Feed: Planet Public Relations - AggScore: 23.1
Online privacy
A few weeks ago in class, we saw an episode in the BBC series "The Virtual Revolution". The episode was called "The Cost of Free" and was about how most people didn't realize how much of our online activity that is being watched, made a record of and used for commercial purposes.
As some of the kids interviewed in the programme said: "We use the search engines and social media for free and in return they get to send us tailored ads on Facebook and the like. We think that's a fair deal". I must say I'm with the kids on this one. I'm just not frightened by the fact that Facebook somehow can detect that I’m searching for a deal on holiday houses in Tuscany, and uses this information to put ads for villas in Florence in the Facebook sidebar.
People who do get worried point to the fact
that this means there’s a huge amount of data stored about my
internet use somewhere, and that this could be misused if it
fell into the wrong hands. And this is true. I’m sure there
would be embarrassing bits if someone managed to make my entire
Google search history public. For some, it could even be
dangerous.
There are two main reasons I don’t worry. If some unsavoury character should somehow get hold of all this information, my internet history would be one among billions. Why would they worry about little old me? I’m surely not that interesting. Someone will probably be run over by a car somewhere in the world in the next hour, but I don’t spend time worrying if that will be me either.
Some people get very upset with all the CCTV cameras there are in the public space these days, feeling that it’s an invasion of privacy to be filmed wherever you go. I feel safer with all the cameras. If someone were to kidnap me, those cameras could help the police track down the culprit! (At least that’s how it works on TV).
The other reason is that there are other databases with far more sensitive information about me that already exists. There’s information stored about me somewhere detailing my hospital records, my personal economy (in Norway all tax records are made public), where I travel, what I spend my money on, who I vote for and criminal records for some people. Even if I never even went online, these things will be stored about me, and I don’t really worry about that either. Possibly because I don’t really feel I have that much to hide.
Date Published: Apr 13, 2011 - 11:37 am
The Obama code – not suitable for everyone
Barak Obama’s 2008 election
campaign has among other things been hailed for its innovative
use of social media and online technology. Especially voters aged 18-29 can be hard
to reach with your message, as they may not read traditional
media, or watch political broadcasts on TV. So Obama took his
message to them, to where they were, to the internet.
Through Facebook, Twitter,
YouTube and his webpage he was looking like the first two-way
presidential candidate and he managed to excite and engage
people with his messages of change. The result was a whopping
65% election participation, the highest turnout since the
election in 1908, and a comfortable win to Mr Obama
himself.
Was this all due to getting
his campaign online? Of course not. In politics, as in real
life, if you’re going to convince anyone of anything you have
to be believable and credible. You have to have a message that
resonates with the people you need to convince, and you
actually have to be yourself.
When David Cameron tried to
copy the success through his YouTube channel “WebCameron”, it
failed dramatically. Trying to prove he was a “regular guy”
just busy with his kids and the dishes like every other father,
just didn’t ring true. The obviously staged clip (if
communicating with the British people was so important, why not
do it in his office, or somewhere else where he wouldn’t be
occupied with his kids and the household chores) just annoyed
voters as it seemed dishonest and fake, and at complete odds
with his posh image.
See WebCameron
here:
The point is, social media no magic potion in politics either. It’s just another platform to reach people who may have been hard to reach before. The rules are still the same: You still have to have an appropriate, engaging message, credibility and trust. It's about being genuine.
I follow Norway's Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, on Twitter. He states on his page that most of the tweets are written by him personally, and the rest are dictated by him but written by his assistants (who he names). He tweets about politics, his party and his opinions and the odd personal tweet about the Norwegian football team or the nice weather we're having. In short it seems like genuine stuff, and he also occasionally engages in conversation with other twitter members.
|
|
Jens Stoltenberg is a popular politician in Norway. He
has also succeeded in building a reputation as a "normal guy". Photo: Erik F. Brandsborg, Aktiv I Oslo.no |
I know his presence on twitter is a carefully thought through PR strategy, but I'm still falling for it. I still feel that I know him better now, and that, if I should so desire, telling him how I feel about something is only a tweet away. It's a transparency that invokes trust.
