TheGutes

This past week, the world was shocked to find out that one of the entertainment world’s most popular and sexiest woman, Angelina Jolie, had undergone a double mastectomy. When people think of Angelina, they can’t help but think of her “killer body” but also, they think of a woman who has made it a point to do good in this world and use her celebrity status to do that. Angelina did something a lot of celebrities choose to do in a world where one tweet can lead to a full blown scandal if not perceived correctly by the general public – she got in front of the message.

Angelina chose to write an op-ed in the New York Times, on “My Medical Choice” to own the story and control her message, rather than having the media control the message for her. Often times when a celebrity gets in front of something, such as a scandal or big public announcement, it is easier to control the message they want to get out there. Rather than having some hospital worker leak a story and have it on the front page of Star Magazine, she chose to bravely tell her story and get the message out there that she is strong, in better health, and is telling story directly, rather than have someone else speculate on the facts.

In PR, whether dealing with a person or a business, it is important for PR professionals to advise clients on the best way to control the media message. Angelina’s PR team clearly went the right route by putting Angelina “front and center” to own her decision and spin it in a way that’s positive and inspiring to others.

Angelina’s PR team also did the right thing by putting her in a light that made her seem like every other woman. They made her more relatable than she’s ever been.  The general public has a tendency to view celebrities as “superhuman,” so Angelina’s decision to publicize her story in a personal way made her struggle the same as any woman in Minnesota, or Alabama, or New York. She became a voice for all women struggling to make the same decision and she used her celebrity stature to not only control what the media would say, but to also use her voice to help others.

Angelina’s message was simple; this happened to me, I am strong, and I am going to use my voice to tell other woman in similar situations that there are other options. Her words struck a chord with many breast cancer survivors and victims and definitely brought a bigger conversation to light as women can see this is a viable option if you are someone who carries that gene.

At Gutenberg, we are proud to represent HERS Breast Cancer Foundation, an organization aimed at supporting all women healing from breast cancer by providing post-surgical products and services regardless of financial status.

We have had the pleasure of working with women who are survivors of this disease and who work tirelessly to promote awareness and help women in need of treatment or care options. We all owe a great gratitude to Angelina for not only bringing the conversation to the forefront, but also for controlling the message and letting people know that her struggle is one of many and that it does get better.

While as a PR firm, we remain bi-partisan and impartial to parties and candidates, there are some real media lessons to take away from Wednesday’s Presidential Debate.

Both candidates have made their fair share of blunders in the campaign, but this week brought some new fodder for the American media.

Mitt Romney told the audience (and it was a sizeable audience) that he would cut funding for PBS and in particular, he called out Big Bird, or, as Snuffleupagas, his imaginary friend calls him, just: Bird.)

Romney’s pledge to cut a government subsidy to PBS, the public television network that has aired Sesame Street since 1970, combined with a throwaway reference to the show’s beloved Big Bird, inadvertently produced a top-trending hashtag, dozens of fake Twitter accounts, and the internet’s new favorite meme.

Here’s what Romney actually said:

“I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. [...] I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you [moderator and PBS employee Jim Lehrer] too. But I’m not going to [...] keep on spending money on things, to borrow money from China to pay for it.”

Within minutes of his remarks, #BigBird was one of the fastest rising trends on Twitter. According to the Associated Press, at one point the site registered 17,000 tweets per minute mentioning our fine feathered friend.

The lesson is: In today’s hyper digital environment, it’s critical to consider how your remarks will play out on the broader stage.  What you say will be interpreted by more than just the people in the room, or by the traditional media covering it.  Sound bites, ideas, images take on a life of their own when tweeted, re-tweeted, posted to Facebook, blogged about, and so on.

One thing is clear – if you want to keep something from going viral, go easy on Big Bird.

Many outlets covering the passing of astronaut Neil Armstrong have noted that he was actually misquoted in his first words from the lunar landing: “That’s one small step for ‘man’, one giant leap for mankind.” Armstrong himself maintained that he actually said …one small step for ‘a man’, rather than just ‘man.’  But why does it matter? And what does it have to do with public relations?

The ‘a’ changes everything, in that it denotes a step for a man, rather than ‘man’, which would be the same as mankind.   We probably never really thought of it that way, but it’s a big difference.

We always counsel our spokespeople to communicate in pithy, quotable phrases, that are both succinct and memorable.   Oftentimes, we anticipate interview questions and how to answer them. Neil Armstrong was a great American. In the end, the fact that his ‘a’ was inaudible on the tapes never hurt his legacy, because the message he delivered was powerful, memorable and quotable, and will survive in the history books forever.

