Posts Tagged ‘government’

Cultural and Other Changes Needed First at Japan Nuclear Plant, then Crisis PR

Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011

Image Meltdown

Posted by Tom Gable

The unfolding disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Plant in Japan will inevitably be positioned as a monumental crisis PR challenge to be addressed by the operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company.

That comes later. First, TEPCO needs to solve its management and culture crisis – a situation perhaps worse than what came to be discovered about BP as the oil from its ruptured rig spread throughout the Gulf Coast.

The concept is simple. As management guru Peter Drucker noted decades ago: “Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.”

TEPCO failed on many fronts in doing things right and also doing the right things – the foundation for positive PR. The Wall Street Journal has dug deep and found a history of failures at the “trouble prone” Daiichi plant. Worse yet, when the earthquake and tsunami struck, the WSJ and New York Times reported that TEPCO hesitated to flood overheating nuclear reactors with seawater because of worries about ruining their investment, even though those steps were included in their emergency plans. The media reported other delays in taking action by the Japanese government, the military and other agencies.

Crisis PR? Yes, plus extensive reputation management after management resignations from TEPCO, criminal indictments, civil lawsuits and pledges by the new management team to make things right and maybe do the right thing.

Then, they face the biggest PR challenge: can they deliver on the new promises?

FTC to Bloggers: Disclose Freebies, Payments. Blogestapo in the Works? Implications for PR?

Thursday, October 8th, 2009

FTC Finds Blogger Freebie
FTC Finds Blogger Freebie

Posted by Tom Gable

As reported by the Associated Press, The New York Times and others, the Federal Trade Commission on Oct. 5 voted 4-0 to approve final guidelines for regulating anyone who reviews a product, including bloggers. As the AP reported:

The FTC will require that writers on the Web clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products. The commission also said advertisers featuring testimonials that claim dramatic results cannot hide behind disclaimers that the results aren’t typical…For bloggers, the FTC stopped short of specifying how they must disclose conflicts of interest. Rich Cleland, assistant director of the FTC’s advertising practices division, said the disclosure must be “clear and conspicuous,” no matter what form it will take.

Bloggers have long praised or panned products and services online. But what some consumers might not know is that many companies pay reviewers for their write-ups or give them free products such as toys or computers or trips to Disneyland. In contrast, at traditional journalism outlets, products borrowed for reviews generally have to be returned…The FTC’s proposal made many bloggers anxious. They said the scrutiny would make them nervous about posting even innocent comments.

Consumer advocacy groups were quoted as saying lack of disclosure is a big problem in blogs. They suggested putting more pressure on bloggers to “behave properly,” according to AP.

As reported in The New York Times:

The new rules also take aim at celebrities, who will now need to disclose any ties to companies, should they promote products on a talk show or on Twitter. A second major change, which was not aimed specifically at bloggers or social media, was to eliminate the ability of advertisers to gush about results that differ from what is typical — for instance, from a weight loss supplement…For bloggers who review products, this means that the days of an unimpeded flow of giveaways may be over. More broadly, the move suggests that the government is intent on bringing to bear on the Internet the same sorts of regulations that have governed other forms of media, like television or print.

The buzz on the blogosphere ranged from taking umbrage and pleading First Amendment privileges to those who felt bloggers needed to be held accountable and readers deserved to have all the facts, including those of sponsorship and freebies.

Then there are the concerns about business bloggers and experts who comment on companies, industries and trends rather than products. What type of disclosure is required if they have been paid by the company they are commenting on, or a direct competitor or consulting firm with ties to the company, its competitors or the industry? One “mommy blogger” from the United Kingdom questioned how it would impact those who receive free books to review.

I review books because I love them, and getting some for free is a bonus – now the US is cracking down on us mommy bloggers…They call it blogola – payola for bloggers – the term for free stuff that bloggers get to review on their site and even the cash that some accept for those reviews. Those “offers” can also take place on micro-blogging sites such as Twitter, as exemplified by the recent controversy surrounding the #nestlefamily event – in which bloggers have agreed to take part in a promotional event organised by the multinational company.

