public relations + risk communication + social theory

#PRDefined: Why I voted for the third option

The PR profession is voting through Feb. 26 on a long overdue redefinition of public relations. There are three choices on the ballot:

• Public relations is the management function of researching, communicating and collaborating with publics to build mutually beneficial relationships.

• Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.

• Public relations is the strategic process of engagement between organizations and publics to achieve mutual understanding and realize goals.

I could live with any of the three. Each includes the key concept that public relations should achive results that are mutually beneficial with publics. It is this idea -- "the creation of social capital," as social theorists would phrase it -- that distinguishes our profession from marketing and advertising.

I voted for the third option. Why? Because of the three options, this is the one that most clearly defines PR as something we do "with" publics, not "to" publics. (This trait of "engagement" also distinguishes us from marketing and advertising. The more we can distinguish our profession from their disciplines, the better.)

The second item on the ballot asks whether we should include the word "ethical" in final definition. As in:

Public relations is the strategic, ethical process of engagement between organizations and publics to achieve mutual understanding and realize goals.

Some argue that we should be guided implicitly by ethics, not explicitly. Recent events, as well as our profession's checkered history, demonstrate this approach is absurd. Corporations are by definition sociopathic. It is our role to play Jiminy Cricket to the corporation's Pinocchio. As a professional, we have failed again and again to play that role well. We should include "ethical" in our definition, if only to consistenly remind us of this responsibility.

New strategy for Occupy: smaller, smarter, focused | #CrisisPR

The evolution of the Occupy movement continues. Occupy Wall Street staged what amounted to a temper tantrum during its lengthy run in Zucotti Park. Now a splinter group of policy wonks (Occupy the SEC) are dominating the conversation with regulators over how or even if to enforce the Volker Rule -- a regulation designed to minimize the ability of Big Banks to take insane risks with publicly guaranteed funds. This appears to be Occupy's new strategy: Break into smaller, smarter groups that focus intently on a single message. (Occupy the SEC has seven members.) Again, we see how small numbers can wreak havoc with complex structures. But one has to wonder how much longer the Occupy brand can remain viable. At what point does it become as tiresome and shopworn as, for example, Got Milk? 

The corporation as sociopath: Raising prices for customers in mourning | #CrisisPR

From ReadWriteWeb:

From a business standpoint, increasing the price of Whitney Houston's records makes sense. If demand goes through the roof, why not capitalize on that? But that's a strictly profit-focused viewpoint. It ignores the fact that a human being has died, and that the people getting ready to shell out money for the work they created are, at least to some extent, in mourning.

The perception easily follows that the record company is trying to profit from both the deceased and the bereaved. Whether it's a wise business choice or not, the fact that nobody foresaw the PR backlash it would cause is pretty unbelievable.

via www.readwriteweb.com

Is Whitney Houston's death 'tragic'?

I first heard that Whitney Houston died last night while channel surfing. Within the first 20 words, the FOX anchor referred to her death as "tragic." My reaction was, "Nonsense. This is a woman who has committed slow-motion suicide on the public stage for the last 20 years. She finally succeeded. How is that tragic?"

We tend to toss around the word "tragic" way too often, when we really mean, "Wow, that sucks." Something is not tragic just because it makes us sad.

Still, the news media can't resist. I entered a Google News search for "Whitney Houston and tragic" and got more than 3,000 hits. (Remember, news is not information; it's drama.)

Upon reflection: Perhaps I've got it wrong.

According to Aristotle, the essence of a tragic story is a great person brought down by a fatal flaw. If we stretch the definition of greatness to include the supremely talented, then Whitney Houston qualifies.  

Her fatal flaw? It wasn't the drug abuse. That was only a symptom. More likely, her fatal flaw was the same sort of self-loathing that brought down another supremely talented singer, Harry Nilsson. Impossible to understand. How can anyone with that much natural talent choose to gradually and deliberately snuff it out? 

OK, so perhaps "tragic" applies after all.

Former exec Handel portrays Komen as Planned Parenthood's victim

Just as the other players appear ready to end the controversy, former Komen policy chief Karen Handel is storming the stage to present her version of the Planned Parenthood sociodrama.

In an interview with the Daily Beast, Handel presented two sets of images.

The first describes how the two organizations behaved backstage. Leaders at Komen and Planned Parenthood engaged in a "ladies' agreement" to ease the organizations out of their relationship and avoid making an onstage fuss via the news media. (Hard to believe a politico like Handel is naive enough to believe a story like that would remain out of the news, but there it is.) Komen's only intent was to move Komen to "neutral ground" under pressure from pro-life Komen supporters, she says.

