“Booby Mom” was Both Shocking and Awesome: Can Provocative Content Improve Print’s Prospects?

Did I have a problem with now-infamous boobsucking TIME cover? Not at all, but I was somewhat surprised by the brouhaha that surrounded the image of the “booby Mom” whose 3-year old was photographed standing on a chair suckling her boobies.  Does that sound so pornographic or rude? You’d think so based on the throngs of readers (and media outlets) who commented on the controversial cover, considering it pornographic. Really people? I was a lot more troubled by what was going inside TIME Magazine and the article about attachment parenting than the cover. Truly troubled.

But back to the image… “Booby Mom” has spawned an avalanche of coverage and launched much discussion, not just about “attachment parenting,” the actual subject of the TIME cover story, but about the ways in which magazines (like all print media), have taken massive hard-copy readership hits can use thoughtful, provocative content and social-media relationships with readers to boost revenues. A TIME spokeswoman told the New York Times that the cover helped that issue become the magazine’s best-seller so far this year and doubled the subscription rates for that week. Says a lot about the so-called disgust about a breastfeeding mom on the cover, right?

Anyone who’s been paying attention knows that since around 2003-2004 newspaper and magazine circulation numbers have plunged as a result of the internet revolution. This got me thinking, as someone who pitches stories to media outlets for a living, about how print media can use provocation and button-pushing to help bolster their other ongoing efforts to slow the slide. Of course, a lot of the time provocative content gets shelved on the recommendation of the bean-counters who are afraid of offending anyone who might possibly buy a copy of the paper, or better yet, a subscription.

Let’s Face it, Bare Skin Sells… Is That So Bad?

And yet it is the most controversial messages that generate the most visceral reaction. Let’s face it, they are the messages that lead to water-cooler talk, arguments and coveted mindshare of brands.  If you’re old enough you’ll probably remember Demi Moore’s naked and very pregnant Vanity Fair cover in 1991.  The “decency police” went berserk denouncing the cover as obscene and generally gross. But like TIME’s “Booby Mom” cover, the Demi Moore cover is one of Vanity Fair’s best-remembered  and most imitated ad nauseam by celebrity women with a bun in the oven.

And then there was the The New Yorker, whose editorial staff must have been sweating (and likely second-guessing themselves) on the eve of the publication’s 2008 cover lampooning Fox News’ take on Barack and Michelle Obama’s onstage “fist bump” as a “terrorist fist jab,” bracing for the storm of criticism that followed.  That happens in lots of industries:  fear of offense and of reduced revenue discouraging unconventional or “risky” views.

Fear is contagious and all too soon there is nobody left who is willing to voice an idea that could be seen as too “out there.”

I’ve seen this with numerous clients I’ve dealt with throughout my career. It’s understandable, especially in the tetchy economic climate we’ve been living in for the past several years. And, when necessary, it’s been my role to poke, prod and nudge a nervous client to take a risk that ends up paying off. As someone whose business is to improve clients’ business, I know it’s important to encourage “outside the box” ideas because that’s where innovation comes from. When we push ourselves beyond our comfort zones we often end up succeeding way beyond our own expectations.

So kudos to TIME Magazine. Kudos to the “booby Mom” Jamie Grumet. And kudos to the other half of TIME readers who could stomach a 3-year-old nursing from his mother’s breast.

Of course, if we didn’t have that brouhaha in the first place, maybe I wouldn’t have written this piece to begin with. And that’s exactly my point.

Daily Deal Dilemma: Does Groupon Need a Refund, a Reboot, a Stern Reprimand or Just a Little Maturing?

The answer depends on whom you ask. If you ask Groupon CEO Andrew Mason, 31, he’s likely to say the latter.

But before we get to Mason, let’s recap.

Back in February 2012, I wrote about how Groupon, the daily deals “Mecca” was launching a PR blitz to help rewrite its then recently soiled reputation after a slew of communication missteps:  a fumbled Super Bowl ad and a case of fuzzy earnings math just prior to its November 2011 IPO.  It revamped its website and added the public relations might of Paul Taaffe, the former chairman and CEO of Hill & Knowlton. (For history buffs, that’s the 85-year-old Manhattan-headquartered PR agency once known for its support of Big Tobacco and its infamous “A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers,” 1954 newspaper ad, that claimed the “statistics purporting to link cigarette smoking with [lung cancer] could apply with equal force to any one of many other aspects of modern life.”  Gotta love this industry!)

