public relations is an applied social science | a blog by Rusty Cawley, APR

Is it irresponsible to address a crisis in 'real time'? | #PR

Leigh Dow of Dow Media Group says:

If you are doing social media right, little of your communication is in real time. Your communication should be the culmination of careful strategy and planning. If you are doing it right, you have completed an extensive exercise in developing a social media strategy, channel mapping, implementation plans, an editorial calendar, roles and responsibilities, policies and guidelines, and a scorecard for tracking results. That doesn't feel very "real time" to me.

So-called real-time interaction is also touted as a great tool when you have a crisis. It's usually not. I can't think of a worse medium for brands to use in the heat of a crisis. Some pundits tell you that the days of having hours to prepare a news release are over. But for many companies, that's irresponsible, and investors or shareholders deserve—and demand—more than a gut reaction.

via www.ragan.com

Who is suffering most: Chick-fil-A or its critics? | #PR

The pollsters at Rassmussen report today:

When the president of Chick-fil-A spoke out in support of traditional marriage in a recent interview, the mayors of Boston, Chicago and San Francisco angrily responded by saying the fast-food chain wasn’t welcome in their cities. But voters overwhelmingly believe those mayors should butt out.

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Likely U.S. Voters say government officials should not be allowed to prohibit a business from opening if they disagree with the political views of the business owner. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only three percent (3%) think government officials should have the power to stop businesses because they disagree politically with the owners.

Add to this an Aug. 8 report from Rasmussen:

While most voters view Chick-fil-A favorably, most don’t plan to change their eating habits because of the controversy. Just 13% of Likely U.S. Voters are likely to participate in a boycott of Chick-fil-A restaurants, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Seventy-seven percent (77%) do not plan to boycott the Chick-fil-A restaurants because of the controversy. Ten percent (10%) are undecided.

If we believe the numbers, then we must conclude that many of the nation's' elite opinion leaders are out of step with general public on this issue. While politicians, activists, celebrities and news outlets may decry Chick-fil-A, the larger market of public opinion is far less volatile on the subject.

Chick-fil-A's brand doesn't appear to be in nearly as much trouble as the news coverage might indicate. The company's current strategy to lay low and wait for the news media to turn its attention elsewhere may actually work out.

What's more, the elites who openly attack Chick-fil-A on the traditional marriage issue may actually damage their credibility as opinion leaders. A leader without followers is just someone who's out for a stroll.

Why the market may force a cultural change at Chick-fil-A | #PR

From The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Chick-fil-A, which had sales of $4.1 billion in 2011, is moving aggressively beyond the South — its core — into the West and Northeast, where it is not as well known and has not enjoyed the years of goodwill that has allowed its business to explode.

"The risk for Chick-fil-A is that their brand could become associated with a point of view," said Tim Calkins, a clinical professor of marketing at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. "And in areas that are unfamiliar with the company, that could be a problem."

via www.ajc.com

The legal line for Twitter between protection and liability | #PR

From Reuters:

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ... says that operators of interactive computer services will not be treated as a publisher of information provided by third parties, such as individual Twitter users.

The law permits sites to monitor, censor or take down content posted by third-party users, said Jeffrey Hermes, a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.

But according to Hermes, when the site becomes so involved in the process of third-party posts that it is considered to be "contributing to what is unlawful about the content," it can face liability.

In other words, Section 230 protects Twitter if it merely corrects users' spelling or cuts all tweets down to 120 characters. But if it changes the meaning of a post or compromises its contract with users, the Section 230 shield may not apply.

via www.reuters.com

The #Rule40 Revolt and the ghost of Avery Brundage

The International Olympic Committee and U.S. college sports share a common problem: They are multi-billion-dollar brands built on the backs of young athletes. That used to work when the grown-ups could tell their kids to sit down and shut up, and be glad with what we give you.

But now the kids have two things they didn't have before: corporate sponsors and social media. The first give the kids the incentive to tell their masters to go screw themselves. The second gives them a voice in the social theater.

The IOC missed those changes. It continues to think it can wield power as Avery Brundage did. It is finding out that those days are over.

