TheGutes

This month Gutenberg had the pleasure of supporting the US launch of The Cherie Blair Foundation’s Mentoring Women in Business Programme. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair opened the evening with remarks on his wife’s passionate support of women across the globe. His comments were followed by a panel moderated by ABC News anchor Christiane Amanpour with Melanne Verveer, US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, Nikesh Arora, Senior Vice-President, Google and Aeneas Chuma, UNDP Resident Representative, UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in Kenya.

In addition to the dignitaries, press and potential donors, other noteworthy guests were in attendance. Mentees from emerging countries in Africa, South Asia and the Middle East came to the event and lest anyone forget, it was really their story to be told that evening.

The Foundation’s mentoring platform is powered by Google. Mentees use Gchat, Gmail and Google docs to connect with their mentors in other countries and gain practical business advice. Given the different geographic locations and time zones these partnerships span, Google’s tools are a valuable and conveniently free resource. The program is unique for its focus on emerging markets and women that have already established businesses in their communities. The Foundation is empowering women with the drive to succeed simply by giving them the resources to do so.

Also interesting is the mentors themselves. It may be the effects of attending a women’s college, but I couldn’t help notice how many of the mentors were men. This was brought up later in the panel discussion and the question was met with brutal honesty. Why men? Because they generally have more resources and are more successful. While the event highlighted the needs of other countries, the panel discussion brought home the challenges the UK and US now face.  How can we empower our own women to succeed in technology and business?

The event gained attention from CNN’s new show Erin Burnett Outfront, Entrepreneurship Magazine and Bloomberg, among others who were in attendance. Congratulations to Cherie, The Foundation and Google on a successful US program launch!

If you’re interested in learning more about The Cherie Blair Foundation for Women or becoming a mentor please visit:  www.cherieblairfoundation.org

When clients request a regional media tour, surprisingly one of the first places I visit to find relevant reporters is LinkedIn. When I want to discover what a reporter’s latest interest might be, I take a peek at their Twitter feed. The value of social media platforms provide PR professionals with more insight and can be “minimally invasive” as compared to other methods of more direct contact which can sometimes be a less than welcome intrusion for reporters on deadline.

Here are three ways that PR pros can use social media to strengthen pitching efforts and perhaps more importantly create solid bonds:

1. LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION – With LinkedIn, PR professionals have the ability to easily and unintrusively view where a reporter is located when booking a local media tour.
2. MUCK RACK – A quick method to discovering what reporters are discussing among their community is to head over to MuckRack.com where you can catch a filtered view of the latest tweets by reporters (designated by beat)
3. FRIEND REQUEST – A few of my colleagues have creatively used Facebook to interact with reporters on both a professional and personal level helping to successfully cultivate a PR/reporter relationship. 

Unfortunately many PR pros have relied too heavily on the “mail merge” or “bulk sender” option when it comes to pitching efforts. We can see this time and again on reporter Twitter feeds when they call out a #PRFail.  Reporters respect PR pros that take the time to truly understand the publication and their beat. Social media has made it easier than ever to identify and track reporters that might be great contacts and approach them with a more personalized message. Gaining insights in real time and understanding what is happening for these reporters on a more personal level translates into a much higher likelihood they are open to pitches and story ideas.

Do you have any experiences with social media? Send me your thoughts.

The public relations profession has undergone many changes since its inception in the early 1900s, when it was viewed as “engineering of consent,” defined as the art of manipulating people. Over the course of the 20^th century, public relations practitioners worked hard to overcome that perception and prove our place in the business world by establishing credibility with journalists and building relationships to enhance the umbrella field that is communications, and ultimately to provide unbiased editorial content to consumers. Yet in today’s Internet-connected, social media-heavy world of communications, the landscape is changing and more and more publications are moving away from a relationship-driven model to a pay-for-play editorial model.

I was recently told by the editor of a publication their editorial focus is “unique in the sense that the majority of our coverage is either directly or indirectly tied to advertising.” Knowing that, how can you be sure when you pick up that publication that the information you are getting is REALLY the best on that topic if they willingly leave out reputable sources that maybe cannot afford to advertise in the publication?

Even Newsweek, a publication that still falls into the rare category of more than 1.5 million subscribers, has said that the Internet has changed everything, and not necessarily for the better. In that same article economist Joseph Schumpeter calls the advent of the Internet “creative destruction,” sweeping away everything in the media landscape as we knew it. 