In that earlier post I puffed on about the tough job that Taaffe had ahead of him, referring to the journey as a “rocky road” while going on to say that, “taming the daily deal beast just doesn’t seem like a job anyone should embrace,” and that “public relations leaders can only craft a message so far. Too much spin and a message – and a company – can spin out of control. Let’s see what happens next.”

And (nearly) spin out of control it has.

Earlier this month it was reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission had begun a preliminary investigation into Groupon’s questionable financial accounting practices after the company announced that it was revising its 2011Q4 earnings, cutting it by $14.3 million to $492.2 million from $506.5 million. The announcement left many Groupon naysayers crying, “I told you so,” while investors are jumping ship in search of…. better deals.

Fast forward a few weeks since the troubling news and Groupon’s stock slide continues. On Thursday April 26, 2012, Groupon’s stock price was nearing bargain-basement levels, trading at $12.06 a share, after its $20 a share opening in November and its 52-week high of $31.44. The reason for the downward revision? Groupon hadn’t set enough money aside for customer refunds.

So in light of all this communications turmoil, one would expect that Paul Taaffe and his team would be out in full force defense and crisis mitigation mode.  To date, however, Taaffe’s strongest defense was when he told reporters: “Every three months Groupon is a different company.”

Somehow I don’t think that’s what investors wanted to hear.

But to give credit where it’s due, Groupon CEO Andrew Mason at an informal town hall meeting on Wednesday admitted his company no longer has “any margin for error,” adding that Groupon is “still this toddler in a grown man’s body in many ways.” In helping the company grow up, the company has announced plans to bring on board additional senior management, and according to a recent Wall Street Journal article, at least two new board members – all designed to show that the company can mature, mature quickly and rebuild investor confidence.

As a public relations professional, one of the most important pieces of advice I can give is telling clients to be up front about their actions and intentions and if there’s no substance behind a marketing campaign, then there’s no point selling the message.

Frank town hall meetings that get section-front coverage in the Wall Street Journal (check out Marketplace in the print edition) is probably not enough to quell all investor fears. But as Groupon closes out another challenging month and is only two and a half weeks away from its next quarterly earnings report, it’s nice to see a maturing response.

Perhaps then – and in an ironic way – Paul Taaffe was on to something after all. Just maybe, Groupon is beginning to change. And just maybe this change is here to stay and the company will not be something different three months from now.

We’ll have to wait and see.

Checking Their Guns (And Their Brains) At The Door: The Secret Services No Longer Secret Shenanigans

Talk about public relations disasters in degrees. When Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney criticizes a Pittsburgh cookie it’s one thing.  But when half a dozen secret service agents and 11 military personnel lose their jobs after seeking the “secret services” of women who could have gone by the street name “Cookie” it’s an entirely different matter and enough to make me lose my dessert.

In short: this is not good at all.

If anything, the unfolding Secret Service and military personnel prostitute scandal is a glaring example that sometimes no matter how much spin is added to the curve ball of professional news speak and public relations, you can still strike out. The exploits of these men are indefensible which has left the political punditsphere returning to humor. One of my favorites comes from Steven Cody, the Managing Partner and Co-Founder of Peppercorn, a public relations firm. His idea, expressed in his most recent post: “Let’s re-brand it the not-so Secret Service.”

And while crass humor may serve as a temporary public antidote for the serious standards and security breach that was uncovered in Colombia, it will do nothing in the longer term court of public opinion.

To a large extent, Lawrence Berger, the lawyer for two Secret Service supervisors who lost their jobs was right. The actions of these individuals did not compromise the security of the President. But if that’s the best defense that can be mustered, I think one would be hard pressed to call that a stunning PR reversal.

The President may not have been harmed physically, but his image certainly was, giving political red meat to the likes of Sarah Palin who commented on Fox news recently, “It’s like, who’s minding the store around here?”

The Secret Service, founded in 1865, and charged with presidential protection since 1901, has a long and largely successful history. While there’s no denying this public relations disaster is a big one, it’s also likely that an agency that presumably takes its mission and duty so seriously will work exceedingly hard at doing their jobs that much better so that time really will smooth out this unfortunate – kink. (Yes, pun intended)

“Waiting it out” is usually a PR professional’s least favorite advice to a client. But in this case it may be the only way the embattled agency can regain its stripes. “I’m sorrys” have been made. Jobs have been lost.

It’s quite possible the less they say going forward might be the most prudent course of action.  Until, of course, one of them releases a kiss and tell all tome, which will be only a matter of time.

