my 2 cents

You've got to be kidding! NRA breaks silence after Newtown

I didn't see the news conference by NRA spoksespeson.  I'm basing this on what I've seen reported in the trade press so far.

But I just cannot believe the position taken by the NRA in its first public statement since the tragic Newtown shootings a week ago. 

According to one trade pub, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre “blamed violent video games and movies, the media, gun-free zones in schools and other factors,” the report says, adding that LaPierre “said that the students in Newtown might have been better protected had officials at Sandy Hook Elementary been armed.

In a statement probably designed to boost gun sales, he also said "putting a police officer in every single school in America might make schools safer.”  He added,  "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."  He didn't address the question of how did the bad guy get the gun in the first place?

I hate guns, but I do understand the basis of the Second Ammendment.  I don't think, however, the framers of the Constitution and the Ammendments were thinking of assault weapons and automatics with clips that hold multiple shells.  These firearms are designed to kill many people quickly.  Why would an ordinary citizen need such a weapon? 

The NRA, in its statement, seemed to be playing clearly to their most staunch constituents.  And totally off-putting to anyone else -- even someone who might be a moderate on the sensitive issue.

Instead of saying that guns are part of (even a very small part) of the problem, the NRA simply goes on the attack, placing blame everywhere but on guns, gun owners and matters of gun control.  The NRA places blame for gun violence on the media and even on gun-free zones near schools.  Say what!!  Gun-free zones near schools are the cause of mass shootings?!!

From a PR point of view, the NRA statement will backfire by rallying those already angered and frustrated by gun violence to take stronger action.  Instead of just scratching their heads and bemoaning the situation to friends, many more people -- spurred by the NRA's terrible PR positioning -- will become more active, pushing their Congressmen, backing politicians who are pro-gun control, and, if necessary, taking to the streets to keep the outrage going and the issue front and center on the nationbal agenda.

So, Mr. NRA CEO - nice going.  

By the way, you might take a closer look at whomever is advising you on PR matters.  They just helped you win a big one -- for the other side. 

The Launch of Crisis PR

Jack O'Dwyer, in his PR blog, reminds us that this is the 30th anniversary of the Tylenol poisoning scare.

For those readers under 50, this may not have much meaning.  Jack gives a good rundown of the scare, which grabbed the nation's headlines and dominated the news for weeks.  To sum it up briefly, several people died in the Chicago area after taking Tylenol that had been tainted with cyanide, evidently done intentionally.  Tylenol maker Johnson & Johnson, a trusted household name, found itself in the middle of a giant PR crisis.  Even before the company advised stores to clear the shelves of the product, stores themselves took the step.  Not that anyone would go out and purchase a bottle of Tylenol Extra-Strength at that time, as headlines screamed off the pages and TV news covered every aspect of the tainted product.

The episode led to some things we now take for granted.  Tamper-proof packaging is now the norm, and hardly anyone would now buy or use any medicine or food product whose packaging or seal has been compromised in any way.  

For the business community, the event marked the start of what we now call Crisis PR or Crisis Planning.  This is not to suggest that crisis planning never took place before the Tylenol scare, but it is now a fairly routine part of many organizations' thinking.  Companies whose products are sold to or used by the public often have crisis plans in place, in anticipation of any number of things that might occur.  Manufacturers often have plans in place should there be an accident at a plant, or an event that could endanger workers and the neighboring community.  Airlines, railroads, truck and freight lines have plans in place in case of a disaster.  Even fast-food chains have plans for handling situations ranging from food poisoning to mass shootings in one of their restaurants.

It's unfortunmate we have to think in these terms, but hey... stuff happens.

As PR people, it's part of our responsibility to assist with planning in the event of a crisis.  It means trying to anticipate all the crazy things that could happen, and having a basic plan in place for informing the people impacted -- employees, families of employees, neighbors, customers and vendors, shareholders, local officials and beyond, as appropriate, police and other safety agencies, and the list can go on and on and on.

Planning needs to have a well-defined chain of command -- with alternatives in the event key people are unreachable -- and with specific people tasked with the responsibility of handling communications with the media and the various publics involved.  Communications should strive to impart information as available and as confirmed as accurate, and not try to hide or cover things up.  Lying and covering-up may work for the moment, but it WILL be found out, adding even more damage to the organization's reputation.

Good planning and proper communications can be a major factyor in how quickly a company can regain the public's trust and their business.

Many of these things were not thought about before the Tylenol scare.  We've learned a lot in the past 30 years.

 

Jack O'Dwyer has other thoughts on the issue. 

