Issues & Advocacy Archive

I Work in PR, and This Is What I Do

September 2nd, 2010

Once upon a time, a recruitment poster for an aid agency showed an American staffer and his Cambodian counterpart on motorcycles in the native jungles.  The basic message was, “this is my job, it could be yours too.”  Now – to someone who loved Motorcycle Diaries and dreamed of motorcycling through Cambodia (or any developing country), this was a very effective ad.  In fact, it helped spur The Blog Aesthetic’s love for international development and the NGO world.

As noted in a recent PRWeek bulletin, Praecere is the agency-of-record for the International League of Conservation Photographers (iLCP).  This amazing group parachutes the world’s best photographers into endangered and stunning sites to document what could be lost if a major development project in that area goes forward.  Ideally, these images spur public outrage and action against the project.  Praecere is guiding the iLCP’s current Rapid Assessment Visual Expedition (RAVE) in the Great Bear Rainforest of British Columbia.  At stake?  The rights of the First Nations people, one of the most pristine marine environments in the world, and the home of the mystical white “spirit bears” revered by the First Nations.  We are helping implement a social media strategy with dozens of partners, securing major Canadian and US television coverage, and planning a large press conference in Vancouver to release the images to the world.

As we sit here in Prince Rupert, Canada awaiting a floatplane to the Great Bear Rainforest, we can’t help but think we’re now the guy on the recruitment poster: “I work in PR, and this is what I get to do.”

PR often gets knocked for being too consumed with products, widgets, and sloganeering.  But the other side of the coin is that PR can be used to protect the environment, help defend the rights of indigenous cultures, and brand and grow an organization in the process.  This is the side of PR often not covered or even discussed.  If successful, we will stop a major pipeline project by a company with a horrendous track record of safety (or lack thereof) from destroying a place people rely on for their livelihoods.

Praecere took this account to publicize one of the most unique conservation groups operating today, and show everyone that PR is not an ugly term only used for shilling corporate goodies.  To follow this RAVE expedition and to stay abreast of the characters and storylines, please visit iLCP’s blog “Expose”, the iLCP’s Facebook page, and keep visiting The Blog Aesthetic.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Brand Management, DC PR firms, Issues & Advocacy, Media Aesthetic

Research, Polling, Stakeholders, Strategy, Execution vs … A Simple Message

August 20th, 2010

The best publicists understand that full-fledged PR campaigns require significant effort and diligence – even stage-management, like a Hollywood blockbuster (more on that below).  When we hear excellent quotes, great taglines, catchy arguments, or anything else similarly persuasive and identifiable, we assume that the communications are spontaneous.  And that is the is the mark of stellar public relations – you believe the messaging is organic.

The truth is, 99% of the time, messaging that reinforces a client’s goals is the product of an intensive examination of how to deliver concise and effective statements that connect with key stakeholders.  In other words, messages that resonate are no accident, they are scientifically determined, tested, and delivered to ensure maximum impact and traction.

Still, sometimes the client’s thought leadership or public affairs campaign is so concentrated and distilled on a simple message that it’s hard for it not to generate fawning headlines – even if a thorough and thoughtful strategy is or isn’t behind it.  Case in point: yesterday’s release by the CDC of the latest smoking in movies statistics.  The report contains heaps of damning number and figures that still show a prevalence of smoking by film characters, and urges Hollywood to continue vigilant efforts to deglamorize the harmful practice on screen.

And what does such a packed-report, coupled with a simple press conference, get for the CDC?  The following headlines:

• “CDC to Hollywood: Stop with the Smoking, Already!”

• “‘Step Forward’ in Limiting Smoking Scenes in Films”

• “Butt out Smoking on Silver Screen”

• “Smoking Still too Common in Movies”

Not bad for a PR shop’s day’s work, if you ask us.  Puns in headlines are always a bit cheesy, but here they get the job done – bravo CDC for understanding that simplicity in messaging will always trump the million-page Power Point.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in DC PR firms, Issues & Advocacy, Media Aesthetic, Public Relations Strategy, Thought Leadership

The Failed PR Strategy for Google’s Net Neutrality Plan

August 13th, 2010

If you don’t know what net neutrality is, then ask yourself, “why don’t I know about the single most important issue regarding the future of communication?”