An Internet Hot Spot’s Cold Response: When Calling Something an ‘Experiment’ is no Safeguard from Critics

In one of the early scenes from the dystopian 70s cult classic Soylent Green the camera shows a largely homeless and grotesquely overpopulated New York City street whose riotous masses are cleared with dump trucks – called scoops – treated more like rubbish than people. And in later scenes the audience learns not only is prostitution legal, but the women that come with the little remaining luxury property that’s left are called “furniture.” Nice.

If only treating people like objects was confined to Charlton Heston-starring science fiction.

Instead, the recent marketing misstep by BBH Labs, the innovation arm of the international marketing agency BBH, has brought us all a notch lower on the “soylent slide.” Earlier this week, at the annual tech-fest better known as the SXSW technology conference, BBH Labs hired 13 volunteer homeless people to stand in as human mobile hot spots. Carrying Wi-Fi devices and wearing t-shirts that read: “I’m [name] a 4G Hotspot,” the volunteers were enlisted to help prevent the overload of the existing mobile network, a common occurrence at tech-crowded events. It was also intended as a conversation starter – homeless workers would have an opportunity to speak with mobile users about their plight and discuss America’s homeless problem. And who knows, maybe a chance encounter would aid their employment and housing prospects?

In fact, Saneel Radia, the director of innovation at BBH Labs, who was quoted in a New York Times story about the Austin, Texas event, seemed utterly surprised by the public backlash.

“We saw it as a means to raise awareness by giving homeless people a way to engage with mainstream society and talk to people,” he said. “The hot spot is a way for them to tell their story.”

Somehow I think that positive outcome is unlikely, especially when you start with turning homeless people into an awkward marketing ploy while treating them like glorified telephone poles –albeit telephone poles with enough of a human voice to request that their 4G “customers” consider a donation to help them survive. While it’s true that these unlucky 13 did volunteer for their services and were paid for their efforts (more on that later), the program speaks to the worst kind of human exploitation. It’s one thing to know your actions are exploitative and nevertheless carry them out based on some flawed “greater good” logic, but it’s another level entirely when you’re oblivious to that cruelty.

The marketing carelessness also highlights another disturbing trend related to technology, a term that Chris Klauda, a vice president at D.K. Shifflet & Associates, a travel and hospitality market research company calls, “isolated togetherness” – people in close physical spaces, but remaining disconnected from the “real world” and are instead solely focused on the goings on in their virtual worlds via their smartphones, tablets, laptops, etc.

As the technology through which we all communicate continues to advance, becoming more immersive, digitally interactive, and mobile, it’s critical we – not as public relations professionals but as moral, caring, and empathetic members of the human race – remember that treating people with respect isn’t just about asking for someone’s assistance or paying them for their efforts in some endeavor. Nor does calling a marketing misfire a “charitable experiment,” excuse BBH Labs from their decision. That kind of qualified and dare I say bullsh*t language serves no one. In fact, it’s the kind of language PR professionals rely on so often that gives our industry a bad reputation and further fans the flames of the media mess at the heart of this blog post.

For their efforts the 13 volunteers, selected from the Front Steps homeless shelter, earned themselves free t-shirts, $20 a day (which based on an 8-hour work day amounts to $2.50 an hour or about the same legal minimum wage in 1976, and $4.75 below today’s legal minimum), and the opportunity to collect some extra donations.

But if you ask me, and the many others who were similarly disturbed by this story, I think they all got a lot less than they bargained for. Consider this “charitable experiment” a dismal failure, and hopefully one that will not be re-dressed and re-hashed for the next South by Southwest technology conference.

They may not have been called furniture as in Soylent Green, but these 13 volunteers definitely served as a 2012 appliance.

Shame on us all.

Groupon’s Dodgy Deal: Can a PR Blitz and Site Overhaul Save the Company From Itself?

When it comes to Groupon, the daily deals digital Mecca, my, my, how the dot com angels have fallen.

Even as a public relations professional who’s seen and navigated her fair share of client missteps, I’m a bit gobsmacked by how a company that less than two years ago snagged the front cover of Forbes magazine with the eye-catching title “Meet The Fastest Growing Company Ever,” has managed to have its PR rug so skillfully pulled out from under them. What’s especially noteworthy is that Groupon’s recent rotten deal has been entirely self-made.

For readers who aren’t up on the latest Groupon happenings, the company has for the past several months, endured a barrage of PR setbacks, helping re-write the company’s until-now spotless public narrative. Here’s the errrr…..deal: In 2011 the Chicago-based company was roundly sacked following a Super Bowl XLV (45) ad that appeared to mock the decades’ long Tibet-China conflict. A few months later, and just ahead of Groupon’s November initial public offering (IPO), the company that had since its founding been branded based on its hyperactive growth, had to slice its reported revenue in half due to questionable accounting practices. Tsk tsk tsk.

