• 5 Steps to Validating Your Campaign Concept

    5 Steps to Validating Your Campaign Concept

    In a world where consumers are increasingly demanding social responsibility from their chosen brands, it’s imperative that said brands refrain from turning social movements into tropes to be exploited. The consequences, as Pepsi found out last week, can be severe. On Tuesday, the soda brand attempted to capitalize on the perceived Social Justice Warrior generation with an ad disarming a police blockade using a can of delicious cola delivered by the stunning in slow-mo Kendall Jenner. What they got instead of cheering crowds and a Coachella dance party was an enraged social media mob. How did things go so wrong? Here are 5 steps to validating your campaign concept.

    https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/849391281893769218

    1. Make sure your spokesperson is relevant.

    Pepsi is only the latest in a series of big name brands getting tripped up by misreading public opinion. Last year Budweiser pulled an ad series amidst backlash for Seth Rogan and Amy Schumer advocating the gender spectrum in a commercial called “Labels”. While the reasons might be multi-faceted, one important question that was overlooked is “Are these spokespeople really the best choice?” Kendall Jenner is undeniably glamorous, but it’s that glamour that made her as wrong for the Pepsi spot as Rogan and Schumer were for Budweiser. If you’re going to use a celebrity to represent your brand within a cause, make sure that it’s a cause they’re known for supporting. No one is going to bat an eye at Matt Damon in a Poland Spring commercial about making clean water available to everyone, but Lance Armstrong supporting a healthy lifestyle? Don’t shoe-horn a supermodel into the middle of a protesting crowd. You can do better than that.

    2. Be genuine.

    Whichever side of whichever issue you happen to be on, it’s clear that there are as many problems facing our world as proposed ways to fix them. And with the key demographic of young, active people increasingly getting involved it might look like prime real estate to advertisers. If you’re going to drink from those waters however, it’s vital that your message be formed around the movement and not the other way around. Airbnb’s Super Bowl ad about acceptance is a prime example of how to do it right. The 30 second spot is filled with messaging about racial, orientation, religious and gender co-operation all packaged with some beautiful photography and clever editing. In fact, you can’t even tell it’s a commercial; rather than a PSA, until the last 2 seconds when the hashtag #weaccept flashes over the company’s logo. It’s a touching commentary set over soft piano music that could easily move one to tears, and into an Airbnb partnership.

    3. Don’t hop on the bandwagon, build it.

    Along the same lines as being relevant, don’t play ‘social movement roulette’ when choosing where to focus your efforts. Recently Lyft has been held up as the paradigm for “good is the new cool” putting its money where its mouth is by headlining corporate values and with programs like “Round Up & Donate”. Anyone can get behind adopting puppies, but how is that applicable to your brand? Making the world a better place is a wide scope; be specific, make it personal, and build a cause rather than borrowing one. 

    4. Make a list of what you’ll be praised AND criticized for.

    This one should be obvious, but there are some nuances that may be as difficult to grasp as a soda can. Going back to Budweiser, its 2017 Super Bowl ad extolling the virtues of immigrants received just as much hostility as it did praise. The company has gone on record in saying that it’s only coincidence that the commercial aired at the same time the White House announced its controversial travel ban, but that’s not the point. What is clear is that observant people sat down and considered the content from the audience’s perspective and decided that the cause was in keeping with their values despite the criticism it might receive.

    https://twitter.com/RonanFarrow/status/849407386502778884

    5. Put it all under a microscope, before your audience does.

    Can you find a person over 30 in the Pepsi commercial? Or one that doesn’t look like they stopped for that protest on the way to a GQ runway? It’s well known that people like looking at attractive people, but when your campaign is going to be seen as sponsorship for a social cause, it’s critical to include a healthy dose of reality. Remember that your audience is going to be looking at every frame, every street sign, every license plate. Not every faux pas may be as obvious as Nivea’s “White Is Purity” but if it’s in there, the internet will find it and you do /not/ want to be the next #prnightmare.

    https://twitter.com/krojasjoy/status/849771606494859264

    With the bar of advertising creativity on a constant rise, it might be tempting to use current events to punctuate your content campaigns. And it can pay off big like it has for Airbnb, Lyft, and Delta, if you can remain genuine and critical of what it is you’re saying to the audience. It’s important, nay required, that if you’re going to tap into people’s passion for social justice, you do it with the same concern that you would religion. If someone on your review team says that having Heidi Klum seduce the Dalai Lama with a cheeseburger is in bad taste, you probably shouldn’t have her offer it to a police blockade instead. Just sayin’.

