Slow-Jamming Prez Is Height Of Cool

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 05/03/2012.

The first American president to appear on television was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Speaking at the opening of the 1939 World’s Fair in New York City, he declared the event “open to all mankind.” But for all Roosevelt’s TV-friendly oratory, it wasn’t until 1960 with the election of John F. Kennedy, historians argue, that television fully matured. Used with expert precision, Kennedy became our first “TV president.”

The same technological evolution can be seen with former president Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Clinton may have been the first president to send an email, but it is Barack Obama, with his social media-savvy Facebook, Twitter and YouTube accounts, that have allowed him to take top honors as the nation’s first “multimedia president.”

Too Cool for School? Not This Prez

It’s that media/tech-savvy distinction that allows Obama to connect with young voters –- better than even the saxophone-playing-Clinton once did. Obama’s presidential “cool” allows him license to use Kennedy’s favorite communications medium in new ways too. On April 24, Obama was the guest-in-chief on “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon” — where he joined the host in a bit called “Slow-Jam the News,” where current events are put to a relaxed R&B beat.

But humor was only part of Obama’s continuing call to cool. His presence was a superb lesson in public relations.

Obama took the opportunity to connect with Fallon’s college-aged and 20-something viewers to address an issue that is central to their futures -– student loans and mounting debt. The five-minute opener (with nearly 5 million YouTube views when I wrote this post) featured a smiling and hand-waving president who morphed into mocking seriousness. With a bluesy backbeat, the chief jammer began:

“On July 1st of this year the interest rates on Stafford student loans — the same loans that many of you use to help pay for college — are set to double,” he said. …“What we said [to congress] is simple. Now is not the time to make school more expensive for our young people.”

The camera returned to a smile-suppressing Fallon, where he delivered the follow-up line in a raspy, deep voice. “Ooooh yeah. You should listen to the president.”

Public Relations 101: Stay On Message

With performances like that, who needs costly political ads or even stump speeches? Obama chose the student loan topic deliberately. Hours before the live taping, Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney began backpedaling when it came to his opinions on the “student loan crisis,” first tacitly endorsing the July 1 deadline and then breaking with Republican colleagues to support the president’s call to keep student loan interest rates in check.

Perhaps the Romney campaign would like to blame it on the leap year.

On February 29, at a campaign stop in Ohio, Romney answered a question from a law student that illuminated his position regarding student loans and the need for market forces — not public handouts — to determine the fair cost of financial aid.

“The right course for America is for businesses and universities and colleges to compete, and for us to make sure that we provide loans to the extent we possibly can at an interest rate that doesn’t have the taxpayers having to subsidize people who want to go to school,” he said.

That’s an opinion that speaks to the Republican base. But throw in his campaign advisor Eric Fehrnstrom’s Etch a Sketch comment about being able to rewrite political narratives once the general election gets underway and you’re left with a politician edging toward a John Kerry-style flip-flopper.

We still have a long horse race ahead in the game of presidential politics. But Obama’s smooth, humorous and televised quasi-Romney dig will continue to serve him well. Not only does the president rely on a host of media outlets to disseminate his message, he’s skilled at shifting his tone throughout events.

Obama understands that shifting tone is different than shifting message. We’ll have to wait and see if Romney has been properly schooled and if Obama can remember his own lessons come fall.

But for now, I’ll still agree with the Roots rapper Black Thought, who at the end of President Obama’s slow jam session called him the “POTUS (President of the United States) with the mostest.”

Indeed.

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 05/03/2012.

The Cure For the Common Mind Virus: Fewer “Bored” Meetings And Less Pop-Cultural Poo

I beg your pardon? For those of you who are unaware, the title of this post was inspired by a friend – and brilliant branding specialist Bruce Turkel and his Monday musings on what he calls, “mind viruses” – not a sadistic reference to Alzheimer’s or other brain disorders. In everyday speak “mind-viruses” are the modern iteration of water cooler talk or the pop cultural nonsense increasingly crowding out valuable real estate within our collective cerebrums.

Turkel’s post raises the question, how do the words and terms (and TV shows and styles of board room attire and eats and…and…and…) we mindlessly discuss reach that critical mass where they become discussion points? As a marketing professional, Turkel is right in addressing the issue. In other words, he asks, where is the pop cultural discussion “tipping point” and when does something become a “hot topic?”

But as evidenced by his observations gathered from what sounds like far too many of the mindless meetings that I attend – the answer to his question may be less fascinating and more frightening.

So where does this cultural discussion point threshold lie? I’m not sure where in the brain the processing occurs, but I can tell you, it’s not a high standard, and it’s getting disastrously lower by the day.

The fact that many of Turkel’s meetings are littered with so much verbal rubbish suggests that more should be done to keep references to the Kardashians, Lindsay Lohan, and Beebs out of what should be productive meetings. I’ve had to sit through meetings where the latest episode of Glee or the demise of Lost garnered more discussion than the topic we had travelled some 3,000 miles for did.  Now that is brutal.

The fact is, thanks to marketers’ already near-constant bombardment via a host of mediums like smartphones and tablets, but also through the “diehards” like television, radio, and print, we are constantly being distracted and programmed to think “this is important,” when in actuality it’s really not.

Earlier this month the New York Times wrote about how office technology is getting in the way of productivity. While true, the bigger problem is all technology and not just office technology. But as a public relations professional and one who’s often on the side of praising marketing genius, can it be that we’re all victims of our own success?

Maybe.

Recognizing this, perhaps it’s time we work to make board meetings less boring and stick to the agenda so we can all be more productive – and get out of the boardroom and to the bar, where it’s okay to talk about the cover of People, or who watched The View, or what Kelly Rippa was wearing yesterday.