Even the company’s opening stock price, fittingly perhaps, came in at a bargain $20 compared to an earlier valuation that said the couponing site was worth $30 billion. Re-tweaked fuzzy math brought that value down to $12 billion.

And while the company’s NASDAQ stock as of this writing is hovering near its opening price, only down .2 percent, and they’ve managed to start the new year with no additional public relations faux pas – that is if you exclude their announcement last week of a 2011 fourth quarter loss of $9.8 million – a sense of Wild West mentality combined with deck-of-cards-like fragility (some would say Ponzi scheme) continues to deal the company a PR blow.

To be sure, Andrew Mason, Groupon’s 31-year-old CEO, isn’t going down without a fight. In the effort to build back its image as a leader in the online deal-a-day world where coupons attract customers to once-hidden brick and mortar establishments and where everyone wins, the company announced this week major revisions to its website. Among the changes includes adding “thumbs up” and “thumbs down” capabilities so that Groupon users can help the site be more selective when doling out its latest offerings. And in another striking move, Groupon announced the hiring of public relations veteran Paul Taaffe to better manage the company’s image. His arrival comes after only a two-month stewardship by Brad Williams, formerly of EBay Inc.

Whether or not Taaffe, 50, paired with Mason,31, is the right combination of relative youth and relative years remains to be seen. But the fact that his arrival comes after his predecessor barely had time to break in his desk chair’s seat cushion, more than even erroneous math or disgruntled business owners crying foul over the supposed Groupon “deal,” is the best indication yet, that Groupon might be sick. Very sick.

As PR professionals we are tasked with helping keep our client’s message on track, being consistent and accurate with the media, and when calamity strikes, honest and up front about our mistakes. But that hard work should always be predicated on a company that gets its facts and its story straight –before it goes public. To do anything less is like having one hand tied behind your back during a boxing match. Or if you’re a lawyer, having your client reveal a critical detail that could alter a defense only moments before opening arguments. That type of handicap serves no one.

There’s no denying Groupon’s had a tough year. And while it may be easy to say “what’s 365 days in the course of a life?” Groupon, much like its leader, is still very young, having just celebrated its third birthday. But if you’re three years old and already a third of your life has been troubled with a mixed marketing message, what does that suggest going forward?

Taaffe’s got a rocky road ahead of him, for sure.

Good press or bad press aside, Groupon and its thousands of employees and millions of dedicated users aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. But taming the daily deal beast just doesn’t seem like a job anyone should embrace and revamping a website is just not enough. Public Relations leaders can only craft a message so far. Too much spin and a message – and a company – can spin out of control.

Let’s see what happens next.   

In Social Media We Trust?

Marketing companies are now offering a new service: social media coverage in the form of front-page placements on websites like Digg and sponsored tweets from Twitter “power accounts” yielding hundreds of thousands of followers. The cost of this service is cheap and the promised exposure is enticing – but is it all ethical? That is the question asked by Forbes’ Elizabeth Woyke in a recent article, “$240 To Place Story On Digg Front Page: One Marketing Firm’s Pitch,” and it’s not an easy one to answer.

Some have argued against the pay-for-play model that is slowly becoming prevalent across social media networks, but on the other hand, social networks need a way to make money and if companies are transparent in their dealings, is there anything really wrong with this model?  As much as social media has been discussed over the past few years, it is still a burgeoning phenomenon.  Social media is evolving, and because there is no formal regulation – yet – us marketers are learning and making up the model as we go.

A Mutually Beneficial Relationship

The survival of social media networks is entirely dependent on its users – if there are no users, there is no network.  Sites like Digg and Reddit are completely dependent on user-generated content.  Meanwhile, companies seeking increased visibility may opt to use PR companies to generate and distribute content on their behalf, or set up a corporate social account in order to share content.  Social networks need content and companies want exposure– marketing companies that offer to connect the two are, in a sense, facilitating a mutually beneficial relationship (while charging a fee, of course).  Is this not a win-win scenario?

While marketer’s ethical conduct in regards to social media is a topic that is still somewhat new, the issue of pay-for-play in media sponsorships has long been the subject of debate and industry scrutiny. Five years ago, advertisers were faced with considerable pressure as product placements were being written into television and movie scripts.  Last year, it was the “Mommy Bloggers” who were called to task failing to be transparent in their product reviews and their “sponsors.”

