Category: PR

Posted on

Jeff Bezos: Businessman or Philanthropist?

BezosJeff Bezos, billionaire founder of Amazon.com, just purchased the Washington Post newspaper for $250 million. The newspaper has struggled in recent years, as have nearly all US newspapers, with declining revenue and increasing losses. Last year the paper lost $54 million and this year they are on track to lose another $100 million. Some are asking if Bezos can do for journalism what he did for retail sales. With a personal fortune of nearly $25 billion Bezos’ “investment” in the WaPo equals just one percent of his wealth — hardly a huge financial risk if he is unable to turn things around.

But perhaps turning things around is not his first priority. Some have speculated that the decision to purchase the paper was less about adding to his financial stature and more about advancing his own political agenda. Still others suggest that is may be about enhancing his image and legacy. If we’ve learned anything from the history of the rich and powerful it is that advancing age often brings with it a strong desire to do something that will be seen as having a lasting impact…something that will endure long after they are gone. Thanks to legendary PR practitioner “Poison” Ivy Lee, the great robber baron John D. Rockefeller is as well-known today for his philanthropy as for the tragic massacre at Ludlow.

Bezos purchased the paper from the Graham family who are highly esteemed Washington D.C. insiders. Amazon is headquartered in Seattle, or as Bezos calls it, the “other Washington.” The cultural clash between East/West coast and Old/New money could make this relationship a challenge. But Amazon and Bezos are not unfamiliar with the D.C. way of life. Last year they spent a reported $2.5 million lobbying the executive and legislative branches of government.

In a letter to Washington Post employees, Bezos wrote,

There will, of course, be change at The Post over the coming years. That’s essential and would have happened with or without new ownership. The Internet is transforming almost every element of the news business: shortening news cycles, eroding long-reliable revenue sources, and enabling new kinds of competition, some of which bear little or no news-gathering costs. There is no map, and charting a path ahead will not be easy. We will need to invent, which means we will need to experiment.

It will be interesting to see what kinds of experiments Bezos has in mind. Will every new Kindle sold come with a Washington Post subscription? Will news and retail marketing somehow find a symbiotic relationship where consumers of both news and commercial products move freely between both commodities? Or will the Washington Post simply be the legacy medium that Bezos uses to burnish his personal legacy? As Bob Schieffer said on Face the Nation, “We can get along without newspapers, but we can’t get along without what newspapers do.” Let’s hope we don’t have to witness the truth of that statement.

Posted on

The Future of Modern Warfare?

No, I’m not talking about the release of Call of Duty: Black Ops II this week, and the $500 million that players dropped on the first day. Rather, I’m talking about real conflict with real casualties, and tweets like this…

Some numbers from the last 3 days: 492 rockets fired from #Gaza hit #Israel + 245 Iron Dome interceptions = 737 rockets fired at us. @IDFSpokesperson

And this photo tweeted two days ago…

And this video posted to Youtube…

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6U2ZQ0EhN4]
If you watch the IDF YouTube channel you’ll also find a video that alleges to show Palestinian children taunting Israeli soldiers attempting to provoke a response for the cameras.

In a world where public support is necessary for democratic societies to engage in armed conflict, propaganda is a necessary and essential part of the campaign. According to an editorial in the Washington Post,

The @IDFSpokesperson Twitter account, encouraging followers to show support for the strikes, tweeted Wednesday: “More than 12,000 rockets hit Israel in the past 12 years. RT if you think #Israel has the right to defend itself.” More than 5,500 people have retweeted it.

The social media campaign being waged by the Israeli Defense Force is part PR campaign, part political posturing, part warning intended to minimize civilian casualties, and part intimidation, e.g. “We recommend that no Hamas operatives, whether low level or senior leaders, show their faces above ground in the days ahead.”

Hamas, the pro-Palestinian group responsible for the rocket attacks on Israel, has responded with their own campaign, including the twitter hashtag #GazaUnderAttack. Civilians, especially children, killed by Israeli retaliatory strikes are put on display for the TV cameras as mourners wail in the street.

The Middle East, post Arab Spring, is still a fractious place where opposing forces battle on a daily basis. While some of the conflict is physical, much of it takes place in the media where the battle is fought for the hearts and minds of both regional and global witnesses. And more and more of it is happening in near-real-time.