Had Armstrong told people, “Oh, that’s not what I expected,” as he took his first steps, or “Wow, this is strange,” he likely would not be as enduring a figure as he is now.    At least I doubt that the President would be ordering flags to be flown at half staff for his funeral.  So remember, if you want to make an impression, choose a phrase that captures the moment with some flair and drama. Neil Armstrong sure did.

Penn State has been digging itself out of one of the largest messes a university has ever found itself in, since the board of directors discovered that a cover up had been going on in the Sandusky child molestation case.

Although the University took decisive action and communicated effectively in some instances, it has been remarkably deficient and unwilling to put responsibility on the beloved former Head Coach of its Nittany Lions, Joe Paterno.

The recently released Freeh report once again brought JoePa into the spotlight and for all the wrong reasons.  It seems that Joe Paterno willfully dissuaded President Graham Spanier and athletic director Tim Curley from reporting Sandusky’s pedophilia to the authorities and they went along with the revered football Coach’s demands.

In light of the report, many people expected the University to remove the statue of JoePa from the Campus.

The University, however has resisted those calls, in blatant disrespect to the victims of Sandusky’s crimes.  No matter how many supporters Paterno has in the University and the Community, it has become glaringly obvious that the statue is now a monument to a man who helped cover up heinous crimes.

This morning, in another example of poor communication, Penn State contradicted reports that the statue would be taken down, insisting instead that no decision had been made.

When a crisis strikes, there needs to be a full plan to deal with the aftermath.  While it would be painful to take down the statue of a man who was so revered and created such a great football program, it would also send a message that the University was very, very wrong in the way that it handled this crisis, and that Paterno himself made very bad mistakes.  However, accepting responsibility for a situation is the first step in rebuilding a positive reputation.

Otherwise, the pressure will grow on the University until it buckles to public opinion that the statue must be removed and someone else will decide for Penn State what is right and wrong.   Handling a crisis requires a full understanding of the likely outcomes and a deep sense of what is morally right.  Paterno was so beloved for so long that it may seem like heresy to the board to remove his statue.   But it is the only way to break cleanly from the past.  Sooner or later, the statue will be gone.  The University has a short window of opportunity to accept responsibility for its role in this scandal, and start to act in a way that rebuilds trust and its improved its reputation over the long-term.

Brookfield Properties owner and former New York City Planning Commission Chairman John E. Zuccotti has a public park named after him in the Financial District of lower Manhattan where Trinity Place, Cedar Street, Broadway and Liberty Street converge. The site itself was formerly known as Liberty Park Plaza, one block south east (or thereabouts) of the World Trade Center. If you’ve ever had a day job in the Financial District, you’ll know what an important respite this Plaza, with its trees and seats, was (is) to a weary workers on lunch break. 

Zuccotti’s real estate, and the area surrounding it, has a place in history as defending private commercial interests. While the plaza itself has been used frequently in the 20^th century for public demonstrations and the staging of protests, back in the 17^th century the ground was part of the Dutch Colonial settlement “New Amsterdam”, an extension of the Dutch Republic. The settlement was just outside of Fort Amsterdam (which protected the interest of the Dutch East India Company’s fur trade operations on the Hudson River) and strategically situated on the southern tip of Manhattan Island. This region, including the settlement and the Fort which was the Colony’s capital, eventually became known as New York City.  In recent history, as the Towers fell, Liberty Park Plaza was covered with debris and in the aftermath was used as a staging area for recovery efforts.

Over the past few weeks the park has again taken a place on center stage as it’s been a staging area for the OWS movement. On a recent visit to the Occupy Wall Street encampment, I was particularly struck at how impressively the OWS drum battery was staged in the Plaza. They sounded terrific and beat a call for all the tourists and onlookers who walked by in curiosity, disgust, wonder, ignorance and encouragement. 

After throngs of spectators trampled through the Park’s maze over this past weekend of assemblage, protests and camping, the Plaza was yet again strewn with debris – trash – which has since been cleared – along with the Protesters. It was empty and clean this morning and glam shots of pristine Zuccotti Park evoked the Liberty Park Plaza of yore, New York’s Financial District in all its glory where the Towers once stood strong and Liberty could be felt.  Although I’m not sure why this Park was ever dubbed “Liberty”, maybe for Liberty Street?   

Why did Mr. Zuccotti and his team at Brookfield Properties insist on a name change from Liberty Park Plaza and will he want to go down in history for his role as OWS’s landlord, tolerant of their presence yet pushing for their removal by enforcement? Will the name Zuccotti Park forever be tainted with images and stories about the health, legal, and safety threats the authorities said this particular OWS camp posed to the public at large?  This rather than the cause that actually inspired the Occupy Wall Street movement and other camps to subsequently form in cities across the U.S. in national protest?   