 

 

 

“Absolutely, Positively Unacceptable”

 

That's what FedEx SVP of U.S. Express Operations Matthew Thornton III said in a response to the video that's gone wildly viral showing a FedEx delivery person tossing a package that looks like a computer or video screen over a fence into a customer's yard.

In a post yesterday on the official FedEx site, under the heading "Absolutely, Positively Unacceptable,”  Thornton said: “Along with many of you, we've seen the video showing one of our couriers carelessly and improperly delivering a package the other day.  As the leader of our pickup and delivery operations across America, I want you to know that I was upset, embarrassed, and very sorry for our customer’s poor experience. This goes directly against everything we have always taught our people and expect of them. It was just very disappointing.”

He adds, "While this delivery fell way short of those high standards, we are already using it as a learning opportunity. We’ve shared this video internally to remind everyone that every single package is important to you, our customers, and that actions like this are totally unacceptable. We are also going to build this into our training programs as a constant reminder of the importance of earning -- and keeping -- your trust with every single delivery.  We hope that you, like the customer involved in this incident, will see it as an unfortunate exception that proves the rule that our company cares for its customers.

The video has had more than 4-1/2 million views so far on YouTube and it's been the subject of countless stories on local and even network newscasts.

But FedEx seems to have a really bad situation under control, even as the video still gets more hits.  FedEx representatives identified the guilty delivery person and then met with the customer to apologize and replace whatever may have been damaged in the package.  Evidently, they did not call a news conference, but instead relied on fast corrective action and got the apology out quickly via social media.  What more could they have said in a news conference, after all, and what other questions and embarrassing situations might then have been brought up by reporters?

Most people realize their packages might get rough treatment not only by Fed Ex, but by UPS and, especially, by the U.S. Postal Service.  In one TV news report I saw, the damaging FedEx video was followed by a similar video showing a UPS delivery person tossing packages out of his truck and onto the ground.

The fact that FedEx made no excuses and agreed that this was simply unacceptable will go a long way in easing the problem and minimizing any long-term negative impact on the company. The company generally has a good reputation for professionalism, so I think most people will cut them a break with this unfortunate breach.  A quick look at the comments posted onthe FedEx blog show overwhelming understanding and support, and some comments even note experiences they've had where FedEx employees have gone above and beyond to serve their customers.

In my own experience over the years with FedEx, I've found their drivers to be courteous and professional.  And I still believe that when it "absolutely, positively has to be there overnight," FedEx is the way to go.

 

 

Chevron's "new" p.r. tool is hardly new, but it's legit

Advertising Age this week ran a story about a public relations offensive that Chevron has mounted in an effort to tell its side of the story in a legal battle the oil giant is having in Ecuador, where it faces a massive fine for damage it allegedly has done to  the rain forest there.  Actually, if you read the full story in yesterday's New York Times, the damage was reportedly done by Texaco, which Chevron bought a few years ago.  (So much for due diligence when making purchases, but that's another story.)

Back to the Ad Age report... Chevron hired a retired CNN reporter to be the face on a video report it created to tell its story, in response to a "60 Minutes" piece that was being prepared for airing.    Chevron was criticized for using a journalist in an attempt to make what some called a "phony" news report.  Some are saying it's a danger to real journalism, further blurring lines between real news and "paid" news.

I viewed the video, which runs about 13 minutes.  It has a "corporate video" feel to it.  And, according to the YouTube stats, it's only been viewed 4,400 times so far -- hardly a match for the eyeballs and impact of "60 Minutes."

When I tried to find it via Google, the Chevron video didn't show up, but a number of anti-Chevron videos did appear.

Ad Age asked several execs at large p.r. agencies what they thought about Chevron's video.  No one had a problem with it, as long as it makes clear that it is not a news report from a bonafide news organization.  Using a retired journalist for the story is not a problem, in my opinion, as long as it is clear that he or she is not "on the job" as a working journalist.  That means not doing anything to identify him with his past news organization.

This "new" p.r. tool is actually almost as old as the press release.  Companies long ago put out what were called "mat" mailings to newspapers, with camera-ready stories about a company's product or position on an issue.  In the 1960s, Mobil's p.r. chief Herbert Schmertz started buying a piece of the page opposite the editorial page in the New York Times, for what became the first OpEd ads.  I remember, in my early days on the job, producing audio and video news releases and B-roll to encourage or enhance broadcast coverage of clients' stories.  We tried to make the material in the broadcast style, so it would have the best chance of getting used.  But we fully expected stations using it to use their own voiceover or edit or add their own material, just as a good newspaper or magazine editor would do with a news release.