PRSA looked at the FTC notice and offered some possible applications of the guidelines:

  • Bloggers who receive cash or in-kind payment (including free products or services for review) are deemed endorsers and so must disclose material connections they share with the seller of the product or service.
  • Any firm that engages bloggers by paying them outright to create or influence editorial content or by supplying goods or services to them at no cost may be liable if the blogger does not disclose the relationship.
  • Advertisements or promotions that feature a consumer who conveys his or her experience with a product or service as “typical” should clearly disclose what results consumers can generally expect or specify how the results were unique to the individual circumstances.
  • If research is cited in an advertisement or promotion, any sponsorship of the research by the client or the marketer should be clearly disclosed.
  • Celebrities who make endorsements outside the context of traditional ads, such as on talk shows or in social media, should disclose any relationship with the advertiser or marketer.

One thing absent from the debate so far: enforcement.

Is the pronouncement actually part of a clever strategy to grow the FTC bureaucracy? After all, government is one of our few growth industries.

Will the FTC create a new Blogestapo modeled after the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)? Staffers in blue uniforms will sit hunched over computers in new facilities throughout the land reading a zillion tweets, clicking through to a million blogs and news Web sites and looking for evil-doers. Next, a press conference featuring the media-savvy President Obama talking about the importance of saving our country from the new Axis of Evil: Twitter, Facebook and Blogging.

Journalists Take Umbrage at Being Profiled by PR Firms; a Double Standard?

Thursday, September 3rd, 2009
090719-M-0440G-568

Embedded and Profiled

Posted by Tom Gable

The recent media feeding frenzy over the Pentagon hiring a PR firm to profile the work of journalists applying to be embedded with the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is tinged with irony.

The story broke in Stars and Stripes, which reported that The Rendon Group had been hired to examine individual reporters’ recent work. It would then determine:

“…whether the coverage was ‘positive,’ ‘negative’ or ‘neutral’ compared to mission objectives, according to Rendon officials.”

Follow up stories in Wired and elsewhere complained about the military trying to shape coverage. The Wired coverage also quoted Paul McLeary at Ares, a defense industry blog, who wondered if the reaction was overblown. “While a bad move on the military’s part, I don’t see the Rendon contract as being as insidious as some would have it,” he wrote.

Several writers soon blogged indignantly about the experiences and included excerpts from their profiles. This self-aggrandizement seems to be somewhat of a double standard. It’s okay for the media to probe as deeply and broadly as they would like for information on others, but not for others to probe into their bodies of work?

The best journalists dig deeply before they interview anyone and check sources and resources afterward to make sure they have it right. In a similar vein, professional PR people should know where a journalist is coming from before they show up to interview the client or organization spokesman. Whether it’s a technology, financial, personality, lifestyle, investigative or any other type of piece, a quick search of the archives can determine how the writer approaches his or her work and what to expect.

  • Are they thorough and balanced, or do they have a history of doing hit pieces?
  • Are they more interested in human stories, finance, technology?
  • Have they ever covered this niche before?
  • How long have they covered the niche and do they have a degree or advanced degrees in the field?
  • How much background or technology briefings do they need in advance?
  • What outside resources can we point them to for more background?
  • When the story finally runs, what is the headline or soundbite?

As a former financial journalist and correspondent for Stars and Stripes, I can attest that controversy sells. Investigative pieces generate far more interest than positive features on achievements by an individual or organization. One reporter who blogged about being profiled probably got more attention from his posting about the Pentagon controversy than he has had from any previous piece in traditional media or social media. And one wonders if he was happy that the Pentagon fired The Rendon Group seemingly in response to the feeding frenzy.

Agreed, the military or any other government agency shouldn’t reject a reporter from legitimate media outlets from being credentialed to cover the war, the White House or anything else. In any work with journalists, be professional. Search the archives, understand where they are coming from, of course, and then help them to do their job in every way possible.

I liked Tom Ricks in Foreign Policy who said: “The Pentagon is checking out journalists. So what?” Plus, his photo is more provocative than most. Check it out!

China Takes Crisis PR to Extreme Levels During Riots

Wednesday, July 8th, 2009

Prepared for the worst

Prepared for the worst

Posted by Tom Gable

Forbes.com reported that the Communist Party in China moved “at broadband speed” to try and take control of the breaking news and “avert a public relations catastrophe months before celebrating the 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic.”

