Flack's Revenge

Times Tussle Pits Tesla CEO & Fans vs. Journos

I love reading the NY TImes, and sometimes check out its Sunday Auto section.

Being a PR guy -  one with an affinity for tech and startups - I have been closely tracking the Tesla Motors story (you know, the one about the US-based manufacturer of electrical cars, that has gotten crazy amounts of funding and whose CEO - Elon Musk - previously cashed out at PayPal). There is a dealership in our local mall (yes they sell, or, more accurately, take orders in retail stores) and I have walked in and drooled over the beautiful machines.

When news broke last week about a negative review of the Tesla in the NY times - followed by Tesla Chairman & CEO Elon Musk's now infamous public rebuttal - I dug up my Sunday Times, read the review and fastened my seatbelt for a wild ride and interesting story for this blog.

Interesting, because it forces us to re-examine some commonly held assumptions about PR:

There is no Such Thing as Bad Publicity

I have never been a believer in this idea; please read the Times review, and let me know if you still do. For starters, I really got interested in the topic after seeing a thread on the NY Tech Meetup (NYTM) mailing list, which began with an email titled: Tesla will Lose this Publicity War.

The Times article describes a harrowing ride in sub zero weather by auto reviewer John Broder (I would love to have his job); and how the Tesla seemingly failed to live up to its specs in terms of distance between charges.  Ultimately, the car had to (very delicately) be hauled onto a flatbed truck, leaving the reviewer stranded.

It is hard to see how Tesla - a company that already has gotten tons of positive PR and enjoyed great buzz - benefited from the piece.

Don't Pick Fights with Those Who Buy Ink by the Barrel

I cringed when I read Musk's rebuttal; my sympathies tend to lie with tech companies, as these are my clients.  But his blog post broke a couple of basic rules of PR - the one above, sure (which I do believe in), and also the rule that says you should not find ways to prolong a crisis.

Elon Musk's rebuttal seemed thin skinned, and made the amazing charge that data pulled from the car afterwards proved that John Broder "worked very hard to force our car to stop running."

Broder responded with his own rebuttal to the Tesla blog post, as reported in Engadget.

The initial NYTM email generated dozens of responses, most of which at first seemed to line up against Tesla.  Through the list, I learned of a number of other articles about the brouhaha, in Wired, Atlantic Wire, and Slate.

The last two in particular challenged Elon Musk's claims.  It seemed clear that journalists and others were siding with the reviewer,

So Musk picked the wrong battled, prolonged a crisis,and that is the end of the story, right?  Not so fast - read on.

There are Courts of Law and Courts of Media - and they Don't Play by the Same Rules

Reporters can weigh a set of facts and write an article that influences public opinion - yet they are not constrained by the same rules as a court of law is.  However, It used to be that their words were more or less final; but not any more.

As the discussion progressed on the NYTM mailing list, many seemed to  be willing to cut Tesla some slack.

I won't get into all the ins and outs of the technical arguments made by Musk, Broder, NYTMers, other media et al.  You can read the stories and decide what you think. 

My point is, that the crowd now has a voice, and many ways to be heard.

One of the last NYTM emails I saw cited a Silicon Beat article about how some Tesla owners have joined forces to recreate John Broder's now infamous road trip.  The article said:

Tesla’s devout fans have suggested that “broder” become a verb, as in “to purposely or with willful ignorance run down the battery pack of an electric vehicle to the point that it no longer moves the vehicle.”

Oh, yea - you can follow their progress on Twitter: @teslaroadtrip progress

So, I ask - did Elon Musk break some basic rules of PR - or are he and Tesla fans tapping some of the new ruies?  Was Musk's rebuttal s shrewd defense of the Tesla brand?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.siliconbeat.com/2013/02/15/convoy-of-model-s-owners-to-re-create-john-broders-infamous-teslaroadtrip/

Forget Big Data. Now, There's "Big Soda" - and It's not Happy

Most who follow the tech field know that everything big data is hot these days. I like to write about tech, and also follow the NY tech industry (see my recent post on Handshake 2.0 about NY tech).

