my 2 cents

"Get me on Oprah"

Susan Young, writing at p.r. newsletter Ragan.com last week, lists ten things clients say that scare public relations people.   It's a good list with some client comments and requests that will seem all too familiar to many of us in the agency world.

I have a running joke with my contact at one of my clients, echoing the CEO's frequent request to get him on Oprah.  And what do you think is the #1 item on Susan's list?  Yes, it is "I want to be on Oprah."

Few media personalities seem to have the clout with the public that Oprah has.  Years ago, a p.r. person would have been lamenting the phrase "Get me on Carson," referring to late-night king Johnny Carson's Tonight Show.  These days, though, the late-night audience is split into small pieces between Letterman, Conan, Nightline, Seinfeld reruns, quality first-run shows on cable and what are probably the vast majority who are online, texting or tweeting.

Yes, it's a very different media world today.  But it doesn't stop clients from making outlandish or unrealistic demands.

Beyond "Get me on Oprah," here are a few I've heard...

*  Let's make a video that will go viral on YouTube

*  Put me on Twitter (or Facebook) and get me as many followers (or friends) as Ashton Kutcher

*  Get me on the cover of (fill in the blank -- any major magazine will do)

*  Lie about the numbers.  No one will know.

Part of an agency person's job is managing expectations.  There's a lot we can do, especially in this fast-changing media marketplace.  But there are still some things we simply can't accomplish, and some we simply shouldn't even try to do because they're not ethical. 

Setting the level of expectations at a realistic and honest level is an important part of client relations and if it's done as soon as the first offbeat request is made, chances are you will be a lot happier.  Maybe not as rich, because some clients don't want to be told no and they'll fire you.  But in the long run, you'll survive and -- most important of all -- you'll be able to look at yourself in the mirror.

Tiger & Me

I just heard that Tiger's latest count is now at 15. I don't know if they all can be called affairs.  Maybe dalliances is a better word.

Whatever!

We're breaking news here at my 2 cents.  I am now admitting that I slept with Tiger too.

Want more details?  Calls will be accepted from the National Enquirer and TMZ.  Just be sure to call with checkbooks open and ready.

Note to Tiger's management:  Hush money will be accepted.  Call with an offer before the media gets to me.

FTC catches up with social media

Beginning December 1, bloggers and twitterers can be liable for hefty fines if they promote products and services for pay without disclosing that they have a financial arrangement with an advertiser.

For the first time since 1980, the Federal Trade Commission has updated its rules on endorsements and testimonials in advertising.  The new rules now specifically require bloggers and twitterers to clearly disclose any "material connection" to an advertiser, which includes payments for ads or promotional copy, or also for free gifts given in exchange.

Fines can be up to $11,000 for each violation.

For most bloggers I know, these new rules won't be a problem.  They already make it clear if they've received a free product or book for review.  Even Joe Jaffe, who stirred up people a few years ago when he over-hyped his free digital camera, made it perfectly clear he had been given a demo camera.  Readers were then free to make their own judgment about the impartiality of his blog posts.

The real problem seems to stem from a few segments of the blogosphere where outright greed and deception seem to run rampant.  Mommy bloggers (not all, of course) have been big abusers, with some so greedy that they've made it clear their policy is "no pay, no play."  Want to get written up in a popular mommy blog? No problem, as long as you send a nice payment or a major appliance or a trip to Disneyworld.  No freebie?  No coverage.

There's also been some abuse in the health area, where some bloggers recommend remedies only because they've been paid to do so.  Consumers have a right to know that the blogger may have been influenced by payment, which is what the new FTC rules are about.

It's probably abuses in these areas that brought the FTC's scrutiny.  For those who've been deceptive and greedy, their blogging practices will have to change.  It'll be hard to fly under the radar, since the FTC will probably be looking for a few cases they can use as high-profile examples.

It should be interesting to watch over the next several months.  For most of us, though, it's business as usual.

Rules of Thumb

A book review...

A few months ago, Alan Webber, co-founder of Fast Company Magazine, sent a copy of his new book "Rules of Thumb."  Since I read and enjoy the magazine, I agreed to give Webber's book a try.

I finally got around to reading it on a recent business trip and then on the beach on vacation.  It's an easy read.  Alan is a good storyteller.  Stories, well-told, insightful and thought-provoking, are what fills this book and make it enjoyable.