The largest names in telecommunications are proposing to choose which companies can decide how fast (or slow) to transmit content.  Chief among them are Google and Verizon – called out specifically by the New York Times on August 4 for holding secret talks for 10 months to overturn net neutrality.

There are strong arguments for and against net neutrality.  And, because the issue generates such passion, advocates of any position must explain their views clearly – especially if they are mega-corporate interests whose roles can be perceived negatively.

In this sense, Google has a lot to answer for.  Since the first three words of its corporate code of conduct actually read, “Don’t be evil,” the stealth talks on this vital issue have acute irony.  The code of conduct goes on to read:

… the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct.

Google did not comment for the original Times story.  But the next day, both Google and Verizon declared the Times story wrong (Google decided to tweet its denial).  After five full days of silence on its company blog (and a firestorm of debate online), Google/Verizon released a “Joint Policy Proposal for an Open Internet,” which makes it clear the Times story was completely accurate.  The blog post itself admits Verizon and Google were meeting for “nearly a year”!  Even worse, the proposal is an artfully worded plan, effectively, to defeat net neutrality – something for which Google had previously professed strong support.  So widely panned was its proposal, Google was compelled to dispel “myths” in a follow up blog post.

Just so you remember what is at stake, consider this line from the proposed legislative framework for Congress:

“Regulatory Authority: The FCC would have exclusive authority to oversee broadband Internet access service, but would not have any authority over Internet software applications, content or services.  Regulatory authorities would not be permitted to regulate broadband Internet access service.”

So, just to be clear: Google was not meeting with Verizon for a year (even though it was), and believes that the government has no regulatory authority over broadband service – despite heading to Capitol Hill four years ago to ask the federal government to favor net neutrality (something it now wants to kill).

For a titan like Google to have such a ham-fisted PR strategy in the wake of being implicated in these activities is shocking.  Google PR Strategy = grade F.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Corporate Communications, Issues & Advocacy, Media Aesthetic, Public Relations Strategy, Reputation Management, Thought Leadership

UAE Blackberry Ban Will Hurt Its Business and Travel PR and Promotional Efforts

August 1st, 2010

(Disclaimer: Praecere principals have represented The Executive Office of Dubai in prior positions.)

The media universe is abuzz today with the UAE’s intention to block BlackBerry digital communications in October.  The emirates’ telecommunications authority says that BlackBerry has the potential to allow “users to act without any legal accountability, causing judicial, social and national security concerns” — though the “legal accountability” standard is likely to be UAE’s insistence on allowing government surveillance of all communications.

This move stands to be a public relations disaster for the UAE, particularly in light of the emirates’ continued push to be a business-friendly oasis in an otherwise politically and economically volatile region.  The ban will also create negative perceptions for travelers and tourists, which Dubai has worked very hard to attract over the years.  Indeed, how can travel and tourism writers even produce content for their stories if their phones are blacklisted?

Should the ban take place as scheduled, the UAE is in a very weak position to promote itself as a growing hub of transparency and capital markets in the Middle East, something that part of the world desperately needs.

At the same time, BlackBerry has been handed a golden-PR opportunity to develop a thought leadership campaign on privacy and global regulatory issues, one where other technology companies have repeatedly failed to take the lead.  With its market share dwindling, BlackBerry can’t afford to pass on openings like this to press its brand as the gold standard in free communication.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Brand Management, Corporate Communications, Issues & Advocacy, Media Aesthetic, News & Events, Public Relations Strategy, Reputation Management, Thought Leadership

DC PR Firm Dispatch: The Shameless Media Aesthetic of Karen Hyer

July 29th, 2010

In public relations, inflammatory rhetoric conveys a very displeasing aesthetic.  Even worse, when someone’s statements have no motivation other than crass political maneuvering, their integrity goes out the door.

Case in point: Democrat Karen Hyer, who’s challenging Republican Congressman Jason Chaffretz, has attacked her opponent’s recent House vote against further funding for the war in Afghanistan.  But, instead of criticizing a flip-flop position or claiming that Chaffretz’s vote is inconsistent with his articulated political principles, Hyer pathetically resorts to the tired and stupid Republican talking point so loosely thrown around the past decade – that if a politician votes against funding a wartime effort, that somehow means the politician hates the military and wants American soldiers to be killed.