    Matter

    ,
    , , , ,

  • How Delta and Lyft Capitalized on Competitor PR Crises

    How Delta and Lyft Capitalized on Competitor PR Crises

    We often counsel our PR clients in times of crisis. With the rate at which news travels, it’s imperative to quickly respond and take control of a negative situation – before it takes control of the narrative. This hyper-aware and “always-on” mindset is not just important for companies reacting to their own bad news, but also for responding to a competitor’s PR nightmare.

    Recently we’ve seen companies like Delta and Lyft reaping the benefits of responding quickly to competitor missteps. What it boils down to is preparation and having a crisis communications plan in place – a key step that United, Uber, and many companies often overlook – or don’t execute well, if there was in fact crisis planning — opening the door for competitors to capitalize on the situation. Let’s take a look at two very different approaches to hijacking competitive news: throwing a cheap shot and taking the high road.

    Delta Responds to United Airlines Dress Code News

    On Sunday, news spread that United Airlines stopped girls in leggings from boarding a flight, and the Internet went wild. It was first reported by on-board passenger Shannon Watts who took to Twitter to express her dismay about the situation.

    width=

    Unfortunately for United Airlines, most people who got wind of the news likely didn’t read the full story which explained these passengers were flying as United pass riders: employees and family of employees who travel for free. The negative headlines spread like wildfire.

    • “Teenage girls blast ‘sexist’ United Airlines leggings ban” – New York Daily News
    • “United Airlines claims plenty of reasons to refuse a passenger. Wearing leggings shouldn’t be one.” – Boston Globe
    • “Leggings Should Be Worn On Planes, and the Office, and Everywhere Else” ­– Fortune

    While United’s social team quickly responded to the inciting tweet just 10 minutes after it was posted, they didn’t release a public response until nearly 5 hours later. I completely empathize with the PR team here, as those 5 hours were likely spent scrambling to pull together facts/talking points to mollify Ms. Watts’ tweet and following proper escalation protocols.

    By the time United made an official, public-facing statement on their website titled, “To our customers…your leggings are welcome!” it was too late. Their mentions on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram already exploded from its average 2,000 daily mentions to 174,000, with nearly 70 percent of them negative.

    Delta Airlines watched United’s rapidly sinking ship and seized the opportunity. The outcome was a snarky tweet, “Flying Delta means comfort. (That means you can wear your leggings.),” which to-date has garnered more than 118,000 likes and 31,000 retweets.

    Delta’s tweet is short, witty and timely, but a real cheap shot toward United.

    In this situation, I picture Delta as Mr. Burns, the evil villain from “The Simpsons” who is obsessed with the desire to increase his own wealth and power. While Delta doesn’t outwardly mention United, the ‘shade’ thrown their way was obvious and likely accompanied with a “MWAHAHAHA” as they hit send on the tweet. Regardless of your ethical viewpoint on this response, Delta responded quickly and strategically which, at the end of the day, may have resulted in some new Delta flyers.

    via GIPHY

    Lyft Poses as the Good Guy While Uber Suffers

    #DeleteUber is the hashtag heard around the Twitter world that showcased a public purging of the Uber app in response to a variety of company scandals. First there were accusations of Uber of trying to profit from a taxi driver protest against President Donald Trump’s immigration ban. Next, a published blog post from a former engineer unveiled the sexual harassment and discrimination she endured while at the company. And the cherry on top was the video of Uber CEO caught on video being a jerk to a driver.

