REICH COMMUNICATIONS

Trust ... A Precious Commodity

Those of us in the Public Relations business know that trust is something that is difficult to earn and easy to lose.  It's something that is built up over time, by being consistent and truthful.

This president has never attempted to earn the trust of the American people, right from his first day in office when he lied about the size of his inauguration crowd.  There were the photos right in front of us, yet he asked us to believe his words rather than our own eyes.

He's been doing this repeatedly for the past three years, despite videotape, photos and transcripts that we all can see that prove he's lied to us again and again and yet again.

So it comes as no surprise that, after nearly 27,000 documented lies and exaggerations since 2016, most of us put little stock in what he says.

Trust in our government and our leader in a time of crisis is essential, and these past few weeks as the coronavirus has overtaken our lives have been a very sad case history of how important trust – and truth -- is. 

Most Americans simply do not trust the president on matters of public health and COVID-19. 

We've turned instead to the major networks and major papers for accurate information and advice.  A new poll shows 53 percent of us beehive what we are seeing on network news (excluding FOX) as opposed to about 41 percent who trust what the president tells us. 

Instead, we listen to or governor's, mayor's and health experts like Dr. Fauci, who hasn't (yet) been corrupted or compromised by the president to lie to us about the seriousness of this health situation.

What a pathetic state of affairs where we can't believe the White House in a time of national crisis.

I love the headline in today's New York Times: "Saying He Long Saw Pandemic, Trump Rewrites History."

The story documents the statements he's made that minimize or mock the seriousness of this pandemic, going back to Jan. 22 when he said he wasn’t worried at all and said “it was one or two people coming in from China.”  Even two days ago, he said the pandemic would " wash away," whatever that means. 

And now he says he’s known it was a pandemic for a long time.  So he again lies to our faces, denying what we all have seen and heard with our own eyes and ears for the past few weeks.  He continues to chip away at whatever little trust might remain.

Oh, how nice it would be to again be able to believe what our president tells us.

Communications in a Crisis

 

The Coronavirus outbreak seems to be testing to the limits a number of aspects of our infrastructure, including government and the media.

The White House response has been abysmal and could serve as a future PR case history on how NOT to handle crisis communications.

The White House and the president have destroyed over the past three years any credibility they should have with the public by repeated lies, exaggerations and misguiding statements on things as trivial as inauguration crowd size to the path of a devastating hurricane.  

Because of that, just as many feared, when potentially lifesaving information is now needed, the public is not sure what to believe from the president’s mouth.  Because his statements flew in the face of what we’ve been seeing with our own eyes and what health experts have been saying, we believe him even less.     

He’s been telling us, first, that the whole health risk was a hoax and a plot by his enemies to take him down.  At the same time, health experts from within our government and outside it have been issuing specific warnings and pleading for specific actions.  Who are we likely to believe?   Someone who has consistently lied or someone who is an expert in the field with no political axe to grind?  

Once it became apparent they had to step up and take a real leadership role, which included admitting we have a crisis on our hands, the White House again botched it. The president’s Oval Office address Wednesday night was a disaster – from both a policy and a public relations point of view.

On the policy end, there was very little of substance and, to make matters worse, some of the substance stated was incorrect and had to be walked back soon after with “clarifications.”

On the public relations side, both the substance and the delivery were horrendous and further eroded whatever remains of the president’s and the administration’s credibility.   His claims that he has been at the forefront in avoiding this crisis boggles the mind, after hearing him minimize the virus for weeks.

The day after the Oval Office address, we were given a reminder of how a leader should speak to us – calmly and with a lot of specifics.  Joe Biden’s talk was what the nation craved – and the polar opposite of what our president had given us the night before.  Bernie Sanders jumped on the bandwagon two hours later, but his talk seemed like a campaign speech with its focus on healthcare for all.

In a press conference Friday as he declared a national emergency, he used the time to congratulate himself for his strong actions that prevented “thousands of deaths.”  He did outline some specifics, but when it came to numbers he simply said “many” or “a tremendous number” of testing kits will be shipped.  He reverted to his combative self when he cut off a reporter from NPR, telling her that her question was rude.  She had asked him why he had eliminated the emergency preparedness unit after he first took office.

None of his talk is reassuring. 

This is sure to go down as a classic case history that PR and communications people will study in the future as an example of what NOT to do.    

Bad Policy...Terrible PR

 

 

A bad policy regarding families seeking asylum from violence in Central America is being made even worse by the horrendous public relations efforts from the White House and from the president himself.

I can try to understand the thinking on both on sides of the issue. Those who have come here via legal means and are now citizens or legal aliens can feel frustrated that others now try to come in illegally to take their jobs by accepting lower pay.

But let's add a few kernels of accuracy... many of those trying to come here by are seeking asylum from horrendous and life-threatening conditions at home. And this great country has traditionally offered refuge for people fleeing violence or starvation. That's how many of our own grandparents and great-grandparents got here from elsewhere. Lady Liberty awaited them in the harbor, offering a light of peace and hope.

There's no statue to welcome refugees along our southern border, but rather the reputation of America as a land of immigrants, long welcomed to help us grow and be better.

The Administration's new get-tough policy has not worked. The number of people trying to come in from the south has actually increased noticeably since the policy was put into place in April.

The image of families being separated is not a good one for people around the world to see, where we have for centuries been the place that welcomed the "tired and the poor."

Worse yet is the image being played worldwide that we are now a nation torn apart, with our president turning it into a partisan fight by falsely placing the blame on the Democrats. Despite what he and Fox News say, this is 100% a White House policy and not, as he says, "the Dems' law."