Sub-titled "52 Truths for Winning in Business Without Losing Yourself," the book is collection of brief stories and anecdotes that illustrate 52 rules -- one for each week of the year.  Webber says he spent several years jotting down insights and "rules" on index cards and finally culled them down to 52.

.............................................................................
        A random sampling of the 52 Rules:
            Rule #13: Learn to take "no" as a question.
            Rule #22: Learn to see the world through the eyes of your customer.
            Rule #23: Keep two lists -- What keeps you up at night, and what gets you up in
                            the morning?
            Rule #32: Content isn't king.  Context is king.
            Rule #36: Managing your emotional flow is more important than managing your
                            cashflow.
            Rule #51: Take your work seruiously. Yourself, not so much.
............................................................................           
 
What I like about this book is that it's not a "win at any cost" type of text.  It doesn't present hard & fast things you must do in order to succeed.  Instead, it's a delightful and interesting group of stories that illustrate Webber's points.  It includes real-life examples of how kindness, consideration and empathy, combined with the more traditional "success" attributes like persistance, motivation, innovation, etc. can make you a good manager, leader and a success in business.

What's key, Webber shows, is how important it is to stay true to yourself and your core values.  It's not necessarily about having the most money or the biggest company.  It's more about making a living, yes, but also meeting challenges, attaining goals and, along the way, having fun and doing good.

I won't go into details of the 52 rules here, since I won't do them justice in a few sentences.  I'll just say, it's worth a read.  You'll see for yourself.

"Rules of Thumb" by Alan M. Webber
2009, Harper Collins.  $24.99 US  ($16.49 on Amazon)

Taming the Wild West

Sometime this summer, according to trade press reports, there's a good chance the Federal Trade Commission will extend its rules concerning use of testimonials and endorsements in advertising.  The change will have a direct impact on the blogosphere, which so far has been totally unregulated.

Blogger friend Scott Monty, manager of global digital communications at Ford, likens this space to the lawlessness of the old West.  In the Ragan public relations newsletter, he says, "Since blogging is relatively new and because there's no editorial insight, it can seem like the Wild West, absent any guiding principles."

Since there's been no oversight, some companies look to pay or otherwise compensate bloggers to write positively about their products.  In parts of the blogosphere, especially in the so-called mommy blogs, the combination of greed on the part of some bloggers and exploitation by marketers has gotten out of hand, to the point the FTC has been taking a closer look.

Stephanie Azzarone, who does p.r. for the toy industry, writes in MediaPost about how some of the mommy bloggers have become spoiled by all the freebies.  "What was once a $20 freebie toy," she writes, "is now an appliance, an automobile on loan, an all-expenses paid trip to Disney World. Some will turn up their noses at anything less.  Others will only comment on companies if paid to do so."

I remember a major uproar online about two years ago, when Nikon offered expensive cameras to a hundred or so "influential" bloggers.  Some who wrote about the camera and displayed photos they'd taken were open about the relationship with Nikon.  Others weren't, and got soundly criticized.  Much of the criticism seemed to come from within the marketing part of the blogosphere, where many talk passionately about authenticity and ethics.

For most bloggers, the new FTC guidelines shouldn't make much of a difference, although if you do include endorsements or reviews on your blog, it'll be your responsibility to be aware of the rules.  For most of us, it will simply mean continuing to be honest and open, disclosing when we've accepted a freebie or a sample that we're writing about.

For marketers who reach out to bloggers, it will be mandatory that they know the rules.  Honesty and disclosure are crucial from this end too.  You'll get best results if you allow bloggers to remain authentic and use their own words rather than pushing for them to be blatant shills for you.

Keep an eye on what bloggers are saying about your product and if you see something that's false or an overstatement, talk to that blogger and try to have it corrected.

Above all, avoid being sneaky in your dealings with bloggers.  Chances are you'll be found out and both you and the offending blogger will be called out in an embarrassing way.

As with life in general, honesty, clarity and integrity are the best guidelines.

It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out as today's Wild West starts to get tamed.

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.

 

They've got to be kidding!

Check this out, as reported by Advertising Age online...