While techies love big data here, too, it is Big Soda that has been in the news, regarding NYC's plans to limit the size of soft drinks.

Just yesterday, the NY Times wrote about the soda companies' PR and lobbying campaign to battle NY City's ban on large soft drinks.  According to the Times:

...the American soft-drink industry is beginning an aggressive campaign to fight New York City’s proposed restrictions on large servings of sugary drinks.

Hoping for a debate about freedom, not fatness, the industry has created a coalition called New Yorkers for Beverage Choices to coordinate its public relations efforts in the city. 

I guess you can't blame the soft drink industry for trying. My view is that the city is getting up in our grills a bit too much (here in a nice motherly way, but the stop and frisk thing? I just don't understand it. Seems like a real bad move and draws tons of negative coverage).

Doesn't this place an unfair burden on the soft drink companies? I feel that we should be allowed to buy big gulps if we want them. 

On the other hand, I don't know if this is the hill that Big Soda really wants to die on, perhaps it would be a better move to give in and voluntarily reduce serving sizes. I doubt this campaign will incite people to rally in the streets and defend their rights to drink themselves silly and obese.

Lowbrow Branding Effort

There are so many important stories that I can be blogging about. The Supreme Court Decision on Obama's healthcare plan, for example, and how certain cable networks got the news wrong at first. There is also the Ann Curry affair (most people know by now that she was replaced as co host of NBC Today). I tweeted yesterday that it was painful to watch how big media very publicly eats its own.

But, no, today I feel strangely, inexplicably drawn to... the brow. The unibrow, that is (it is Friday, dammit, and I want to write about something fun).

The NY Post wrote yesterday about University of Kentucky basketball star Anthony Davis' efforts to trademark phrases related to his unibrow (yes, I read many papers but turn to the Post for coverage of such critical stories).  According to the paper:

Soon-to-be-pro basketball star Anthony Davis... is raising eyebrows with his unique marketing campaign. [He] has applied for trademark rights to “Fear the Brow” and “Raise the Brow,” in hopes of profiting from his odd facial trait.

“I don’t want anyone to try to grow a unibrow because of me and then try to make money off of it,” Davis told CNBC. “Me and my family decided to trademark it because it’s very unique.”

I am a bit speechless at the audacity and boldness of this move (yes, "hope" has nothing on it). Since the right words are hard to find, maybe it would be easier to express them in verse:

• So boldly sits atop his head
• Defines his brand, he has said
• A woolly line, of ample size
• Connects the dots above his eyes
• Caterpillars swoon, a Fuller Brush
• Almost anyone else would blush
• "Fear the Brow!" Davis says
• Use that phrase, he'll sue your ass

OK, enough fun, now back to business. Marketers, celebrities HELLLOOOO!! I know the Supreme Court's decision was pretty much a landmark, but if this thing with Davis stands, that is nothing. Just think of the opportunities in licensing, promotions, etc.

What other accidents of personal grooming can be legally protected? Who else in sports or entertainment has quirky personal identifiers that they can exploit? E.g.  Dog The Bounty Hunter ("Mind the Mullet")?

Guys (and gals), I am just a tech PR guy, not a celebrity PR and branding specialist, a little help here, any other ideas?

Panic at the Opera Part 2

I guess I am a little out of touch with finer culture and admittedly have little experience with opera. (OK almost none, really; my girlfriend Sine took me to a production of Kafka's The Penal Colony in Brooklyn recently, it was very nice; that is about it).

Who knew that the opera world was filled with rabid fans, scathing reviews, and hardball media relations tactics? I refer of course to the controversy over the Metropolitan Opera, and their efforts to stifle bad media and blog coverage, which I wrote about in my post yesterday.