Relevancy and Transparency

In these dealings, what’s critical is transparency – and relevant, meaningful content.  Provided that companies fully disclose that they have sponsored the content, and that the content is useful and interesting, users won’t really care where it is from.  The second that consumers believe that they are trying to be swindled by false or inauthentic content, the company’s brand reputation will be shot.  Consumers will read sponsored content if it is relevant and engaging – but what they won’t stand for, and shouldn’t stand for, is having their intelligence insulted, free content or not.

What is your view?  Do you care if someone has paid to take top-billing on a blog or a social media site if what they are delivering is of use, value or meaning to you?

You Can’t Have It Both Ways, It Seems

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

By Vanessa Horwell

I’m going beyond the press release and into advertising territory in this column, after a recent article in The New York Times‘ “On Advertising” column grabbed my attention. It discussed the trials and tribulations of a new female “enhancement” product that is having a hard time getting airplay. Pun very much intended.Most readers of that article would surmise that its purpose was to highlight the disparity between what is acceptable in advertising — or not — when it comes to “our” sexuality, as well as the double standards that exist within the advertising world today. To me, the article also raises another red flag: the very aggressive and divisive political atmosphere that has engulfed our country when it comes to women’s choices and the freedom and control that we have over our bodies. And let’s not forget the media cohorts, either. However, as this is not the appropriate place to discuss political issues, I won’t. So let’s go back to advertising. Advertise like it’s 1959 When it comes to today’s media market (or did I mean to say meat market), one could argue that society has progressed a great deal since the early days of television and print advertising, à la “Mad Men.” More and more, we have been exposed to TV shows, commercials and ads that feature interracial families, homosexual couples (albeit male, predominately), and an altogether a more laid-back attitude when it comes to discussing and displaying things of a sexual nature. This, however, is not the case when it comes to female sexuality — which seems to be as taboo as ever if we take the boycott of this female product as an indicator. Zestra Essential Arousal Oils, a product designed to enhance the female sexual experience, is struggling to find networks or publications that will run its ads. I have to say that Zestra’s commercial is really rather lame, especially compared with ads for same category products like KY gel and Trojan condoms. It’s a number of middle-aged women talking about their diminishing sex drive due to getting older and having children. Hello out there — there is nothing remotely “inappropriate” about either, and I can very confidently make this statement as a mother of two almost grown-up children, and as a woman approaching the company’s target customer’s age. The company has had its ad pulled from prime time on most major networks — the very same networks and stations that run male enhancement ads for Viagra and Cialis ad nauseum. Even Facebook pulled the ads after just a couple of weeks. In the end, Zestra has had to settle for the graveyard shift — after midnight — when its target audience is fast asleep, dealing perhaps with hot flashes and worries about their university-bound children and the associated financial obligations. And I can tell you, that is definitely not sexy, on air or in real life. So why this double standard? Why is it okay to publicize men’s sexual needs, but not women’s? Looks like we can’t have it both ways What this situation makes apparent is that while we have become more accepting of certain social issues — we have no problem watching “The Situation” get his rocks off with several females at a time — there is still an enormous double standard in acknowledging the comfort level of women’s sexuality, in any medium. While we seem to be perfectly fine with ads showing women as sex objects (Heidi Montag, Kim Kardashian, et al.), it suddenly becomes unacceptable once real women start discussing their real sexual needs and desires. Since when did American media become uncomfortable with recognizing the sexual needs of women equally? Are we less progressive than the Europeans, or even the British — supposedly prudish — who quite openly discuss sexual topics like S&M and sex toys in their daily papers? Watch the ad and tell me what you think. Is it so racy for prime time compared with its male counterparts? Are the networks right to ban an ad like this? And what message are they sending to American women?

About Vanessa Horwell

Vanessa Horwell is Chief Visibility Officer at ThinkInk. She works with companies in the U.S., UK and Europe to improve their visibility through strategic public relations and new media channels. Reach her at vanessa@thinkinkpr.com.

You Give PR A Bad Name

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

By Vanessa Horwell

Another column, another ethics dilemma.

It seems the issue of ethical behavior can’t stay out of the limelight right now. While the Democrats are grappling with the newly created Office of Congressional Ethics and two of their own representatives under investigation for, ahem, questionable behavior, the Federal Trade Commission is coming down on PR companies that are misleading the public by posting fake reviews on behalf of their clients.

My thanks to the FTC for giving this rather silent, but ugly, issue the attention it deserves.

