Seat at the Table

I’m voting for Campbell Brown as the most important media person this year in the 2008 elections.

When Campbell Brown of CNN asked McCain spokesperson Tucker Bounds about Palin’s experience, Mr. Bounds did what he was trained to do - he answered the question he wanted to answer and not the question asked.  But instead of doing what political media often (sadly) do and moving on to the next question, Ms. Brown pressed Mr. Tucker to answer the question he was asked.   Mr. Tucker was woefully unprepared and looked like he was avoiding the question (Watch the video and judge for yourself - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxMCp1vydEI).

Now, the McCain campaign has canceled a Larry King interview supposedly as punishment.    The result is risking a reputation for looking like they can’t or won’t answer the tough questions which opens up another “just like Bush” line of attack.

The problem was that Mr. Tucker, like most people in politics, was only trained to answer the question he wanted to answer.  While this is a well established and practiced media relations practice, it shows an incomplete media relations training.   Mr. Tucker was obviously not trained on what to do if a journalist presses on a tough question. 

We work most often with business and trade media.  While we do train our clients to get their message out by redirecting to answers they want to give, we also train and prepare them to make sure they answer the question asked in the most direct way possible.  It’s not simply to avoid a Tucker Bounds situation but to show transparency and create goodwill both with the audience and the journalist.  Whether it is a politician or business executive and regardless of whether a journalist pushes or not, people see when the person being interviewed is avoiding the question.   For audiences, avoiding the question reinforces the lack of transparency and truthfulness in politics.  Just imaging if a CEO avoided answering a question on explaining why the company missed earnings and simply talked about their vision?  One word - skewered. 

Beyond the PR lessons, my main hope for this political season is that, regardless of who wins, more journalists take note of Campbell Brown and realize that when they ask a question they should get an answer to that question.  And when they don’t, it should be noted publicly.  If this was standard practice, we would start seeing the transparency and truthfulness from politicians we all seek.

Pick a topic, any topic, that you don’t know that well and type in some keywords online.  Those initial results and their ranking are you first impression.  Now, type in your company or product name along with associated keywords and see what comes up.  That’s your audiences first search impression.  These days, it may be there first impression overall.

Protecting and enhancing your search reputation is still an often overlooked component of reputation management, as the Obama campaign found out.  Using a marketing tactic known as ambush ads, The Wall Street Journal’s recent article on the McCain online strategy outlined how McCain is using Obama related keywords (such as Biden) to direct viewers to McCain controlled content.  The result? For many people looking for more information on Biden and Obama, the first impression will be one formed by the McCain campaign.

Search continues to be dominated by marketing and sales by search reputation is an area that should be considered as basic as media relations, if not more so.  The problem lies not in PR teams realizing the importance of search, but in the understanding of how to manage a brand’s search reputation.  To do that, several basic skill sets and steps must be taken:

1. An understanding of your audience and their use of search.  Like any other medium, the importance of search reputation management will be more less important depending on your audience.  For example, a young professional audience may likely use Google for a first stop for information while a high end business audience may use a high end research service such as Factiva for corporate information.  Understand how and why your audience is using search.
2. Analysis and ongoing tracking of user search habits so that the PR team understands what people are looking for when they happen to or should come across positive and accurate information on your brand.
3. An understanding of organic and paid search engine optimization.  This means learning how to manage Web page optimization and paid search results so that the first search impression of you brand is the right one.

These are just three basic rules to follow.  The reality is more complicated and difficult as it requires PR teams to be as well versed in search as they (hopefully) are in media relations.   As an industry, we’re still at an early stage.  How many PR job descriptions have you seen with search engine optimization skills as part of the requirement?

I found this Ad Week report on how different agency creative directors would spin presidential campaigns an interesting reminder on different views of the same message.

I’m not going to critique each ad, you should do that, but they are worth looking at to see interesting alternative ideas for how candidates can communicate their message.  Of course, some also highlight why the ad agency approach is not the best choice to lead in political campaigns which are zero sum  (e.g., do we really want the world voting as one proposes? It would raise awareness but being the global winner can easily backfire domestically).

Reading this did remind me that companies should also be looking for new ways to communicate their brand messages.  This does not mean constantly firing agencies (a common mistake), but having alternative sources of creative and strategic inspiration that the agency(ies) can then put into action.

McCain’s trying hard to prove he’s not a continuation of the Bush celebrity, but his latest moves may prove otherwise.  First McCain hires members of Karl Rove’s team (and even questions about Rove’s influence cause problems - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,377208,00.html), then he puts out a classic attack ad.  McCain’s latest ad (below) pushes to core Obama attack lines: 1) that he’s going to increase our dependence on foreign oil by opposing offshore drilling; and 2) that he’s pushing higher taxes.