However, should I one day find out that Stoltenberg hasn't tweeted a single thing himself, that whole trust disappears and I will feel cheated. So unless you can be yourself, be genuine and be transparent as a politician, you should probably not try to conquer the social media scene. Voters are not stupid, and cheating is not accepted.
Date Published: Apr 12, 2011 - 3:46 pm
Should CSR be the job of PR practitioners?
As corporate social
responsibility is becoming more common and more important, is
seems important to consider the logistics of the increasing
significance of ethics in business. So far the responsibility
of CSR have been largely placed with the public relations
departments, but is this really the best
solution?
Simon Goldsworthy (Senior
lecturer in PR at Westminster University) doesn’t think so. In
a chapter entitled “PR ethics: forever a will o' the wisp” in
the book “Communication Ethics Now” he argues that PR
practitioners are no more qualified to act as ethical
councillors than
other members of the organisation. He suggests this notion has
come about due to the apparent large amount of “socialists” in
the PR industry, who wishes to bring about a new dawn for more
ethical business, and therefore takes the responsibility upon
themselves.
Other PR ethicists, like
Kathy Fitzpatrick and Phil Seib, points to PR practitioners
duty to society as a reason why it’s natural for them to be
involved in CSR. They thereby place PR as the social conscience
of the organisation linking good, ethical behaviour with a good
reputation.
Personally, I side most with
the latter argument. While all PR practitioners might not be
educated particularly on the subject of ethics any more than
CEOs, HR or whoever else could be in charge of CSR, there are
good reasons why they should be. There is an undeniable link
between good behaviour and a good reputation. What constitutes
“good behaviour” changes over time. While it not many years ago
might have been enough to ensure financial gains, these days
most of an organisation’s publics also crave ethical behaviour
on one level or another. It seems to me that public relations
practitioners, who are dealing with these publics, are well
placed to be involved with CSR.
Date Published: Apr 12, 2011 - 8:52 am
Nonviolent action? Let me count the ways...
Nonviolent action has been the tools of NGOs,
freedom fighters and individuals seeking political and social
change without bloodshed for centuries. Advocates of nonviolent
resistance include Martin Luther King, Mahatma Ghandi and
Nelson Mandela, and modern examples are for instance the Orange
Revolution in Ukraine, the "velvet revolution" in Iran and
the recent uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.
The last examples have by
many been attributed to the writings of the American
Harvard Professor and Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Gene
Sharp who in 1973 published the hugely influential book
“The Politics of Nonviolent Action”. His idea is that no ruler
can rule a people who refuse to obey, that any ruler is only as
strong as his subjects’ obedience to his orders. Ultimately the
power of any state derives from the subjects of the
state.
|
| Gene Sharp |
Included in this work, and in
his consequent publications (including the widely distributed and
translated work “From Dictatorship to Democracy”, the “guidebook”
to nonviolent revolution) is a list of
198 different methods of nonviolent action, ranging from
the use of colours to the importance of public
assemblies (like the orange in Ukraine and the Tahrir Square in Cairo).
As the list was written back
in the 70s, naturally it does not take into account new
inventions and developments like the internet and social media,
which turned out to be an important part in uprisings such as the
one in Egypt). It would be really interesting, especially to
those working in NGO PR, to see what tactics could be added to
the already extensive list of tools, whether you’re trying to
topple a dictator or fight things like racism or social
inequality on a smaller scale.
Any suggestions on what
should go on such a list?
Date Published: Apr 11, 2011 - 4:33 pm
Has PR and spin undermined trust in politics? To a certain degree.
The original motion at the Westminster University
debate was: “PR
and spin have undermined trust in politics”, and it is a
complicated matter. It would have been much easier had the
motion been “PR and spin is the only reason why people have
no trust in politics” or “PR and spin had no part in
undermining trust in politics” (the answer would be “no” in
both instances).
Personally I think that PR and spin has some
responsibility for the trust deficit, but that politicians and
the media also has played their part. What can be done about
it?
Knowledge is power. Too much power
First of all, the system under Blair with Campbell
as the autocratic ruler of all information was bound to be
bad both for trust, for transparency and for democracy. In
most democratic systems of governance, power is divided
(between executive, legislature, and judiciary
branches) to prevent anyone getting too powerful
and thus threaten the democratic process.
