. Yet on the show, Pitts was identified only by his title as "a former FDA official."

At the end of the piece, Brownlee and co-author Jeanne Lenzer reveal that they've:

"...created for journalists an international list of prestigious and independent medical experts who declare they have no financial ties to drug and device manufacturers for at least the past five years. We have nearly 100 experts from a wide array of disciplines."

Independently-vetted media spokespeople in pharma PR? A trend? E-mail them at Brownlee.Lenzer@gmail.com to learn more.

Labels: big pharma, drug marketing, journalism, Manning, NPR, PR, Shannon Brownlee, Slate

For as long as I can remember, PR pros have bemoaned the lack of attention the newspaper-of-record has devoted to their chosen profession. Sure, Stuart periodically reports the obligatory agency acquisition announcement, executive promotion item or PR scandal.

But compared to our siblings on the other side of the marketing aisle, public relations coverage in The Times is pretty much nowhere. Or is it?

Today, Stephanie Clifford, who succeeded Louise Story in late March as the advertising beat reporter (versus Stuart Elliott, its advertising columnist), reported on the PR challenges faced by Derby sponsors Yum Brands following the conclusion of this past weekend's Run for the Roses. Basically, YUM's CEO took to the Winner's Circle to proclaim live on NBC:

“Well, Bob, what a great day for the commonwealth of Kentucky and the world. On behalf of Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, KFC, Long John Silver’s and A&W, Yum Brands is the proud sponsor of the greatest event in the world. Thank you very much,” he said, ticking off Yum’s brand names.

How could he know that the Derby's second place finisher lay mortally injured on the track, and would soon be euthansized? Amidst all the mint juleps, nobody informed him of this unforeseen and most unfortunate turn of events. As a result, the blogosphere took "they're off" literally and pounced on Yum's case:

“Based on the YUM reps’ disgraceful smiling and product plugging — while Eight Belles was dying yards away from them — I’ll never buy ANY of their products again,” wrote one.

“I’m happy that the CEO of Yum is just smiling and not even caring that a horse was just killed on the track,” wrote another. with many promising to boycott the company's brands.

(Sure makes an armchair quarterback think twice before second-guessing a company's behavior, i.e., without having direct knowledge of the facts that informed such behavior.)

Nonetheless, this is the second PR-related piece that Ms. Clifford has written since assuming the beat some six weeks ago. The first had something to do with a little torch run. Stephanie, we welcome the attention especially since ours remains the most misunderstood of the communications disciplines. Keep it up.

BTW - I'm perplexed by the absence of any reference to this weekend's tragedy on the official blog of Churchill Downs.Hmmm. Come to think of it, the sponsor of the winning horse was conspicuously silent about the tragedy, instead relying on a stale news release to explain its involvement. Maybe I missed something.

Labels: "60 Minutes". advertising, blogosphere, crisis managment, Kentucky Derby, Louise Story, PR, public relations, Stephanie Clifford, Stuart Elliott, The New York Times

People often ask me where PR is headed. (Now there's a million dollar question.) In taking a page from the PR playbook, I try to keep the answer simple and stupid. After all, it's not the number of syllables, but rather the quality of the connection that separates the good communicators from the not-so-good. The very best PR people resonate four bars all the time.

I digress. The PR professional today must consider a dual-track approach to managing a client's reputation. In the first (vinyl-era) track, he or she continues to be charged with helping clients navigate the fickle filter of the mainstream media of which, in my opinion, many bloggers are today an entrenched part.

In the second burgeoning track, the PR pro is empowered to produce and syndicate content that offers greater (though not total) control of the reins that steer reputations or advance communications agendas. Oops. Too many syllables. I'm trying to say that PR types can (and must) also write their clients' stories for direct and unfiltered online discovery by consumers, constituents and customers.

Today we learn of an example in which one MSM-beleaguered celebrity decided to exert creative control over his public image. No, not so much through (another) appearance on Oprah, but rather through the introduction of a rich, optimized digital extravaganza that resurrects this celeb's greatest, A-list-making hits.

The L.A. Times yesterday blogged about Tom Cruise's new website or, as I see it, his effort to use the second track (after falling way short on the first):

It's beautifully designed with the latest, flashiest user interface and some of the highest-quality Web video I've ever seen.

