PR – Media Matters

April 17, 2021April 17, 2021

Gone to the Dogs

In case you haven’t heard, the Anheuser-Busch beverage company has come out with a brew for your basset hound, a drink for your dachshund, a pour for your puppy…you get the idea. The product is Dog Brew, an alcohol-free, bone broth beverage for canines, and their current viral campaign is a search for some lucky pup to become their CTO, Chief Tasting Officer. The job comes with salary ($20K), benefits (health insurance), and all of the perks normally reserved for celebrity endorsers. (I would nominate Jasper, “America’s Dog” but I’m not sure he needs any more endorsement contracts with his already-busy schedule.)

This marketing campaign has a little bit of everything that makes me think it will be a case study in advertising/PR textbooks in the near future. There’s a contest (enter here) with social media requirements (FB, IG and Twitter) that must include cute shots of your puppy.

According to USA Today, “Busch says the responsibilities of the Chief Tasting Officer include ‘taste-testing, quality control and fulfilling duties as an ambassador for the product and a featured content creator on Busch’s social channels.'”

Veteran CNN reporter Jeanne Moos put together a report for CNN that, once again, proves that she’s one of the all-time great human-interest storytellers.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/04/15/busch-dog-beer-taster-moos-pkg-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/wacky-world-of-jeanne-moos/

I know you’re probably not going to read the fine print in the contest rules, but here is one clause that let’s you know what you’re getting yourself (and your dog) into:

You grant Sponsor an exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, unrestricted, royalty-free, sub-licensable and transferrable right and license to exploit your Entry (including, without limitation, your name and likeness and the names and likenesses of any and all persons in the Entry, and any intellectual property rights (e.g. copyright, trademark, etc.) contained in the Entry) in any media now or hereafter known, without any payment or other consideration of any kind, or permission or notification, to you or any third party, for any purpose, including, without limitation, your Entry and any person’s property (physical, personal, intellectual property rights, and indicia) contained therein. The foregoing grant includes, without limitation, the right to reproduce, display, distribute, publicly perform, create derivative works of, alter, amend, broadcast, edit, publish, use, merchandise, license, sublicense, and adapt the Entry in any and all media now or hereafter known, throughout the world, for any purpose, whether commercial in nature or otherwise, including in contexts and circumstances that result in your Entry being associated with a particular Sponsor or Sponsors. Accordingly, you hereby waive any objection to, such use including without limitation, distribution, reproduction, creation of derivative works of, public performance, or display of your Entry, and any claim for compensation whatsoever in connection therewith. Such waiver shall include any claim for infringement of any so-called “Moral Right,” “Droit Moral” or similar right or interest.

September 20, 2019September 19, 2019

What’s Going on at the New York Times?

In a stunning display of poor editorial choices last weekend, the New York Times appears to have done serious harm to the integrity of their own brand, and of journalism at-large. In a tweet and a piece published on Sunday, the NYT managed to offend both defenders of Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh and his most ardent critics.

The controversy over recently nominated justice Kavanaugh is well known, as is the political angst felt by many on the left over the current administration’s success in appointing conservative justices at all levels of the judiciary. The fact that two NYT journalists found evidence of new accusations against Kavanaugh and published a book about their research was not surprising to many who believed that Kavanaugh’s appointment over the objections of Christine Blasey Ford was a miscarriage of justice.

But what was surprising, even to fans of the New York Times, is that the recently published review of the book failed to disclose that the woman at the center of the new allegations denies any knowledge of the event and was unwilling to talk to the reporters. And another controversial matter that was ignored was that the person bringing the accusation was a member of Bill Clinton’s legal defense team when he was accused of sexual misconduct.

None of these facts proves or disproves the accusations, but the failure of the New York Times to disclose these facts to the public goes against every rule designed to protect journalistic integrity and fairness. When a trusted institution like the New York Times makes mistakes of this magnitude, and fails to offer satisfactory explanations that might defuse the appearance of bias, it does harm to journalism and journalists everywhere.

