StevenSilvers.com

Super Bowl ads hits, misses and dismal failures

Now that’s advertising… Audi’s “Green Police” ad – showing a world where people get busted for using Styrofoam cups and incandescent light bulbs – was exaggerated enough to get buzz going on both sides of the debate about environmental extremism.  CBS News noted that liberals and conservatives alike still don’t whether to “celebrate or denigrate the spot.”  Brilliant.

Soft sell… The Tim Tebow ad for Focus on the Family may have been brilliant, if the idea was to stir up national controversy about a single spot that turned out to be as unfulfilling as a Hostess cupcake.

Where’s-the-beef moment… The “Don’t touch my momma, don’t touch my Doritos” spot was most popular, and most-quoted in hallways and cafeterias.  You can’t escape a good catchphrase.

Next time ask if the ad before you has pants… CareerBuilder.com had a spot about a company wearing underwear on casual Fridays, then a second later a bunch of singing guys in their briefs were marching through a field for Dockers.  Viewers were confused just long enough to make Dockers' media buy a waste.

Too insipid… GoDaddy.com’s ridiculously sexist faux controversy about being “too hot for TV” is insulting to even halfway enlightened people.  But don’t give the company – or its success in pulling guys to its web site where they hope to see naked women -- too much credit.  GoDaddy.com didn’t invent T&A marketing.  They’re only doing a more tedious, amateurish version of what’s already been institutionalized by some of the nation’s largest brands.

And the worst… The incoherent “mocumentary” U.S. Census Bureau spot succeeded in generating a firestorm of criticism for wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on an over-produced public service ad.  In keeping with a dismissive tone so prevalent in government these days, the Census dismisses even the possibly that it screwed up, arguing that past experience “shows that paid advertising can motivate people to respond to the census form by mail, while saving taxpayer dollars.” 

Saying that other advertising maybe worked hardly justifies a failed concept.  But it's enough to guarantee that the census campaign will be an ongoing battle with news media, watchdog groups and activists who now have more to be upset about.
. . . . . . . . .

The worst response is no response

Here’s a common crisis communications question: Isn’t it best for a company to stave off reporters until all the facts are known and there’s “good news” to tell?

Rarely.

Stonewalling is usually as effective in holding off media coverage as pushing water uphill with a fork.  Not only do your pants get wet but you look like a idiot.

News is going to happen with you or without you.  It doesn’t matter if don’t have all the facts. 

Executives and lawyers sometimes forget that news isn’t a conclusion.  It’s a consumer product. It gets packaged to last as long on the shelf as possible. One headline follows another as new information is confirmed or disputed, as ramifications and fall-out are analyzed.

Media don’t have to get it all or even get it right. That’s why there’s another newspaper tomorrow. Or another web update in ten minutes.

Your response becomes an aspect of any ongoing crisis or controversy story. Sometimes it becomes the story.

To not participate in negative news is death by a thousand paper cuts.  You force reporters to discover information, opinions and perspectives that will be rushed out, regardless of whatever contentions you have about accuracy or context.  You likely just prolong and make more convoluted the bad publicity you’re trying to avoid.

Does that mean you have answers to every question?  Of course not.  But there’s a huge difference between hiding from the press and making a sincere effort to explain why you can’t answer a specific question, or why it isn’t appropriate for the CEO to be interviewed now.  (But don’t say that “lawyers” won’t let you talk about things you’d otherwise be eager to explain. This will come back to bite you.)

Engaging the news media during an emerging PR crisis or controversy – including to respectfully decline comment – builds a foundation of credibility, even if you screwed up. You are acknowledging the legitimacy of the story and the media’s job. And that might buy you some breathing room to produce facts as quick as you confirm them, or at least be given the opportunity to respond to information and opinion before it’s rushed out there.

Good news or bad news, the rule is the same.  Say only what you know to be true.  But say it. 

. . . . . . . . . .

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.
. . . . . . . . .

How breaking news becomes grist for the pop culture mill in only three days

The Balloon Boy hubbub proves a rule that companies in crisis should keep in mind: News is entertainment at the  speed of the Internet.

Here’s how it happens:

The incident goes live. In this case, Balloon Boy’s parents called the TV stations.

The incident becomes breaking news. A herd mentality takes over competing media outlets. Nobody wants to miss the shot that everybody else has. Time elapsed: About half an hour.

Breaking news becomes a national story. Local coverage feeds into national outlets, and everything feeds into the Internet. Live event coverage goes viral. News links and commentary fly around email, Facebook and Twitter. People at work see headlines on the little TVs in the elevators. Time elapsed: About an hour.

The story becomes a controversy. News reports contradict earlier reports, creating scandal. Questions, rumors and speculation become a constant din interspersed with breaking news updates of even the most minuscule facts. Talking heads on cable and radio blame liberals or conservatives for allowing things like this to happen. Internet coverage and chatter multiplies a thousand-fold. Time elapsed: Three to four hours.

The controversy becomes pop culture. The people who started it get interviewed on Larry King. Leno and Letterman make jokes that night. Saturday Night Live refers to it in a promo for this week’s show. Three times the number of media outlets show up the next day, and so do dozens of other people from all over. Some bring alcohol, others bring hand-made posters. Internet coverage and chatter multiplies several thousand-fold. Supermarket tabloids do cover stories. Time elapsed: One to two days.