    As Uber’s user count decreased by the thousands, Lyft strategized ways to capitalize on the opportunity, taking the high road with tasteful response tactics. When #DeleteUber was first initiated after the immigration ban, Lyft pledged $1 million to the American Civil Liberties Union resulting in a 30 percent increase in riders. Uber, meanwhile, had a 10 percent dip in riders around the same time, according to 1010data.

    Week over Week change in users
    via Washington Post

    Most recently, Lyft announced a new program “Round Up & Donate.” Users can opt-in to automatically round up their fare to the nearest dollar and donate it to charity. In a world where “good is the new cool” and younger generations demand increased social responsibility from brands, this was a smart move. Personally, I feel more inclined to request a ride from Lyft over Uber knowing the brand’s commitment to citizenship.

    width=

    While Lyft executives assure the public they are not changing their marketing and PR strategy in response to Uber’s misfortune, it sure is convenient timing. Who knows, this assurance may even be another tactic to paint Lyft in a positive light. For me, it’s working. Lyft headlines are overwhelmingly positive while Uber’s media perception continues to diminish, despite daily efforts to publicly reevaluate their corporate values. We’ll have to watch closely as the underdog Lyft takes on Uber in a classic tale of “good” vs. “evil.” No matter the outcome, Lyft’s marketing and PR teams deserve a standing ovation for their performance lately.

    PR Lessons Learned

    We can all empathize with the PR teams for United and Uber, and many of us think about how we personally would have responded in those situations. A key takeaway here is that as PR professionals, you must first be in-tune to what is going on internally and externally. You must respond to the crisis or opportunity at hand very quickly. Whether that response is snarky or dignified, the public will take control of your message if you don’t, so preparation is key. At the bare minimum, know who needs to be involved in the decision-making process when crisis ensues because those designees will need to be called on immediately.

    Yes, you’ve got to move fast, but you’ve also got to be thoughtful and deeply consider the long-term impact a response will have on your company. Lyft, for example, aligned their thoughtful responses to the overall brand values, creating a strategy people could easily get behind. This two-steps-ahead thinking is what we call smart PR and what we strive for with our clients daily.

    Matter

    ,
    , , , , ,

  • Beating the buzzer: Capitalizing on breaking news

    Beating the buzzer: Capitalizing on breaking news

    A good chunk of a PR pro’s day consists of finding creative ways to get a client’s story out there. Obtaining killer press coverage without a steady stream of company news is one of the biggest – and most exciting – challenges we face. But every-so-often, things just happen. All of a sudden you’re not creating the news, you’re typing and dialing like a mad-person reacting to it.

    It’s not crisis communications, but the flurry you suddenly find yourself in leaves you feeling similarly. Here’s some advice on making your efforts count:

    • Remember to breathe: We work in a dynamic industry and sometimes that leaves us feeling like everything is urgent. Try to remind yourself that even though you’re reacting to breaking news, it’s important not to rush an announcement or an angle. Take the time to get it right. The results will be far more cohesive.
    • Pick a spokesperson: When in the trenches of this type of pitching, things happen fast. Journalists are looking to pump out stories same-day and want to speak with your expert ASAP. Scheduling can be a bit of a mess. Be sure to pick one spokesperson and discuss the best process for getting a hold of them when opportunities arise. Do they want to be emailed, called, texted or telegrammed? Do they prefer to dial the journalist directly, or have you hosting on a conference line? Should you just skip them entirely and go directly to their assistant? Lay out the process ahead of time so there’s no room for confusion and tedious back and forth.
    • News scan: While you should absolutely be opening up your existing press list and zipping the story off to your media besties, breaking news is the perfect time to make some new friends. Fire up Google News, see who’s covered the topic – or something relevant to it – in the past and pitch them! They’ll likely already be working on a story and as such open and responsive to new thought leader commentary. And the best part? They’ll remember that you’re good on the fly and reach back out for future stories.

    Have any reactionary PR tales to share? Tell us the good, the bad and the ugly on Twitter!