And just to make sure that everyone had something to complain about, a [now deleted] tweet from the New York Times managed to offend the sensibilities of everyone who thinks that sexual assault is anything but “harmless fun.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/16/new-york-times-brett-kavanaugh-book-1498153

August 21, 2019August 21, 2019

If You Build it They Will Come

If you build the most powerful propaganda platform in the history of communication and make it available for free to a global audience, don’t be surprise when anyone and everyone shows up to use (and abuse) your platform. That’s what social media giants Facebook, Twitter and Google are discovering as yet another attempt to manipulate users has been revealed.

According to recent reports, Twitter said it will no longer accept advertising from from “state-controlled news media entities” after it was discovered that China was attempting to use Twitter and Facebook to engage in orchestrated misinformation around the ongoing protests in Hong Kong. This comes on the heels of repeated reports of Russian use of social media to influence political campaigns and elections in the USA and elsewhere.

The question now is whether these huge tech companies can put the genie back in the bottle. Or will regulation, new AI technology, or some other solution have to appear before we can feel confident that freedom and democracy are safe from the actions of nefarious state actors?

January 17, 2018

Facebook’s Fraught Future

Facebook’s failed attempt to foil Fake News while fortifying financial fortunes at the expense of friends’ futures finally finds itself facing fearless foes. Okay, I can’t keep that up but I hope you get the idea. After an amazing decade of growth and incredible buy-in from more than 2 billion users, Facebook is finally getting some push-back. Investors and executives who have since left the company are publicly saying what others have wondered for some time: is Facebook too big and too focused on monetizing audience members’ attention for our own good? Here’s what some are saying:

In response to the criticism Facebook announced a change to the algorithm that dictates the contents of your news feed. According to Facebook,

…we’re making a major change to how we build Facebook. I’m changing the goal I give our product teams from focusing on helping you find relevant content to helping you have more meaningful social interactions.

We started making changes in this direction last year, but it will take months for this new focus to make its way through all our products. The first changes you’ll see will be in News Feed, where you can expect to see more from your friends, family and groups.

As we roll this out, you’ll see less public content like posts from businesses, brands, and media. And the public content you see more will be held to the same standard — it should encourage meaningful interactions between people.

While some may criticize this change as too-little, too-late, others may question whether these are mere cosmetic changes simply designed to deflect criticism. But it is fairly clear that several things are going to happen as a result: time spent on Facebook and engagement will both decline, (resulting in lower revenue for Facebook), and media companies that have relied on Facebook to distribute their content far and wide will have to find other ways to reach their audience.

But look on the bright side: that change will provide new opportunities for media-savvy storytellers who know how to reach an audience with compelling content. And that person could be you!

August 11, 2017August 12, 2017

Hacking, Leaking, and Weaponized Data

The press, and by that term I mean the media industries devoted to journalistic enterprise, love a good leak. Inside information not intended for public consumption that suddenly appears in a package tied with a pretty bow is a gift of great value and consequence.

Leakers come in every form imaginable, and do so for a wide variety of reasons: true whistleblowers looking out for some greater good, disgruntled employees who don’t like what they see happening behind closed doors, an injured party to a dastardly deed, or hackers looking to profit from rich corporations (e.g., the hack of HBO and threat to leak spoilers for upcoming episodes of Game of Thrones)…all find reasons to go the the press with their inside scoop.

It strikes at every level of nearly every organization or power structure. It is one of the power levelers—a way for those near the bottom to inflict damage on those near the top. Presidents, CEOs, celebrities, and clergy…all are susceptible to a well-timed leak.

Sometimes the leaker is passing along information that they came by honestly, and other times it may involve a breach of security protocol or even illegal hacking.

Recent leaks have been widely reported, including: the DNC emails hacked (or were they?) and released to Wikileaks last year, transcripts of President Trump’s phone calls to heads of state, Jared Kushner’s off-the-record meeting with congressional interns (see Wired magazine), FBI director Comey’s anonymous leak to the press, and the leak of an internal memo at Google that ignited a firestorm of controversy over sex discrimination in the tech industry (see more here and here). The last example also raised questions about when and where it is safe to speak out when speaking out may be controversial and politically incorrect.