A few weeks ago, a PR company was fined by the FTC in what I believe to be a first for the PR world (correct me if I am wrong.) The agency, which shall remain nameless in this column, represented a number of games developers, including the creator of Rock Band. Thinking itself very clever, the agency assigned staffers the roles of guest bloggers and reviewers, who got to work on creating fake consumer profiles and posting glowing but fake reviews.

For about six months, the PR agency owner and her crew duped consumers on iTunes into believing the reviews were posted by gamers for fellow gamers — people they thought they could trust for an authentic, first-hand take on the game.

Dirty tactics

While the goal of generating positive reviews is clearly a huge focus for agencies involved not only in product-centric PR, but who also earn revenues from product sales (the agency in question earned commission from game sales, so positive reviews + sales = more money in its bank), misleading consumers like this is both unethical and dirty. Actually, let me rephrase: misleading consumers is unethical and dirty, period.

At what point in planning out a client’s launch or PR strategy is fraud considered as an active component instead of creative or even traditional approaches? Was it desperation, client pressure or, perhaps, greed that drove this agency to lower its standards — if it had any to begin with?

Instead of spending six months creating fake consumer profiles and reviews, the agency should have spent its time on:

• Creating awareness about the games through clever or even outrageous PR and social media outreach tactics

• Encouraging users to post reviews — positive or not — via community building, and engaging consumers transparently through social media channels.

Clearly, the agency chose the easy-and-sleazy option instead of relying on talent and good old-fashioned hard work.

The sad part about this type of dirty tactic is that it is so simple to do, and the FTC is going to have a hell of a time policing it. With social media, anyone can create a profile and post countless reviews, potentially influencing consumers.

And that’s precisely the point: if any review that a consumer reads is in fact a manipulated, marketing ploy designed to influence a purchasing decision — by a marketer and not a consumer — then full disclosure must be given. Always.

Truth in advertising

The FTC makes it very clear that companies engaged in online marketing — and yes, this does include PR firms — need to abide by long-held principles of truth in advertising.

“Advertisers should not pass themselves off as ordinary consumers touting a product, and endorsers should make it clear when they have financial connections to sellers.”

A PR agency should never be held responsible for the content of consumer reviews, especially in our increasingly social media-ruled world, and our clients must be educated about the actions that agencies can and cannot take, no matter how big the payout or stakes.

Laws have been created to protect consumers from misleading practices. Manipulating and faking reviews is tantamount to fraud and premeditated deception. If agencies and online marketers continue duping consumers in this way, they are cutting off the hand that feeds them. And if consumers can no longer trust review sites or even social media recommendations, then what do we all do?

It’s actions like these that give PR a bad name.

About Vanessa Horwell

Vanessa Horwell is Chief Visibility Officer at ThinkInk. She works with companies in the U.S., UK and Europe to improve their visibility through strategic public relations and new media channels. Reach her at vanessa@thinkinkpr.com.

