Blackfish and the Murky Side of PR

I am so glad I finally got a chance to watch Blackfish. As expected, it left me feeling awful and depressed. But the one thing that really made me sad was the murky side of PR that was exposed in the film. I agree, that the film was one sided because Sea World’s perspective was completely missing. But it feels like in spite of repeated efforts, Sea World authorities refused to be interviewed.

It was shocking to watch Sea World’s cover up for every single trainer who became a victim of the killer whales. Not only were the authorities covering up brutal deaths but also pushing out wrong information. They blamed the trainers for the accidents that happened.

As PR professionals, we see our clients face crises and unfortunate situations. The natural instinct for the brands/companies is to panic and go to any length to save their faces. But as a PR counsel, it’s our duty to convince them why it is important to be honest and forthright during these challenging times. When a brand or company shows accountability and delivers a sincere apology, it really works. The public trust is built over years. But it takes just one wrong move to break it.

PR persons are often referred to as “spin doctors”. And such incidents only reinforce this public perception of our profession. I strongly urge my fellow communicators to practice honest communication and be courageous enough to stop the client/employer when they’re doing something wrong. It’s time we did some PR for PR as a profession. We need to show that we are good storytellers but not the ones that spin the truth!

Are you a nice person?

I know, this is a bizarre title for a blog post but it is inspired by this question I’ve been asked a gazillion times on the streets of New York City. Mind you, this question is not asked by random tourists testing the common stereotype of New Yorkers being rude but by volunteers of various nonprofits. Having been stopped by several such volunteers in the past one year, I am dedicating this post to this kind of marketing and PR.

Photo courtesy: Buzz Feed

If you happen to live or work in New York, you’ll come across young volunteers or workers from nonprofits trying to sign up people to support some or the other cause. And like most New Yorkers I find it completely annoying. They choose the worst hours to stop people and make small talk. Either it’s during lunch hour when everyone’s rushing to grab a bite and get back to work or it’s during the evening hours when everyone’s rushing back home.

I don’t think guerrilla marketing is bad but I wonder if this particular tactic works. The volunteers try everything from flirting, small talk and nagging to get pedestrians to sign up with the nonprofit. But I wonder if signing up for causes in this way can ever be heartfelt. The cause at the heart of the campaign, for most times, is genuine and important. I hate skirting these people because it makes me feel like a heartless person. But I don’t want just any person to stop me in the middle of the street and preach me about how to be a nice person. I don’t know what objective drives such guerrilla campaigns. Whatever it is, I think nonprofits need to train their volunteers better and identify the right kind of places to station these people.  Just any other street in New York is definitely not the place to be.

Athletes as brand endorsers?

Michael Vick, Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong, Kobe Bryant and now Oscar Pistorius… What do they have in common apart from being tainted athletes? They’re all Nike sponsored athletes. Is Nike picking up the wrong people or is this a risk it is willing to take while sponsoring thousands of athletes?

From doping, to sexual assault, adultery and now murder – Nike’s athletes have landed themselves in some serious trouble. With the exception of Lance Armstrong, Nike is known for standing by its athletes. In the past it has terminated its contract with Michael Vick only to re-sign him once he served his prison term. But now with Pistorius’ murder scandal, the brand will have to tread carefully.

 Off late, athletes from around the globe have made headlines for inappropriate behavior proving them to be a risky proposition for brand endorsements. Cases of sexual harassment, display of extreme rage, adultery, violence, doping, and so on have become so rampant. By offering money, a company like Nike could easily cover up such cases in the past. But now, in the age of social media, it’s almost impossible to do that. Let alone traditional media reporters, there are Tweeters, bloggers, Pinners, Instagrammers to deal with. How can anyone stop information from getting public! Forget hiding an issue, social media further magnifies it instead.

People have continued to look up to sportspersons as their role models because they are ordinary people who have made it big in life. Increasingly, athletes are destroying the image of an ideal sportsperson. From being stereotyped as heroes, they are soon going to fall in the trap of being stereotyped as immoral and unethical people. It’s time for companies like Nike to reconsider their brand strategy of spending billions on athletes because of the price that comes with signing them. On a smaller scale, in the long run, it may create a dent on its reputation and may turn out to be an unprofitable investment. 

But the bigger problem with companies standing by maligned sportspersons is that it reinforces the belief that public memory is very short. A great performance is all it takes to forget about a defamed athlete’s misdeeds. Nike continues to sell its products by portraying such athletes as role models. It continued to sponsor Joe Paterno, what more can we say? It’s time we take a moment to think about what kind of role models these companies are creating!

Did Apple just say sorry?

Day in and day out in my PR classes we discuss the invincible brand that Apple has become.  Arrogant, secretive and defiant are words we associate with the company. But apologetic – never! In the past the company has come out with defensive statements like the one it made when iPhone 4 had troubles with catching network. Well, there was no sorry then. Even amid all the reports of child labor in China, Apple has maintained an indifferent stance.