In all of these cases the leakers were only part of the equation. The leakers need the assistance of a willing journalist and a willing publisher to distribute the information to the public. Journalistic history is filled with stories about investigative reports that broke because of leakers; perhaps the most infamous being Deep Throat of Watergate fame. But these symbiotic relationships are risky when the motives of leakers are unclear. Leakers may be seeking revenge, or may even leak information in an attempt to promote their own agenda. Sometimes those in positions of power use leaks through intermediaries in order to advance their own version of events. Without corroborating evidence, a leak is simply a rumor…or worse.

The legality of leaking to the press is complicated. Prosecution of illegal leaks that compromise national security is rare but does happen, e.g. Chelsey Manning’s conviction and sentence, which was later pardoned by President Obama. But more often than not the leaker and the news organization escape punishment. This inclination to protect journalists, and their sources, is part of our First Amendment tradition.

For more information about leaks and the media, see this page at the Newseum and listen to this podcast at On The Media.

July 24, 2017July 27, 2017

White House Public Relations

The Presidency of the United States is probably the most important job in the country. And the person who represents the President to the press, and to the public, is the press secretary—likely the most important (and most difficult) public relations job in the country.

Last weekend’s shakeup in the White House resulted in the resignation of Sean Spicer as press secretary, with Sarah Huckabee Sanders taking his place. This is not a job for the faint of heart. While Spicer, who was the butt of numerous SNL jokes, had a brief tenure, five previous press secretaries served even shorter terms.

As only the third woman to fill the role, Sarah Sanders faces a challenging job as the primary spokesperson for this highly controversial, and some would argue highly undisciplined, administration. The first female press secretary was Dee Dee Myers who served under President William J. Clinton. The second female press secretary was Dana Perino, who served out the final years of the presidency of George W. Bush after the sudden death of Tony Snow. Perino’s stint as the President’s spokesperson is of particular interest because she is a 1993 graduate of the mass communications department at CSU-Pueblo (University of Southern Colorado at the time). Now a TV commentator for Fox News, Dana Perino is arguably the most successful graduate of our department.

Public Relations departments and PR practitioners can be found at every level of the job market and in every kind of industry. Private sector businesses, non-profit organizations, and governmental agencies all need professional communicators who understand the power and influence of the media. The field needs people who are effectively in both spoken and written communications, people who know how to function at every level of communication from face-to-face to mass media, and who can do so with the ethical and moral judgement necessary to wield the power of influence for good.

The mass communications department at CSU-Pueblo (formerly USC) is proud of all of our graduates who perform ably in their professions. Some serve faithfully for years in jobs that never gain public recognition, while others, like Dana Perino, experience the scorching heat (and the recognition) that comes from standing in the brightest of spotlights.

Advice from Perino to Sanders

November 9, 2015

Political PR and Symbolic Gestures

Last week you read a blog post about the public relations difficulties facing the nuclear power industry…an industry that could be an alternative to fossil fuels such as coal and oil. We also looked at the issue of climate change and the PR war that is being waged by big oil, the environmental movement, and those who stand to gain when alternatives such as solar and wind are put into service.

Last Thursday President Obama vetoed the Keystone pipeline, a project that has been in the works for seven years. The pipeline would transport tar sands oil from Canada to refineries on the gulf coast of the US. The environmental opposition to the project is grounded in a belief that oil is bad, and that tar sands oil is one of the worst forms of oil when it comes to negative environmental impact. According to the New York Times, “The process of extracting that oil produces about 17 percent more planet-warming greenhouse gases than the process of extracting conventional oil.”

But the debate had come to be more symbolic than real. The oil will likely make it to market regardless of the fate of the Keystone pipeline and the pro-jobs and pro-economy arguments were largely overstated.

But the New York Times report suggests that Obama’s decision is mostly about cementing his legacy as a friend of environmentalists. It even makes the point that the decision is about sending a message to the international community.

But advocates of the agreement said that the Keystone decision, even though it is largely symbolic, could show other countries that Mr. Obama is willing to make tough choices about climate change.

Perhaps Obama’s decision is a chess move in a global PR strategy designed to affect the outcome of UN’s Conference on Climate Change when they meet in Paris later this month.