Advice To BP That It Didn’t Ask For

by Vanessa Horwell, 5 hours ago

Reprinted from www.mediapost.com Dear BP, Here’s some advice you haven’t asked for. Yours truly, The PR Industry That’s the column I would have written if I hadn’t decided to take another tack. You see, writing a column can be a solitary affair, and exceptionally polarizing when tackling big issues. The impulse to take a position — the more incendiary the better — and hammer it home is powerful when composing in a vacuum (I imagine this is how, say, Ann Coulter feels on a regular basis). But it’s an inherently limited process, and yields a limited viewpoint. So with something as topical, heated and broad-reaching as BP’s Gulf Oil Spill, I decided to open up the dialogue by inviting other brains to take part in what I consider an important discussion about a substantial PR crisis. Though there are significantly more pressing issues surrounding the spill (ask an Appilachicola oyster or the guy that makes a living farming them), this column will focus solely on BP’s handling of the spill from a PR and communications perspective. I invited PR industry and marcomm experts to share their views on the BP’s actions — good and bad. The interviews printed below were insightful and well-reasoned, but the overall result of my invitation was disappointing. Of the 46 responses I received from PR experts, only these four PR professionals offered meaningful commentary. The rest were either incoherent or self-serving babble — no wonder BP hasn’t solicited any advice from those “experts.” But they would be well served by listening to Brad Burns, Mark Tardiff, Rene Henry, and Dan Baum. Brad is a principal at Revoltion and a former SVP of Corporate Communicaitons with MCI/Worldcomm; Mark is the Associate Director of College Communications at Unity College; Rene is the author of Communication in a Crisis, and Dan is CEO and Creative Director of DBC PR+New Media. My interview with them begins: Gentlemen, how do you think BP is handling the current crisis, from a PR perspective? Brad: I believe BP has been doing as good of job as possible considering the terrible circumstances. They appear to be communicating as openly as possible with the facts and their CEO has been onsite of the spill and in Washington, DC, making the types of commitments a company should – taking responsibility (as painful as it is) and, at least so far, committing to doing what’s right. Rene: I agree with Brad. BP, in my opinion, has done everything by the book. They accepted responsibility and said it was their fault. They said they would make full restitution and were responsible for all costs. The company apologized. And the executives showed remorse for the victims. The executives have been available and accessible to the media. Unfortunately, however, the public does not have any sympathy for BP nor does the company have believability credibility. Mark: The company doesn’t have any credibility because, from a messaging standpoint, BP was in trouble from day one. Right out the gate, BP was put on the defensive, and for good reason – this is the worst-case scenario for an oil company that has been a major player in off-shore drilling and has a marketing campaign dedicated to the company’s concerns for the environment (Beyond Petroleum). Instead of looking like a confident company with the reins in the leadership team’s hands, BP came out saying they would take help from anyone who had an idea. While admitting fault for an accident is clearly a step in the right direction, taking a “beats me” approach to this crisis diminished the company’s authority and ability to handle the situation. The company faced a huge credibility issue when it transpired that initial estimations of the amount of leaking oil were significantly off. Rene: Yes, there was a tremendous underestimation of the amount of spill. But while this could have been an honest mistake, many are now challenging BP for withholding information. In my opinion, it was an honest mistake and not a deliberate false statement. So we’re split as to whether BP’s done a good PR job or not. In a perfect world, what should they have done? Dan: BP needed to react quickly to the spill, share the facts with the public and make two promises: 1) that BP’s efforts would be transparent during this crisis; and 2) that BP would seek to limit damage to the environment and stop the flow as soon as possible. While the rig might not have technically been BP’s, putting your CEO on TV to play the “it’s not entirely our fault, but we’ll handle it anyway” card is not the best way to win over the public. It comes down to taking responsibility, and BP should have done so immediately — without any caveats. Mark: BP should have been more effective in developing key recovery messages each day for media and other interested parties. These need to be posted to official web sites, and offered to government and industry partners. These messages should include several positive attributes about the effort and remedies being pursued. Furthermore, BP should develop an interpersonal blog to funnel positive stories of recovery efforts, making sure to assign staff to monitor this blog, though tread lightly with regard to removing material that is critical of the company. It is better to correct false or inflammatory information than remove it, though exceptions will arise. Okay, so what should BP do going forward? Brad: This is the real question. BP must remain committed to communicating openly and honestly and take the steps necessary to create an outcome that not only restores the environment but takes care of those people impacted by the spill. Regular press briefings are a must to maintain as much public and Wall Street trust as possible. The CEO remaining visibly engaged in the day-to-day clean up is important too. And don’t forget about BP’s employees. It’s often forgotten by big company management just how much employees care, want to help, and want to know “what it means for me.” Keep them informed directly. Don’t rely on the media to communicate to them for you. Mark: BP should partner with key media and place realistic restrictions on them, and look for opportunities to cover aspects of the recovery effort. These might include locating volunteers who have been vetted by the communications department, often those who have positive relationships with crew. Ensure that personal information about employees, particularly those who have been injured, is forwarded first to legal and then keep a dialogue with them about liabilities and restrictions. Create a dialogue with environmental groups and other stakeholders in the outcome, continually asking them for their assessment of the ongoing recovery efforts. Try to enlist some of them to share their positive observations about ongoing efforts with select media. So there you have four fine PR minds and four subtly different takes on BP’s current crisis. As for me, I fall into the “they could be handling this a whole lot worse” camp. I agree with Brad and Mark that having BP’s CEO out there on the ground is a key and commendable aspect of the company’s communications response. BP also managed to avoid one of my pet peeves: evasion. There was no opportunity for the petro-giant to “no-comment” the issue, and they were pretty quick about accepting both fiscal and ethical responsibility. But they need to keep up the mea culpas, and continue to be as up front as possible concerning their search for a solution. The blowback for the company will be immense if in the future someone discovers they could have done something more to alleviate the crisis, so it’s important to keep the public aware of any and all efforts underway. That’s my bit of unsolicited opinion, BP. Be sure to respond soon!

Need PR and Marketing Help? Ask Away! Q& A with Jennifer Rodrigues of TravelInk’d

Reprinted from www.ehotelier.com

By Jennifer Rodrigues

Q: Let’s talk launch events.  I received a great question from a hotelier in Moscow about creative launch strategies so I thought it might be good idea to talk about what works and what doesn’t when it comes to launches.