My friend Adam shared an article in today's NY Times that said the Met had reversed itself.  Here's an excerpt:

The Metropolitan Opera...backed away from its decision to bar reviews of its productions in Opera News... The Met said an "outpouring of reaction" from opera fans on the Internet caused it to change course a day after the New York Times [article]

"I think I made a mistake," said Peter Gelb, the Met's general manager. "Clearly the public would miss Opera News not being able to review the Met, and we are responding to that..."

I like to think it is pressure from blogs like Flack's Revenge that was the final straw, although of course the NY Times takes all the credit in their article :)

Anyway, the Met and Mr. Gelb must be getting some very good PR counsel, to eat humble pie so quickly and get the crisis behind them. I applaud the decision, and am glad Adam alerted me to this.

"Threading the Needle": Trial Shows Edwards and PR Team in Crisis

PR people are generally not the headline news. We toil behind the scenes, while the stories around our clients play out on a public stage.

In most cases the subjects of our campaigns cooperate with us. Of course, there is one in every crowd, and sometimes you do get the difficult ones; the people who are just tough personalities, or don't want to listen to our counsel.

These situations usually get resolved quietly, out of the public eye; the client either shoots the messenger AKA fires the agency; or they get smart and learn to be better at dealing with their teams and the media. Over the past few days, however, the drama surrounding PR counsel and a challenging subject was thrust into the limelight during the trial of John Edwards.

The stories highlighted how Edwards worked with his team to put the best possible spin on the unfolding story about his affair with Rielle Hunter, resulting child, and legal troubles about how the coverup was funded.  Ultimately, Edwards wanted to tie the loose ends together into a package that was just too neat and convenient for his former speechwriter and press secretary.

A NY Times article that ran on Wednesday recounted his work work with Wendy Button to write a speech and prepare for questions from the media.  I have been through many, many media training sessions in my time, but this one must have been a doozy.  Here's an excerpt:

Mr. Edwards... listened to Ms. Button recount how shocked she had been when she learned ... that rumors of the affair were true, but how she had believed him when he said that an aide, Andrew Young, was the father.

Within a year, she would discover that that was a lie. ...he told her that he had wanted to tell the truth for nearly a year, but “things were difficult inside his house..."

First and foremost, she said, Mr. Edwards wanted to make a public declaration to Frances Quinn Hunter, the girl he fathered with the campaign videographer Rielle Hunter and then distanced himself from by having Mr. Young claim paternity.

Mr. Edwards suggested this language: “I made a mistake, she is not,” Ms. Button recalled.

Ms. Button said she continued... to coax Mr. Edwards to be completely honest. They debated how to best present the statement and practiced how he would answer questions from reporters.

If they asked why did he do it, he would answer, “I didn’t think I would get caught.”

If they asked why he lied about it, especially in a national TV interview? “To protect my family.”

Do you love Ms. Hunter? “Yes. It’s complicated.” Is the affair still going on? “You’re not entitled to all the details."

Regarding the preparation of the media statement, Ms. Button conceded that she went along with a lie, albeit grudginlgy: 

The one thing that did not sit right with Ms. Button, she said, was his statement about the money, the very thing for which Mr. Edwards is on trial.

Mr. Edwards and Ms. Button finally decided on this: “Some people, without my knowledge, supported Quinn.”  It made Ms. Button uncomfortable. “There I was, typing a lie,” she told the court.

In the end, the line would be erased from the statement, which would not be issued until January 2010.

An article in the NY Times today cites an earlier episode, in which Edwards first went public about the affair, via an exclusive interview with Bob Woodruff on ABC Nightline.  The prosecution showed the video segment before resting its case - talk about a dramatic finish!

Watching Mr. Edwards watch himself lie was the most electric moment yet in a three-week trial that has been relatively light on federal campaign law and heavy on dramatic narrative.

...he thought he could make the story go away by confessing to a brief affair but deny that the baby, at that point 6 months old, was his.

So he asked Jennifer Palmieri, his former press secretary and a close friend of his wife, Elizabeth, to help arrange an interview on the ABC News program “Nightline” with the reporter Bob Woodruff...

