Posts Tagged ‘politics’

Politics, PR and Promotion: When is it good for business?

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

Attention Companies

Attention Companies

Posted by Erin Koch

As a rule, most companies, from small storefront shops to multinational corporations, try to avoid the appearance that they favor one political viewpoint over another … and with good reason.  If I am a strong supporter of Candidate A, and I see a sign for Candidate B in the window of my regular dry cleaner, I might choose to have my shirts pressed elsewhere.  Likewise, if I am a supporter of progressive causes, but learn that the former CEO of a nationwide pizza company gave millions to conservative groups, I might order my pepperoni pie from a competitor.

So, most businesses remain (publicly, at least) neutral, rather than risk alienating half of their customer base.  Two well-known companies recently contradicted this apolitical strategy – with very different results.

Since it was sold to a major food company in 2000, ice cream maker Ben & Jerry’s has worked hard to maintain its image as a progressive, forward-, and free-thinking company.  Earlier this year, the company renamed one of its ice creams “Yes Pecan” to honor Barack Obama’s swearing in as President (a play on his campaign slogan “Yes We Can”.)  Then earlier this month, the company renamed its popular “Chubby Hubby” flavor “Hubby Hubby” to commemorate the fact that the state of Vermont legalized gay marriage.  (That new name will only be used in Vermont.)

While some may be annoyed at the ice cream maker’s partisan spin, I think their strategy is sound.  Why?  Because it remains authentic to their brand and their core principles.  Their loyal and generally liberal customers will probably love it.  And they’ll get lots of media attention, which means more mindshare and the potential for more customers.  (My favorite flavor is chocolate fudge brownie and, come to think of it, I haven’t had any in quite a while!)

A contrary example comes from similarly progressive mainstay Whole Foods.  Company CEO John Mackey wrote an op ed that was published in The Wall Street Journal critical of President Obama’s health care plan.  The resulting reaction has included storefront protests as well as a growing “Boycott Whole Foods” group on Facebook (now approaching 34,000 members).  There has even been speculation in the financial media that the CEO was going rogue, and acting based on his personal beliefs rather than what is best for the company.

While I certainly agree with John Mackey’s right to self expression, I don’t think the critical op ed was a wise move from a reputation management perspective.  Given the company’s progressive and politically active customer base, voicing a personal opinion that likely runs contrary to what most of his core customers believe could have been strategically misguided, leading to long-term damage to the brand image.

In sum, taking a highly visible political stand is almost always risky, particularly if (as for most companies) “being political” is not part of your corporate reputation and image.  But if you do find your company thinking about making such a leap, look first:

  1. Who is in our customer base and what will they think of this?
  2. Does this align with our core values and principles?
  3. What are the short term risks and benefits?
  4. And what are the long term risks and benefits?

Photo credit: zoovroo

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Authentic PR, Brilliant Counsel, Client Service Results, Crisis PR, In the Beginning, Social Media | Comments Off

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?

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Brilliant Counsel, Client Service Results, Crisis PR, Social Media | Comments Off

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.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Brilliant Counsel, Client Service Results, Clutter Busting, Team Play | Comments Off

The AIG Hearing and News Coverage: Lessons in Crisis PR

Monday, April 13th, 2009
Two weeks ago, we asked PR professionals to weigh in on how well Edward Liddy, the CEO of AIG, did in his testimony before Congress on the controversy involving bonus payments to employees of AIG, which had suffered billions of dollars in losses and received bailout money from the U.S. Government. The survey also asked how respondents felt the media covered the CEO and his testimony and how they would rate media coverage of business in the United States in general.A link to the survey was sent to 287 individuals and 12 responded, or 4.2 %. Several of those responding sent personal emails that added more detail to their rankings. It was good to see pros with 15 to more than 30 years of experience taking the time to reply. They noted that breaking even or coming in just slightly tarnished versus trashed would be a great outcome in this type of media circus. These were good insights and reasonable expectations.

Bottom line: the CEO did a good job acknowledging the issues, but went downhill from there in terms of providing solutions, overcoming negative images of AIG and changing perceptions. Was it an impossible challenge? Imagine climbing out of a hole bigger than the Grand Canyon with extra baggage, into a storm and with hostile observers on the rim rolling rocks down the trails to knock you off your chosen path. Tough to train for, no matter how good your Crisis PR team.