The current approach is in stark contrast to the earlier handling of riots in Tibet that cast Party leaders and China as authoritarian villains and thugs. The difference? Forbes said: “The government was ready to handle a PR crisis with a sophisticated authoritarian strategy, and clearly has been crafting this strategy since the disastrous handling of the Tibet unrest last year.”

Preparedness and speed are essential to success in crisis PR, as covered here earlier this year. A review of the detailed Gable PR Crisis check list and crisis management programs conducted over the years for many clients had common threads. The most successful programs included:

1. Developing a crisis PR plan well in advance

2. Rehearsing the plan regularly (including surprise mock disasters)

3. Setting up news tracking, media and social media and other research tools for 24/7 monitoring

4. Launching your plan and responding immediately to even the slightest hint of pending crisis, even if only to let all targets know you don’t have all the answers but will get back to them as soon as you do

5. Following up consistently and in a human voice

6. Being aggressive at countering rumors and inaccurate information

7. Analyzing the trends in coverage, buzz

8. Adjusting the program as needed to meet new issues, attacks

China appears to be following most of these, excepting No. 5, which doesn’t appear to be in their game plan historically or currently.

Photo credit: Amy Gwen

U.S. Fights Taliban with PR; Iran War Coverage Goes Online, Personal

Thursday, June 18th, 2009

Posted by Liz Dill

The United States is trying a new tactic in the war in Afghanistan: Public Relations. According to a story in the AFP, the U.S. intends to devote more money and manpower to the “information war” in Afghanistan. The emphasis on public relations comes amid concerns about the effect of civilian casualties from U.S. air strikes. Civilian deaths topped 800 last year and the Taliban has actively sought to exploit public outrage over the casualties, which often happen because the Taliban uses residential and business areas as its staging grounds for terror.

One of the key tactics in the campaign will be to be to tell the news first. In the past, the U.S. was in reactive mode, responding to the Taliban’s comments. Now, the U.S. speeds to tell its story pro-actively and in real time with radio transmissions, a new website updated daily with press releases and audio cassettes passed out by hand.

This new campaign shows just how effective strategic public relations can be in influencing opinion and countering rumors and propaganda. The campaign will be crucial to convey the role of the U.S. to the Afghan people and to gain back their trust. It shows how being consistent and straightforward in telling your story and not letting others tell it for you can influence perception and pre-empted negative attacks. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in influence long-term perceptions of the U.S. while leading to defeat of the Taliban.

Simultaneously, online reporting and social media now serve as the top sources of news on the crisis in Iran. As reported by MSNBC, the Iranian government has shut down the international press corps from covering the post-election crisis. It notes that rapid reporting through online channels (blogs, video sites, Twitter and Facebook) is keeping the world informed of the growing torment. The Iranian government, now losing its total control of messaging and news, is threatening online users with prosecution and even execution for “incitement.” Will micro-blogging and social media bring down a government?

Authentic PR or Pseudo-News Flurries and Diversions, ala the Nixon White House

Thursday, June 11th, 2009

Posted by Erin Koch

In today’s “information overload” environment, it is obvious that PR agencies must be selective about what qualifies as news. At Gable PR, we often have to provide the journalists’ perspective and tell our clients no when they suggest that “let’s do a press release on that!” Of course we do it tactfully, applying the “so what, who cares” test. Why? Because just like in the story of the boy who cried wolf or the start-up from the Silicon Valley that cranked out one release a day for months before collapsing, the media will ignore the missives if they are too frequent (or too frequently irrelevant). Much better to be highly selective, or authentic. And to target the media who are most likely to care.

This week, Slate.com had a particularly relevant example, from well before the age of information overload. It turns out that in his final days, Nixon’s press office bombarded the national media with press releases from every Cabinet department in the hopes of somehow pushing the impeachment news off the front pages.