Mr. Edwards was going to use a “thread the needle” strategy, said Ms. Palmieri, who is now a deputy director of communications for the White House.

That is, he would confess to a brief affair and claim that it was over and that he and his wife had reconciled. He would deny both that the baby was his and that he arranged to pay to support Ms. Hunter.

Ms. Palmieri advised him against it. She had come to believe the baby was his.

“I told him I didn’t think he should do an interview if he was going to lie,” she told the court. “He didn’t need any more press attention at this point.”

She knew his political career was essentially over, she testified Wednesday.“He was deluded for thinking otherwise,” she said.

Still, he went ahead with the interview.

He went ahead and lied about all relevant details:

Mr. Edwards watched a younger, happier-looking version of himself sitting forward in a chair in his Chapel Hill home, taking question after question.

Was the affair over? “Oh, yes. It’s been over for a long time.” Is that your baby? “That is absolutely not true.”

Two weeks earlier, he had been photographed at the Beverly Hills Hilton holding Quinn. But in the interview, he claimed no knowledge of who the baby was or where the photo had come from.

The articles and trial show a communications team trying be eithcal and do their best for a subject who was going down in flames and did not feel bound by the same scruples.

 

So a Lobbyist, Bin Laden and a Banker Walk into this PR Firm...

Call us flacks, spinners, or spammers. Whatever name and negative association you may have for PR, I love it that just about everyone at some point wants to git them some.

It was kind of funny that the NY Times had not one, but three articles on Friday about companies and institutions seeking image makeovers: lobbyists, Goldman Sachs and Al Qaeda.  While each of the above would likely cringe at the association with the others, there you have it.

PR is the great equalizer.  Please see below for links and descriptions.

Recovered Bin Laden Letters Show a Divided Al Qaeda

The article reported on the contents of letters that were recovered when we raided Bin Laden's compound in Pakistan and took him out.  They revealed that Bin Laden obsessed about the organization's image and legacy, here is an excerpt:

He considered a marketing campaign to change the infamous network’s name...And he fretted about how he would be remembered by history. “He who does not make known his own history,” he wrote to one of his lieutenants, runs the risk that “some in the media and among historians will construct a history for him, using whatever information they have, regardless of whether their information is accurate or not.”

I wrote on Fusion Forum awhile ago about Al Qaeda's rebranding efforts. 

This article (Tired of 'Tainted' Image, Lobbyists try a Makeover) hits close to home as some consider lobbyists to be not that far removed from the PR field.  It said: 

...some of Washington’s leading lobbyists are mounting a concerted push to earn, if not respectability, then at least something less than public disdain.

Finally, this article (Once Remote, Goldman Sachs Puts on a Friendly Face) describes the normally secretive banking firm's new PR offensive

Is Rush Limbaugh "Winning Ugly"?

A little friendly Twitter banter, a shared link, and an article in the NY Times reminded me of the words "there's no such thing as bad PR" - and how much I disagree with them.

It started when I saw a tweet from Tom Bebbington, a likable PR guy who often shares some good finds on Twitter:

His Tweet said

@TomBebbington An interesting take on Rush Limbaugh’s current troubles (will annoy if you lean left): Don’t Kill the Crisis, Milk It!: http://bit.ly/yFNt9A

I am and it did - I read the article in the above link: Don’t Kill the Crisis, Milk It! Why Rush Limbaugh’s “Slut-Gate” Is the Best Publicity in the World.

Blogger Skip Mahaffey, whoever he is, writes very well, but seems misguided. Acknowledging that what Rush said was wrong, and noting Rush's apology, Skip goes on to say:

Didn’t satisfy your personal sense of outrage, did it? If you were hoping that this will be what finally puts an end to Rush Limbaugh, I have some very disappointing news for you: It ain’t happening. (Isn’t this the same guy who skated through a drug scandal? Was his rehab covered by his insurance? “Irony, table for one.”)