A free and independent press is also crucial to a
democracy, and “rewarding” “obedient” journalist or
“punishing” journalists who dare to write things you don’t
like, is a very slippery slope towards corruption. And if
there is anything that corrodes trust, it’s
corruption.
Together we stand, divided we
fall
But here journalists and editors also have a role
to play. Playing along with this game is completely
self-destructive for a so-called free and independent press.
I totally understand that being the only one who says no will
be catastrophic for that newspaper, being the only one not
getting the juicy news.
And I also get (and have witnessed first-hand) that
there is so little money in newsrooms these days. Journalists
are under a colossal pressure to produce sensational news,
without being given the time or resources to do their job
properly. To also go up against powerful government aids,
might be a little too much to ask for.
But seriously, there is going to have to be a change
in culture, and the media will have to put their foot down to
such un-democratic tendencies. THAT is their job.
And it’s PRs job, as an ethical profession to make
sure such practices are not being used, no matter how
tempting.
Politicians need to get their act
together
And lastly, if the main problem is a lack of trust in
politicians (rather
than politics, which is the system, rather than the
people), then of course the politicians themselves bears the
biggest responsibility to act trustworthy. As an elected
represent of the people it is your duty to them to be intensely
ethical, transparent and above board with everything. All the
PR and the media coverage in the world can’t make or break you
as good as you can yourself.
After the whole
debate I ended up (as one of few) voting for the motion. I
think PR and spin has at least played a part in the break-down
of trust. I was appalled by the stories of the spin doctors’
behaviour, and the lack of backbone in the media. But in the
end, if the politicians want to be trusted, then they had
better start to act the part.
Date Published: Mar 28, 2011 - 5:20 pm
Has PR and spin undermined trust in politics? NO!
Yesterday we looked at the arguments for why PR and
spin should take the blame for the lack of trust in politics,
today we'll here some opposing views. Francis Ingham and Lance
Price were on the panel athe the Westminster University
deabte speaking in defence of PR, and here is what they
had to say:
Francis Ingham agreed that spin has played a part in
the loss of trust in politics, and then especially the
excessive control practised by Alastair Campbell. He also
agreed the PR gimmicks and obvious lies make politicians less
trustworthy, as the public sees right through it.
He however refused to accept that PR was the singular
or even main culprit, and pointed to the politicians themselves
and the media as other possible offenders.
He pointed to the expense scandal, tory MPs preaching
about family values only to be exposed as cheaters, and the
hiring of Russian beauties (who turn out to be spies) as
examples of how MP behaviour undermines trust, entirely without
the help of spin doctors.
The media crisis
An increasingly sensationalist media also has to take
part of the blame, he said. Political journalists have gone
from reporting without question what politicians say, to now
assume that everything that comes out of their mouths is a
lie.
24-hour news and the incessant need for new angles
and stories coupled with vicious cuts in news teams, demands
sensational and dramatic stories.
A politician having a re-think about a decision
becomes “an embarrassing U-turn”, and not only in the tabloids.
Ingham concluded that while PR does play a part, it is a junior
part compared to the other two culprits.
Spin is nothing new
Lance Price then claimed that professional political
communication is actually good for politics, and indeed
increases democracy. He pointed out that 20-30 years ago only
the Tory party were using all the classical spinning
techniques, and that Thatcher managed to convince voters that
there was no real alternative to a Tory government. He felt
that since only one side used spin, democracy
suffered.
His other argument was that spin doctors are only as
good as the politicians they work for. The only reason they
could help get Blair into power was that he was already
popular, and no amount of spin seemed to be able to save Gordon
Brown.
He was also of the
opinion that the politicians did a fine job of eroding trust
themselves, with the help of a witch-hunting media. He said:
“trust in politics is lost when politicians say one thing and
do the oposit” and mentioned examples like the changing stances
on tuition fees, forests and the importance of
libraries.
Tomorrow I will
look at both sides and analyse what we can learn from this
debate.
Date Published: Mar 28, 2011 - 8:48 am
Have PR and spin undermined trust in politics? YES!
You often hear
that political ‘spin doctors’ are to blame for the lack of
public trust British politicians are experiencing these
days. PR
practitioners claim that it’s the journalists who are doing the
spinning, and that the British press is the cause of
politicians being so untrusted.