    Matter

    , , , , , , ,

  • Trusting the Storyteller

    An important disclosure: I’m a fan of Brian Williams. I like his reporting style, his humor on late night talk shows and dashing good looks. I like that he reports the tough news of the day with gravitas and a baritone voice. All the while, I thought that he didn’t take his celebrity too seriously and therefore could mock it. That wasn’t a problem, until now.

    Last week, it was revealed that Williams exaggerated his involvement in a helicopter accident during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Through the extensive Williams-gate coverage and commentary, the public has learned how the story has changed and warped over the years. While the Iraq incident was bad enough, his reporting of Katrina is also being brought into question for possible inaccuracies. Williams has since apologized on air, cancelled public appearances and decided to take a short break from the desk at “NBC Nightly News.”

    While many Reddit users and internet gumshoes scramble to prove William’s guilt, the truth is, the “truth” doesn’t matter anymore. Just like Williams’ twisting narrative, the American viewer’s minds have been twisted with a seed of doubt. Similar to witnesses being questioned by Dragnet’s Sgt. Joe Friday, Williams’ entire profession is based on reporting “just the facts.” Can you trust someone who confuses whether or not they were in a helicopter shot down by a RPG?

    And yet, that’s exactly what NBC News and its parent company Comcast is hoping for – viewer’s trust. With Lester Holt filling in this week, NBC News is hoping things will quiet down, no more incriminating evidence appears and Williams can return to his coveted No. 1 nightly news slot.

    However, for a news organization that has covered poorly handled PR nightmares, you would think NBC would know the “hope and wait” approach won’t work for a man who has spent his entire career speaking to the American public. Williams’ absence and silence has only led to more speculation as to what else has been exaggerated. Williams should have been more transparent about the incident rather than trying to spin it during his apology last week. With so many fact checkers employed by NBC News, how did it take this long to fact check their own anchor? Or was he just too big of a star to fail?

    As The New Yorker noted, “Each of them [news anchors] is seen in roughly eight to ten million homes nightly. They are seen by many more people, and more frequently, than any movie star. To walk down a street with an anchor is to be stunned both by how many people recognize them and how many viewers call out to them about specific stories. There’s a respectful familiarity different from the awe displayed to Hollywood celebrities. The anchor is treated as the citizen’s trusted guide to the news. As a result, they can feel expected to dominate discussions, to tell war stories, to play God. It’s a short distance from there to telling fantastic stories—and maybe actually believing them.”

    This whole incident has made me reassess of how I digest the news. How long has it been since I really took nightly broadcast news seriously in terms of ground breaking investigations? Or were they just an easy way to disseminate the fast facts of the day? A visual twitter feed, if you will. New York Times’ Maureen Dowd said it perfectly in her column this Sunday. “As the performers — Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, John Oliver and Bill Maher — were doing more serious stuff, the supposedly serious guys were doing more performing. The anchors pack their Hermès ties and tight T-shirts and fly off to hot spots for the performance aspect, because the exotic and dangerous backdrops confer the romance of Hemingway covering the Spanish Civil War.”

    While I am giving Williams the benefit of the doubt that not everything has been embellished, the saddest thing about this whole scenario is that it is taking away from what really matters – the news of the day. The news that people need to know. The news that is factual, relevant and important. The news that will impact our economy, our world and our lives.

    Let Williams come back, read the prompter and see if the American public can move on. And if they can’t, well then perhaps it’s time that Williams starts performing somewhere else.

    Laura Peck

    , , , ,

  • Krafting A Crisis Communications Response

    Krafting A Crisis Communications Response

    How would you like to be Stacey James these days?

    For the uninitiated, James is the Vice President of Media Relations for the New England Patriots, a position he’s held for twenty years.  He’s been here through the really bad times, through three Super Bowls wins and two heartbreaking losses, through the very public and very messy Bill Parcells-Robert Kraft divorce, through Spygate and more.  He’d arguably seen it all, until June 26.  Up until that day, James’ biggest challenge was serving as the middle man between one of the most voracious press corps in the world and the smartest, most uncommunicative coach who ever walked God’s Green Earth in Bill Belichick.