Let me hip you to something: The outrage, the ongoing conversation, the endless media focus, is nothing but Manna to Rush. In truth, he doesn’t want it to end, sort of. Rush has gone from cash cow to milkman. Keep talking about me, milk those babies dry! A great radio man I worked for many years ago always said: Publicity is publicity. Good or bad, just make sure they spell your name right

Regarding the departing advertisers, Skip says:

But in truth, for Rush everything IS fine. Don’t worry Ditto-heads, Rush is still collecting his paycheck and will continue to until he decides it’s time to hang up the headphones. Rush Buddy, I’m right there with you. Apologies and damage control are a pain in the ass and seemingly do nothing but appease people that you don’t want to (but must) deal with in order to keep the peace and more importantly, KEEP THE MONEY COMING.

If you tilt to the left (or are a right-leaning but reasonable person), and just read the above, your blood is probably boiling (as mine was when I first read this).

But I put this aside - in the interests of continuing a civil debate with a Twitter friendlie - and defending my assertion that there is in fact such a thing as bad PR, I responded to Tom, and he replied.

Here is the exchange:

@rgeller Yes annoys RT @tombebbington: Interesting take on Limbaugh troubles (will annoy if lean left) Don’t Kill Crisis Milk It vsb.li/ePeePs

@rgeller There is such a thing as bad PR IMO RT @tombebbington: An interesting take on Rush Limbaugh’s current troubles... vsb.li/H9C3pM

@TomBebbington @rgeller For most of us, yes. But when your image is based on calculated outrage, something like this is a win.

@rgeller D TomBebbington Could see ur point but when advertisers leave & he's increasingly marginalized even by right, is that a win? Getting radioactive, fine by me

One thing I won't dispute is the fact that this episode will not likely end Rush's radio career (as Skip so eloquently put it in his statement above). But it is a long stretch from "Rush isn't going anywhere" to "this PR is great for him."

Despite the fact that Rush apparently thrives on caluclated outrage, there is such as thing as going over the edge into isolated, extremist nut job territory, and I think that is right where Rush has landed.

The Times article I referred to above was this Wedensday's Media & Advertising column: After Apology, National Advertisers are Still Shunning Limbaugh.  Here is an excerpt:

...the boycott has been a headache for the advertisers and the local radio stations that have received complaints from Mr. Limbaugh’s critics. There have been “logistical difficulties” in moving ads away from Mr. Limbaugh’s program, Lewis Dickey, the chief executive of Cumulus Media, said Monday in a conference call with investors. Last week, some local listeners even noticed silence — “dead air,” in industry parlance — instead of ads

You know you have jumped the image shark when you are the subject of an SNL skit - and last Saturday they led off with one that parodied Rush (see above).

Call me crazy but I do think there is such a thing as bad PR. In tennis, there was a term and book of the same name by the famous coach Brad Gilbert called Winning Ugly. He says "it is always better to win ugly than lose pretty." No question, Rush's words were ugly, and I do not think he is winning in this case.

Romney Event Illustrates the Death of the Photo Op (PR Death Watch Continues)

I have not kept up with my PR Death Watch series, posts about the changes that have been rocking the PR field, and the dangers of not adapting (the last post about this was in 2010, see Circle of Life in PR).

Part of me feels like the topic has been done.  By now, it is pretty obvious how the profession has been changing, and thankfully, more in our field are waking up, adapting and in some ways redefining the job (see my post Innovation is Alive and Well in PR, which references a series that I wrote for Bulldog Reporter about this).

But I saw an article in the NY Times last week that reminded me of the series and made me think that one more PR tool may need rethinking.  So why not do one more PR Death Watch post for old time sake!

It was about a carefully staged Romney photo op, anchored by a major policy speech.  The location (Ford Field, a 65,000 seat indoor football stadium in Michigan) was important and symbolic given today's primary and his roots in the state.

By all indications it was a successful event - if you watched it on TV.  The cameras showed a large and  receptive crowd.  However, there was more to the story (exceprt in italics).

Mr. Romney could be seen standing at a lectern in front of a backdrop that had the logo of the Detroit Economic Club, the event’s host. And when the stadium audience of about 1,200 people clapped, they filled the screen as cameras panned across them.