It seems the YouTube Scientology video really struck a chord with the imbalanced Mr. Cruise -- so much so that he hired some top gun digital producer to re-assert his legacy.

Will the site eliminate all the negativity that Mr. Cruise has so heroically earned these last few years? Unlikely. But it will present him just the way he likes. And with a little linkage, it could soon overtake some of the detractor sites in the organic rankings of a Google search. The LA Times was effusive in its praise, but certainly recognized the underlying motivation:

So kudos, Tom Cruise Incorporated, LLC International. This is a great website (promoted with Google Adwords, no less)....In some bizarro parallel universe where great actors are just actors and no one much cares what they do in their spare time, you wouldn't have the kind of so-called image problems that this campaign's shock and awe are so obviously meant to distract from. But we don't live in that bizarro universe, we live in this one, where image problems themselves are a giant industry.

Even my buddy Bragman and other Hollywood PR pundits had good things to say about it. Now when is that Tom-as-Nazi movie coming out?

Labels: Howard Bragman, PR, public relations, reputation management, Scientology, SEO, Tom Cruise website

Online marketing pundits are all a twitter today over an astroturfing initiative from Coach. Apparently, the luxury leather goods maker commissioned a PR class from New York City's Hunter College to introduce a Facebook character named Heidi Cee as a means to build anti-counterfeiting buzz. Adweek reports on the kerfuffle:

But here's the thing about Cee: She's fake, too. A public relations class at Hunter invented her last spring. The course was funded by a $10,000 grant from Coach and was part of a college outreach campaign by the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition (IACC), a trade group that includes Coach and other brands like Apple, Levi Strauss & Co., Louis Vuitton and Rolex.

Good cause, bad execution, and yet another un-needed black eye for the profession. Hunter's Stewart Ewen, author of PR: A Social History of Spin, with whom I sat on a panel some years back, shared his opinion of Ms. Cee with Flacklife's Bob LeDrew back in February. The Adweek piece rightfully called into question this otherwise well-meaning PR class:

Now red flags are flying. Some of the most pointed criticism has come from PR professionals, who say the Hunter campaign runs afoul of basic PR tenets such as truthfulness and transparency. And as advertisers clamor for viral marketing approaches, the Hunter fracas serves as the latest illustration of how a buzz-seeking stunt may backfire.

Separately, Major League Baseball is taking it on the chin for apparently putting its financial interests ahead of the fan. As AOL's FanHouse blog reported last night in a piece titled "Campaign of Doom," an image of Indiana Jones graces the game calendars (on May 22) of every major league team on the MLB website:

"Of course, that just happens to be the day Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is released. But it's hard to believe that Major League Baseball is simply that enthused about this new Ford-Jones joint in order to let the world know for free. Rather, it would seem that we, the fans, are about to get immersed in another moneymaking scheme by baseball."

As FanHouse notes, the sanctity of baseball is compromised:

"One would think that Bud Selig learned his lesson already based on the negative fan reaction from fans during baseball's attempt to snare them in the web -- pardon the horrible pun -- of making money off movie studios. Of course, there are plenty of other times that Selig has failed to actually follow through on various actions that are good for baseball, so nothing about the Docta Jones promotion would surprise me."

Of course, there are others who believe that these marketing promotions have achieved their ends by virtue of the fact that bloggers (including this one) are buzzing about them.

Labels: astroturfing, buzz, Coach, Harrison Ford, Hunter College, Indiana Jones, Major League Baseball, PR, public relations

Doesn't the discipline of reputation management fall squarely in the domain of the PR professional? Apparently no longer in today's land grab of blurred marketing functions.

Nielsen Buzzmetrics's Pete Blackshaw, no stranger to the word-of-mouth marketing measurement scene, now sees gold in the execution of online reputation management programs.

In a ClickZ piece today, penned by Doug Quenqua, former AdWeek features editor and PR Week DC bureau chief, the ratings company plunged head first into the corporate reputation management biz:

"CGM (consumer-generated media) has moved into the C-suite, and executives and brand managers face an unprecedented range of choices, from how much to invest in digital marketing to how to leverage social media in public relations," Blackshaw said in a statement. "We're able to educate clients and help them make the right choices to seize digital opportunities to connect with consumers and grow their brands."

Now this is all well and good. What forward-thinking marketing executive wouldn't want to transcend the pigeon-holed analytics business and sit in the C-suite? (Isn't he already doing this?) And how can any modern marketer even consider mending a reputation without a decent analytics tool to validate his plan of action?