It didn’t work, because the news wasn’t authentic. The media instantly recognized this and continued following the scent of the real story.
So if your company has a “major” product development or if you’re “incredibly excited” about a “transformative” new employee who has joined your firm, that’s great! But before sharing this “news” with the world, give some serious thought as whether or not anyone else will really care. It just might make more sense to go after the spotlight when you have something more “shine-worthy” and truly exciting to the news media and outside audiences.

California’s Election: $15 Billion vs. $21 Billion vs. Who Cares?

Wednesday, May 20th, 2009

Posted by Erin Koch

When I worked for county supervisor (now state assemblyman) Jim Beall back in 2001, the City of San Jose and County of Santa Clara reached an agreement on sharing redevelopment funds. Government types thought this was a big deal. But as Beall’s media guy, I recognized that no one, most notable the media, would really care unless we could find a very human way to illustrate the impact of the merger.

The answer: having a family living in one of the redevelopment zones speak at a press conference about their hopes and dreams for improving their neighborhood. Four TV cameras showed up and we earned great coverage on the evening news.

This brings us to this week’s special election in California. Four of five budget-related initiatives on the ballot lost, increasing our state’s budget deficit from $15 billion to $21 billion budget. The only one that passed: limiting salary increases for state legislators and constitutional officers in years of budget deficits. Why did this happen? The reasons cited by the Sacramento Bee and others are too numerous to list in a single blog post. But in short, very few voters knew what was at stake in how it would impact them in real-life terms. The ballot language was confusing on each and considered deceitful by some pundits. Then, talk to a voter about increasing the budget deficit and you’ll get a yawn. But show them a classroom of eight year olds who will soon struggle with 30+ other students in their class (versus 20) and you will have their attention.

Governor Schwarzenegger and the state legislature must now make drastic budget cuts – and many in California will indeed soon experience firsthand the personal impacts. Could the outcome have been different?

This is the type of communications challenge that creative and strategic agencies love. How to tell a story in a compelling way that gets into the frontal lobes of a target audience in a way that moves them to act. It isn’t easy. The process requires a committed campaign finance committee to support sound (often extensive) audience research, brainstorming on evocative key messages to bring the issue to life, research into the best media to use for delivering the message, and, most importantly, consistent fact-based follow-through according to a strategic plan, yet one with the flexibility to adjust as the dynamics of the campaign change.

Are you facing a similar communications challenge in your company, organization, institution or public entity? Is your message getting through? Do you know how to bring your vision and attributes to life in a compelling and human way? If not, we’d be pleased to provide a quick Creative Audit at no cost to give you something to think about going forward. Please email me (erin.koch [at] gablepr.com) with Creative Audit in the subject line.

Obama Staffer Resigns Over Air Force One NYC Fly-Over Blunder

Friday, May 8th, 2009

Posted by Tom Gable

The New York Times today reported the resignation of Louis Caldera, the point person on the incident where Air Force One flow low over the New York City to create a photo opportunity and scared millions. President Obama called for a review of the incident. Today, the White issued a seven-page review along with the photograph. The memorandum from deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina, said that “structural and organizational ambiguities” in the White House Military Office led to a series of miscommunications and a lack of public notification.

“If he (Louis Caldera) had been aware that the flight would cause so much trouble or any embarrassment to the president or to the White House,” the report said, “he never would have allowed it to go forward.”

No kidding! In putting this idea together, Caldera and his colleagues must have been living in White House LaLaLand, where one can do no wrong in the most powerful office on earth. I doubt the White House press staff was involved. If they had been, a routine pre-event analysis would have made the risks abundantly clear and Caldera would have never authorized the flight. For details and ideas on creating your own pre-flight check list on special events, see the earlier post on April 30.

Branding South Korea: Better Than the North?

Tuesday, May 5th, 2009

Posted by Tom Gable

The Los Angeles Times ran a story Sunday on how South Korea is spending millions of dollars to develop a national brand. The headline: “How about, ‘South Korea: Way better than you think it is’?”

The story noted:
• 40 percent of foreigners polled on country image cited its lack of “charm.”
• It is linked to North Korea, rogue nation headed by the bizarre Kim Jong Il.
• South Korea ranked 33 of 50 nations in a recent Nation Brands Index (Germany was No. 1, the United States No. 7).
• It has formed a Presidential Council on Nation Branding with a goal of moving to 15th place by 2013.
• The government also wants to “globalize” Korean cuisine, moving it to among the world’s top five by 2017.