Posted on

Dark Knight Falls Short

The latest in the Dark Knight series is struggling to bounce back from the tragic shooting in Aurora that appears to be having a greater impact on attendance than initially projected. It may appear callous to be talking about box office receipts and financial success when so many lives were lost and others were changed forever. But that is the nature of the business of big media. The studio, Warner Brothers, took steps to try to appear sensitive to the tragic shooting. They delayed reports of box office receipts that first weekend and cancelled premiere events in Paris, Mexico City and Tokyo. According to the WSJ, a spokesperson for the studio said, “We just felt it would be disrespectful and not the right thing to do to go forward.” Warner Bros also pulled trailers for Gangster Squad from theaters because of a scene that includes shooting up a movie theater. Meanwhile, security has been beefed-up and theater chains are implementing new rules about patrons showing up in outfits and masks.

Christian Bales’ surprise visit to patients in Aurora hospitals was certainly well-received by both the patients and the media. The visit may have been inspired by a Facebook viral campaign calling for the star to make a visit to the victims. And while I sincerely hope that the visit was made for all the right reasons, we’re sure to hear criticism from skeptics and cynics who question motives whenever fame and fortune is at stake.

Public Relations experts have been weighting in on the difficult position facing Warner Bros. Some had advised that all screenings of Dark Knight Rises be pulled for a short time. Others have argued for business as usual. According to a report by Fox News, Daniel Keeney, President of DPK Public Relations and PR crisis expert, believes that the best response is to acknowledge and move forward.

“There realistically is no way in the foreseeable future to extricate the Batman brand from this horrific tragedy,” he said. “So instead of hoping to get beyond this, the studio needs to accept that this event is a part of this movie from this point forward. A simple way to acknowledge this and recognize as well as honor the victims is to add a slide to the beginning of the movie along with a moment of silence prior to the start of the film.”

According to a report filed by LA radio station WKZO,

Ronn Torossian, chief executive of New York-based 5W Public Relations, agreed that the public “has a very short-term memory” of news events and said the Aurora shooting would not leave a long-term impact on film promotion. “Reality shows have had tragic suicides and other incidents, yet reality shows continue,” he said.

Of course it is entirely possible that Word-Of-Mouth and film critic reviews are responsible for the lackluster performance. But it is also possible that potential movie-goers are not in the mood for a film that will remind them of senseless killing by a deranged “Joker” from Aurora.

Posted on

Pink Ribbons and PR Missteps

The social media buzz machine turned into a buzz saw late last week for the Susan G. Komen Foundation. If you’ve been anywhere near this social media maelstrom you know that the Komen Foundation has taken a major hit for its decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, and then reversing the decision, all within a 72-hour period. According to Advertising Age, the incident “showed how a brand can boomerang from one of the most loved into one of the most reviled in a head-snapping two days.’’

First a little background. Over the years the Komen Foundation, and their Race for the Cure, has raised billions of dollars for diagnosis, treatment and research of a disease that kills about 110 women every day in this country. The foundation gives away tens of millions of dollars every year and some of that money, about $700,000, had been going to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was using that money to provide screenings and mammogram referrals to women who might not otherwise be able to pay for these services. But Planned Parenthood is also the largest provider of abortions in the US, and that has resulted in close scrutiny by members of congress who want to ensure that government funds are not being used to provide abortions. Planned Parenthood is currently under investigation by congress with regard to its financial dealings and that was the initial reason cited by the Komen Foundation as to why they were withdrawing funding from Planned Parenthood. However, as negative responses mounted the story began to change. The Foundation countered that Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms, only referrals, and that this change in funding was about being more responsible stewards of precious resources. You can see their initial response in this YouTube video.

Proponents and opponents have taken sides, sometimes determined by their view on the always-contentious topic of abortion. Critics of the Komen Foundation’s decision to halt funding to Planned Parenthood saw the decision as knuckling under to political pressure from the pro-life lobby. As you might guess, the reversal fired up the pro-life crowd who had been pleased with the earlier decision.

This blog is not a forum to debate the relative merits of either side in the culture war raging around abortion, but this case-study provides an opportunity to observe how a non-profit, known for years of service in the battle against breast cancer, could so quickly find itself under attack by many of the people that it claims to serve. The power of social media to aggregate discussions and dissent is once again center stage. Reaction to SOPA and PIPA last month, and now this…demonstrates the raw energy that can be focused by the impassioned use of  these modern-day megaphones. There’s another angle that students of media should consider. How you learned about this event may also be shaping your understanding of the issues at stake. According to an op-ed in the NYT, the media’s coverage of the story has been biased by the media’s failure to understand the perspective of those on the pro-life side of the issue.

Part of the problem facing Komen is that they appear to be giving in to political pressure…first from pro-life, then pro-choice, political operatives. Even after issuing an apology for their earlier decision plenty of anger remains. Some of their funding sources are now saying that they will stop giving to the Komen Foundation and only time will tell if the Foundation can bounce back from this misstep.  Somewhat ironically, both the Komen foundation and Planned Parenthood are reporting increased giving in the wake of the scandal. Planned Parenthood reported that it had raised $3 million in a 72-hour period, including a $250,000 pledge from NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Additional Resources: Kaiser Health News has collected summaries of news organizations’ reports on the debate.