Tim Cook, CEO, Apple

But on Friday Tim Cook, Apple’s new CEO almost surprised everyone with an apology for going majorly wrong on the Apple maps. While it’s true that the maps are terrible, an apology from Apple is so un-Apple-ish. Not only was there an apology but also recommendations for other map apps that the users could use. This was certainly a first for Apple. This makes me wonder if Steve Jobs would have ever agreed to publicly apologize. Actually the real question is would Jobs have allowed launching a half finished product that doesn’t live up to the company’s reputation. Probably not. The last time it did so (with Mobile Me) he fired the entire executive team. I still wonder why was the company in a hurry to introduce the maps which were hardly reliable. When competing against something as powerful as Google maps we would have assumed Apple to have come up with something full proof.

However, I must say the apology was a great PR move by Tim Cook. The letter had an apologetic tone and still managed to keep the company’s messaging on commitment to quality intact. I admire Cook’s move of breaking away from the arrogant tone that the company has maintained all this while. Some may disagree with me on this saying that this is not what Apple is all about. It is not in line with most of Apple’s communication.

Yet, I think it’s a good damage control tactic. The company has been drawing a lot of negative attention lately because of the maps. There have been several videos and ads by techies and rival companies poking fun of it. This letter will help them bring an end to that. Now that the CEO himself has acknowledged how terrible the maps are, others will not have much to talk about.

What do you think about this? Do you think it was a good PR move? Would love to hear what you think about this. In the meanwhile, enjoy this funny e-card I found on Apple maps.

My Learning From The Social Media Class

As we approach the end of the social media class, I thought of dedicating my last blog post to the key learning I derived from the class. I got a good insight into the intriguing and fascinating world of social media. Below are 7 things that I will remember while using social media professionally.

1. Clarity of objectives is very important while using social media professionally. There is no point in just joining the bandwagon because “everyone is doing so”. Social media campaign without any direction is a waste. Thus, it is important to keep objectives in mind before using social media.

2. There is a plethora of social media platforms out there but that doesn’t mean an

Licensed under Creative Commons

organization needs to use them all. There is no benefit in being a jack of all trades. Social media is a mere tool and not a practice in itself. Thus, one needs to identify which platform would benefit the organization the most and try to master that instead of blindly using several platforms.

3. Knowing your audience is very important in order to push out the right message to the right people depending on the social media platform you adopt. The target audience on Facebook is very different from that on Linkedin.

4. Social media is a great listening tool during crisis as the organization can track down the conversations and address the rumors, questions and conversations going on. It also comes in handy while developing messages during crisis because the organisation can say what it wants in the way it wants without any media manipulation or misinterpretation. The organization can control the message.

5. In the shifting media landscape, there is a change in journalism. Collective intelligence is what social media thrives on and this can highly benefit the journalists.

6. Things stay on the internet forever. So it is a good idea to be extremely careful before sharing something stupid and regret about it later. There are watchdogs out there ready to plunge the moment there is a slip. Also, NOTHING remains secret in the wide world of social media. Thus, there is no point in hiding truth about products, services or organizations because it is going to come out at some point. People discuss just about everything and anything and the word normally spreads faster on social media.

7. Measuring and monitoring are very important for any businesses. There is no point in investing time and effort in something that is not giving you enough returns nor is helping you achieve the set objectives. Social media success is no longer restricted to number of hits and impressions. With the availability of some very savvy tools, monitoring and measurement have become very easy. It is no longer difficult to find out how many people are talking about your brand or how many people you are reaching out to through a particular campaign. It is good to keep a check on how successful one’s social media campaign is by regular monitoring and measurement of returns.

These were some things I learned in the social media class. What else do you think should one keep in mind with regards to using social media professionally?

Eventually, It Is Going To Come Out!

History has probably lost a count on the number of stories on social gaffes and unethical deeds committed by people. The perpetrators have most often than not paid a price for it and quite heavily at that. Yet people don’t seem to learn from their predecessors. This era of 24/7 media consumption and social media demands a high level of transparency making it difficult for anything to be hidden for long. The truth is likely to come out someday, and eventually people are going to know. But this doesn’t seem to be deterring people from doing wrong. Scandals related to ethics (or well, the lack of them) have rocked businesses, politics, education, sports and practically every other sphere. I guess soon history textbooks will require a chapter on the social faux pas and unethical acts that have led to the downfall of many.

This month has seen some major blunders and unethical acts surface. From Herman Cain’s alleged sexual harassment case, to Dr. Conrad Murray’s man slaughter and the infamous Penn State Scandal. Each of them has great PR lessons to be learned. But I am going to concentrate on Penn State because I feel very strongly about it and would like to discuss Jerry Sandusky’s interview with NBC’s Bob Costas in particular.

The Penn State scandal is probably the most talked about topic on social media. Child rape, to me, is probably the most heinous crime ever. It cannot be taken lightly. It amazes as well as disgusts me how Penn State hid it for so long. That move to safeguard the university’s reputation is probably going to cost them way more reputational damage now.  The university has suffered credibility as well ethical issues on a lot of grounds.