But in the age of Twitter and the Internet, that is not all that matters.

Before Mr. Romney had uttered a word, reporters began posting pictures online showing the stadium from every available angle — almost empty, except for the chairs set up on the field itself, near the 20-yard line.

The article shows how the photo opportunity has changed. It is now easier than ever to glimpse behind the curtains and see what is really going on at that carefully staged event. Ideas like greater transparency driven by social media may seem trite, by now but this example illustrates that they are not empty cliches.

Does this mean that photo opps are a bad idea? Are they really dead, or should they be? No, just that you need to take into account all views, and lose the blue smoke and mirrors because people will see right thriough them.

If Data Center Tech Were Marketed like the Republican Candidates

I heard about the latest out of a seemingly endless number of Republican debates, and thought back in
amusement about a comment a friend posted on his Facebook page.  He said, sarcastically I hope, that he was looking forward to more and hoped they continued even after the election.

The campaign season so far also made me wonder what it would be like if data center tech was marketed like the Republican candidates.  Here are a few possibilities, below - do any others come to mind?

• The leading vendors would host industry round tables in every market timed to key events in those markets
• The round tables would be staged like Jerry Springer talk shows, where questions are designed to start fights and rile the audience
• The participants would all argue about whose solution holds truest to industry ideals like high performance, bandwidth, improved energy and space efficiency and low latency
• They would pile on the market leader and attack it for not achieving those ideals in a socially acceptable way
• Their leaders would fight over who was most like industry icons
• Their leaders would call each other out about hype, bluster and grandiosity

Most of all they would talk, talk talk.

 

Louis CK Conquers Media, Heeds Mom's Advice: Just Tell Them Everything

Louis CK is a comic hero for every man, an unkempt alternative to the more mainstream comedians (think Seinfeld or Dane Cook).  He is irreverent, dark and just plain damn funny.

I have greatly enjoyed Louie's work, inlcuding his  FX and HBO series.  That is why I was pleased to see reports of Louie's recent successful effort to market content directly to his fans.

I first learned about this last week in the GigaOm piece: What Louis CK Knows that Most Media Companies Don't  The article says:

Until recently, comedian Louis CK was known mostly for a hilarious clip about how “everything is amazing but no one is happy,” which lampooned our inability to recognize our own good fortune and led to a TV show. Now, he has become the new poster boy for the idea of selling content directly to fans, after the success of a video download he offered on his website without any digital-rights protection. And that success contains lessons for traditional media companies who continue to lock down their content and otherwise fail to take advantage of the social web.

What Louie did, essentially, was bring his content directly to the public via his website at an affordable price ($5) without imposing restrictions or digital rights protection - avoiding the tangle of overhead, middlemen fees etc. that he otherwise would have had to pay. In other words, Louie made it cheap and easy - and is profiting in the process. He has also been getting a ton of great press.

The NY Times' David Carr covered this yesterday in his Media Equation column:

The show could be viewed as the consumer wished, with no rights protection or expensive subscription. A buy-it-and-watch-it proposition, no cable company involved...While I was talking with him on the phone Thursday night, he checked his Web site and about 175,000 people had bought his special through PayPal. He expected 200,000 total downloads by the weekend, which meant he would have grossed $1 million. After covering costs of about $250,000 for the live production and the Web site, that’s a $750,000 profit. And he owns the rights, and the long tail of buyers, in perpetuity.

As a PR person, I had to chuckle about his approach, and media relations advice that Louie's mom gave him (from NY Times).

The transparency of the enterprise, including its cost in relation to how many people bought in, was the subject of media coverage all last week.... “It feels weird having numbers out there, because that’s my personal income,” he said. “But I talked to my mom, who is a pretty judicious, careful person, and she said, ‘Tell them everything. Just let it all get out there.’ So that’s what I have been doing...” 

I don't know if I would always agree with that approach, but the advice seems to be working for Louie.