The proliferation of the Internet and social media has slashed publication advertising dollars, leading to publishing houses being forced to cease print publications, eliminate test labs and lower head counts – all of which drastically change the practice of public relations. With a smaller revenue stream publications are being forced to look at alternate ways to stay in business and the trend of accepting pay-for-play editorial content, in this PR practitioner’s humble opinion, is a giant step backward, washing away all of the blood, sweat and tears that our PR forefathers have shed to pave the way for unbiased, honest editorial content that consumers can trust.

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. 

According to a recent article in USA Today, two of the nation’s largest casual dining chains — Applebee’s and Olive Garden — found themselves uncomfortably trying to explain how alcohol ended up in kids’ drinks.

A 15-month-old boy was served margarita mix and alcohol in his sippy cup at an Applebee’s in Madison Heights, Mich. and, just weeks prior, a 2-year-old was served alcoholic sangria, rather than orange juice, at an Olive Garden in Lakeland, Fla.

From a PR standpoint, what’s especially interesting about the situation is not how it happened, but rather how the companies have decided to respond, and how the media has covered it.

These are big companies, each with a well oiled PR function, and both have offered a fairly textbook response – taking responsibility, offering an apology and renewing a commitment to “reinforce standards.”  (Not sure I get why we need new ‘standards’ to keep booze out of a sippy cup, but I digress…)

The point is, the story is just too good to pass up, and who can stop themselves from reading in horror about toddlers being served alcohol in a sippy cup, at a national restaurant chain!  You have to wonder whether this is real national news, or fodder for a sketch on SNL?  Think of the endless tweets and re-tweets news like this inspires, and how hard it becomes to discern facts from fiction.

This drove Applebee’s to create a section of its website designed to attempt to clear things up.  In it, the Company notes several discrepancies between what’s been widely reported in the media and the information it believes to be true.  For example, it says the Madison Heights Police Department report said the drink registered 0.014 in alcohol content, but numerous articles claim a blood alcohol of 0.10.

There’s a good lesson in here for controlling a crisis.  When a situation develops, there is often a knee-jerk response to hide behind a corporate statement, and offer no further comment.  However, companies need to consider how a story will play out over time, and aggressively take steps to stay included in the conversation, and keep the message focused where it needs to be.  This may require actively working with reporters, offering comments to specific articles and clarifying and correcting facts as a story develops.  At a certain point, it becomes too late to do damage control, and what people come to believe is more important than the facts of the story.

Will Olive Garden, or Applebee’s suffer any long-term damage?  On a lighter note, do you think Olive Garden really sends its chefs to Italy to learn how to cook?  (I have my doubts).

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.

In today’s marketplace, how rapidly you react has become a real differentiator. The first to respond does not go unnoticed. Whether reacting to a crisis, releasing a new product or responding to a global event, if you seize the opportunity in real-time, you position your brand as engaging and significant.

In Real-Time Marketing & PR, author David Meerman Scott demonstrates how technology has impacted and revolutionized interactions between brands and their consumers, suppliers and the media.

Social media are tools. Real-time is a mindset. 

In his book, Scott shares the importance of using social media tools, regardless of how small or large a business is, and exposes the consequences of not responding quickly to an audience expecting instant communication.

Real-time means news breaks over minutes, not an extended period of time.

When operating in the current climate, it’s imperative to use strategies that emphasize sustained — and consistent — immediate communication with one’s customers. In real-time, “ideas percolate, then suddenly and unpredictably go viral to a global audience”. It is then up to the brand to develop a response immediately, based on “feedback from customers or events in the marketplace”. If a business is quickly prepared and a response is properly executed, once-in-a-lifetime opportunities appear.

Adopting an approach: 13 principles of real-time business

Scott recognizes that developing a real-time mindset requires constant effort and offers thirteen principles of real-time business:

1. Act before the window of opportunity vanishes.
2. Revise plans as the market changes.
3. Measure results today.
4. Execute based on what’s happening now.
5. Implement strategies and tactics based on breaking news.
6. Empower your people to act.
7. Move when the time is right.
8. Encourage people to make wise decisions quickly, alone if necessary.
9. Make swift inquiries, but be prepared to act.
10. Quickly evaluate the alternatives and choose a course of action.
11. Get it done and push it out, because it will never be perfect.
12. Respond to customers on their time frames.
13. Engage with media at the moment they need your input.

How real-time is your enterprise? Are you seizing the opportunity to react in real-time?