Karen Hyer’s specific criticism of Chaffretz was that his vote was “irresponsible” and that Chaffretz does not “support our men and women in uniform who are currently in harm’s way.”

Hyer has it backwards.  What is “irresponsible” is attacking your opponent on two false premises by (1) pandering to the basest instinct of American voters, and (2) misrepresenting his position, as he opposes funding a war that he believes is not achieving its goals.  How Hyer twists that into not “supporting” the troops is anyone’s guess, and one that prospective voters in her district should consider when casting their ballots.

Now, here’s a DC PR firm secret about Washington politics: Congressional candidates rarely speak off the cuff.  They tend to get fed their marching orders and talking points by the top levels of their respective political party.  Hyer’s position is, sadly, entirely consistent with the Democratic National Committee’s own batch of hot air that sounds eerily like Republican bluster from years earlier.

Politics is of course a contact sport, and those involved should push their arguments and positions aggressively – such is the nature of effective and game-changing debate, the very fuel of democracy.  But, lying to the press, and the voting public, is as silly as it gets.  Such shameless rhetoric almost always incubates in the press shop or operation, so it’s likely that the blame can be fairly directed at unethical publicists.

The PR industry should always work hard to distance itself, and our practice, from taking cheap shots, and show clients examples like Karen Hyer to understand why hitting below the belt is the wrong thing to do.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in DC PR firms, Issues & Advocacy, Media Aesthetic, News & Events

The Science of Media Training Explains Climategate

July 16th, 2010

In today’s media and public relations landscape, it is important to remember that facts and truth rarely are enough to settle the discussion.  This is an acute problem for the scientific and research community – especially when they attempt to publicize new findings. Fundamentally, scientists and researchers need media training to guide them through media and political minefields.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the poster child for this problem.  Since Charles Darwin penned The Origin of Species, there hasn’t been a scientific theory more attacked, ridiculed, even hated than that of climate change.  In this case, a group of thousands of the world’s most respected scientists and experts issue recommendations to the world to try and mitigate climate change.  While that may seem benign, the IPCC has been under a withering assault from a well-funded opposition.

You may have heard of “climategate” (note: after nearly 40 years, perhaps we can find another way to refer to scandals, alleged or real, than -gate suffixes?).  Some internal IPCC emails were leaked to climate skeptics.  The emails contained standard scientific equivocation; taken out of context and plugged into an anti-climate change campaign, some seemed to indicate that the science was inaccurate.

All hell broke loose.  The IPCC was called in for review, climate skeptics scored a major PR victory, and climate science was “in question” again.  Snake-bitten by climategate, the IPCC made matters exponentially worse by issuing a letter to its scientists warning them about engaging the media.  Of course, the letter was leaked.

While climategate continues as a worldwide narrative, the recent story of the IPCC’s total exoneration was much less publicized.  This is a standard media conundrum.  The initial “scandal,” true or not, always saturates the media.  The resulting vindication does not.  That means right at the outset you must be ready to defend everything and be well armed with compelling talking points to support your cause.  If you let the discussion get framed without you, then you are playing defense rather than publicizing your findings.

Scientists, NGOs, and think tanks would do well to receive media training and seek the counsel of an experienced PR firm to help with the launch of a new initiative or report.  This is especially true if your research is on a controversial topic.  You may think your research will speak for itself.  It won’t.  It can be twisted, taken out of context, and publicly thrown back at you.  Without a decisive and coherent response, the public backlash can be brutal and your research will be of little value.

Posted in Crisis Clients, Crisis Management, Issues & Advocacy, Media Aesthetic, Media Training, Public Relations Strategy, Public Relations Tips, Thought Leadership

Forget iPhone 4 Antenna Problems — Apple Needs Better Message on Conflict Minerals

July 2nd, 2010

Apple laid down the gauntlet to the PC in its infamous 1984 commercial announcing its new Macintosh.  Thirty years later, Apple now dominates Microsoft as world’s most valuable technology company.  Apple’s almost religious adherence to branding has paid tremendous dividends (with that customer loyalty helping CEO Steve Jobs and his company slide past PR scandal after scandal).