NOTE: if you respond to this post please do your best to keep your comments focused on the media issues related to the story.

Posted on

What is Herman Cain’s Communications Director Smoking?

We’re quickly approaching an election year, and you know what that means…political ads 24/7. More and more we’re seeing ads launched and tested online where ROI can be extremely high if an ad goes viral. Even better is an online ad that attracts the attention of traditional media. The result is free exposure when broadcast and cable news outlets spend precious airtime talking about or even screening the online ad.

That may be the strategy behind an online ad for Herman Cain, who is running for the Republican nomination to challenge Barak Obama in the 2012 Presidential race. The ad, with more than 1.2 million views and counting, features Cain’s chief of staff Mark Block who, at the end of the spot, takes a drag on a cigarette. You can watch the ad on [Youtube]. This is an unconventional approach, to say the least. As Block says in the spot, “we’ve run a campaign like nobody’s ever seen.”And while Block says the ad is not intended to promote smoking or to send a subliminal message, that’s not stopping media critics and journalists for looking for the subtext beneath the subtext. Some are suggesting that it is defiant gesture towards the nanny-ism of Big Government that wants to tell people what they can or cannot do.

Another bazaar web ad is the long-form, He Carried Yellow Flowers. Conner Friedersdorf at the Atlantic calls it a “Dadaist Meta-Western.” I don’t know where to begin with this one, so I encourage you to watch it on [YouTube] and leave your comments below. What do you think is the message? And does it make you think of Herman Cain as a viable contender for the office of President of the United States of America?

 

Posted on

Nuclear’s PR Problem

Some time ago I wrote about the PR problems confronting the climate change community. Questions about the integrity of the supporting scientific data were raised after leaked emails suggested that researchers had a hidden agenda.

The nuclear energy industry in America, and the world, is experiencing a PR problem as well. Part of the problem can be attributed to historical events while another part appears to be based on irrational fears surrounding nuclear technology. But certainly a significant part of the problem surrounding public perceptions about nuclear energy can be traced to mass media portrayals of real and imaginary nuclear events.

This blog post will not be an attempt to defend or defame nuclear energy or the nuclear power industry, but rather to explore the source of public perceptions about the nuclear power industry and how the media have contributed to that perception.

The China Syndrome, starring Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon and Michael Douglas, arrived in theaters on March 16, 1979. According to the NY Times, “With the no-nukes protest movement in full swing, the movie was attacked by the nuclear industry as an irresponsible act of leftist fear-mongering.” But then, just twelve days later, the nuclear industry experienced a devastating blow when an accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania raised new fears about the safety of nuclear power. I grew up just down the road (and down wind) from Three Mile Island and was quite aware of the pandemonium that ensued in the days following. In fact, the fallout from Three Mile Island is frequently blamed for a virtual halt to nuclear power development in the US. While public fear and panic was substantial, the physical damage from TMI was relatively minor. Again, the NY Times:

The T.M.I. accident was, according to a 1979 President’s Commission report, “initiated by mechanical malfunctions in the plant and made much worse by a combination of human errors.” Although some radiation was released, there was no meltdown through to the other side of the Earth — no “China syndrome” — nor, in fact, did the T.M.I. accident produce any deaths, injuries or significant damage except to the plant itself.

The most serious nuclear accident happened in April of 1986 at the Chernobyl reactor in the Ukraine. The accident resulted in 57 deaths, primarily among workers involved in attempts to contain and clean up the damaged reactor. And most recently, news coverage of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility damaged by the 8.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami has contributed to widespread fear of nuclear radiation poisoning, although no effects of radiation exposure have been recorded to date [link].

Despite the relatively few deaths and injuries related to nuclear power production, a significant segment of the public is strongly opposed to nuclear power based on concerns over safety. Media coverage of the Fukushima story continues to emphasize “potential” harm from radiation exposure even though there is little evidence of real consequences.

Of course who can blame us for being a little nervous. Godzilla, a mutant product of a nuclear explosion, wreaked havoc while the movie’s anti-nuke message resonated with post-WWII Japanese. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles gained their power from nuclear ooze while their impressionable adolescent fans “learned” nothing about the actual physics behind the technology. And with an inept Homer Simpson at the controls of the local nuclear power plant, disaster appears to be inevitable.