    James likely has not had many a good night’s sleep recently and Sunday was probably no different. That’s because on Monday, Patriot owner Robert Kraft broke the team’s two-week long silence to address the Boston media following the unfortunate death of Odin Lloyd, allegedly at the hands of Mr. Kraft’s former employee, Aaron Hernandez.

    In dissecting his eagerly anticipated – and many would say– long overdue media statement, I initially wanted to find fault with Mr. Kraft’s and the organization’s approach. Crisis Communications 101 tells us to move swiftly and decisively when revealing bad news or talking to the press.  James and the team’s legal counsel surely spent hours debating the pros and cons of addressing the media and then preparing for yesterday’s pow-wow with reporters from the Boston Globe, Boston Herald and ESPN Boston.

    I am not naïve enough to buy into “The Patriot Way” – it has become a shattered myth – thank you Alfonzo Dennard, Aquib Talib and now Hernandez. But I have to give a fair amount credit to Kraft and the Patriots for:

    A) Facing the music when they had no real obligation to comment publicly at this time. Even the lawyers told Kraft not to do it.

    B) Doing so face to face, not hiding behind another scripted statement or teleconference from his European vacation. And at least with the Herald’s Ron Borges, having the stones to meet with one of their harshest critics.

    C) Admitting that his organization had failed. Failed when it drafted Hernandez in the fourth round out of Florida when many teams took him off their daft boards. Failed when they signed him to a multi-million contract extension last year. And, failed when they did insufficient due diligence on the player before making him a Patriot.

    Did Kraft come completely clean? Doubtful. Did he hold back at the advice of legal counsel? Likely. Will we ever know the full story?  Unknown.

    But the point of this post is that Robert Kraft took his medicine yesterday. He could have taken the easy way out and issued a statement scripted by James and the lawyers during a time when there were several other stories grabbing headlines in Boston – the Bruins epic and heartbreaking Stanley Cup Finals loss and post-season trades; the Celtics house-cleaning and Doc Rivers’ LA Confidential story, the Red Sox terrific start, not to mention the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev court appearance build-up, the Markey-Gomez special election, the Whitey Bulger trial and the Hub’s spectacular Fourth of July holiday festivities.

    Kraft knows public relations and crisis communications. He proved it again yesterday. He knows PR much better than he knows Xs and Os and much better than he apparently knows his own employees.

     

    Matter

    , , ,

  • Reacting in Real Time: Social Media and the Boston Marathon Bombings

    Anyone who has turned on a television, radio, or computer in the last few weeks is painfully aware of the tragedy that occurred at this year’s Boston Marathon. Those of us who spend significant amounts of our days trolling the web, checking social media, and are rarely found without a screen in our face, have been inundated with news stories since the minute the attack happened…on live television. The fact that millions of people were already tuned in to watch the attack take place certainly fueled the near instantaneous surge of social media buzz. People ran to their computers and smartphones to update their Facebook statuses and tweet their thoughts and prayers. The pervasive trends in sentiment were shock, fear and sadness.

    As the afternoon hours seemed to crawl by, especially for residents of the Boston area, people remained glued to their TVs, computers and mobile devices, watching anxiously for updates. Would there be another attack? Are there any immediate leads on who was responsible? What was the extent of the damage? All of these questions continued to hang in the Boston air, unanswered, as the city was forced to resume a sort of automated return to normalcy the following day. Citizens of Boston gingerly went about their everyday lives until the chaos erupted once more early Friday morning. Essentially the entire city of Boston was on lock-down for more than 12 hours. Thankfully, the crisis was resolved that same evening, and the healing process could begin. Throughout the 5 days representing the core of the Boston Marathon mayhem, social media was continuously ablaze. Now that the drama surrounding the incident has simmered down, I want to take a brief look back at the effect social media had on the situation while we were in the midst of it all.