Interesting debate
Interesting debate
I attended a
debate at Westminster University a few weeks ago where the
motion: “PR and spin have undermined trust in politics” was put
forward. On the panel we found Kevin Maguire (political editor
of the Daily Mail) and Sheila Gunn (formerly political
journalist and John Major’s press spokesperson) for the motion
and Lance Price (Former Labour spin doctor) and Francis Ingham
(Chief Executive PRCA) against the motion. It was a really
interesting debate and I found myself being swayed each time a
new person presented their views.
I will today sum up the arguments for the motion, and tomorrow
I will look at the arguments against it.
Abuse of power
Abuse of power
Sheila Gunn told us about her experiences with
Alastair Campbell during the Blair years. She told of how he
had gotten himself in a position where he had full and absolute
control of all information, and how he was not afraid to use
this power to his advantage.
If journalists displeased him, he would refuse to
talk to them again, and keep them from getting important info
other, less upsetting journalists would get. If he was happy
with you, he would drip feed you good stories.
Her point was that
an all-powerful spin doctor is not healthy for democracy and
that when good headlines becomes more important than running
the country, a lack of trust will surely
follow.
Personal experience
Personal experience
Kevin Maguire also
blamed PR, saying that it’s the spin doctors that has to step
up and take their part of the responsibility. And with a fine
selection of anecdotes from his experiences with both Campbell
and David Cameron when he used to work in PR, he made a very
good case for the motion.
So spin doctors’
abuse of power and letting headlines become more important than
politics are good reasons for why PR is guilty for the lack of
trust in politics, but there are also very good reasons why
they should not take all the blame. Find out
tomorrow!
Date Published: Mar 27, 2011 - 2:06 pm
Social media vs. traditional media: A trust issue
By a lot of PR practitioners social media, is seen as this
fantastical new tool that will trump all traditional media when
it comes to getting your message out. In their book "Online
Public Relations", David Phillips
and Philip Young goes as far
as claiming that "everything will change" now that we have social
media.
Trust takes time
Recent research indicates that most
people might not agree, at least not yet, with that
assessment.
Public relations as all about building
relationships and creating (good) reputations. An important
aspect of both, is trust. Bombarding your stakeholders with your
message will not achieve anything unless the stakeholders trust
the information.
Another piece of research that is even
more interesting when it comes to the topic of social media and
traditional media, is that where the source is delivering
his message is also of great importance.
While there are many good reasons for
getting your messages out through social media, it appears
that creating trust should not be high on that
list. Social Media is the second-to-last media platform,
beaten only by advertisement when it comes to
not being trusted.
Traditional media, and those who work
for them, often show up on lists like these of untrustworthy
sources. But this recent research shows that they are still more
trusted than information we get from social media. My teacher,
Pam Williams, mentioned an article she read where it said that
while people might have gotten a piece of news
first on Twitter or Facebook, they wouldn't trust it until they
saw it confirmed in traditional media.
Choose your media
platform
If you’re looking to traditional media
to make sure your message is trusted, it’s also useful to realize
that some traditional media is more trusted than others.
Business magazines are at number two,
only beaten by stock or industry analyst rapports. We then find
radio at number four, TV at number six and newspapers down at
number eight.
I’m not sure why people perceive
newspaper journalists less trustworthy than their colleagues on
the radio, but I will guess that in Britain the BBC might have
something to do with it, as one of the most trusted media
institutions in the country. Radio (and also TV) is perhaps seen
as a more sombre medium than newspapers with their tabloid
shenanigans.
Readers build relationships with
newspapers, radio programmes and TV News for years. It's no
wonder they tend to trust them more than a new media
outlet.
For PR practitioners the
lesson is that not everything that glimmers is gold. Just because
social media is new and shiny and exciting, doesn’t mean that we
should completely turn our backs on traditional approaches. I
think the best practice is to combine the two, and to find out in
which situations we should chose social media and in which
situations we should go with traditional media.
Here is another piece of research from 2008
that suggests that spending a lot of time on corporate blogs,
might not be worth it…
Date Published: Mar 11, 2011 - 5:32 pm
Is political spin really such a new invention?
If you listen to the
arguments against political spin, you’re almost left with the
impression that the concept was singlehandedly invented by
Alastair Campbell in the mid-90s.