A: At some point in one’s hospitality career, there will be the opening of a new hotel to work on.  Whether it’s a full-scale celebration or a quiet opening of doors, there are many important things to remember about a hotel launch:

• Focus on brand development. Before launching, it’s vital to spend time perfecting your hotel’s marketing strategy and brand identity: your first impression to the market should be your best one, so be prepared.

• Start marketing early. Just because you can’t start selling rooms until after construction is over doesn’t mean you should wait to start raising the profile of the property until then too.  Think about creative marketing tactics that don’t require a fully functional hotel or full marketing team.  Social media and PR are two great (and inexpensive!) ways to publicize a new property before opening. By spending the time and money to properly publicize the property before opening the doors, you stand a much better chance of your launch being better attended and the likelihood of an initial higher occupancy as well.

• Everyone loves discounts and giveaways. Entice business with discounts off room stays, or offer special value adds and packages to those who choose to stay with you during the first few months after opening.  By making your guests feel special, you will be encouraging and incentivizing them to become repeat and loyal customers.

• It’s party time! The main focus of a launch party is to raise awareness of the hotel and to stimulate bookings.  While a crazy party might be a lot of fun, if you don’t make it strategic, then it will most likely be just that – a big party.  Think of creative ways to turn your party into not only an exciting event that people will want to attend, but will also help you to show off the amenities at your property and collect information from guests.  For example, rather than just doing a tour (which many people may choose to skip), why not arrange a scavenger hunt with clues hidden all over your hotel, both in guestrooms and elsewhere on the property to highlight key features while having fun.  To participate, guests will need to provide you with their personal info (which you can then use to continue to grow your email/mail marketing list) and offer a prize for the winning team.  Perhaps a free one-night stay (which of course can be upgraded to a weekend stay for an extra cost!)?

Happy launching!

Q: How transparent is too transparent, when it comes to hotel rates?

A: The results from a recent Center for Hospitality Research (CHR) study showed that guests found hotels’ rate-changing rules unfair.  Obviously, it is important, especially in today’s increasing online market, for hotels to have a certain amount of transparency in their rates and their pricing policies.

Let’s look first at what could happen if your rates aren’t transparent enough.  Many hotels have started offering non-refundable room rates but consumers and the media are angry because they don’t know why this has happened.  They assume it’s because the hotel industry is so money hungry and occupancy-starved that it’s trying to find any way to keep customers’ money.  While some of us may be struggling because of a weak travel market, I am pretty sure that no one is trying to “scam” customers or steal their money.  But that doesn’t stop people from believing or thinking that hotels (or the travel industry in general) is out to get them.  Case in point: check out an article here on this exact topic, by a journalist who is notorious for ruffling feathers in the industry. A quick look at what a lack of transparency does can be seen in the result of the survey (which can be downloaded here).  In short, a lack of information breeds distrust and dissatisfaction, which, of course, doesn’t make for repeat customers.

So let’s come back to the question – how much transparency is too much?  In my opinion, there is never too much.  The results of the CHR study show that “familiarity with a pricing practice was far and away the most important factor affecting perceived fairness”.

So revenue managers, general managers and hotel owners, what should you take away from this?

Why not consider making your rates a little bit more transparent?  See how your patrons react.  It doesn’t have to be flashed across the homepage of your site.  Instead, include a page on your website (somewhere in the less read corporate section) about your rate policies and, even more importantly, why those policies exist and how they will affect guests at the hotel.  Provide an optional link to these policies in the online booking path so that those who want to know, can do the research to find out the how and why of their rate.  Most people won’t take the time to actually read it (when was the last time that you actually read any of the legal jargon when buying something?  If you’re like me, never!) but just having it there will go a long way in making guests feel more comfortable booking with you.  And importantly, trust you.

---

Did this information help you?  If you have other questions, I’d love to hear from you – please don’t be shy!  Send an email to jlr@travelinkd.com.

And don’t forget to check back twice a month for more PR and Marketing Q&As.

About Jennifer Rodrigues

Jennifer Rodrigues, Visibility Specialist with ThinkInk and TravelInk’d, is a seasoned public relations professional with a passion for the hospitality industry, which is expressed in her role at ThinkInk’s travel division, TravelInk’d.  At TravelInk’d, she is responsible for developing cost-effective and creative public relations and marketing strategies for clients in the travel and tourism, airline, lodging, cruise and meeting/event sectors.  For more information on TravelInk’d, please visit www.travelinkd.com or contact Jennifer at jlr@travelinkd.com.