    The Boston Marathon incident was the first of its kind, in relation to media. The world is connected like never before, with countless outlets and sources of news information spewing off tweets, posts and blogs almost nonstop. Social media was ever-present starting the moment the first bomb exploded, but did this presence create positive or negative influence? The sentiment of the online world is a mixed bag, but the answer is both.

    Social media allows for near instantaneous reactions to events to be communicated to millions of people. In the case of the Boston Marathon, several institutions utilized Twitter to reach as many people as they could as fast as possible with critical information. The Massachusetts Emergency Management Association issued a tweet telling people trying to reach friends or family in Boston to text instead of calling, as many were experiencing blocks on incoming and outgoing calls, and texting used less bandwidth. Tufts Medical Center and the Red Cross coordinated emergency response efforts via Twitter, directing where patients in need of care should enter the hospital, and providing locations where those uninjured could donate blood.

    Social media also provided a sense of security. People could stay on top of breaking news without sitting immobile in front of their television screens. If anything new happened or an important update needed to be shared, the general public could be notified right away by checking social media outlets such as the Boston Police Department twitter handle. On Thursday, April 18th, when the F.B.I. released photos of the two suspects, the information was instantly in the hands of millions as the government implored the public for its help in the identification process. In seconds, the suspects’ faces were recognizable across the country. Their own social media footprints were easily traced, providing additional support in tracking them down. Lastly, social media did play a significant role in bringing in donations. Constant updates, posts and picture sharing made the attack very “in your face”— pushing people to respond to their emotions and give support to the cause.

    Now here’s a good transition to the negative effects. The fact that viral photos of the injured and deceased made people feel bad and want to contribute to the relief fund isn’t anyone’s fault. However, when companies used the tragedy to take advantage of people’s emotions and boost their own social media numbers, they cross a line in my book. For example, NBC Bay Area posted a picture of a child recovering in the hospital, asking people to “Like” the photo and wish him a speedy recovery. That is literally guilt-tripping people into clicking a button and increasing activity on NBC’s Facebook page, and does nothing to actually help the poor kid recover. Ford issued its heartfelt appreciation to the law enforcement involved, but incorporated this thank you into an advertisement. It would have appeared far more sincere to post it as a stand-alone thank you. This is certainly an example of less outright manipulation, but is still ethically debatable. 

    The other large issue was the spread of misinformation that occurred across social media channels. We already know how news spreads like wildfire on social media, but unfortunately there is no way to prevent this spread when the information is wrong. Before the suspects were officially identified, the New York Post issued a cover page falsely stating that the F.B.I. was looking for the two innocent individuals in the photo. The New York Post was not the only media outlet that failed the general public. CNN falsely reported on Wednesday, April 17th that authorities had arrested a Boston Marathon bombing suspect. The release of this news prompted AP and Fox to follow suit, convincing huge numbers of people that a bomber had indeed been taken into custody. Of course, the situation was hastily rectified, but the damage of this erroneous report was hard for the people of Boston to take, and is thought to have contributed to several other incidents that day including a bomb threat and subsequent evacuation at the South Boston Court House.

    Retrospectively, social media was responsible for more good than harm, but the situation has still left a lot of people, including myself, more skeptical of news they see on social media platforms. The matter at hand isn’t whether or not you should use social media for news, because in our day and age you really have no choice, and it has the capability to do so much good. The issue comes down to how you use it, and ensuring you are careful and smart when it comes to the information you read. Before spreading news on your own pages, make sure you confirm the story with multiple platforms, and remember that while social media is an incredible tool that keeps our world connected, the age-old saying of “don’t believe everything you read” may still apply. Perhaps we can even mold it into a new, age-appropriate saying: Think before you re-tweet. 

    Matter

    ,
    , , , , , , ,

  • A Farmer's Instinct to Crisis

    Me with one of our pigs; 1973

    Here at the Matter Chatter blog, we talk about all things public relations, marketing, and communications, so I’m going to talk about baby ducks and apple pie.