Placing the blame, falsely, on Democrats is a cowardly and divisive PR strategy. It also avoids coming up with a humane solution. Using poor and helpless parents and children as leverage in a quest for billions for a needless wall is disgusting and flies in the face of principles that have made America great.  Instead of sitting down with both parties to come to a fast and fair solution, the president simply places blame where it doesn't belong and further divides us, even as families are ripped apart.

This is the sort of thing the U.S. has condemned other nations for doing, yet the president's response to a UN statement criticizing it is simply to threaten to withdraw from that UN committee.

Once again, the president is drastically harming our hard-earned reputation as a land of decent and compassionate people, as a beacon of right for other nations to look to as a model.

It's not too late, though. Fast and compassionate and non-partisan action can alleviate the immediate human crisis and put us back on a path on which we belong as a trusted and fair leading partner among the world's nations.

Opinion: Where is the leadership?

 

One of the most important roles an American president traditionally plays is that of healer-in-chief.  In the past, presidents consoled, offered words of sorrow and hope, and generally united us as we, as one nation, mourned and tried to make sense of senseless acts. 

A little more than 16 years ago, our president, who had won office with the most narrow of margins, united us as a nation, as we mourned and tried to process the unthinkable acts of terrorism in New York, Washington and a field in Pennsylvania.  He put politics aside in an attempt to bring us together as one country.

Our current president has once again failed in that role.  He responded inappropriately to the killing in Charlottesville and he did a half-assed job after the Las Vegas shooting.  His response to the natural disaster in Puerto Rico was a national embarrassment.

Now, after what is being called the biggest act of terrorism on U.S. soil since 9/11, the president has turned it into a political play.  His tweets placing blame on Sen. Schumer and the "diversity lottery" are not only misplaced and highly inappropriate, but they are factually incorrect.

Sen. Schumer's response to the crazy tweets was spot on.  "Mr. President, where is your leadership," he said.  It's a question more than a majority of Americans -- at least three million more and growing with every day and with every nasty tweet -- are asking.

Where is the leadership? 

Not in the White House these days, that's for sure.

Marketers' PR Dilemma ...Take a Knee?

 

 

The recent take-a-knee actions by many NFL players has taken center stage, thanks to divisive tweets and statements by the president.

While it's made for interesting TV and a diversion (perhaps intentionally by the White House) from Russian collusion, healthcare, tax reform and other important national discussions, it has also created a public relations problem for marketers whose audience and campaigns are connected with pro sports and its players. 

At issue here is the individual's right to free speech, which has been wrongly conflated by the tweeter-in-chief to incorporate respect for our flag and our military. 

Initially, before the president got involved, perhaps five or six players had spoken out and taken a knee as a way to protest what they felt has been unfair treatment of minorities by some police and some courts.  But once the president jumped into it in his usual brash and uninformed way, upwards of 200 players – in many cases, entire teams and their owners – showed support by taking a knee and/or locking arms during the national anthem, directly in protest of the provocative statements by the president.  At the same time, the athletes have made it clear that their actions in no way are intended to reflect disrespect for our flag or our troops, but rather are a way to call attention to an issue that impacts many of them, their families and communities. 

It has been the president's trash talk that has made it into a broader issue, dominating headlines and diverting attention from more important things.

Many of the president's supporters are following his uninformed (or intentionally divisive) rallying cry, echoing his calls for boycotts of the NFL and its advertisers.  Ironically, TV ratings for NFL games this past week have gone up.  And, historically, boycotts of advertisers don't have any lasting impact, if any at all.

Marketers who advertise on NFL broadcasts and/or have tie-ins and endorsements with NFL (and NBA) players face a dilemma.  Do they take a knee by supporting the players, or do they distance themselves by either doing nothing or directly criticizing the players?

My advice – Support the players’ right to express their views.  Good ads and thoughtful statements can keep the issue on topic, making clear it is NOT about disrespect for our flag and our troops.  In fact, marketers can use this as a time to put forth messages of unity that can be inspiring in these times of red and blue division, putting politics to the side and upholding basic American freedoms such as the right to speak out.

Let's see what happens this weekend as pro football returns to the field and the tube.

 

Poor Paula Deen... or maybe Bad Paula Deen

I wasn't going to bother to comment on yet another celebrity getting caught up in a media mess.

After seeing Paula Deen's interview with Matt Lauer on Today, I felt sorry for her.  But I also wondered if she is a clueless as she came off in the interview.  

(An aside, first, about Matt Lauer's interview.  He really seemed to wimp out, either because he likes Paula Deen or because he's trying to repair his own image, which has been hurt by his supposed treatment of his former co-anchor Ann Curry.  It was a strange interview.)

When I first heard about Deen's problem, I thought, well she's just being honest that she has used the N-word many years ago in a specific situation.  I don't know the details of the court case, so I don't know if a former ermployee is accusing her of racism or simply of abusive behavior as a boss.  And if, in fact, there is a proven history of real racism by Deen, then I'll just take back the rest of my comments here.

But from what little I've heard and seen, it looks like Deen got caught in situation and didn't handle it well.  And some media often seem to do what they can to make celebrities look bad and to take them down.  This sort of scandal makes for good gossip, which sells papers and gets people to tune in.  Her silence for a few days allowed the media feeding frenzy to take control and dictate the story.

I don't blame her various corporate partners and sponsors for walking away.  What company or brand wants to be associated with someone being labeled a racist?  It's bad for business.  I do think, though, that QVC handled it well by saying they were taking a hiatus, while leaving the door open possibly for a renewed relationship with Deen once she gets her issues resolved.  

It will be interesting to see how Deen's newly-hired PR advisor guides her through the mess.  And if she really is not a racist, honesty should be the best way to handle this, rather than spinning stories and trying to lay blame elsewhere.

 

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.