The problem for McCain is that there area easy counter attack lines for both these messages and the commercial as a whole smells a lot like Bush era scare tactics using making fact time claims that have a fairly shallow basis - something voters may be very wary of at this point.  From Obama’s perspective, it’s easy to show how he’s in fact against foreign oil and may try to wean the nation off oil (even T Boon Pickens will side with Obama on this…not good for McCain).  As for higher taxes, Obama’s main tax message has been on too many tax breaks for the wealthy over the last few years while the rest of the nation saw little gains in earning.  

One early indicator can be seen in the last two months of blog posts.  Just in the last week there is an update of posts that come up with McCain and the keywords rove, negative, and attack ads.  All these are words that, with an average politician would not be a big deal. But this is supposed to be John McCain, the non-Bush (Rove), non negative, non attack-ad politician. 

Per some of my previous posts, I wonder how much reputation forecasting the campaign management did before putting out this commercial.  While negative campaign works (sadly), did they also consider how this particular type of negative campaign may be overplayed?  Did they also calculate how doing commercials that go against McCain’s historical appeal of being a straightforward, no spin politician may cause a greater than average backfire?  If they did, I’m betting their calculations were off.  We’ll find out soon enough.

Watch the ad here :

And Obama’s reply:

Yahoo and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) both recently reversed very bad business decisions that should have been run through a reputation risk management forecasting model (in the case of Yahoo, they may have done this - see the last paragraph).  In the case of the IOC, they made ridiculous demands of Iraq’s committee (after allow Uday Hussein to run the show in the past) including the reinstatement of previous committee members who had since been kidnapped.  In the case of Yahoo, they initially announced they were shutting down their music service and suggested people burn music files they bought onto CDs as the licensing technology would be shutdown.   The IOC has since allowed Iraq in and Yahoo announced a compensation plan for people that bought digital files.

In the case of the IOC, a common sense approach to reputation analysis would have told them the initial decision had potential disaster written all over it.  In the case of Yahoo, a similar previous decision by MSN would have shown them the potential for damaging their brand as one consumers can trust.

In both cases, I suspect they did not seriously, or at least properly, weigh the potential economic damage by the reputation impact.  Had they, a week of very strong criticism would have been avoided.

So how does a company weigh such decisions?  There’s no one magic formula but a basic approach would be as follows:

1. Do a social and regular media forecast analysis to determine how the decision may be covered.  This includes determining probably positioning based on previous reporting of similar decisions, confidential facts that may be leaked or uncovered, and how widely it may be covered.  This should be based both on previous reporting as well as the use of panels of former journalists under NDA (yes, such panels are available).
2. Survey relevant audiences as to how the decisions will impact their view of the brand (obviously this has to be done carefully, and in many cases on a blind basis, to avoid damaging leaks)
3. Include questions relating to economic impact such as likelihood of watching programming or using a service after hearing news
4. Use data from the previous question to determine what the potential revenue or investment impact is over the short and long term
5. Calculate if the cost of not making the decision (or changing it) is greater or less than the economic impact.
6. Determine if there is a second stage plan that can take place should the communication of the announcement not go well.  This plan (such as Yahoo’s - see below) should recover the cost of the goodwill with the remaining reputation impact being worth the risk.  This is core to the risk analysis.

Obviously, this is a simplistic approach but the bottom line is this: regardless of messaging and positioning of a tough (and bad) decision, the bottom line is to project the worst news reporting context, the impact on buyers and investors and see if you still want to make that decision.

Taking a look at the Yahoo case, they may have already done this.  They quickly announced a compensation plan for buyers of digital music.  Obviously, the cost of the plan is was worth rebuilding some good will.  It’s quite possible they had the plan in the pocket and took the risk of not initially announcing it figuring that if the reporting was negative (and it was), the cost of asking forgiveness was still worth the remaining reputation impact.

If the irony of Andrew Cohen of CBS (yes, the one that had a few misreporting fiascos) bashing PR (really, Andrew, all PR people all liars? Isn’t presenting opinion as fact a form of overspinning?) drove you crazy, then enjoy this rebuttal by the hero of PR - Stanley Bing:

I’ve always been taught that the best teachers and speakers (in other words, communicators) are able to make complex ideas simple.  Doing this requires avoiding complex words and sticking to plain English words - the kind you use at polite non-business dinner conversation. 

So when I saw the AP article on local British governments committing to cutting out “non-words” I had a moment of embarrassment for PR industry.   Why weren’t we making this call?  Here’s what the local British government association is aiming to achieve:

The Local Government Association, whose members include hundreds of district, town and county councils in England and Wales, on Friday sent out a list of 100 “non-words” that it said officials should avoid if they want to be understood.

The list includes the popular but vague term “empowerment;” “coterminosity,” a situation in which two organizations oversee the same geographical area; and “synergies,” combinations in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Officials were told to ditch the term “revenue stream” for income, as well as the imprecise “sustainable communities.” The association also said councils should stop referring to local residents as “customers” or “stakeholders.”

