Read the latest Praecere press release about our work on behalf of the International League of Conservation Photographers.
(click here for press release) iLCP-Praecere PR 8-24-10
Thought Leadership Archive
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.
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.
PR Basics for E-Commerce Sites
August 3rd, 2010
From time to time, the Blog Aesthetic spotlights different industries and offers discussion and insight on relevant public relations trends and strategies. In this posting, we examine the next phase of e-commerce, an industry that faces exciting possibilities as the U.S. economy continues its positive (if slow) rate of recovery.
To that end, what PR factors should e-commerce sites pay attention to? Here are a few:
• Leaks, leaks, leaks. Data breach continues to be the most high-profile media narrative associated with e-commerce sites. As much as news outlets may report on the success of an ecommerce platform, a significant data breach will always be a media lightning rod. Has your site prepared a thorough crisis management plan that addresses all stakeholders? If not, your new road to riches will surely hit a dead-end.
• Distinction. Quick – in 30 seconds, explain the difference between Authorize.Net, PayPal, and Fiserv… Once you’ve hit the wall, you will probably see the problem. All provide consumer payment processing for individual and business transactions, but what benefit does each offer that’s different than the other? In other words, where’s the brand distinction? Your e-commerce PR efforts must always work to show why your site or platform is the better alternative.
• Streamline customer interaction. With social networking significantly reducing the cost of customer interaction, an e-commerce site should leverage different social media sites for particular avenues of customer engagement. For example, a few tweets can offer quick bites of news updates, but a Facebook page may be better for carefully addressing consumer or merchant complaints.
• The next big thing. E-commerce sites will, undoubtedly, significantly evolve as new technologies and online platforms emerge. Change always catches people off-guard, so e-commerce sites must make sure stakeholders are fully engaged and informed before incorporating the “next big thing” into their business practices. Smart PR can help an e-commerce site develop a thought leadership campaign on relevant industry issues, position the site favorably with business and consumers, and then capture market share as the standard business model evolves.
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.
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.
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.
The Tea Party’s Fatal PR Blow?
May 5th, 2010
The Washington Post has a lead article today on the nascent Tea Party’s struggle with its “racist” image. As the saying goes, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your facts – and for the Tea Party, the fact is that its political boundaries unfortunately are blurred with extremely racist and offensive elements. Given that the wider PR narrative of Tea Party political and militant extremism is all but written in stone, separating bigotry from the movement’s desired image of fiscal discipline and individual/sovereign independence is a tall order. As the Post article succinctly states, the loosely defined elements of the Tea Party have “no national communications strategy.”
In more practical terms, the movement has yet to score a major political victory. Whether it’s railing against government bailouts, to standing against healthcare legislation, to alienating political candidates it once supported, the Tea Party still seeks that elusive big “win” to generate strong momentum on the political stage.
These setbacks haven’t stopped its members from identifying future opportunities to sway political and policy debates, but here’s the problem – the past political fights have essentially centered on financial reform and entitlements. The legislation or laws in question were more focused on money than social issues – i.e., “we can’t afford bailouts… we can’t afford healthcare…” and so forth.
But the next big policy fights are ones rife with race and ethnicity. Immigration reform is so racially charged that the state of Arizona has become a lightning rod of criticism and boycotts because of its perceived heavy-handed and racist laws. Terrorism and racial-profiling are thrust back into the spotlight thanks to the failed Times Square bomb plot and no-fly list breakdown on Emirates Airlines.
If it can’t scrub its racist image, how can the Tea Party expect to be taken seriously if it attempts to join the debate on these two high-profile issues? And if its members do talk, what risk does the movement run if the bigots within are the ones whose voices speak loudest?
In politics, shedding racist baggage is next to impossible. Indeed, many states in the American south still continue to deal with the ugly and terrifying images of slavery, Jim Crow and segregation. Unless the Tea Party leaders conduct a transparent, thoughtful, sincere soul-searching process that insists on zero tolerance of racist elements, the movement is doomed to novelty status. Purge now, or forever hold your peace.
P.S. One PR tactic that guarantees failure for the Tea Party is claiming that so-called “plants” (i.e., opposition operatives) purposely show up and exhibit cartoonish racist behavior to make Tea Partiers look bad. Appealing to conspiracy theories is a terrible PR strategy and only helps to cement the lunatic, reactionary image of the movement.
Praecere Public Relations provides traditional and social media expertise and strategies. No matter your publicity needs, Praecere will give you the best solution to move forward.
- I Work in PR, and This Is What I Do
- Social Media 3.0: The “Next Big Thing” Just Might Be the “Great Tune Out”
- Brand Sleight of Hand, Brought to You by Toyota
- Praecere Press Release on International League of Conservation Photographers
- Even BP Knows When Some News Is too Good to Be True
- Research, Polling, Stakeholders, Strategy, Execution vs … A Simple Message
- Demand Media’s Troubles Show Why Content Will Always Be King
- The Failed PR Strategy for Google’s Net Neutrality Plan