Even though you might
already suspect that this is an exaggerated claim, you might be
surprised how long politicians have been spinning the truth,
wanting to look good themselves.
We can find a lot evidence
of public relations techniques in ancient times such as Roman
emperors’ usage of bread and circus. Making sure the people was
fed and entertained is an effective way to lead attention away
from poor policy making.
Pope Urban II also employed many “modern”
PR techniques in rallying up support for the first crusade,
including a catchy slogan (“God wills it!”), “press
conferences” (the Council of Clermont), appropriate
advocates (Peter the Hermit) and a good old fashioned
slander campaign of the enemy consisting of both true and
totally made up atrocities committed by the
Muslims.
So how about spin? Are the
origins of spin just as old? You bet!
As with all incidents set so
far back in time it is hard to know with certainty exactly what
happened. History is often written by winners, and is in itself
a good example of how the victorious side can put a positive
spin on appalling events making themselves look good for future
generations. What we do in life may echo in eternity, but with
a good spin doctor (historian) it can echo so much nicer,
valiant and heroic.
Still I find the theories of Italian historian Cettina Vozi
both interesting and plausible. Her specialty is Greek
scientist and inventor Archimedes, and in her article “The death of Archimedes: A
reassessment” she explores possible alternatives to the popular
account of his untimely death.
|
| Archimedes Thoughtful by Domenico-Fetti 1620 |
Archimedes lived in the city of Syracuse, on
Sicily, and died there during the Second Punic War in 212 BC.
After a two year roman siege, the city was captured by the
forces of General Marcus Claudius
Marcellus.
According to the story,
Marcellus was a great admirer of Archimedes work, and had
ordered that he should not be harmed as he saw him as a
valuable scientific asset. But as his city was falling down
around him, the great scientist was apparently so engrossed in
his mathematical studies, that when a roman soldier ordered him
to get up, he refused, wanting to work on his studies instead.
Enraged, the
soldier killed him not knowing who he was.
According to the greek-roman
historian who wrote down the account (over a hundred years
after it happened) Marcellus “was said to have wept” as he
heard the news and subsequently arranged for a grand
funeral.
Vozi however, is not buying
the “death by misunderstanding”-theory, and claims it was most
likely an excellently executed early example of political spin
by the romans. Archimedes didn’t just dally in finding formulas
of volume and other math theories, you see. He was also an
inventor of war machines, like catapults and an alleged
mirror-device that could make ships catch fire, inventions that
made Syracusans a feared enemy.
Such a man would probably
not sit in his room oblivious to the destruction around him,
and more importantly, due to his involvement in the siege, Voza
argues that Archimedes would have been Roman target number
one.
|
| Archimedes' solar powered "death-ray" |
She believes Archimedes
death was nothing more than a “state-sponsored assassination”,
conveniently spun to blame the killing of one of ancient
world’s greatest scientist on a case of mistaken identity, and
throwing in a portrayal of Marcellus as a honourable and
cultured man for good measure.
The theory is hard to prove without a
time machine, but I find is as plausible as the popular account
written down by roman-friendly historians with no primary
sources.
Spin was not invented by Alastair
Campbell and his minions, nor will it be possible to get rid of
it completely. But with a functioning press, and a general
public able of critical analysis, I am confident democracy is
safe for a while yet.
|
| Archimedes too engrossed in his work: Truth or clever spin? |
By the way, if more examples of ancient PR is of interest, I'd
like to recommend Tom Watson's article in Public Relations
Review (vol 34 (2008) 19–24): Creating the cult of a saint:
Communications strategies in 10th century England. It's really
interesting to realize how sophisticated the PR machinery was
even more than a thousand years ago.
Date Published: Mar 07, 2011 - 5:36 pm
Hope, not despair, brings support to NGO campaigns
When working in the NGO sector, dealing with
victims of poverty, war, deforestation or other serious
hardship, it can be tempting to try and use the despair
to make people want to help. Thinking something like
“If we can only make people see how hard life is for
this little girl in the slums of New Delhi, surly they
would give us money to make it better” may seem to make
sense, but actually often has the opposite
effect.
When faced with overwhelming problems like
world poverty, or global warming, you find that they
often feel paralyzed by the enormity of what needs to
be done. If you also add in messages of suffering, or
guilt for not doing enough, chances are that you
potential donor will just switch the channel, or walk
away.