Nonetheless, it'll take more than just good analytics if Nielsen expects to succeed. (Hey wasn't there skepticism when IBM got into the IT consulting business?) Analytics must be combined with a solid grounding in the tools and tactics of today's trade, let alone a honed, instinctive sensibility of how to act. Authenticity is a good start.

Also, Nielsen is not alone in keeping its ear attuned to the online conversation. There are many such offerings. My friend and sometimes collaborator Rob Key of Converseon has a decent conversation mining tool built into its "search engine reputation management" offering. What's more: Rob even toiled for a time in the PR industry.

So what's next after you've captured and analyzed all that damning data? Knee-jerk with a huge blogger engagement program? Ignore the rumble until some A-list blogger or MSM outlet picks up on it? Create and optimize your own content in an effort to neutralize naysayers? Here's a hint from Blackshaw and company:

"When a consumer goes sour on a brand now, they leave a digital trail online" that can be found not just by other consumers but "lawyers, reporters, analysts, and other influencers that can really begin to cast aspersion on and erode the reputation of your brand," Blackshaw said.

Blackshaw, author of the upcoming book on customer service online strategies, "Satisfied Customers Tell Three Friends, Angry Customers Tell 3,000: Running a Business in Today's Consumer-Driven World," also stressed the importance of authenticity when interacting with consumers online. "They can see through the bull. They are looking for more authentic interactions with brands. Which is why you now see a lot of CMOs starting to blog."

Writing on the wall, PR people: if you hope to salvage the core PR competency of reputation management, you better first find yourself an analytics engine or firm to mine the online conversation -- a natural spawning ground for reputational rumblings -- and then determine how best to proceed from there.

Labels: clickz, conversation mining, Converseon, marketing, Nielsen Buzzmetrics, Pete Blackshaw, PR, public relations, reputation management, Rob Key

Writing for Forbes.com's Entreprenueur section, Maureen Farrell offers up a "crash course in public relations" or more aptly, crisis communications.

She starts off with Heparin, then goes on to quote a selection of industry notables -- Howard J. Rubenstein, the savvy Bill Keegan of Edelman, and a Richard Levick who wrote a book in which he says that once the crisis hits, act quickly.

If you don't control the message from the get-go, someone else will:

"You need to run to the crisis," says Levick, co-author of Stop the Presses: The Crisis and Litigation PR Desk Reference. "The quicker you do that, the more likely you are to solve it."

Farrell cites Baxter's recent actions to counter the Heparin crisis as a good example of how a company should behave in the face of adversity. (Though I would add that victims like J&J's tainted Tylenol or syringe-tainted Pepsi have an easier go at crisis management than evil-doers.)

...Baxter Chief Executive Robert Parkinson, while contrite, blamed the problems on the company's suppliers in China: "We're alarmed that one of our products was used, in what appears to have been a deliberate scheme ... and that people have suffered as a result."

And Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing, the "lead footed" beef supplier to many U.S. public schools, as a bad one:

In January, a video series was released by the Humane Society highlighting questionable slaughtering practices at a Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing plant...In fact, Hallmark/Westland issued no statements until March 18--more than a month after it had shuttered the plant and announced the largest beef recall in U.S. history.

Elsewhere today, Merck CEO Richard Clark lamented to a Morgan Stanley gathering about the negative media attention his company, and big pharma in general, endures. Surprisingly, he made a point NOT to blame the media, and instead insisted that the industry could do a better job telling its story:

...Clark was asked about all the bad press the company has been getting: Is Merck not providing the positive stories or are the media not interested?

“The answer to that question I struggle with,” he replied. “We need to do a better job as a company and as an industry. Having been at Merck for 35 years, we take way too much for granted. And I don’t think we’re aggressive enough in getting our stories out there.”

Back to Forbes, Mr. Rubenstein offers the good news in all of the bad:

"The public's institutional memory is very short, absent criminal or moral transgressions. [They] are ready to forgive."

As for the no comment comment, Farrell noted that "Any spin-master will tell you that "no comment" is never the right answer. It smacks of guilt." She then secured this comment from Rubenstein:

"There are a hundred ways to say 'No Comment' without saying that specifically."

Labels: crisis communications, crisis management, Howard Rubenstein, PR, public relations