    I grew up on a farm in Vermont. As any farmer will tell you, it’s a place of great wonder and great tragedy — and of course, the realities of what you do as a farmer. (Let’s just say as a child, I learned quickly not to give the cows names.)

    Wonder arrives with baby farm animals. There’s nothing quite like watching eleven piglets swarm the pasture (yes, they got out), or the determined look on a young calf’s face as he wills his legs to work for the first time.

    And then there were the baby ducks. My family and I painted a wooden dog house and filled it with hay to give the ducks a warm home near the pond where they swam. We spent hours with them, laughing as they’d fall in line behind us, following us wherever we went. It was the living version of Make Way For Ducklings.

    Life was not all hay and pitchforks, however. Our family loved going to the movies, and on one such August night, while we were enjoying the latest Bond film circa 1973, the temperature dropped to an unusually low temperature. When we returned home, my mother put an apple pie in the oven, and my brother and I ran down to the pond to check on the baby ducks.

    To our horror, the ducks had washed up on shore; from all appearances, they were dead. Their feathers had not yet developed the protective oil that allows adult ducks to swim in cold water, and they succumbed while we were away. Tears and calls for help led my father to the scene. Without a pause, he scooped up the ducklings in his arms. Rushing to the kitchen, he yelled for my mother to pull the apple pie out of the oven. Out came the pie and in went the ducks, wrapped in a kitchen towel.

    Within minutes, the chirp, chirp, chirp of baby ducks filled the kitchen. They were fine. They lived a long and happy life. The apple pie was tossed in the pig trough, half-baked and soggy.

    I don’t know what made my dad think about the warmth of the oven, I just know he did. And as PR practitioners, we’re often filled with that gut instinct to do something outside the normal methodology, to the benefit of our clients.

    There are tried and true methods when it comes to crises communications, and volumes of pages dedicated to plans, procedures, and protocols. And then there are the things that come from instinct, a farmer’s instinct. Perhaps from something you’ve experienced before or even something you can’t quite recall, like the fact ducks can lower their body temperatures to a near hibernation-like state, and revive fully when warmed. Don’t ignore that instinct. You may have to throw out the apple pie, but it will be worth it. 

    Matter

    , , , , ,

  • Take note: Rehab is not the best solution for crisis PR

    I was in the checkout line at the grocery store last night and, as I was throwing my purchases onto the conveyor belt, I noticed that almost every tabloid and entertainment magazine had a cover story about Jesse James’ marital affair and the word “monster” somehow worked into the headline. My first thought was, “How sad.” My second thought was, “What’s his PR team doing about this?” (more…)

    Matter

    , , , ,

  • Thoughts on the Tiger Woods press conference

    So…did anyone watch Tiger Woods’ press conference today?

    Reactions are all over the place – The Philadelphia Inquirer called it a “self-serving sham.” Sports Illustrated‘s Michael Rosenberg had the opposite opinion, saying Tiger showed some emotional vulnerability and finally “introduced himself” to the world for the first time in 14 years. Gloria Allred (predictably) used the opportunity for her own benefit and labeled it “a disgrace” and “a staged public relations stunt” (which struck me as funny, since…of course it is! All public addresses and press conferences are, right??). Even walking the halls of our office here in Newburyport, comments varied and I heard some people scoffing that today’s mea culpa was “too little, too late.” Others shrugged and said it was a “smart move – he’s got good handlers.” The one thing everyone can agree on? The whole ordeal was a PR nightmare from the get-go. (more…)

    Matter

    , , , , ,

  • Step Away from the Prius…

    The Toyota recall has caused even the most unflappable owners to question their love affair with the brand. From the Woz’s Prius to Mary Chin’s 2006 Avalon, every Toyota model, even those not initially included in the recall, are in the hot seat because of the ambiguity of the situation and growing amounts of questions. Every “check engine” light or electrical glitch now will be scrutinized, and for good reason – people feel their safety has been compromised. (more…)

    Matter

    , , , ,