As part of its hip, edgy brand, Jobs has taken to answering customers’ questions over rapid-fire email.  It’s seen as yet another way that Jobs outclasses the erratic Steve Ballmer of Microsoft – whose spastic on-stage appearances are far more interesting than whatever Microsoft product he’s peddling at the time.

Recently, Jobs responded to a question about “conflict minerals” and whether Apple responsibly sources the minerals in its products.  For companies not paying attention, conflict minerals are the next blood diamonds.  There is an international movement afoot, led by activist groups in the UK and US, that is going to name and shame companies sourcing minerals primarily from the Democratic Republic of Congo – home to the world’s bloodiest ongoing conflict since World War II.  A special report by a UN group of investigators took the extraordinary step of outing several US tech companies with links to the DRC.  And even New York Times influential columnist Nicholas Kristof has moved on from Darfur to make conflict minerals and the DRC his new cause.

Perhaps Jobs is unaware of this movement, as the answer he gave a customer on this issue is not going to cut it:

“We require all of our suppliers to certify in writing that they use conflict few materials.  But honestly there is no way for them to be sure.  Until someone invents a way to chemically trace minerals from the source mine, it’s a very difficult problem.”

In Jobs’ defense, he’s technically correct.  There is no international certification for the sourcing of conflict minerals such as the Kimberly Process for blood diamonds.  However, there are groups that can help Apple and other companies clean up their supply chain and practice proper CSR.  Perhaps more importantly, Jobs could at least act like he cared more about the issue beyond calling it “difficult.”  And then there is the strange use of the word “few” rather than “free.” Conflict-few may be a concept Jobs is pioneering but the global pressure campaign will not be centered on achieving “conflict-few” minerals – it will call for an outright ban on minerals from DRC and start linking specific companies to the ongoing bloodshed.

With his inadequate response to a very serious question, Jobs stumbled into a major international issue and Apple is now square in the sights of activist groups.  As with any major global crisis, smart messaging on conflict minerals requires a concerted, ethical, and engaging PR effort to explain a company’s positions.  Quick emails won’t suffice.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Brand Management, Corporate Communications, Crisis Management, Issues & Advocacy, Media Aesthetic, News & Events, Reputation Management, Thought Leadership

What to Watch for in Obama’s Speech to the Nation on BP

June 14th, 2010

Tomorrow night President Obama will address the nation regarding the BP oil spill.  Combating criticism that his administration was slow to respond properly, Obama is anticipated to make the case for more aggressive government action toward BP.

Aside from the political consequences pre and post-spill, what are some public relations considerations to keep in mind?

• Location, location, location.  This is the first national speech that Obama will deliver from the Oval Office.  The symbolism certainly isn’t lost in the moment, as White House advisors rightly recognize that the nation’s greatest environmental disaster ever ranks up there among the worst crises in American history.  Obama is using the Oval Office imprimatur to convey the strength and seriousness of his response to date, and his plans going forward.

• Tell us what’s up.  There are so many moving parts now – BP, possible receivership, fines, Halliburton, Transocean, MMS mismanagement, leak estimates, hurricanes – that it’s easy to get lost past the simple narrative of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico.  Obama must explain clearly and concisely what his administration has learned, and in a way that helps Americans make sense of who may be responsible for the oil spill.

• Leverage into other issues.  Don’t forget that Obama’s plan, no matter what form it takes, is still essentially politics.  Just as the Bush Administration based a significant political agenda on the aftermath of September 11, expect Obama to lay out future political principles.  Strong bet that the need to lessen national dependence on oil will be top of mind, as will regulation of exploration and other relevant energy and environmental issues.

• Deadlines.  To shift the focus away from the number of days into the crisis, Obama will likely give hard deadlines for relevant stakeholders to meet, whether that concerns clean up or regulatory action.  To save his political fortunes, Obama must shift the PR narrative away from mismanagement and toward total control.

And that’s just tomorrow night.  These types of efforts require weeks of follow up to sustain any positive traction, so keep an eye on administration officials as they’re dispatched to keep the message momentum going.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Crisis Management, Issues & Advocacy, Media Aesthetic, News & Events

$61 Million Branding Disaster, Made in the USA

May 13th, 2010

(Note: this post is a follow-up to the last post on the branding of the Bund Bull).