Reading this got me thinking that if there’s one thing the PRSA and other PR related industry groups could do, it’s lead the charge to eradicate business buzzwords and bring back the English language.  Doing this would address several key problems for the industry is seen (other wise known as perception problems):

1) Helping companies clearly communicate to the people who care (i.e., the stakeholders).  I’m sure we can do better if we are using the offending buzzwords as much as any other consulting profession.

2) Providing true leadership in communications.  Right now, a [British] government association taking a communications lead on something as fundamental as speaking clearly.  Let’s be the communications leaders we should be and, as an industry, call on corporate America to do the same.

3) Provide the best possible communications counsel.  I don’t think we are doing this now if our counsel does not start and end with asking our clients to speak clearly and in plain English.  How can it if the presentations to our clients are filled with this very jargon (I’ve been in enough to know).

If anyone has seen this actual list, I’d love to get a copy.  It may be our next great piece of PR literature.

(disclosure: I’ve used the offending language including stakeholder, value-add, maximize and other 6+ letter words more times than I can admit).

Every once in a while I pick up an 800 call in the evening to see what organization still thinks it’s wise to call us at home.  Usually it’s some non-profit organization fund raising or my bank with a new offer (thus causing me to look at switching banks).

The other night I was unpleasantly surprised to hear The Gap offer me a new credit card using an automated dial out message.  Hearing this, all I could think was “dear Gap, just how dumb are you?”

Companies often do not put business decisions that impact public perception through the PR ringer.  They should.  Maybe The Gap would have done this anyway but I can’t image The Gap wants it’s brand to be seen as one known for harassing people at home to buy a credit card using automatic messages.  First, these calls come across as very low end.  Second, it’s bad enough to disturb the dinner hour, but to not have the decency to do it with a real person adds insult to injury and sends the message that we have no personal touch.

Next time someone brings up The Gap, this phone is what will illustrate my opinio.

If you haven’t read the Wall Street Journal article on buy and bail real estate and Columbia Journalism Review critique of that article, I would add it to the recommended reading list.  (buy and bail is where people buy a new home at a lower price and then bail on their current home which has a higher mortgage).

I’ve always stated that everyone spins - journalists, PR people, marketers and people in everyday conversation.  What’s important as a professional is that the spin, or context, in which you present a story or fact be completely backed up by verifiable facts.  I don’t expect dinner partner conversations to keep this in mind, but I do expect public relations professionals to do so (which is why we are always pushing research so hard).

The problem with the WSJ article, according to the CJR, was that it presented buy and bail real estate as a phenomenon but then presented no facts to back it up.  It only cited several pieces of anecdotal evidence.  If that’s all there was, either it should not have been published or should have been written as a potential problem that the system currently allows (even then I think it’s shaky as what is not a potential problem).

In fact, the article addresses this by saying (down low) the practice does not appear to be widespread.  But if so, they just admitted they overspun when referring to it as a new phenomenon.  It’s a potential one, not a new one.  This is lesson two for professionals, pick your facts and then pick the right words to present them.

Spinning is, according to my definition, for presenting a biased view of a situation and facts.  This is in fact a part of every day conversation (ever talked politics in a social setting)?   The problem with spin is that is easily leads to facts being misrepresented or potentially made up.

This isn’t about gloating over journalists spinning as much if not more than public relations professionals.  It’s an example of what not to do and a reminder that whatever your position is in the marketplace, be prepared to back it up.

I’ll always maintained that the strongest communications programs always remember that it’s the bottom line that determines business success.  But I also maintain that if the bottom line is what defines the business, the chances of success drop precipitously as a business succeeds due to mission and purpose - the bottom line is just the most fundamental measure of that success.

And that’s Sears’ problem right now.  They seem to exist to survive and not serve a purpose to customers and communities.  After reading about yet another bad quarter and misguided strategy, I thought I’d compare how Sears describes itself versus competitors (as defined by media reporting on Sears).

In taking a look at the about section of Web sites, here are the key lines that jump out for each company:

I found the positioning contrast between Sears and competitors surprising and not a good sign.  Wal-Mart, Target and Lowe’s leading statement all focus on the need . they fill for customers.  For the consumer, they outline why they want to shop there For the investor, they outline their market place position.

Sears, on the other hand, simply makes a market leadership position that is not event quantified.  If you’re going to use the word leading, then back it up with a big number in a market people can relate to and that sows growth.  But that’s only for investors.  Sears isn’t clearly communicating why customers should shop at its stores.  It’s as if Sears is thinking without a sense of mission or specific market in mind.  It’s a drowning business that’s just thinking about saving itself.  That’s fine, but it needs to give customers, the audience most important to its survival, a reason to  save it.