Michael Vick in Talks
to Become PETA Spokesman

Jailed NFL Superstar Looks to Rehab Image After Dog-Fighting Rap

May 1, 2009 
NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Disgraced one-time NFL superstar Michael Vick, who is serving prison time for funding an illegal dog-fighting ring, is primed to do public-service ads for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals upon his release later this month. According to three people with knowledge of the matter, the proposed endorsement is part of a comprehensive PR scheme aimed at rehabilitating the quarterback's image and gaining him re-admission to the league that banned him from playing.

Of course, this makes sense for Vick to do, but what in the world is PETA thinking?

If Vick hadn't been convicted and hadn't been banned from the NFL, would he still be looking to do a public service campaign on this issue?

Get real!

.

Update: May 6th --  Advertising Age has an online poll asking if Michael Vick can be a credible spokesperson against animal cruelty.  So far, the response is 87 percent saying NO; 13 percent saying Yes.

"The Times" could use some common sense

It's very disheartening to see The New York Times Company pull the same disgusting stunt that the company's flagship paper, in its editorials and op ed columns, has criticized other companies for doing.

As revenues are declining, as the company is threatening to shut down one of New England's most important news outlets -- The Boston Globe, as staff has been cut across the board including in the newsroom, and as the company forced a mandatory 5% pay cut on its non-union employees, its President and CEO, Janet Robinson, accepted a 35% pay raise, hiking her annual salary from $4.1 million to $5.5 million.  Other top execs got similar raises, as reported by Paul Tharp in The New York Post Thursday.

Yes, Ms. Robinson has brought many innovations during her 5-year tenure at the helm of the company, and she was rewarded with the top job after a strong job running various components of the NY Times Company. 

And yes, the poor performance of The Times can't be totally laid at her feet.  Newspaper and media companies everywhere are having a horrendous time, although in some cases (possibly including The Times -- I'm not sure), those media companies are struggling even more in this downturn because they took on excessively heavy debt to finance acquisitions.

So, as Ms. Robinson gets a pay raise of $1.5 million, other jobs are being cut, unions are being asked to make concessions, and other workers have to pull in their belts because they've just been handed a 5% pay cut, regardless of whether they've been doing a good job.

Meanwhile, from The New York Times Company's own website:
Apr. 21, 2009-- The New York Times Company announced today a first-quarter 2009 operating loss of  $61.6 million compared with operating profit of $6.2 million in the first quarter of 2008.

The website also has a lengthy section called "Ethics in Journalism," which details the company's focus on journalistic integrity.  But what about "Ethics in Business"?

And what about the public relations impact of this obnoxious move?  Where were the company's p.r. execs to tell management, "Hey guys, let's rethink that raise at this point in time."  Let's face it, Ms. Robinson and others in top management can get increases in other less visible ways, with various perks.  But an out-and-out increase that could have instead kept a dozen or more people on the job or saved $1.5 million from operating expenses is just a bad p.r. move and bad from so many other angles.

I am very disappointed in The New York Times.

.

To gift or not to gift?

How do journalists feel about taking gifts and freebies from public relations people?

The p.r. newsletter Bulldog Reporter recently reported the results of a survey of journalists on the subject.  Most frown on gifts from public relations people and say it would have no bearing on whether they do a story on that p.r. person's client.

That marks a nearly 180-degree turnaround from what I used to see way back when I began in this business some 35 years ago.  Those were the days of taking editors to lunch, which often involved a pricey restaurant and a number of alcoholic drinks.  Rarely, if ever, did the journalist offer to split the check.  It was pretty much expected.

On rare occasions, we might give a reporter tickets to a game or a show, but nothing was ever expected in return.  The best we could hope for was at least having access to the reporter when we wanted to discuss a story idea.

Product samples could sometimes be a tricky area.  In some cases, it was a no-brainer.  No big deal to give a fashion or accessories reporter a few pairs of $1.39 L'eggs pantyhose. If she liked the way they looked and felt, she might include them in a photo shoot.

Some editors years ago were not embarrassed to ask for more samples.  For an inexpensive item like pantyhose or Jeno's frozen pizza, I usually complied.