The second set portrays Planned Parenthood's later onstage actions as thuggish. She describes the organization as a "gigantic bully" that "unleashed Armageddon" on an unsuspecting Komen just to regain annual funding of $680,000. Komen's attempts to explain its position was "drowned out" by the "vicious attack" of Planned Parenthood's more sophisticated social media, she says.

It's an interesting attempt by the Georgia Republican to use language to harness the pro-life outrage that triggered after Komen restored the funding. Handel reportedly turned down a lucrative severance package with Komen that would have silenced her. Instead, the Daily Dog suggests, Handel is using the stage to restore her star power with the GOP now that she is outside the Komen theater.

'Arab Spring': Did we watch the wrong actors?

A year after the Arab Spring uprisings, the American audience appears flummoxed by the resolution of that drama.

A new Rasmussen poll shows that a third of Americans think the uprisings were good for the United States, a third think they were bad for the U.S., and almost another third say they had no impact.The rest have no clue.

The problem, private intelligence firm Stratfor says, is the audience is focused on the wrong actors. Yes, the protesters are interesting characters. But in the end they have little influence over the long-term fate of the Arab regimes. The real drama is not on stage, but backstage.

In the Egyptian theater, for example, the military used the protests as a pretext for deposing Mubarek and thus resolving a crisis in succession. A year later, the regime remains; only the lead actor is gone.

In the Libyan theater, the dictator Gaddafi is dead. But not because he failed to quell the revolution. For decades, Gaddafi cultivated an international image as a dangerous madman. In the end, he paid for that image. Gaddafi was on the brink of crushing his opposition just last summer. Only NATO's intervention (because it feared a bloodbath) removed Gaddafi from power. Had Gaddafi positioned himself as a reasonable if forceful tyrant, he would remain in power today.

In the Syrian theater, Assad is still in charge and there are no signs he will step down.

The onstage image of the Arab regimes is one of fragility, Stratfor points out, but the backstage reality is they are quite durable. And even if they fall, the notion that they will be replaced by a Euro/American-style constitutional democracy is a illusory. If the regimes lose control of their theaters, the Islamists will fill the void, not the democrats.

Komen: The price of 'going political' | #CrisisPR

From the Huffington Post:

Komen now has the tough task of rebuilding trust among its donors, affiliates and network of breast cancer survivors, who for years have seen the group as not political and devoted to the singular mission of fighting breast cancer. Komen's corporate partners are a critical group.

The Huffington Post attempted to reach out to all of Komen's 196 corporate partners. Thirty-five of them responded, with seven declining to comment on the matter. While a few companies said they were reviewing their partnership with Komen in light of the controversy, nearly all said they were going to stick with the foundation. Still, many expressed concern that the apolitical organization they signed up to sponsor was no longer so.

via www.huffingtonpost.com

Can a $500 million campaign improve BP's image? | #CrisisPR

From Forbes:

To date, there have been no visible effects of the backlash on the company’s end customer sales (from the 2010 Gulf oil spill). However, BP will still seek to restore its brand image by introducing a customer loyalty program and a campaign that will focus on its new gasoline offering called ‘Invigorate’ that will result in long-term savings by helping to keep the car engine clean. The campaign will come at a cost of over $500 million and focus on the company’s retail businesses that contribute significantly to its total value.

via www.forbes.com

Well, at least that's the end of that "BeyondPetroleum" nonsense.

Worst Practice #171: Send an automated response to folks who tweet your hashtag| #CrisisPR #Twitter

From the Realtime Report:

Like other advertisers, Toyota spent millions on its Superbowl commercial this weekend.  But instead of enjoying positive word of mouth about the new Camry, the brand is dealing with backlash against a Twitter campaign that sent unsolicited @ reply messages to users who were tweeting with Superbowl-related hashtags, inviting them to enter a contest to win a 2012 Camry.

What’s worse, the tweets were sent from a series of accounts that had been verified by Twitter, provoking additional backlash against Twitter for appearing to endorse the spam campaign.   The @CamryEffect1 through @CamryEffect9 accounts are now marked as Suspended Accounts, and the main @CamryEffect account has been changed to a Protected Account.

via therealtimereport.com

Solid PR advice from renowned theatrical director Roger DeBris (in just 19 words!) | #PR

“It ain't no mystery if it's politics or history. The thing you've got to know is everything is showbiz!”