So far, the news media has focused on the logistics of the Camp, the occupation itself, the costs to taxpayers, law enforcement and the legal and removal strategies of the City authorities. Now that the occupation’s over, I’d like to see more stories about the core message in the protest and the rallying cry against the financial establishment, for it was strong and passionate enough to inspire similar “Occupy” protests throughout the nation. I’d like to see Mr. Zuccotti, for whom the Park is named, going head to head in a nightly news roundtable discussion with an OWS operations official. 

How did Mr. Zuccotti get private money to renovate the Park after 9/11?  What were the goals of the renovation and how was Zuccotti Park designed to function as public space? 

This was an $8M renovation by a prestigious firm which installed trees, granite sidewalks, tables and seating as well as in-ground lighting.  It seems like as good a place as any for an urban camp. While the granite is hard as a sleeping surface, it’s great for outdoor cooking and the tables are conducive to networking discussions, training, interviews, chess, dining and computing – all things that make for a successful protest.

The Occupiers will find it hard to be removed but they might be more comfortable if they can go home to a good night’s sleep and a meal and prepare properly for the days and nights of protesting ahead.  Or is the movement made stronger by the camp itself and the community it fostered among its inhabitants? Camps are powerful structures when it comes to group cohesion, defense, protection and taking a stand.

I’m following updates and Tweets on these developments from the New York Times City Room and WNYC news among others. These seem to indicate that the City and Brookfield say that while the Camp must go (and has) the protests may continue.  Now that camp’s over, perhaps the news media will no longer focus on camp logistics and we’ll get to the meat of the story with investigations now turning towards the reasons for the protest and what, if any, are the key messages behind Occupy Wall Street.

Rosanna Fiske, Chair of the PRSA, just issued a statement around Rupert Murdoch’s response to the growing crisis surrounding News Corporation, criticizing News Corp.’s CEO for trying to protect his closest lieutenants as more and more revelations surfaced of wrongdoing. The July 4 revelation that reporters working for the News of the World had in 2002 deleted messages from the voicemail of missing schoolgirl, Milly Dowler, turned the phone-hacking saga from something that interested a few lawmakers to a national scandal in the U.K.  Over the weekend, as News International CEO Rebekah Brooks was arrested and brought in for questioning, the fallout from the scandal seemed to mushroom exponentially.

Wrote Fiske:

“In unsuccessfully trying to save the careers of some of his top lieutenants, including former News International CEO Rebekah Brooks, Murdoch is damaging the reputation of all his media properties.” 

And indeed, according to any accepted doctrine of crisis communications, Murdoch’s approach is dead wrong.  News Corp. needs to find out exactly where the wrongdoing occurred, communicate that openly and transparently to the public, and root out and expel those responsible for the egregious practices. 

News Corp. competitor Bloomberg’s BusinessWeek itself has a huge cover story this week devoted to the culture that gave rise to such practices and an inside look at Rupert Murdoch himself.   Yet, crisis communications does not come innately to many businesspeople, particularly when it comes to those that are close to them. Brooks, according to BusinessWeek, was like a daughter to Murdoch.  Losing her from his company was a very deep wound.  And a crisis like this, by its very nature, comes up on a company with little warning. The potential impact at its outset can be difficult to gauge.  After all, these allegations against the News of the World had been around since 2007.  How was Murdoch to know that the phone hacking would mushroom into an issue capable of costing him his empire?   In fact, argue the Bloomberg BusinessWeek reporters, the very culture of News Corp. was to obfuscate and challenge whenever allegations like this were made.

The answer is that someone near Murdoch needed to make it clear to him that the very serious allegations which first surfaced in 2007 were true, and the potential outcome could be disastrous for News Corp.   Unfortunately, it may be too late to save Rupert Murdoch’s empire, even for those diligently counseling him now.  Three days ago, Murdoch visited Milly Dowling’s parents to apologize for the egregious behavior of News of the World.   But it may be too little too late.  Murdoch may or may not lose his iron grip on News Corporation, but the costs to his reputation have been steep and a break-up seems a very real possibility. 

The newspapering business is a tough one.  It seems that the very aggressive tabloid culture that sold so many newspapers and created shareholder value, has now come back to haunt Murdoch.  Let’s see how he responds to the issues ahead.