One NGO that has
understood this is WWF who found that their old scare
campaigns about the effects of global warming should we
chose to ignore it, just weren’t working. They decided
to device one that was positive and empowering instead,
and that was the start of Earth
Hour. By
giving people an achievable task (turning off their
lights for an hour each year) WWF have managed to
mobilize a billion people worldwide, including local
governments, companies and celebrities, making a stand
for sustainability and against climate change. By
focusing on happiness, positivity and the message that
by standing together we can move mountains, WWF has
managed to engage with people in a way a scare campaign
would never do.
While the act of
turning off your light for 60 minutes a year won’t
achieve much in that respect, it is always easier to ask
people who are already involved to up the ante. And when
engaging those who have the power to accomplish the
needed structural change, it is always nice to point to a
billion supporters championing your cause in a very
visual way.
Date Published: Mar 03, 2011 - 6:50 pm
Webcast about current trends in PR: Trust and transparency
As part of our master degree in public relations, we've been
asked to produce a video adressing a current trend in PR. We
are to pretend that we work for a PR agency and that the video
is meant for our clients.
So while *Firefly PR is completely made up, the research is all real.
Transparency and accountability is becoming a key aspect of gaining trust, and the PR industry should definitly pay attention.
So while *Firefly PR is completely made up, the research is all real.
Transparency and accountability is becoming a key aspect of gaining trust, and the PR industry should definitly pay attention.
Date Published: Mar 01, 2011 - 8:58 am
Publics and stakeholders: The bread and butter of PR
One of the most important
aspects of Public Relations is exactly that; building a
relationship with your publics. But before you can communicate
your carefully scripted message to those you need to reach,
step one is to find out who those people are. And which publics
should be on the top of your list of importance?
Often the words “publics”
and “stakeholders” are used interchangeably, as if they mean
the same. Others have tried to differentiate between them. R.
Edward Freeman claims in his book “Strategic Management: A Stakeholder
Approach” (1984)
that stakeholders
are people or groups of people who either affects your
organisation, or are affected by it. These could include
(depending on your organisation) customers, suppliers,
employees, shareholders, members, local community and pressure
groups.
Here Freeman explains the importance of stakeholders
Here Freeman explains the importance of stakeholders
Grunig and Hunt and Grunig and Repper are more interested in publics. They are also more concerned with issues and situation, rather than the organisation per se. Grunig’s Situational Theory is a good theory because it takes into account that the publics aren’t necessarily static. They are often dynamic groups that may change continually. One public can at one time be closely linked to your organisation as a stakeholder that is affected by your organisation, only to move to the periphery of your publics a few months later as the situation that made them affected has changed or disappeared.
Grunig divides publics into
four groups:
·
Non public
·
Latent public
·
Aware public
·
Active public
Non public is the people not
in a relationship with your organisation. They don’t affect you
and you don’t affect them. As such it is not important to
communicate with them, but one should still keep a little eye
on them, in case they become involved at some point,
Latent public is people who
are affected, but don’t know it yet. They are possibly on their
way to become more involved, and you should think about what
sort of message you send out to them.
Aware public is an informed
public that is affected and realise that they are. They are the
people who will ask for more information about the issue, and
they may want to influence the outcome.
Active public is your
loudest public. They have taken an active interest in your
organisation/issue and are trying to do something about
it.
Grunig’s theory means that
to know how to communicate with your publics, you need to
continuously keep an eye one them and analyse at which stage
they are.
Date Published: Feb 20, 2011 - 11:59 am
Crisis management and celebrity PR
Protecting a brand’s
reputation may be difficult enough when your brand is a
company, but when your brand is a person, it’s a whole other
ball game.
People are as we know only
human, and if you set yourself up to be an idol and an
inspiration to the world, that pedestal can be the source of a
mighty fall once you mess up. And at those times your PR team,
and their crisis management will be crucial to your
reputation’s possible survival.
|
| What was that Tiger? Pictures or it didn't happen? |
Take the case of Tiger
Woods; Deeply respected athlete, at the top of his game,
hardworking family man with impeccable morals, and inspiration
to us all. He’s been called the most marketable athlete in the
world, and has made obscene amounts of money on his endorsement
deals.
