Flack's Revenge

Tear Down that eHail Wall, Mr. Mayor!

A judge just denied NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's quest to outlaw large sugary drinks here.  Now I hear that Bloomberg has styrofoam cups in his crosshairs.

Since the Mayor has been such a great cheerleader for NY Tech, I thought I might humbly request, through this blog, that he shift his attention and the power of his office from the world of beverages back to something that is tech related, and also can improve the quality of life here: namely e-hailing.

There are some laws that apparently stand in the way of allowing these types of apps to hail Yellow Cabs in NYC. I recently visited Tel Aviv and San Francisco, and was blown away with how easy Uber makes it to hail a cab in these places - you can order one, see a map that shows the cab's location, its ETA, phone number, and let's you effortlessly pay (even calculating and adding tip).

Very cool!  Do you agree?  If so, please voice your opinion via Qwanz, the Opinion Graph (and client / NY tech company).

 

 

So, How did Lance Armstrong do? Was it a good PR Move?

It was one of the world's worst kept secrets: Lance Armstrong's decision to tell all on Oprah. The media widely covered this leading up to the interviews, and speculated about motives, what would be revealed, etc.

I thought t that I would try to find out from other people in the PR field whether they thought that Lance's decision to tell his story in this manner was a good PR move. So, last week, before the interviews aired, I conducted a survey. My question was simply this - forgetting for a moment about what you think about Lance as a person and disgraced sport figure - was he taking the right steps to turn around his image?

Here are some of the answers that I got when I started an email thread:

• Is waiting until you get an exclusive with Oprah to admit to years of doping a PR move? Yes. A better one was just admitting it when you actually got caught.
• My 2 cents: Lance Armstrong’s image is beyond repair. There is no amount of PR or Oprah interviews that can rehab him. He cheated and lied to the public and the government for personal gain.
• Might be worthwhile to look into some of the Tiger Woods controversy awhile back for comparison. Slightly different as one is infidelity vs. doping and one was kicked out of the sport, the other not. But he also did the Oprah apology that bombed. Tiger still suffers in the public eye for his indiscretions, but as far as an athlete goes you cannot deny he changed the game of golf. Something to think about…
• It’s different though – Tiger is still respected as a once-great athlete because his indiscretions had nothing to do with his athletic performance. But Lance Armstrong’s entire legacy is now in doubt. He cheated. No one was inducted into the baseball hall of fame this year because of drug issues for all potentials. That says something about how the public and the professional sports industry feels about cheaters -- cheating in sports, not cheating on their wives.

One of my friends who is in PR said that it was the right PR move, but that Lance has a long road back to repairing his image. Since it seems that Lance was angling for something here, my feeling is that most people would not care much about his belated tell all - he obviously has an ulterior motive, i.e. to get back into competitive sports. If you really want to burnish your image, just do the right thing and then go away for awhile.

The interviews are now over, of course. I saw the first one and did not think he did too badly. Some also expressed said that he did as well as could be expected. Others said that he was not contrite enough; one opined that Lance is a sociopath.

I enjoyed the SNL segment on this and thought I would share it - I thought Jason Sudeikis did a brilliant job as Lance.

Is a Town Hall Debate an Example of Content Marketing? One Authority Says "Yes"

My monthly column on Windmill Networking, which went live today, focuses on content marketing in politics - and the lessons that we can learn and apply.

Despite its title is ("Hail to the Content Chief"), the article was intentionally non-partisan.  However, this is my personal blog, and I feel freer here to express my support for Obama, and take great pleasure in the timing of this post, which follows his outstanding performance in the second presidential debate.

Perhaps I should have alluded to debates in my content marketing column.  I would not normally consider events such as these to be an example.  However one top authority apparently does.  The Content Marketing Playbook, by Junta 42 (now Content Marketing Institute, or CMI) lists executive round tables as a type of content marketing.

OK, not exactly a town hall debate, but not too far removed.  I supposed speeches and other types of debates fit the bill too.

Doubling Down on Sheer Idiocy

I used to love reading William Safire's NY Times magazine column On Language. Safire, was, among other things, a wordsmith. He loved to examine the hot phrases and words of the day, exploring their origins,  usage and relevance.

If Safire was alive today he would probably be writing about the phrase "doubling down".  It has been in the news quite a bit lately and seems to be one of those things that Safire would latch onto (I think most know that it is a phrase from the gambling, meaning to double your bet on a hand, for example when you are dealt a pair of Aces in Black Jack).

I am not even going to try a Safire-style piece, let's face it he was a genius. but let me at least make some observations.

The phrase started to get some play recently when Mitt Romney made some unfortunate comments following the attack on our embassy in Libya, and murdering of the ambassador and other U.S. personnel. He was challenged, did not back down and many in the media reported that he had "doubled down" on his position the next day.

Here's another example: This Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press show, David Gregory asked Representative Peter King:

DAVID GREGORY: Do you double down on a comment that this president has thrown Israel under the bus?

REP. PETER KING: He has not shown-- yes, I will. In the context of politics, yes, he has.

DAVID GREGORY: --the context of politics, it's either true or it's not.

REP. PETER KING: It is true.

And now apparently Romney is doubling down on his idiotic videotaped statement that dismissed most of the electorate as government-dependent. As the NY Times reported:

Mitt Romney on Tuesday fully embraced the substance of his secretly recorded comments that 47 percent of Americans are too dependent on government, saying that his views helped define the philosophical choice for voters in his campaign against President Obama.

(WSJ reported that the numbers have some validity; OK, but what about the part where Romney said that he didn't care about almost half the electorate?).

When politicians are asked if they are doubling down, you can interpret the interviewer's question as: "Did I really hear this correctly?" At this point the spokesperson has two choices: they can either back down or double down.

As you can see, the trend has been to do the latter, accompanied by some spinning and fancy footwork. I think the better strategy can be to man up, and admit that the statement was just plain dumb.

Romney and company are doubling down on sheer idiocy,

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.

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

What is Reputation’s Impact on Company and Brand Value Today?

Back in 2007 I blogged about a Businessweek article that shared some interesting research. My post From Madmen to PR’s Holy Grail pointed out the very real and quantifiable impact of reputation on a company’s stock price. Here is an excerpt:

[the article] reported on the growing trend of turning reputation management into a science, and cited research isolating and identifying the specific premium (or drag) that a company’s reputation can add to (or subtract from) its stock price.

That was almost five years ago. Flash forward to my post last week on Social Fluency, which cited a Wall Street Journal article that maintained that corporate crises cause little lasting damage to reputations, stock prices and balance sheets these days.

It is interesting, if you believe it – and I am wondering if things have changed to the extent that reputation matters less, in terms of quantifiable financial impact. Stay tuned to this blog for more on this topic.

Meanwhile, it would be good to know what your thoughts are.

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.