It looks like the Pittsburgh Steelers are repeat offenders.  James Harrison and LaMarr Woodley sure know how to put their feet in their mouths when it comes to tweeting: Harrison called his boss an idiot for the new Pittsburgh Steelers Rule, and Woodley was non-apologetic for hitting too hard. Yes, hitting is part of the game, but as Kevin Allen of Ragan’s PR Daily says: “With the NFL going through PR hell right now, with its plague of severe head injuries and the current lockout, tweets like this are the last thing it needs.” It seems as if these players forgot that they are not only the faces of the Steelers, but they are also the faces of the NFL as well. What they say and do impacts the organization.

In my previous post, I talked about the BronxZoosCobra tweeter and how he or she successfully turned a crisis into an opportunity. The comedic tone made the BronxZoosCobra’s tweets successful. But in certain instances, humor does not work and should not be used. The tone of the situation must match the tone of the tweets. A misguided use of “humor” can cause a crisis of its own.

For example, Gilbert Gottfried, a famous comedian most recently known as the voice behind the duck of Aflac is now recognized for making a very famous mistake. He tweeted jokes about Japan’s tsunami during the midst of the crisis, stating “Japan is really advanced. They don’t go to the beach. The beach comes to them” as well as another tweet that is just too appalling to rewrite.  Making fun of people while they are in distress isn’t nice, and it’s bad business sense. His tweets were offensive to many and as a result, he was fired from Aflac.

Another example is Kenneth Cole; his tweets on the situation in Egypt damaged his company’s reputation which was known for its professional appeal.

These attempts of humor on Twitter have caused damage to these individuals’ reputations. They may have also caused damage to the companies’ brands, but that’s something only time will tell.

When you represent an organization, you need to monitor what you say and do at all times. With social media there is no separation between company and personal time. As PR Professionals, it is our responsibility to remind our clients that everything they say, write and do is under the scrutiny of the organizations’ constituents, especially if they are the face of the company, a spokesperson or a famous football player.

With the expansion and increased use of social media PR Professionals need to provide counsel on both the corporate and private aspects of spokespeople lives. PR Professionals can work with their clients/organizations to protect their reputations by:

• Having integrated access to all public social media accounts (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, etc.)
• Monitoring conversations within social networks
• Consistently advising clients on what to and most importantly what NOT to say

PR Professionals need to have a say in everything that is publicly stated, for they are the guards of corporate reputations and can only remain to be so if they have full access to all communication channels.

In a Forbes Blog Post on Friday, (and I don’t blame Forbes, I credit the publication for having such great blog content)  the London Bureau Chief, picks on Burson-Marsteller for taking on  “unsavory clients” in the wake of the revelation that they are working on attacking privacy issues for Google.

This post left me scratching my head.  With so many similar articles out did it occur to anyone why PR firms often get hired? It is often BECAUSE their clients are in unsavory positions or they have thorny issues to tackle!!!  PR firms have been doing this kind of work since the industry was created. Only occasionally, when it’s a big (or in this case) two big high profile companies, does it become a big deal.

Burson, while it is now forced to backtrack and tell the world that this is against its ethical policies to not disclose their client, is hardly the first PR firm to have its own PR issues.   PR firms do this all the time.  When I worked at one of the world’s largest PR firms, we were booted out of the American Lung Association after a week when it was discovered that we were simultaneously representing a large tobacco manufacturer.    And Wal-Mart’s former PR firm Edelman was taken to task for having PR people pose as “bloggers” while spreading a great message of how wonderful the company was.

Amongst the “shocking” details revealed in the Forbes post is that Burson has a “reputation” for representing this kind of client.  The list included the Saudi government after 9/11, Romanian dictator Nicholae Ceausescu and the Argentinian junta after the disappearance of 35,000 civilians, amongst other things.   But this is why PR firms get hired. So they can represent these companies or governments’ best interests. 

No one would point the finger at a law firm that represented these clients, would they?  And if you looked at other large PR firms, they surely are representing clients with similar issues.   Why the finger pointing?   What is it about the media that just makes it so simple to muck rake for no reason? While it might not be 100% savory to think that companies attack other companies with widespread PR campaigns, you had better believe it happens all the time.  They just aren’t Google and Facebook, most of the time.

Nine years and seven months since I watched the World Trade Center towers fall from the edge of Bowling Green in Lower Manhattan, Osama Bin Laden was killed in a covert operation by the U.S. Military in Abbotabad Pakistan.

Then came the real murder. In the press.  Late on Sunday night, after leaking the news to the American media, President Barack Obama addressed the nation to give us the official version of how Bin Laden died.

It was a masterful example of perception management, the ultimate spin job. Obama gave us some facts about the mission – including a pat on the back for Pakistan (the country that the U.S. mistrusted so much it preferred to create a specially modified Black Hawk helicopter that could fly undetected by radar) for their help in catching our bad guy.