Then the scandal broke. The not too reputable
celebrity magazine, the National Enquirer, claimed Woods had
had an affair. Tiger’s response was deafening
silence.
A few days later he had
a car accident in the early hours of the
morning, reportedly because his wife had chased him down the
road threatening to smash his head in with a golf club, and all
hell broke loose.
A dozen women came forward
claiming to have had affairs with the
so-called family man, some with irrefutable evidence of his indescretion. His infidelity
had a devastating effect on his reputation, but his PR team’s
crisis management made everything a lot worse.
The plan seemed to be to
deny everything that couldn’t be proven, and to refuse to talk
about anything else. In the first week after the crash, the
only thing the world heard from Tiger were two vague statements on his webpage, sort of
apologising, but mostly stating that whatever he’d done, it was
nobody’s business but his family’s.
In this vacuum of
information, he let the press run riot with speculation,
rumours and everybody else’s opinions. When he finally decided
to talk, almost two months after the story broke,
the damage was already done.
His endorsement deals were
being dropped in droves, his wife divorced him,
and his reputation was in tarnish (although he is still an
excellent golfer).
We don’t know the reasons
for Tiger’s silence. As a person, it might have been the best
thing for him. Maybe his wife asked him to say nothing to
diminish the humiliation of the truth (the National Enquirer at
one point reported that he had had 120 affairs…), or maybe he
just honestly felt it was nobody’s business. As a human being,
it might have been the best solution, but as a Tiger Woods the
brand, it was a disaster.
There are other tried and
tested methods of dealing with moral failure for celebs. The
tell all, apologise and beg for forgiveness-strategy seems to
have a higher level of success.
|
| Mark Owen and his wife Emma. |
Mark Owen of Take That is
another person loved by his adoring fans. He also cheated
repeatedly on his loving wife, in much the same manner as Tiger
Woods. It was The Sun that found out first, and called up Mark
to tell him that they were breaking the story. Unlike Tiger, Owen decided to spill his
guts, and hope for forgiveness.
Under the headline “I am a love-cheat, a drunk… and a complete
idiot” he admitted ten affairs. This was the first mention
of the scandal the public hears and with the press and the fans
knowing all the facts from the very start, the consequent
coverage was about his wife’s reaction, Owen’s atonement and
his wife’s subsequent forgiveness.
David Letterman managed even
better. His habit of sleeping with his co-workers was first
discovered by one of his mistress’s new boyfriend, who
subsequently tried to blackmail the popular talk show
host.
Instead of paying up,
Letterman went to the police and assisted them in a ploy to
catch the blackmailer red-handed. Knowing that he would not be
able to keep his cheating secret from his family or the public,
he then daringly and unexpectedly told everything during his
late night show.
Again with no more secrets
to uncover, the press concentrated on the blackmailing plot and
the following trial, and Letterman escaped his misadventures
relatively unharmed. Hell, he even got to joke about it
on his show.
The moral is, I
think:
1.
Don’t cheat
2.
If you do anyway, don’t lie
about it once you’ve been caught
3.
If all else fails, go on
Oprah and cry. All will be forgiven.
Date Published: Feb 02, 2011 - 12:12 pm
Power to the Twitter people
Back when I was in high
school I’d bought a camera at a local photo store. It
constantly broke, yet they refused to give me a new one. Both
me and the shop knew that I was by law entitled to one (as I
had gone down there with a book of Norwegian law, and read them
the relevant paragraphs), but it wasn’t until my mum went down
and threatened to contact the local paper, or the Norwegian
version of “Watchdog”, that they gave in.
Everyone involved knew that
there was a very slim chance my broken camera-story was spicy
enough to be picked up by any media we might contact, but I
suppose they still didn’t want to risk it.
|
|
I fear the art of writing a strongly worded letter is a dying skill. |
Back in those days, before
Facebook, Twitter and well, internet for most of us,
newspapers, TV consumer shows, or the government consumer
council were the only way to create a reputation crisis for a
company that had treated us badly.
These days, it’s a brave new
world for consumers, a world with a lot more consumer power.
Instead of taking
time to write a strongly worded letter, or wait for an hour on
the phone to get through to customer service, the internet will
in many cases provide you with a much swifter reply.
If you have the slightest
celebrity status, you can create a media frenzy in
minutes!
