StevenSilvers.com

Bad News Friday usually makes things worse

Even in the always-on Internet era, many companies and government offices still rely on the old trick of waiting until late Friday afternoon to release bad news.

In most cases they're just making things worse come Monday. Here's why:

You stop nothing.  People who care most have news alerts, stock tickers and other Internet tracking gizmos to get your stuff the second it hits the fan. Your stock will still move in after-hours trading guided by speculation and negative expectations.  Media outlets will still run breaking news, except this time you’ll be covered either by reporters who know to dig for whatever you’re trying to hide or by inexperienced weekend reporters who don’t know the situation.

You create a new credibility issue.   Maybe ten people on the planet won’t perceive that you tried to bury bad news on Friday afternoon. You risk creating a whole new PR problem with stakeholders and media for thinking they don’t see you trying to sneak out the back.

You dig a deeper hole.    Friday-night announcements don’t make bad news go away.  They create a 48-hour vacuum for people to assume the worst. Some will interpret your move as a signal that there’s still another shoe to drop. You could be in a worse defensive position on Monday morning as you reopen the doors to angry shareholders, anxious employees and reporters working on follow-up pieces about your company mishandled a crisis.

You still announce on Monday anyway.  Assuming you’re somewhat successful in burying your bad news over the weekend, you’ll have to deal with the response on Monday from people seeing the news for the first time. Now you’re dealing with two sets of responses: the people who are just hearing it, and the people who saw and reacted to it over the weekend.

Bad News Friday isn’t a secret, it’s bad public relations.

. . . . . . . . . .

Associated Press story says media hoaxes work

AP television writer David Bauder expands on the “frightening message” that media hoaxes like Balloon Boy and the fake press conference in which activists reversed the U.S. Chamber’s position on global warming are increasingly successful publicity tools.

At least, we think it’s AP television writer David Bauder.
. . . . . . . . .

A business primer on the new FTC transparency rules

Representing its most sweeping action in 30 years, the Federal Trade Commission’s new rules governing endorsements and testimonials will change how marketing is done.

Here’s what the Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising say:

ACCOUNTABLE FOR BLOGS AND SOCIAL MEDIA.

The FTC already directs online reviewers to disclose if they’re being paid by advertisers. Under the new rules, however, every blogger, Twitter user or social network member must disclose any “material connection” with a company, product or service.

Taken literally, this connection could result in fines for bloggers who fail to disclose anything from getting a sample can of chili in the mail to having a spouse who owns company stock. While consumer advocates support the guidelines, some prominent bloggers argue that the rules in effect force them to disclose every business relationship they’ve ever had.

Enforcement is another matter. The FTC says it will primarily go after the advertisers rather than individual bloggers, though it will take into account how companies encourage transparency in their paid reviews and freebies. Beyond that, the agency will decide matters on a case-by-case basis – which basically means they’ll know deceptive advertising when they see it. What makes things even more convoluted is that the agency doesn’t say by what means it will handle these situations.

Given that the new transparency standards for bloggers are higher than what’s required of commercial news media and politicians, the FTC rules are generating considerable debate among marketers and social media proponents alike. Stay tuned.

ACCOUNTABLE FOR TYPICAL RESULTS.

Ads that feature individual consumer experiences with a product will have to state clearly what kind of results everybody else can expect. Soon to be history are those ubiquitous ads that whisper “results not typical” while showing some guy who lost 300 pounds drinking vitamin shakes.

ACCOUNTABLE FOR EMPLOYEES.

Employees that promote their company or its products online must “clearly and conspicuously” disclose who they work for.

The FTC urges that companies have social media policies as one way to avoid fines or other actions when employees pretend to be someone else – say, a happy customer or invigorated shareholder.

Keep in mind, however, that a recent Deloitte study found that a third of all employees don’t even consider what their boss might think before posting something online.

ACCOUNTABLE FOR CELEBRITIES AND RESEARCH.

A warning to every company that uses movie stars, retired quarterbacks and 70’s sitcom actors for promotional tours. Under the new FTC guidelines, both advertisers and their celebrity spokespeople can be held liable for making false claims as part of a commercial endorsement.

The ramifications are huge. Celebrities making the rounds of late-night talk shows, state fairs and Twitter feeds must disclose their business relationship with any company or agency that’s paying them to pump movies, books, products or even charities.

Companies that quote research must also disclose if they paid for the studies, or if they have any business relationship with the organization that did the research.

These standards go way beyond front groups and hidden clients. From now on, any failure to disclose corporate affiliations could be considered deceptive advertising. That’s going to hit a lot of marketing PR campaigns.
. . . . . . . .

Download a PDF of the revised FTC rules here.