But what about when the product is a $40,000+ Jaguar car.  (This was back in the mid-1980s.)  Jaguar, like all the auto companies, had a press fleet so they could loan cars to writers for test drives, in hopes they'd enjoy the ride and write a positive story.  Writers would get a press car for a few days, a weekend or sometimes several days.  There were a few who tried to take advantage.  One senior editor from Forbes (long retired) used to ask for cars almost monthly.  If we had an extra car available, we'd usually let him take it even though we knew he was taking us.

Some editors, especially at the women's magazines, seemed to look at public relations people as Santa Claus.  The cosmetics companies used to lay it on really thick with loads of samples, in elaborate packages that themselves were nice gifts.  But it made some editors behave like pigs. 

I remember loaning an expensive custom-made item for a photo shoot, with the clear understanding the item was to be returned after the shoot.  The editor, also long retired (from Woman's Day), told me the item had been lost.  I wasn't thrilled, but what could I do?  Months later, I was visiting her office to discuss her needs for another photo shoot and I saw the "missing" item on her window sill.  I walked over and looked at it, as the editor sat there clearly flustered.  But I didn't say a word about it.  And I didn't loan her anything of real value ever again.

Today it's very different... for the better, in my opinion.  Many media now have clear policies about accepting anything.  If it's returnable, editors generally have to give it back after they've tested it or photographed it.  Some media people can't even take a meal from a p.r. person.  If you have breakfast or lunch with a New York Times reporter, he or she won't let you even pay for their cup of coffee.

One exception I see is in the beauty field.  Many p.r. people who represent beauty products still are lavish with their product samples and ridiculously extravagant packaging.  And most of it goes to waste.  And it makes no difference in the type of coverage the editor gives.  All it really does is add to the waste stream and jack up the invoices the p.r. agency sends to its beauty client.

One journalist who was quoted in the Bulldog Reporter story put it nicely.  Excessive packaging and gifts "are pointless, let alone unethical.  Just give us the information we need to get our stories in.  We're journalists, not whores."

Yes.  Listen up, my fellow p.r. people.

   

Other Voices: Realistic Expectations

We give this space over periodically to marketers who are not bloggers, in order to bring other voices into the mix and possibly encourage the guest writers to participate in the blogosphere.

Today's post is from Alan Hirsch, my former partner in p.r. (and in crime) and also my mentor when I first began in the field.  Alan, the first two-time contributor to Other Voices, headed G+A Communications in New York until a few years ago when he retired -- or as he says, he's now "on the beach."

Realistic Expectations

You probably know Lou Holtz as a popular college football analyst, which he is, but he is also a great philosopher with a thousand stories to tell.  Today I'm sharing something Lou Holtz taught me in 1980, when he gave our group a speech which I've never forgotten.

At that time, Holtz was the football coach at the University of Arkansas, where in seven years he compiled a good 60-21-2 record while maintaining his coaching and teaching standards.  Holtz told us that if we wanted to be in a position to sell things to people, we had to live up to certain standards.

He said he always tried to live up to those standards so he could sell his plans and ideas as a coach.  It is simple, he said, and if we do what he tells us, we will succeed.

This is what Lou Holtz told us:

There are only three questions people ask of you, even though they don't verbalize the questions to themselves.  If someone can answer "yes" to them all, then they can succeed.

Holtz' three questions...

1.  Can I trust you?

2.  Do you know what you are talking about?

3.  Do you care about me personally?

One "no" answer to any of the above and you will most likely fail.

In past years, I've used those questions over and over to protect against disappointment.  It has worked.

I once had a supervisor who fired a guy for no reason other than to placate a stupid client who had complained to my supervisor about him.  The guy who got fired had been doing the right thing, spending most of his time with the media as he was supposed to at the opening of a luxury hotel, since his assignment was media relations.  But the client had wanted the guy to spend more time attending to him.  Had he done that, of course, he wouldn't have done his media relations job well. 

But the client complained to my supervisor and the guy was fired when he got back to New York.  I was appointed as the replacement.

When I got the new assignment, I asked the supervisor why he hadn't stuck up for the guy.  "You should have told the client that the guy was doing his job and it would be wrong to fire him, but you didn't," I told my supervisor.  "That means you won't stick up for me, even when I deserve to be supported."

"You got that right, Alan," my boss told me.  

I worked on that account under that supervisor for 20 years, but that supervisor could never disappoint me.  I always knew he didn't care about me personally. 

-- Alan Hirsch