About a year ago filmmaker
Kevin Smith (creator of cult classics like Dogma, Clerks and
Chasing Amy), got thrown off a Southwest Airline flight to
Burbank, because he was apparently to overweight to fit in his
seat. The airline’s guidelines for “customers of size” stated
that if you can’t lower both armrests while seated, you have to
book two seats. As it were, only one seat was available, and an
enraged Smith had to leave the flight.
Furiously her tweeted a
series of angry tweets about the incident, tagged the airline in
them, and sent them out to his 1.6 million followers. The
reaction was instant, and as the rant was retweeted around the
world, Southwest Airlines was suddenly facing tide wave of
complaints from people who sympathised with Smith, and
thousands of newspaper articles potentially giving people a
very negative view of the company.
Southwest quickly realized they had a PR crisis on their hands, and after frantically trying to apologise via Twitter, Southwest was forced to issue a lengthy, public apology and a refund to the film director. They also explained their decision on their blog, in a careful attempt of self-defence.
|
| Too fat? The verdict is inconclusive. |
Southwest quickly realized they had a PR crisis on their hands, and after frantically trying to apologise via Twitter, Southwest was forced to issue a lengthy, public apology and a refund to the film director. They also explained their decision on their blog, in a careful attempt of self-defence.
This case wasn’t entirely a
win for Smith and a loss for Southwest though, proving that you
can’t always count on the people backing you up against
companies.
As anyone who’s ever been on
a flight next to a “person of size” can vouch for, it is quite
annoying to have your own, already small, personal space
crowded by someone else’s fat, and many people applauded
Southwest on their guidelines, and told Smith to go on a
diet.
Now, most of us do not have nearly 2 million followers on Twitter, nor would our predicament cause worldwide media attention, but stories like the Smith-incident have caused many companies to pay close attention to what is said about them on Twitter and Facebook, and firing off a complaint on social media can be wise.
Now, most of us do not have nearly 2 million followers on Twitter, nor would our predicament cause worldwide media attention, but stories like the Smith-incident have caused many companies to pay close attention to what is said about them on Twitter and Facebook, and firing off a complaint on social media can be wise.
Chicago Tribune tells the story of
completely normal consumers who got their complaint dealt with
instantly by tweeting. It’s a good way to get noticed.
Southwest Airlines now have
two employees devoted to their Twitter page, and three people
monitoring their Facebook fan page.
The advantage of online
complaining is that your predicament is visible to everyone on
the internet, and companies are aware of the possible crisis
arising from angry consumers united. In a consumer world where
reputation is key and crisis can be generated from the smallest
incident, the power is continuing to grow for the
consumer.
PR practitoners will ignore this trend at their own peril...
PR practitoners will ignore this trend at their own peril...
Date Published: Jan 30, 2011 - 11:19 am
When war PR backfires
It’s hard drumming up
support for war, especially a war as unpopular as the war in
Afghanistan. The war effort is especially unpopular in Germany
where a poll last
year revealed
that 70 per cent of Germans want their forces pulled
out.
As a PR-tactic to increase
support for a continued presence, the popular talk show host
Johannes B. Kerner brought his entire crew down to Afghanistan
to co-inside with a visit to the troops by defence minister
Karl-Theodor
zu Guttenberg.
The plan was to interview the minister and the troops in an
on-location talk show, a program that was expected to be
watched by millions.
This seemingly fluffy plan backfired totally when it transpired
how much the production had cost the German army, and thus the
tax payer.
17.000 euros was the final price tag, and the already war weary
Germans, were not amused.
The Ministry of Defense had been open about the talk show being
a part of their PR effort to gain support among the people and
in parliament, but instead it resulted in a plethora of
negative articles of the extravagant spending.
Not exactly PR gold.
If you speak German, you can see the talk show
here:
Date Published: Jan 23, 2011 - 7:05 am
Visitor Rating: 2 (1) (Rate)
 |
|
Story Clicks: 0
Feed Views: 18
Lenses (Add|?)
Comments (Log in to add)
Feed Details
Date Added: 01/13/2011
Date Approved: 01/13/2011
By: Anonymous
Date Approved: 01/13/2011
By: Anonymous
Search FeedAgg.com
3600 mp4370 serv 1.2567 seconds to generate.