The World Expo probably isn’t the first event you think of for international branding opportunities.  Compare the Olympics, World Cup and Davos, for example.  Still, that didn’t stop China from pulling out all stops with this year’s World Expo in Shanghai – the country spent more on the event than it did hosting the Beijing Olympics.

Why did the Chinese want to make such a big splash with the World Expo?  Simple – they realized this is a major branding platform, with journalists and influentials from all over the world in attendance.  More importantly, it offered a chance to dwarf previous Expos and show how China does international events.

Of course, we must remember that it’s not the “China Expo” but rather the “World Expo” – which means each country gets to participate by building a pavilion that represents cultural contribution.  Think of it as “international day” at your kid’s elementary school, on steroids.  Companies from each country usually sponsor the pavilion and the multi-media presentations.  There are some stunning entries this year with regard to design.  We think England wins for most, ah, angular.  The Dutch pavilion looks like something out of a Tim Burton film.

And then there’s the USA, which assembled a $61 million corrugated tin monstrosity meant to represent … America’s tool sheds?  More depressing than the woeful design outside are the overpriced and underwhelming productions taking place inside.  Contracted to BRC Imagination Arts, reports show $23 million spent on the inside presentation and on three five-minute movies that have questionable production quality and messaging.  The Hurt Locker was cheaper to make per minute and won the Oscar for Best Picture.  Sadly, this pavilion is meant to “showcase the best America has to offer.”

The lesson: even for a nation, branding is important.  While outsourcing your national brand to a conglomeration is fiscally prudent, it also inhibits the element of oversight and accountability for the final product.  Allowing unsupervised vendors to run the show and present what they perceive as “the USA” to the world can have disastrous results.

Similarly, companies and organizations must always make sure to work with marketing and PR teams when managing their own brands.  If you skimp on either the time or expense associated with amassing brand equity, you’ll end up with scraps … maybe of discarded tin that you too can use to build an unattractive pavilion.  Just sayin’…

Next Expo, the US should hire PR specialists with brand experience to oversee the project.  When you have the chance to present yourself on the global stage, there’s no room for error – shine, and the whole world shines with you!

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Brand Management, Issues & Advocacy, Media Aesthetic, News & Events, Public Relations Strategy, Reputation Management

China’s Own Brand of Red Bull – Less Sugar High, More Media-Savvy

May 10th, 2010

Enormous robotic babies and Tron-like cars don’t have much in common, but don’t tell that to the planners at the Shanghai World Expo.  Aside from the unique welcome-mat displays, however, even more interesting is what’s happening behind the scenes.

The Expo will cost China $60 billion USD, more than the cost of the Beijing Olympics.  The US presence, sadly, is a monument to unoriginality – particularly when compared with what Russia and the Netherlands have in place.  (The horrendous branding effort by the US at this vital global meeting will get a rant in a future blog post.)

But for the real symbolic and media action, American businesses should really be paying attention to another exhibit being unveiled at the Expo, which shows smart branding efforts in action.

The “Bund Bull” is about to announce to the world Shanghai’s preeminence in banking – as it hopes to achieve by 2020.  To be unveiled in the Bund district, a famous colonial-era part of the city, the bull is designed by Arturo DiModica – the same designer of “Charging Bull” of Wall Street fame.

There are some not-so-subtle differences between the statues.  The Bund Bull is redder, younger and stronger than Charging Bull.  And instead of its head facing down, as on Wall Street, this bull’s head will tilt upward.  The symbolism couldn’t be more striking, and the timing is everything.

Picture 1 China’s Own Brand of Red Bull – Less Sugar High, More Media Savvy

All signs point to China’s continued rise as an economic superpower.  While America is in the midst of an economic recovery, the long-term forecasts show China with growing influence over our economic future.  Our Charging Bull has his head lowered and neck exposed.  In bullfighting this pose is known as “el momento de la verdad” – the perfect moment for the matador to finish the bull with a well-placed sword.

The Bund Bull shows no such vulnerability.

Should China’s economic gains ever radically outpace those of the US, expect to see the brand of Bund Bull charging alongside media coverage for years to come.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Brand Management, Issues & Advocacy, Media Aesthetic, News & Events

« Older Entries