Liddy did fare better than the automotive executives who were pilloried from all fronts for flying to the hearings in private jets and mostly looking and sounding alike. This was hardly central to the issue of saving the automotive industry but it provided great openings for critical sound bites from the media and also politicians hungry for media attention.

On AIG, respondents were very aware (91.7 %) and somewhat aware (8.3 %) of the issue. In rating the image of AIG before the testimony, 66.7 % rated it Very Negative, followed by Somewhat Negative (8.3 %) and Neutral (25 %). None rated it as Somewhat Positive or Positive.

On Liddy and his performance before Congress, the survey asked for ratings in eight categories:

  • Acknowledging issues: the rating average on a 1-to-5 scale was 4.0, his highest. Average, 16.7%; Above Average, 66.7%; Excellent, 16.7%
  • Identifying Problems: rating 3.25. Below Average, 25.0%; Average, 33.3%; Above Average, 33.3% Excellent, 8.3%.
  • Accepting Responsibility: 3.0. Poor, 8.3%; Below Average, 16.7%; Average, 50.0%; Above Average, 16.7%; Excellent, 8.3%.
  • Appearing Sincere: 3.5. Below Average, 8.3%; Average, 33.3%; Above Average, 58.3%.
  • Providing Reasonable Solutions: 2.83. Poor, 25.0%; Below Average, 8.3%; Average, 33.3%; Above Average, 25.0%; Excellent, 8.3%.
  • Answering Questions Under Fire: 3.67. Average, 50.0%; Above Average, 33.3%; Excellent, 16.7% (second highest).
  • Overcoming Negative Images of AIG: 2.5 (tied for lowest). Below Average, 58.3%; Average, 33.3%; Above Average, 8.3%.
  • Changing Perceptions: 2.5 (tied for lowest). Poor, 16.7%; Below Average, 41.7%; Average, 16.7%; Above Average, 25.0%.
  • After the Session and in Seeing News Coverage, How Did Your Opinion Change: 0.0, Much Better; 16.7%, Slightly Better; 66.7%, No Change; 8.3%, Slightly Worse; 8.3%, Much Worse.
  • In Reviewing Follow-Up Coverage, How Did You Feel the Media Treated the AIG CEO and His Testimony: 8.3%, No Opinion; 25%, Unfairly; 16.7%, Somewhat Unfairly; 25%, Balanced; 16.7%, Somewhat Fairly; 8.3%, Fairly.

The opinions on fairness of the coverage skewed slightly to the negative side. The final question was a follow up:

In General, How Would You Rate Media Coverage of Business in the United States: Anti-Business, 33.3%; Somewhat Anti-Business, 41.7%; Balanced, 0.0%; Somewhat Pro-Business, 16.7%; Pro-Business, 8.3%.

How to operate in an environment where the media doesn’t like business and business thinks the media is biased? Results from this quick litmus test of perceptions are mirrored in many surveys with high confidence levels, including one from the Edelman Trust Barometer and another from the Media Research Center.

All of the above raises some thoughts for issues management in what could be no-win situations: analyze the situation from the media and other outside perspectives (political, regulatory, shareholder, consumer, environmental, etc.); prepare for the worst possible questions; run your answers by outside experts, colleagues and consultants (politicians float trial balloons before going public with their ideas); rehearse, rehearse. rehearse; acknowledge whatever problems that exist at the beginning; provide reasonable and logical solutions; speak in a human voice (no spin or corporate speak); counter hostile personal attacks with historical precedents, facts and data, delivered confidently and non-emotionally; when faced with outrageous statements and material taken out of context, use a little ju-jitsu to ask for the source of the data and information; do a short closing statement with a thank you and visionary statement for moving forward; do a post-event media briefing; provide your facts and materials immediately through every means possible (email, newswires, Web site, blogs, social media); follow up directly with all media, particularly the most critical; analyze the results; and get ready for the next round.

Posted by Tom Gable

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Brilliant Counsel, Client Service Results, Crisis PR, Hype Free PR, Team Play | Comments Off