It's a fact: PR people are just as ethical as dental students

Next time somebody throws out the old tripe about sleazy flacks, I’ll just say, “Au contraire! You obviously are unaware of the scientific research conducted by two Johnson Legacy Scholars at the Arthur W. Page Center for Integrity in Public Communication at Penn State University!”

Okay, I may have to write that down.  But I’ll explain how some smart people did the first empirical study to measure PR people’s moral standing in comparison to other occupations.

“It turns out that public relations professionals are good ethical thinkers,” said scholar Renita Coleman in a press release.  “They show similarity to other professionals with comparable levels of education such as journalists, nurses and dental students.”

Even more interesting, public relations pros scored better on the moral compass than accounting and veterinary students, orthopedic surgeons and even “business professionals.”

No doubt that general executive category includes the bosses of the Boeing company spokesman who just got caught posing as an independent blogger so he could sit in on a competitor’s briefings.  You sure don’t see dental students doing stuff like that.

. . . . . . . . . .

Why most companies should just ignore all those anonymous rate-your-employer sites

Internet Evolution blogger Chris Poley points to another aspect of employees using the Internet to ridicule the companies they work for. [Read Scatterbox: Managing the Unmanageable.]

One way they do this is through Internet sites that rate companies based on anonymous input from current and former employees, and even people who only tried getting jobs with a company. 

But the impact these user-generated sites have on a company’s reputation is debatable.  Glassdoor.com, for example, touts its “inside look” at more than 26,000 companies.  Large companies like Wal-Mart list hundreds of anonymous comments, which in reading lead you to the not-so-shocking revelation that some people like their employers and some people don’t.  Many other companies garner only one or two comments, most of them rants about stupid bosses and rotten culture.

Basically it’s like listening to strangers on the bus to work.

To be sure, some companies use search engine optimization – also hyped as “online reputation management” – to push negative comments deeper into the Internet clutter.  Other companies have their flacks post anonymous positive comments to counter the anonymous criticisms (the ethics of which are for another post).

Most employers, however, simply ignore the sites.  And in most cases that’s the best approach.

Why?  Because without attribution, scientific basis or mass context these opinion boards have as much information value as random graffiti.

It’s no surprise that a relatively few unhappy, unnamed employees are more likely to gripe online.  And that creates representations way out of sync with more credible reputation measurements.  Look up insurance giant Aflac on Glassdoor.com, for example, and you get a 5,000-employee company with a “neutral company rating” because half of the 26 comments that make up the score are from people like the agent who wrote that “they have no morals and they don't know what their [SIC] doing there.”

Meanwhile, Aflac was named 2009’s most reputable and ethical insurance company by Reputation Institute's Global Reputation Pulse, an annual public survey of the nation's 153 largest corporations.  Second year in a row, too.

It doesn’t take a PR expert to know which image matters most.
. . . . . . . . . .

KFC free chicken promotion runs around like a PR stunt with its head cut off

It will go down as one of the least thought-out marketing publicity stunts since Sony used a decapitated goat to promote a video game.

The idea seemed simple enough.  Strike a deal to have Oprah to "give away" two pieces of KFC's new grilled chicken to everybody in America.   Tell people to download an Internet coupon and show up at a store.  Publicize madly.   Post a Tweet from Oprah reading, "You're Getting a Chicken! You're Getting a Chicken!" 

But like many good intentions gone bad, this campaign didn't plan for the most obvious potential PR problems:

Contingency:  Not enough Internet.   The servers crashed from so many people trying to get coupons at the same time.  Maybe we understand how the Colorado Rockies weren't ready to sell World Series tickets, but how can one America's largest consumer companies not have the plumbing worked out?

Contingency:  Unprepared stores.   Consumers didn't read the fine print and assumed every KFC was a participating store.  Many stores were overwhelmed. Some locked the doors.  Other taped hand-written "no Internet coupons!" signs to the door.  Police were called.  Managers freaked out, politicians called for action.

Contingency:  Consumers gone wild.   People who didn't get their free chicken behaved like they were being denied the right to vote.  In New York, angry citizens staged a sit-in while the world's news media looked on.  The Internet exploded with smarmy bloggers, angry customers, finger-wagging criticisms and conspiracy theories.  Talk shows had a field day.

Contingency:  Caught in a lie.   Animal rights activists loathe KFC.  But just last year, PETA gave Oprah its "Person of the Year Award" for helping to expose factory farm abuses, including a show titled "How we treat the animals we eat."   A Huffington Post column called it Oprah's "most hypocritical move yet."

Both KFC's and Oprah's PR machines are in full swing.  They'll survive.

But companies with fewer resources for damage control should be paying close attention.
. . . . . . . . .