This week, many of the Olympic athletes had enough of the IOC's heavyhandedness. The Americans (as usual) led the revolt via Twitter. In the process, the IOC lost the high ground. It was forced to admit that Rule 40 is there to protect the IOC's piggybank, and not the athletes. If the IOC now disqualifies an athlete under Rule 40, the public blowback will devastate the credibility of the Games.

Thus, you can expect a seismic shift in the master/serf relationship between the IOC and its athletes beween now and 2016. Once that happens, expect U.S. college athletes to revolt against the rules they are forced to follow.

None of this was possible before social media. Having a voice matters.

 

Willful ignorance is not a winning strategy | #CrisisPR

From Ben Heineman at Harvard Business Review:

Although there will be myriad important legal and governance lessons from both the News Corp and Walmart cases, none is more important for business leaders than the imperative to act decisively in the face of demonstrable wrongdoing, and not engage in willful ignorance and indifference with the hope the problem will remain hidden.

via blogs.hbr.org

What villains teach us about corporate leadership

From Linda Hill and Kent Lineback at the Harvard Bsuiness Review:

Our visceral reactions to villains illustrate an important point — that our feelings about someone, whether we fear or trust them, are largely determined by their intentions. By divining what they want, we answer the question we all instinctively ask about someone new: ally or enemy? Intentions are how we distinguish a villain from someone whose influence we accept, whom we move toward. Competence may be appealing, but intentions are what attract or repel us and foster trust or mistrust.

Thus, if you want to lead and influence others, you must reveal your intentions. People won't believe you will do the right thing unless they're convinced you genuinely want to do it.

via blogs.hbr.org

Why Warren Buffett told the world he has early stage cancer

Diane Brady at Bloomberg Businessweek explains:

His disclosure is less an acknowledgement of his mortality than of his celebrity. As an investor whose every move is analyzed by people around the planet, the likelihood that Buffett could undergo two months of radiation therapy without anyone noticing is remote, if not impossible. Moreover, at 81, his mortality and succession planning—or lack thereof—is already the subject of much speculation. Any hint that he’s not thriving on a steady diet of steak and Cherry Coke could send Berkshire Hathaway stock plunging if the company’s iconic founder seems at all coy about his health. “It’s not a matter of his illness, it’s his age,” says Charles Elson, a corporate governance expert at the University of Delaware. Like a starlet caught touching her tummy near a fertility clinic, Buffett knows all too well that he needs to control the message before rumors put him on the defensive.

via www.businessweek.com

Can a corporation earn points toward forgiveness?

From the Daily Dog:

Temkin Group this week announced the release of its 2012 Temkin Forgiveness Ratings that rates how likely consumers are to forgive 206 large companies across 18 industries if they deliver a poor experience. The research, which is based on a survey of 10,000 U.S. consumers in January 2012, shows that consumers are most likely to forgive USAA, Hyatt, credit unions, H.E.B., Hy-Vee, Dollar Rent A Car, Chick-fil-A, Publix, Costco and Amazon. At the other end of the spectrum, consumers were least likely to forgive Citigroup, Charter Communications, HSBC, Chrysler dealers, EarthLink, Bank of America, Comcast, Quest and US Airways.

via bulldogreporter.com

Why voters are angry

From pollster Scott Rasmussen:

The bailouts remain the most hated pieces of legislation in recent American history. They spurred both the tea party and the Occupy movements and convinced millions that a corrupt relationship exists between big government and big business. But both Romney and Obama are supporters of the bailouts. Given the public mood, it is almost beyond comprehension that neither party could come up with a presidential candidate opposed to the bailouts.

Looking ahead, most voters hear a lot of rhetoric about deficit reduction but don't believe either party has proposed a serious plan to stop ever-increasing government spending. Most don't even believe that the budget cuts agreed to during the debt ceiling debacle will ever be implemented. ...

There are certainly differences between Obama and Romney. People will find plenty of valid reasons to select one over the other. But if the winner of Election 2012 governs as he campaigns, the disconnect will continue, and voters will grow even angrier.

via www.rasmussenreports.com