Whether it is sensational and/or uninformed reporting of news events or fictional portrayals of our worst nuclear nightmares, the media have been steadily building a case against nuclear in the court of public opinion. Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt, authors of Freakonomics, dubbed the media’s role the Jane Fonda Effect and concluded their article by predicting that the future of nuclear power in the US, “may all depend on what kind of thrillers Hollywood has in the pipeline.”
What do you think? Have the media given nuclear power a fair shake?

References:

Posted on

Climate Change Getting the Cold Shoulder

Early last year I wrote about the PR problem facing the global warming community. As I noted then, public interest in efforts to address global warming has fallen dramatically from earlier times when Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth was perceived as, well, truth.

Much has changed since then, including a global recession that has taken the edge off of long-term efforts to avert possible or probable ecological disaster. Ask an out-of-work environmentalists about climate change and you may find that he is much more focused on finding a short-term solution to his economic hardship.

Another setback for the movement was the “climategate” scandal in which stolen emails suggested that climate scientists were hiding contrary data in an attempt to prop up their theories. This fall from grace was too much for some climate-change supporters who jumped ship and joined the ranks of skeptics.

Thirdly, the fact that Europe and the US have experienced a colder-than-normal winter with record snowfalls in the mid-west and east coast hasn’t exactly helped the climate change cause.

In light of the set-backs, those who want to keep climate change front and center are struggling to promote their cause.  A recent article in Der Spiegel highlights the failure of climate change advocates to find a compelling visual or spokesperson to make their case. And without a compelling hook, the climate change story has moved off the front page. (That’s a newspaper metaphor for those of you under the age of 45 who don’t read newspapers.) To try to get the story back in the limelight, climate change evangelists are resorting to marketing tricks like those mentioned in the Der Spiegel piece.

Things may change…actually, they always do. Perhaps they’ll find a compelling narrative that renews interest and concern on the part of the public. But for now, the climate change story is a hard sell to a jaded public that is significantly more interested in short term comfort and the latest tabloid gossip than a far-off environmental nightmare that may, or may not, be headed our way.

Posted on

Apple PR v Student Journalist

An online spat with Apple may have contributed to a student journalist’s invitation to cover the release of Microsoft’s Windows Phone 7. Chelsea Kate Isaacs, a journalism major at Long Island University, received a class assignment that involved finding out more about an initiative at her college to buy iPads for all incoming students. As any good journalist, Chelsea contacted Apple requesting a quote about using iPads in an academic setting. But after the Apple PR department failed to return multiple phone messages, she sent an email to Steve Jobs…who, in hindsight, probably wished he hadn’t responded. But he did respond, leading to a back-and-forth that quickly deteriorated. A final email from Jobs reportedly said, “Please leave us alone.” You can read more about the reported email exchange here.

That might be the end of the story, except that Microsoft saw an opportunity to promote its Windows Phone 7 by selecting Isaacs to travel, all expenses paid, to the Microsoft launch event. According to CNET news, “Despite two radically different experiences, Isaacs said she has no plans to cover either company any differently.
Read more.

What corporate PR lesson, if any, should we take away from this incident?

Posted on

Which mess is bigger…the oil spill or the government’s response?

More than five weeks after the April 20th explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig that started it, the BP oil spill has eclipsed the size of the catastrophe known as the Exxon Valdez. Today we learned that the ‘top-kill’ procedure has failed, and that thousands of gallons of oil continue daily to add to the 18-40 million gallons of oil already fouling the gulf and the delicate marshes that line the coast of Louisiana. Some of this oil may make its way into the currents that will carry it around the Florida keys and up the east coast of the US. While that may take weeks or months, the mess has already reached Washington D.C.

In an effort to demonstrate that he is in control, President Obama made a three-hour visit to the region yesterday before heading off on his holiday trip to Chicago. Critics of the president note that he is skipping the traditional Memorial Day celebration at Arlington cemetery while taking his second vacation since the oil spill began. Similar criticism leveled at President Bush when he appeared to be too removed from the Katrina devastation has some calling this Obama’s Katrina. Whether the comparison is fair or not is beside the point…the real issue here is one of public perception. If enough people begin to see parallels between the two presidents’ handling of these two tragic events, the political fallout will likely be as damaging to Obama as it was to Bush.

Crisis communication is only one aspect of the job for PR professionals. But right now, the gulf oil spill crisis is sucking the air out of any other PR agenda that the White House would prefer to have on page one. Short of successfully capping the leak and quickly cleaning up the gulf coast region, (neither of which look likely at this time), this crisis is going to continue to wear on the White House. As Mara Liasonn at NPR aptly noted, “the longer the spill goes uncapped and the greater the environmental damage, the harder it will be for the White House to look competent and effective.”

css.php