Why you can't spin global warming to be a better consumer product

The New York Times got hold a draft report by a nonprofit "environmental marketing firm" that recommends using better spin to win people over on this whole global warming thing.  The Times reports:

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about "our deteriorating atmosphere."  Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up "moving away from the dirty fuels of the past."  Don't confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like "cap and cash back" or "pollution reduction refund."...

In fact, the group's surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term "the environment" and talk about "the air we breathe, the water our children drink."

I can hear every good PR expert in the world groaning at this. 

Put aside the fact that this calculated euphemism insults Americans who know what "environment" means.  You're still left with several risks.

One: You're taking a bus to get to the same point.  Instead of referring to global warming, you're saying that, no, the real problem is our deteriorating atmosphere, which is the result of greenhouse gas emissions that in turn cause global warming.  Flack rhetoric makes things less clear, not more.

Two:  You're hurting your cause.  Global warming is a literal concept, proven by literal events and research.  "Our deteriorating atmosphere" is bad packaging, like something out of Hollywood's current preoccupation with end-of-the-world movies.  They're great special effects, but everybody knows they're pretend.

Three: You act like your spin exists in a vacuum.  Huge mistake.  If your research shows that people are uncomfortable with the word environment, then your opposition will find ways to say environmentalists twenty times a minute.  Thirty times a minute if they're Rush Limbaugh.

Four:  If you give up "environment," you'll need even more doublespeak to label what you do. 

What... You're going to start referring to people as Our Deteriorating Atmosphere Solutions Providers?
. . . . . . . . . .

Internet scammers run like pigs to the Swine Flu trough

Washington Post blogger Brian Krebs reports that spammers and scammers are working overtime to profit from public fears of a Swine Flu epidemic.

Just days after the first headlines, more than two percent of all Internet spam tried to get people to click on hundreds of new Swine Flu-labeled sites selling everything from "survival guides" to fake prescription drugs.
. . . . . . . . .

The U.S. government buys a marketing publicity stunt

A St. Louis presentation coach who gets hired by lawyers ginned up some ridiculously good publicity for himself by proclaiming April 14 as National Be Kind to Lawyers Day.

Yes, announcing a Something-Something Day is the oldest trick in the book.  But even nonsense has a way of being repeated until somebody takes it seriously.

Sometimes we citizens even pay for it.

Case in point:  The U.S. Census Bureau made Mr. Hughes' National Be Kind to Lawyers Day the subject of its April 13 "Profile America" series, a daily 60-second radio feature that promotes "key events, observances or commemorations." 

Seriously.  Listen to the taxpayer-paid radio spot here.

And now that it's on the official calendar, don't be surprised to see more babble about this made-up commemoration next year.
. . . . . . . . .

America's pundit problem

In the aftermath of Wall Street's collapse, experts are pointing to the negative impact of experts.

An Emery University study, for example, asked students to consider making several personal finance decisions.  When those students were given advice from a recognized expert, the decision-making and calculating parts of their brains simply simply shut down.

What makes this really scary is how experts are so often wrong.

New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof recalls how professor Philip Tetlok spent 20 years tracking 82,000 predictions from 284 experts.  Tetlok found that the pundits were only slightly more correct than random guesses.  It didn't matter if they were doctors, politicians, economists or financial advisers.

"Indeed, the only consistent predictor was fame - and it was an inverse relationship," Kristof writes.   "The more famous experts did worse than unknown ones.  That had to do with a fault in the media.  Talent bookers for television shows and reporters tended to call up experts who provided strong, coherent points of view, who saw things in blacks and whites.  People who shouted - like, yes, Jim Cramer!"

Will past mistakes mean fewer experts?  Hardly.

Pundits are to mass media what baseballs are to the major league.  They're cheaper than staff researchers or reporters.  They compete for exposure by being available and quotable.

Most importantly, subject-matter authorities are rarely held accountable by the industry that relies on them for content.  Sometimes they're even celebrated for being so wrong.  A few years ago, the Rocky Mountain News profiled a "controversial" aviation consultant who had become an international media darling by giving "colorful" sound bites insisting that Denver International Airport would go bankrupt.  DIA hasn't lost money since it opened in 1995.

The public brain-freeze over pundits is what makes John Stewart's skewering of Mad Money's Jim Cramer so telling.  Mainstream media is full of experts laying blame for the financial crisis.  But it took a comedy show host to publicly chastise one of Wall Street's biggest media celebrities for his part in it.

Indeed, there are partisan watchdogs like the conservative Business & Media Institute and the liberal Media Matters, which recently launched a new website targeting financial news and opinion.  But these groups are politically biased in their criticisms and don't reach nearly an audience like The Daily Show with John Stewart.

But they're among the closest things we have to Consumer Reports Guide to Pundits.  And right now we need all the critical reviews we can get.

At least, that's my expert opinion.
. . . . . . . . . .

Photo courtesy Associated Press