The difference is that organizations and their p.r. people now have access to the intended audience directly, via the web.  So was Chevron wrong to make a piece defending itself that's in the style that people are accustomed to getting it?

I'd say no, as long as it's clear the piece is from Chevron and not from a news organization or someone other than Chevron.

Just as with any product one buys, there's the caution caveat emptor.  For news consumers, caveat emptor is just as relevant.

 

Holding the bag?

The weekly Ad Age online poll, out Thursday, asks if American Airlines' move to charge for all checked luggage offers a marketing opportunity for rival airlines.

In asking the question, Ad Age says that the airline expected the $15/bag charge would be unwelcome news for travelers and had a detailed communications plan to try to get across key talking points that it hoped would justify the surcharge --  rising fuel prices, fuel conservation efforts and the ever-increasing cost of running a passenger airline.

Those carefully crafted talking points went virtually unheard in the consumer and media uproar after American made its announcement.

So does that open an opportunity for other airlines to jump in, proclaiming they don't charge extra for luggage so aren't they wonderful?

The airline industry overall suffers from a very poor image, which they've brought upon themselves by shoddy service, unreliable scheduling, long layovers at hubs as they've eliminated many direct flights, etc.  Even seemingly little things like charging three bucks for a bag of chips has caused so much irritation.

Air travel used to be fun and comfortable.  Now, it conjurs up long lines, cramped quarters, surly personnel, and a generally negative experience, capped off by high prices.

That's the image the airlines face.

Will travelers choose one carrier over another to save $15 or $30 dollars?  In many cases, the choice comes down to a combination of departure/arrival times, direct vs. connecting flights and the amount of layover time.  Price figures into the equation for many, but  a relatively small difference like $15 or $30 won't change too many minds.

I think the decision of which carrier to fly is still largely based on past experience and the overall impression of how much does this airline want my business.  Charging per piece of luggage seems like nickel-and-diming, but so does eliminating even a small snack on the flight.  The luggage surcharge is more of an attitudinal thing, and it seems to me that American's p.r. team totally underestimated how angry and disgusted the reaction would be.

That said, the public and the media have short attention spans and before you know it, the newscasters will be on to the next big story.  Once the hubbub dies down, American should  continue to tell its story of why it did what it did.  And at the same time, they should focus as much energy as they can on giving excellent service so many travelers will feel they're getting value -- even if it costs them a few dollars more.

And the reality probably is that even if rival carriers try to exploit the fact that they don't charge extra for bags, they'll have to be cutting back somewhere in order to save money and stay in business.  If those cuts impact the quality of service -- the total travel experience on that airline -- they'll lose customers anyway.

Trying to exploit  the surcharge seems, to me, like a very short-term tactic.

Any thoughts?  Or are you up in the air about it?

Sound bites can bite back

The sound bite:  It's something we in public relations and marketing strive for.  We train our clients how to speak in sound bites for the media, wrapping up our key messages neatly in a brief, punchy and self-contained two or three sentences.  Ready for prime time or the front page, we hope.

But there's a real potential risk with sound bites, when they get taken out of context.  It's something we've been witnessing these past few weeks as Barack Obama's campaign gets derailed by constant media replays of provocative sound bites from speeches by his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

But have the media made some mistakes by zeroing in on the sound bites without reporting on the context in which they were made?  There's a lesson for marketers and communicators here.


Read more about it at my post over at MarketingProfs Daily Fix.

Jet Blue's mea culpa. OK, now prove it!

No argument here that the recent meltdown at Jet Blue has hurt them.  I wouldn't be surprised to learn they've had lots of reservations cancelled by worried travelers, and no doubt new reservations have plummeted.  Certainly all the attention will tarnish their reputation.

But the good news is that people have short memories. What dominated today's headlines will be replaced tomorrow or next week by Anna Nicole or Britney, or by Hurricane Katrina or new craziness in Iraq or Washington.

The availability to the press of Jet Blue founder and CEO Dave Neeleman, coupled with the airline's plan to compensate inconvenienced passengers and the unveiling of a "passenger rights charter" are all steps in the right direction.  The company is taking control of the story and showing a positive response to a bad situation.

As we know, smart marketers can use their response to a screw-up as an effective way to win back customer confidence and even reel in new customers.  Jet Blue seems to be moving in the right direction.

The real test will be in deeds, rather than words.  Hopefully they'll never have such a bad week again.  But if and when they mess up again, they now have a written standard they'll have to live up to.  If they do, it will go a long way toward Jet Blue's winning back confidence and customers.

If they don't, it'll be just more empty corporate promises and a reputation more seriously -- perhaps this time irreparably -- damaged.   

Time will tell.