Komen 'explains' when it should 'respond' | #CrisisPR

From PR Daily:

Susan G. Komen for the Cure unleashed a series of tweets on Wednesday to respond to criticism over its decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood. For instance, one tweet said: "For 30 yrs we have provided help to low-income, uninsured & underinsured women. Changes to our granting policies reinforce that commitment." The breast cancer foundation, which is facing a stiff PR backlash and boycott after announcing on Tuesday that it would no longer give money to Planned Parenthood for breast examinations and related services, remained largely silent on social media until late Wednesday, when it started tweeting and posted a video to YouTube with its CEO Nancy G. Brinker responding to criticism.

via www.prdaily.com

Like Apple, Komen is wasting way too much time "explaining" when it should focus on responding to the outrage generated by an ill-timed, and perhaps ill-considered, decision.

Goldman puts a muzzle on its bulldog PR chief | #PR

From Crain's:

No doubt there are many reasons the public doesn’t think highly of Goldman Sachs. But surely one important one is the choice words spewed from the mouth of the firm’s public relations chief, Lucas van Praag.

Like most PR pros, Mr. van Praag vigorously defends his employer, especially when his employer does things that are hard to defend. But what makes Mr. van Praag special is his  talent for portraying anyone who questions Goldman’s actions or motives as some sort of vendetta-driven moron.

via mycrains.crainsnewyork.com

There are few better ways for a PR counsel to curry favor with a client than to ascend to the pulpit on the client's behalf. Unfortunately, the "virgorous defense" does little to calm stakeholder outrage. Indeed, it stokes it. And the curried favor soon runs dry.

Was SOPA's defeat a victory for the 'little guy'? The end of K Street? Hardly | #CrisisPR

From the Fortune/CNN blog:

Lee Drutman of the Sunlight Foundation declares flatly that "the David and Goliath story" of SOPA/PIPA's defeat "is mostly a myth." He notes that while the Motion Picture Association of America -- the most conspicuous of the lobbying groups that supported the bills -- spent a total of $1.3 million (on all issues) in the first three quarters of last year, Google alone spent a total of $7.1 million on lobbying.

And according to the Center for Responsive Politics, at the end of last year the Internet industry had 246 lobbyists working on its behalf, while big media firms employed 241.

None of which is to dismiss the effect of popular anger over the bills. That, spurred in part by the Web blackouts that helped whip up the rage, was the proximate reason for the bills' defeat. But this fight also showed that the Internet and tech industries have finally come into their own in Washington. As issues like privacy and antitrust come up for debate over the next few years, the lobbying behavior of those industries will need close scrutiny. They won't always have the public interest at heart.

via tech.fortune.cnn.com

Activists put the crosshairs squarely on Apple's CEO | #CrisisPR

From BBC News:

An online petition, signed by 155,000 people, has called on Apple to do more to ensure its Chinese factory workers are treated better.

The campaign, on Change.org, follows reports of poor working conditions in factories that make Apple products.

A separate SumOfUs petition, with more than 43,000 signatories, calls for the iPhone 5 to be made "ethically".

The activists are framing their story, and (following the Saul Alinsky game plan) putting Apple CEO Tim Cook in the crosshairs:

The SumOfUs movement focuses its efforts on the firm's next major smartphone update.

"Every time a Foxconn worker is killed or disabled making an Apple product, Mr Cook bears personal moral responsibility," wrote Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, the campaign's executive director.

"Apple is going to have much bigger longer-term problems than paying a few extra dollars for its products if it loses its lustre with ethical consumers," she added.

Meanwhile, Cook is acting without any sense of urgency. This is common with CEOs, who tend to go through a denial stage before they are ready to accept that they must take effective action to manage growing outrage:

"Any accident is deeply troubling, and any issue with working conditions is cause for concern," Tim Cook wrote.

"Every year we inspect more factories, raising the bar for our partners and going deeper into the supply chain. As we reported earlier this month, we've made a great deal of progress and improved conditions for hundreds of thousands of workers," he added.

via www.bbc.co.uk

Strategically, Cook's attempt to "explain the situation" is unsound. It is costing him time and credibility. News is not information; it is drama. And Cook needs to come up with a dramatic stroke that takes control of the story from the activists, drives down the public outrage, and (not coincidentally) does something to end (and not just curb) the worker abuse.

How can the 'most hated company in America' be worth $100 billion in an IPO? |#CrisisPR #PR

From the Daily Dog:

It could be a huge week for Facebook, which is expected to file for its highly anticipated initial public offering in the coming days. The IPO, which is expected for the second quarter, could raise as much as $10 billion and could value the social network between $75 billion and $100 billion, the Wall Street Journal is reporting. Because of its profound imprint and unarguable dominance of the social genre, anything less than $75 billion would be seen as a disappointment.