Jerry Sandusky’s interview with Bob Costas can definitely be nominated as one of the biggest PR blunders by far. Sandusky’s responses really made me sick. Not that the allegations against him didn’t, but after listening to the interview, in my mind, he has become more of a monster than I could possibly ever imagine. Firstly, he agreed to be interviewed and then admitted to have “horsed around” and taken showers with young boys, yet with no remorse claims his innocence. Seriously, which assistant coach showers with young boys? And who in the right mind would consider it to be normal! I don’t know why his lawyer would have allowed him to be on that show in the first place. Murky details of this story are consistently being unraveled and Sandusky’s case is weakening by the day.

Sandusky’s responses were non-committal. They didn’t seem to be coming from a man who was genuinely innocent. If you see the video above, Bob Costas asked some very insulting and pointed questions which could have aggravated a genuinely innocent person. But Sandusky calmly answered the questions. His silence before answering the question on whether he was sexually attracted to young boys said a lot. Not only this, there have been reports that the university made Sandusky sign a contract that made sure he did not take showers with young boys or not to get young boys to the facility where he ran his charity. Unimaginable, isn’t it?

It’s sad that so many people were rallying against the ouster of Joe Paterno and blamed the media for bringing attention to this story. We’re talking about child rape here! How can you show sympathy towards someone who turned a blind eye towards a heinous crime like this? Even Paterno didn’t employ the best of PR skills while handling this crisis. The arrogance he maintained throughout really turned me off. Instead of owning up for a big mistake he committed and apologizing, he said he would retire after the end of the game. And now after being fired, he is going to hire a lawyer for himself. Personally, a good PR strategy would have been to be honest at least now and show some remorse for being unfair to those little innocent boys.

I am interested in seeing how this story develops over the coming days. No matter how hard one tries, wrong deeds don’t take you too far. Eventually, you are going to get caught. Like they say, reputation takes ages to build but a moment to ruin. I shall sign off with the phrase most heard of in all my classes… “Do the right thing!”

PRSA vs Jack O’Dwyer

Last week, one particular news story caught my attention, and I thought it would be a good topic for my blog post. At the recent annual convention held in Orlando, Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) banned journalist Jack O’Dwyer, and all the journalists from his media company, from attending it. This decision has drawn severe criticism from the PR fraternity.

The PRSA and Jack O’Dwyer have had a strenuous relationship for the past 20 years, with the latter scrutinizing and criticizing the former’s finances and expenses every year and making negative comments about the society’s staff and board. In a statement issued by PRSA, the society said: “…as we espouse and require ethical behavior on the part of our members, we cannot tolerate and accept unethical behavior on the part of a representative of the media. Furthermore, we cannot allow a journalist to disrupt our meetings or degrade the experiences of the PRSA members and other professionals who attend our events.”

Lucy Siegel, President & CEO, Bridge Global Strategies PR Firm, in her blog says: “I’m embarrassed by the totally unprofessional, unethical and childish behavior this week of the so-called leaders of my profession, the board and staff of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA).” She has also criticized PRSA and its expenses and staff members in this blog post supporting O’Dwyer’s articles.

Many see the ban on O’Dwyer as an unethical and discriminatory move by PRSA since they singled out one journalist. The National Press Club also expressed its disappointment by releasing a statement criticizing PRSA’s move. While many have criticized PRSA’s decision, there are some who support it by saying that it is a standard PR practice to extend selective invitations to journalists. Steve Andrews, Consultant at Outlaw Communications, commented on Lucy Siegel’s blog on PRSA-NY Linkedin group: “I’m not sure how excluding Jack is any different from any organization excluding muckrakers from its gathering. I’ve worked with Fortune 10 companies for years and we routinely exclude journalists from functions up to and including not sharing information with certain properties.” On the same post, Quentin Langley, Senior Lecturer, University of Bedfordshire, echoed similar views in his comments. Andrews also added that “it’s a fairly standard tactic, used more often to punish or send a message to a particular journalist than as any real attempt to limit information flow”.

This, to me, seems like a moment of crisis for the association representing the entire industry. PRSA sets a precedent for aspiring professionals like me. It needs to act responsibly and handle crisis more tactfully rather than banning a journalist. This is a PR challenge and I am sure there are better ways of handling it. There are plenty of muckrakers out there. We can’t start banning everyone who writes against us. Especially, in the world of social media, banning someone actually backfires as that starts more conversations. Also, banning O’Dwyer is not going to stop him from writing against PRSA. In fact, it will encourage him to write more. This incident has not only started a lot of conversations but also turned off some of the society’s followers. In my opinion, PRSA should have opened a dialogue with O’Dwyer and tried to talk about it, if they think he is spreading false information. It would have opened up grounds for more clarifications and cleared misconceptions. If that didn’t work, PRSA can always rely on releasing statements, clarifying its stand on what O’Dwyer writes. As far as asking tough questions is concerned, I think, it is a basic PR requirement to tactfully handle difficult questions. I am sure there is a way to handle it other than imposing a ban. If there is a case of misconduct, then the ban is justified. But as far as him asking pointed questions is concerned, I think the ban is not defensible.

What do you think about PRSA’s move?