Here’s what we were told.  Bin Laden lived in a “million dollar mansion” (it cost $48,000 to buy six years ago). He was heavily armed (he wasn’t). He hid behind a female human shield (he didn’t). Never let facts get in the way of a good story.  

The White House’s account of the raid that killed Bin Laden has undergone so many iterations in the past week – a fact attributable, according to White House press secretary Jay Carney, to a “fog of war.”  It’s doubtful that a “fog of war” really accounts for the many inaccuracies and outright untruths reported on by the White House.

In a White House briefing, Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Expert John Brennan insisted that “If we had the opportunity to take Bin Laden alive, if he didn’t present any threat, the individuals involved were able and prepared to do that.”   And later, the White House told us that Bin Laden, while unarmed, acted in a “threatening manner.”  The White House had a lot of dancing to do, in order to ensure that the raid seemed not only legal, but ethical. 

In the end, reporters got annoyed at the backtracking, but the White House had a lot of room for forgiveness. They had after all, killed the man who had perpetrated the worst attack on U.S. soil ever.  Details that might have been a big problem if more had gone wrong, or the results had played out differently were largely overlooked.   That’s how the media works. 

Most people aren’t fond of snakes. But 238,395 tweeters love the New York City’s Bronx Zoo Cobra. The zoo temporarily lost one of its Egyptian cobras last week and an anonymous and extremely creative, astute person made the snake reappear on the popular social networking site, Twitter. The snake, which took on the name @BronxZoosCobra, was busy tweeting away its fictional NYC tour.

The snake’s hilarious updates won over fellow tweeters; so much that it garnered the attention of traditional media. This innovative idea has brought on great opportunity for the snake impersonator. The New York Times and TIME have already interviewed the person behind the snake.  And who knows what else is in store, maybe a TV interview or book deal? Or maybe even a job as a professional tweeter for the Bronx Zoo?

There is much we can learn from this impersonator. He or she was able to take a crisis and turn it into an opportunity. Clearly, all crises cannot be transcended into opportunities. One crisis does not fit all, which is why much care and forethought must be brought in when choosing to use a crisis for opportune purposes. An unsuccessful attempt, described in my colleague’s post, was made by Kenneth Cole earlier this year. In the case of Kenneth Cole, he was using the situation in Egypt to promote his spring collection. This is what put people off and turned the situation into a PR nightmare.

The crisis referenced and opportunity at hand has to align with the organization. Picking the wrong crisis can have monumental consequences that can negatively impact a corporate or individual’s reputation. PR Professionals need to first think of the business objective and see if the opportunity would help meet this end.

The BronxZoosCobra is a good case study to examine as it successfully exhibits turning a crisis into an opportunity.

When appropriate, you can also turn a crisis into an opportunity by:

• Keeping abreast of current events and understanding your industry- Constantly review the news, social media and newest trends. Some crises happen immediately and others happen over time. As a PR Professional, you should keep yourself aware of what’s going on. That way you will know when and how to react. The snake impersonation would have never worked if it was done after the snake was caught.
• Understanding the severity of the situation at hand- Different situations call for different things. Make sure what you do is appropriate and is right for your organization. Be sure that the tone is on point and represents the sensitivity of the situation. The BronxZoosCobra twitter account worked because the snake was only missing. If the snake had escaped and bit a child then this idea probably wouldn’t have been suitable.  If the crisis is severe it is best for a qualified organization to take on the role of a thought leader or advisor. During an overwhelming crisis organizations should use discretion and not engage in over self promotional activities.
• Being thoughtful – Know what will work for your industry and look for opportunities to be creative. Don’t self-aggrandize but ask what will catch people’s attention? What will make you, or what your organization has to say, stand out? Think of how to communicate in a way so that will resonate in peoples’ minds. Taking on an identity of a snake online is certainly a unique and memorable way of getting your voice heard.
• Targeting the right audience- Who are you trying to reach and why? What perspective or advice can you offer them and why would they be interested in it? What is the benefit to this audience? Once an appropriate audience has been identified, the PR Professional then has to understand where this audience gets their information. Is it traditional media: print, radio, or TV? Or is it social media: Twitter, Facebook or Linked-In? One of the fastest and easiest ways for the snake impersonator to get his or her voice heard was through social media. Twitter provided the medium to tell a funny relevant story as well as reach a broad audience.

So the next time a crisis arises, don’t only think of how to manage it but also think of how to leverage it. And pay attention! Look at your competition’s crises and see if you can use their messes to your advantage. Who knows, if done right you can end up being a local or national sensation.