Besides, they’ll be plenty of time to gossip about Gossip Girl –and whatever else – later. Now I’ve got a meeting to attend and don’t want to be late. I’m sure it will be mind blowing – one way or another.

Shame on Lowes for Pandering to Special Interests: When a Home Improvement Giant Could Use a Fixer-Up All its Own

“Never stop improving.”

Well, at least for Lowes, the above slogan parked in bold blue all caps on the top left corner of the home improvement giant’s webpage, it’s an appropriate start.

The question is how will the company’s recent public relations snafu ultimately pan out as their corporate brass has plenty to improve on now. (And we’re not talking basic roof repair) Earlier this week, the shopping behemoth that only days ago was about as far removed from politics as one of its featured bathroom redesigns, has landed itself in quite the brouhaha.

In yielding to mounting pressure from a variety of sources, including our very own Florida Family Association, (more on that later) the company pulled an ad it was running on commercial breaks for The Learning Channel’s All-American Muslim, a new reality TV show that purportedly shows real Muslims going about their daily lives – you know exactly like the rest of us. I don’t know about you, but the very fact that we need a program such as this to allay our tired and torturous fears of the proverbial “other” – in today’s day and age is frightening. But I digress.

As we enter the peak shopping days and weeks of the increasingly secular holiday season, you can bet this communications bombshell was not what Lowes was expecting. Already Google is working its magic. Google “Lowes” and the fallout from the pullout is the fourth hit. And with the decision making front pages news on CNN.com on Tuesday and Connecticut congressman Chris Murphy addressing the matter on the House floor, calling Lowes’s decision a rubber stamp on “basic foundational bigotry against a major American religious group,” you can bet their troubles are only beginning.

From a public relations perspective, this is the kind of textbook nightmare we dread: an apolitical company becoming unintentionally embroiled in a very politicizing and polarizing mess. So all this begs the question, where did Lowes go wrong?

Lowes went wrong by not following the advice I wrote about in my recent Blagojevich blunder post. Louder voices aren’t more credible voices. And while the company continues to say that its ad pulling had nothing to do specifically with the Florida Family Association, a nonprofit whose web “About Us” description says the group aims to, “educate people on what they can do to defend, protect and promote traditional, biblical values,” it seems VERY likely that it was at least a contributing factor to a collection of below-the-radar narrow-minded people and groups.

Shame on Lowes for pandering toward groups that mask McCarthy-style witch-hunting in the guise of religious enlightenment –whether they’re a 501C3 or not.

There’s comes a point in any communications campaign where all the writers, all the support staff, all the leaflet designers, and press release pitchers, must step aside and let the company speak for itself – without the buffer PR teams necessarily provide. While Lowes has been diligently responding via Tweet and in the press, perhaps a more transparent apology would be in order –without our help. Until now Lowes CEO Robert Niblock, 48, has been mum on the controversy.

As Lowes closes out 2011 and opens 2012 searching for repair and replacement parts in its “corporate improvement” aisle, we can all rest comfortably knowing that the modern social media landscape and blogosphere won’t let red meat like this out from under its digital jaw grip easily. And if there’s a communications upside to any of this, All-American Muslim, which has enjoyed modest success with 908,000 to 1.7 million viewers since its November 13 launch, stands to gain at least something of a ratings bump following the buzz.

Then again, the show’s producers probably wished Lowes would never have gotten involved in the first place and “never stopped improving” their advertising campaigns somewhere else.

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.

Gordon Ramsay: Television’s Gourmet Guru

by John Powers

Fresh Air from WHYY, April 21, 2009 · When I was first starting out as a writer, movie directors were superstars and everybody wanted to be a film critic. I remember teasing my paper’s restaurant critic that writing about food was the lowest adult job in journalism. Turns out, I’ve had to eat those words. These days, movies are increasingly kids stuff, and food has become a national obsession. The new superstars are chefs.

None is bigger than Gordon Ramsay, the Scottish born cook who may not be the world’s greatest chef — though his restaurants do rank third in total number of Michelin stars — but he is undeniably the world’s greatest TV chef. Ramsay doesn’t inhabit the backwaters of basic cable or the niche-programming of the Food Network. He has two compulsively watchable prime-time reality programs on Fox, both of them remakes of shows that were already hits in the UK.

The more popular of the two is Hell’s Kitchen. It’s one of those Darwinian shows like Survivor or Project Runway that weekly renders one contestant extinct. It features a collection of wannabe star chefs who are initially put into teams. Each week, Ramsey orders them to perform various tasks — make tapas out of leftovers, or prepare breakfast for a squadron of soldiers. As the competitors beaver away alongside their backbiting compatriots, Gordon lays on his “advice” like a cross between Simon Cowell and Deadwood‘s Al Swearingen. Tim Gunn he’s not. His idea of saying “Make it work” is “You better make it bleeping work, you stupid bleepity-bleep.”

Ramsay’s other, and better show is Kitchen Nightmares, which is less about competition than about running a food business. Each week Ramsay goes to a restaurant that’s on the verge of ruin and tries to help straighten things out with heavy lashings of advice and disdain — and high praise when it’s earned. If you’ve never seen this show, there’s no better introduction than the original, uncensored British version now available on DVD. Indeed, the very first episode is a classic.

Ramsay goes to rescue a bistro called Bonaparte’s in a small Yorkshire town with the unlovely name of Silsden. The place is floundering and it doesn’t take our Gordon long to see why: The owner, Sue, is clueless and uninvolved. The chi-chi menu is hilariously inappropriate for provincial customers. And to top it all off, the 21-year-old chef, Tim, dreams of being a star TV chef like Gordon Ramsay but has one huge shortcoming: He can’t even cook an omelet.

Read the rest of the story:  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103321043&ft=1&f=1008