Will a few slogans and expensive promotional and advertising programs move the image in the desired direction?

Euh Yoon-dae, head of the Presidential Council on Nation Branding, was quoted as saying: “We’re trying to advance the identity of Korea. It’s the substance rather than the brand itself. We want to walk the walk rather than just talk up some new advertising campaign.”

The branding czar nailed it. The question: can South Korea walk the talk?

Images and reputations build over time based on a consistent flow of positive evidence, or proof of principle as the engineers and scientists call it. It could be compared to creating a great tapestry or painting to hang in the Louvre. Thousands of strands of color need to be strategically woven together or dabbed creatively over time to create a work of art for your admiring publics. The work is authentic, original and compelling.

The process to move image in the right direction is fairly straightforward for a company, organization, individual, cities states and even nations:

1. How do you want to be known two, three, five, ten or twenty years from now?
2. Is it realistic and attainable?
3. What do you stand for (your position)?
4. What are the three or four core values and points of differentiation that support the position?
5. What evidence will be rolled out over time to validate each of those core values and add to the lore?
6. Who are your most important target audiences?
7. How do you integrate communications strategies to reach each consistently and creatively over time to move perception in the desired direction and motivate them to action?
8. What about the negatives? Worst case scenarios? Push back? Criticism and cynicism? Competitive counter-attacks? Lack of core values? Over-hyped attributes?
9. How to analyze and change tactics and strategies as needed?
10. Is the organization totally committed to the program?
11. Are there other factors that might influence the program (economic, political, sociological, etc.)?
12. How do we measure success?

Can South Korea achieve its goal of going from No. 33 to 15 in brand image in less than five years? Some might consider the task to be more like an assault on Everest than a casual walk to Reputationland.

Remedial Media Training on Tap for Joe Biden, Robert Gibbs After Flu Flub

Friday, May 1st, 2009

obamabidenflu

Posted by Tom Gable

As covered in The Christian Science Monitor and elsewhere, Vice President Joe Biden “strayed way off message” on how to deal with the swine flu crisis during an appearance on The Today Show. He advised people not to go anywhere in confined spaces – airplanes and subways specifically.

The White House press office issued a news release in trying to clarify the remarks: “On the Today Show this morning the Vice President was asked what he would tell a family member who was considering air travel to Mexico this week. The advice he is giving family members is the same advice the Administration is giving to all Americans: that they should avoid unnecessary air travel to and from Mexico.”

However, Mexico was never mentioned in the TV appearance. This led to a great exchange in a Q&A session with Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary, who tried to keep the Mexico spin going. A savvy reporter read directly from what Biden had said.

“I understand what he said, and I’m telling you what he meant to say,” Gibbs said.

This will help him land in the next edition of “The stupidest Things Every Said by Politicians.”

One of my favorites from that book: “It’s not easy getting up there and saying nothing. It takes a lot of preparation.” – White House spokesman Barry Toiv during the Clinton Administration.

To that, let’s add a few from Dan Quayle so we have something from both sides of the aisle:

• “What a waste it is to lose one’s mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is.”
• “I love California. I practically grew up in Phoenix.”
• “I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the only regret I have is
that I didn’t study my Latin harder in school so I could converse with those
people.”
• “I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy. But that could change.”

Media and presentation training are a must for anyone in advance of a media interview or presentation where there could be Q&A. Think about the future headline or sound bite and prepare the three or four key points you want to make to get to that headline. Have supportive evidence lined up for each of the key points as well.

This approach creates a structure for organizing thoughts and keeping on message. With good copy and research in hand, average intelligence, tough rehearsal with skilled inquisitors, setting aside ego, listening to the trainers and committing to getting better, just about anyone can nail an interview. Thankfully for ongoing entertainment value, a steady parade of politicians, CEOs with egos as big as Mount Whitney, spokesmen for special interest groups and assorted gadflies seem to avoid training, don’t take it seriously or flunk it. Biden and Gibbs made great things happen in the first 100 days. Here’s hoping the trend continues.