And yet, Facebook also ranks No. 1 on 24/7 Wall Street's recent list of the 10 Most Hated Companies in America:

Facebook currently has more than 800 million users. Any company of this size is sure to have some detractors. Compared to other leading social media sites, however, Facebook has the lowest customer satisfaction score from the American Customer Satisfaction Index. The site has repeatedly irked users by neglecting personal privacy. Notable events include the introduction of facial recognition software, which spurred an investigation by the European Union, and the Facebook timeline. Facebook received significant negative press for forcing new settings on users that changes how their personal information is shared with others. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has only recently said that the company will no longer do this. According to the MSN Money-IBOPE Zogby International customer service survey for 2011, 25.9% of Facebook users described the company’s customer service as “poor” — the lowest rating.

via 247wallst.com

All of which leads to this question: How is it possible to outrage so many stakeholders on so many issues, and yet be worth so much money on the open market?

Thoughts?

Is #Twitter ready to give into censorship? | #OWS

From the Daily Dog:

Daisy chains of tweets already have played instrumental roles in political protests throughout the world, including the Occupy Wall Street movement in the United States and the Arab Spring uprisings in Egypt, Bahrain, Tunisia and Syria. It's a role that Twitter has embraced, but the company came up with the new filtering technology in recognition that it will likely be forced to censor more tweets as it pursues an ambitious agenda. Among other things, Twitter wants to expand its audience from about 100 million active users now to more than 1 billion, USA Today reports.

Reaching that goal will require expanding into more countries, which will mean Twitter will be more likely to have to submit to laws that run counter to the free-expression protections guaranteed under the First Amendment in the U.S.

via www.bulldogreporter.com

Worst Practice #68: Offer free merchandise in exchange for positive online reviews

According to the New York Times, a web merchandiser stoked its online reviews by essentially offering free product to anyone who would give the product a five star review on Amazon:

By the time VIP Deals ended its rebate on Amazon.com late last month, its leather case for the Kindle Fire was receiving the sort of acclaim once reserved for the likes of Kim Jong-il. Hundreds of reviewers proclaimed the case a marvel, a delight, exactly what they needed to achieve bliss. And definitely worth five stars. ...

By last week, 310 out of 335 reviews of VIP Deals’ Vipertek brand premium slim black leather case folio cover were five stars and nearly all the rest were four stars. The acclaim seemed authentic, barring the occasional indiscretion. “I would have done 4 stars instead of 5 without the deal,” one man bluntly wrote.

Besides being unethical, this is just stupid. If the mainstream media don't expose you, an angry blogosphere will, and -- soon -- so will algorithms.

Researchers like Bing Liu, a computer science professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, are also taking notice, trying to devise mathematical models to systematically unmask the bogus endorsements. “More people are depending on reviews for what to buy and where to go, so the incentives for faking are getting bigger,” said Mr. Liu. “It’s a very cheap way of marketing.”

TV stations join together to oppose ... transparency? | #PR

From Steven Waldman at the Columbia Journalism Review:

Local television stations have now rallied against the key elements of the Federal Communications Commission’s media transparency proposal, which would require broadcasters to move their “public inspection files” out of their filing cabinets and onto the Internet.

I described these proposals in detail here and here, but the surprising hostility from TV stations—news organizations—to this transparency plan raises a broader question: Do broadcasters believe that they even have “public interest obligations” anymore? Judging from some of the unintentionally hilarious comments they submitted to the FCC docket (more on that shortly), they enthusiastically embrace the concept as long as it remains completely devoid of meaning.

via www.cjr.org

Surprising hostility? Not at all. Mainstream news media are owned by very large companies, and very large companies HATE transparency. This puts mainstream journalists in the odd position of demanding transparency from everyone -- except the folks who write their checks. Especially in the wake of the global economic meltdown, Big Media should lead the charge for corporate transparency. But it ain't gonna happen.

The crisis at Apple: Tim Cook's fleeting opportunity to step out of Steve Jobs' shadow

Critics are jumping all over Apple today in the wake of a New York Times story that basically accuses the company of:

• Mistreating its workers in China.
• Knowing it and even documenting it.
• Ignoring it, in favor of maintaining its supply chain.

Here's the most damning quote in the article from a former Apple executive: "We’re trying really hard to make things better, but most people would still be really disturbed if they saw where their iPhone comes from."

Apple is in danger of becoming Nike or Walmart: Another large company that (critics say) makes billions on the backs of overseas workers. But Apple can't afford that to happen ... not if it wants to survive, much less thrive, in the coming years.

Worst Practice #183: Hold a pregnant customer to her contract after her husband loses his job

From the Wall Blog in the UK:

(Gym chain LA Fitness) has been shamed into dropping £360 in charges it was trying to extract from a pregnant woman whose husband had lost his job.  Nice. It took Twitter to descend upon the brand to make it see sense and force it into a deeply embarrassing climb down, which has left its social reputation shredded like so much old gym wear.

via wallblog.co.uk