Pop culture becomes the story. Media coverage and Internet chatter is the same as follows a popular reality TV show. People take sides with and against victims, villains and heroes. Everyone becomes a celebrity. Journalists – many of them ticked off for being played -- investigate school transcripts, arrest records and anonymous tips. Web sites pop up.  Talk shows devote whole hours. Authorities launch formal investigations. Politicians express concern. Somebody announces a book.

Media critics blame the news media. News media blame consumers. Consumers find Balloon Boy Halloween costumes on the Internet.

Total time elapsed: About 72 hours, give or take.

(Photo: The New York Post reported that an online gaming company in San Francisco put “Balloon Boy Game” on the Internet in only about six hours after the news story went national.)
. . . . . . . . . .

• The Harvard Crimson:  Sailing away with Balloon Boy
• American Chronicle  |  The "Balloon Boy" and the White House:  Good lessons for not mixing "news" and entertainment
• Philadelphia Inquirer  |  Mr. and Mrs. Balloon Boy did it because we will watch
• Washington Post  |  Balloon Boy, media stunts, dream up your own
  

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.

Stuff you put on the Internet is always fresh, never frozen.

One of my most popular posts this week is the one I wrote about Home Depot’s customer service problems.  Another blog referred to it in a post titled, The 10 Best (and 10 Worst) Companies for Customer Service.  It’s been drawing hits, links and comments all over the Internet.

The problem is that I wrote the post about Home Depot more than three years ago.  The post it got linked to is three years old, too.

How did a November 2006 post in a niche market blog outsourced overseas rise above the clutter in September 2009?  Hard to say. Somebody pasted the original article verbatim into another site and through the magic of search engines got it to show up. Readers began linking and posting comments to it.  And just like that old stuff is current again.

A good rule to remember about social media:  Criticism and bad news in particular have an indefinite shelf life.
. . . . . . . . .

• Scatterbox |  The business of social media creates new headaches for business reputations

Scattered links of interest

Twitter’s ROI (Forbes.com)
There is a potential danger in that too many people will employ Twitter as a short-cut for customer service.”

Prepare now for “resume tsunami” (Ogilvy Impact)
“With a variety of signs pointing, if somewhat tentatively, toward an economic recovery, it’s not too soon for companies to begin thinking about how they’ll keep their top performers.”

We need a swine flu newsroom (Newsvetter)
“In matters concerning life and death I don't want to be forced to rely (solely) on a news media obsessed with body counts and hot zones.”

PRSA’s meaningless condemnation (O’Dwyer’s Blog)
“…How about revealing the source of your anger? Who in the world are you talking about?”
. . . . . . . . . .

Submit links to scatterbox@stevensilvers.com

Latest finger-wagging brings PRSA closer to irrelevance

As it has done before, Public Relations Society of America issued another pretentious missive condemning unscrupulous flackery:

Over the last few months, there have been several news accounts of promotional tactics that signal a common thread of malpractice under the Public Relations Society of America’s (PRSA) Code of Ethics and PRSA Professional Standards Advisories (PSA). … PRSA states categorically that misrepresenting the nature of editorial content or intentionally failing to clearly reveal the source of message contents is unethical.

PRSA’s latest reprimand won’t change a thing. That’s because it doesn’t name, much less admonish, the companies and agencies whose bad behavior was made public in news reports.

PRSA sent out a similarly mealymouthed email last year, warning all members to “avoid misleading practices” like the front groups it was referring to but wouldn’t actually divulge.  That was followed by an open letter to presidential candidates Obama and McCain demanding they agree to follow PRSA’s code of ethics. Both campaigns ignored it.

You have to wonder why PRSA even bothers.

For all its authoritative posturing -- the phrase “malpractice under the PRSA code” is downright laughable – statements like this only reinforce the association's growing irrelevance within the multi-faceted, multi-billion dollar influence industry.

Pretty much nobody cares what PRSA has to say about it. Not the pros, and certainly not the charlatans.

And things will stay that way until PRSA becomes more than just another big-talk trade group without the courage to act on its convictions.
. . . . . . . . . .

• O'Dwyer's PR Blog  |  PRSA's Meaningless Condemnation

Send comments and links to scatterbox@stevensilvers.com or post here.

Judging the reputation of America's law firms

US News and World Report will launch a new annual listing of the nation’s 3,000 largest law firms.  The rankings will combine hard data with results from surveys sent to tens of thousands of private practice attorneys, clients and law firm employees. 

A law firm scorecard is sure to generate considerable fear and loathing, just as the magazine's well-known college rankings have done for years.

Two years ago a dozen university presidents went so far as to send a letter to hundreds of liberal arts colleges urging them to not complete US News’ "offensive" survey of institutional reputations, which accounts for the largest percentage of each school’s score. 

"Reputation can be another word for gossip," Washington State Trinity University’s president said at the time.  People being surveyed, she said, had no personal knowledge or experience with all of the colleges they were asked to rank.

"This is not a survey that has integrity based on objective data," she argued to media that would listen. "We are saying that we will not engage in slandering each other’s institutions or inflating each other."

No doubt many law firms will have a similar reaction to being rated based in large part on the input of competitors, bad clients and other people with agendas to pursue.
. . . . . . . . . .

To my attorney friends: What do you think of all this?  What are your PR people going to do to either stop it, ignore it or make sure you get to the top of the list?  What's the sense of urgency?  Drop me a note. I'll stay on it.