Flack's Revenge

Draper & Company Do PR

I finally got around to watching the first episode of the new Mad Men season, which aired on Sunday.  I was even more eager than usual to welcome the return of one of my favorite TV shows, as this episode was entitled: "Public Relations." The title served it justice, as the theme of PR was pretty dominant throughout.

The episode opens in a restaurant, and it quickly becomes clear that Don is being interviewed by a reporter from Ad Age. Draper is true to his character and prefers to remain tight lipped and enigmatic rather than pour on the charm and carefully crafted messages (a little media training, Don?).

Of course, this gets reflected in the piece.  When they see the article, Sterling, Cooper, etc. are all chagrined that it is more about the cipher called Don Draper than the stellar work of the agency.  Who in PR has not had the experience of a much anticipated article disappointing when it finally appears?

Maybe the team at the new ad shop (those who watch the show will recall that pretty much everyone had jumped ship from Sterling Cooper at the end of last season to start a new agency) is tiring of advertising as it is clear they want to freelance it with PR (with nary a real PR person or agency in sight to support their efforts). In a sub-plot, the team pulls a PR stunt by staging a fight over hams at a supermarket (part of a campaign for their client, to show a shopping craze there). The stunt gets coverage in the Daily News, although there are consequences of course.

Spoiler alert: Don gets his chance to rectify the Ad Age blunder at the end.  Bert Cooper has worked his contacts to get Don interviewed with the Wall Street Journal (one might reasonably wonder why not put someone who actually has a personality, like Roger Sterling, for example, in front of the Journal). Anyway, Don goes on the offensive for this interview, although it is hard to see how this will result in a better story.

The Mad Blog, from MediaPost, does an awesome wrap of the show every week, and I am almost as eager to read these posts and the ensuing comments as watch the actual show.  Of the closing scene, it says that a newly slick Don:

came out with guns blazing for his interview with The Wall Street Journal guy. The metamorphosis, signaled by a dynamic combination of sound interspersed with each line of his new verbal self-promotion, was kick-ass, and a delight to watch.

OK, but does effective media relations need to be "slick?"

Net Neutrality: The Movie

Fade in

The camera pans across a dark room; an unmade bed comes into view.  The scene shifts downward and shows a crumpled figure, a woman, lying on the floor. Dead or sleeping? The dark puddle beside her offers a clue. The camera reveals a smaller figure (a child?) lying nearby, also apparently lifeless. In the corner, sitting in a chair, a bright light from behind illuminates a man... his head is propped up by one hand, the other holds a gun. 

This man has just killed his family because his Internet start up has failed and ruined them financially.  The company failed because it could not get enough precious bandwidth - because of (dramatic music wells) NET NEUTRALITY.

OK I won't quit my day job, I am not angling for a screenwriting gig. I just thought this vignette could introduce a topic I read about in the NY Times. As the article reports:

The Harmony Institute wants to change your mind — at the movies.

In the last few weeks, a little-noticed nonprofit with big ideas about the persuasive power of movies and television shows quietly began an initiative aimed at getting filmmakers and others to use the insights and techniques of behavioral psychology in delivering social and political messages through their work.

It cites movies like "China Syndrome" and (much more recently) "The Day After Tomorrow" as examples of movies that helped influence public opinion on important issues (nuclear meltdown and global warming perils, respectively).   The article continues:

So far, the group has not done much, except to organize its own thinking and to issue a recent report, with backing from the Pacific Foundation and the advocacy group Free Press, called “FTW! Net Neutrality for the Win: How to Use Entertainment and the Science of Influence to Save Your Internet.”

The report suggests, mundanely enough, that people can be persuaded to support net neutrality if they see story lines about children who fall behind in school because they lack access to the Web, or about small-business owners who “risk financial ruin” when they cannot reach customers because a site is blocked or slowed down.

Mr. Johnson said the institute focused first on net neutrality mostly because it had interested backers in Free Press and the Pacific Foundation, though he also finds the issue to be both important and little understood. But the report also promises a sophisticated attempt to change attitudes on a range of issues ... by using applied behavioral science.

Hey PR Dude, can you screen THIS call?

There have been many articles about the decline of telephone calls and voice mail amidst the rise of social networking, email and text messaging.

Some people apparently did not get the memo, based on the recent celebrity voice mail rants that have made the news (e.g. by now I am sure everyone has heard about Mel Gibson's tirade).

Voice mail is just another form of content which can sometimes be very entertaining.  However, if you are in PR, and it is your client (or someone on your executive team, if you work on the client side) who is at the center of the controversy, I am sure it can be very uncomfortable.

I thought of this as I watched the NBC Today show earlier, which covered Sumner Redstone's voice mail, in which he asked a reporter of a negative piece to reveal the leaker (see the related USA Today story).

It must be a peculiar blend of arrogance, blind lack of concern over consequences, anger and impulsiveness (I will not say stupidity as the stories like this that make the news generally involve very successful people, those who presumably are not dummies) to cause someone to mouth off while they are fully aware that they are being recorded.

As to the PR cure for this relatively new type of crisis? It seems a little bit like trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube. I admit I am stumped, and am at a loss for words (for a change).   If I do happen to find them, you can be sure I will not leave them on someone's voice mail.

It's Fun not to Share

I am dating myself, but there was a public service announcement ad campaign many years ago called "It' s Fun to Share." (please don't press me on exactly how many years ago this ran).

My post on Social Fluency today cautions against too much sharing, especially on social networks.  It describes how researchers were able figure out the social security numbers of users based on the mundane details available from profiles and online conversations.  The post also describes software that calculates your online vulnerability.  

Birth of a Buzzword; Augmented Reality, and Apps for Tech PR

It is a phrase that conjures interesting imagery.

Some might think it is what happens when you have one drink too many.

Others would say people experience this when they become politicians (or when joining the PR profession, for that matter; there are no sacred cows here).

Actually, augmented reality refers to a relatively new class of cellphone apps that superimpose data over visual displays to enrich the viewing experience. I first saw it in action when a buddy of mine proudly showed me his new Google Android phone. Being a geek from way back, of the programming and Trekkie variety, Charles was stoked that he could point his cell phone at the night sky and see the constellations conveniently named and drawn on the display. As he panned across the sky, the display changed to show the ones that were in view.

Being a wordsmith and geek too, I am fascinated by jargon, and like to follow the usage and evolution of buzzwords. I thought I'd search Factiva to find the first mention of the term.  I was surprised to learn that augmented reality has actually been around for quite awhile (the first article, at least in their index, was an EE Times piece about virtual reality from 1992).  So I am apparently incorrect when I refer to the phrase as a new one, or technology that necessarily relates to cellphone apps.

However, as the graphic below shows, usage of the term has skyrocketed recently in comparison to 2001, which is as far back as their chart goes.

I thought I'd explore (with tongue firmly planted in cheek) potential augmented reality apps that could be a boon for those in the tech PR profession:

Real Time Thought Bubbles

This app interprets the incredulous or bored looks of reporters or analysts as they take in demos and PowerPoints and superimposes what they most likely are thinking over their heads like the thought bubbles you see in comics; it can be an invaluable aid to the spokesperson and PR rep.

BS Detector/Crash Saver

Designed to rescue your client when an otherwise great briefing is going off the rails (think software demo crash, or perhaps the hype is going into overdrive). The app superimposes a screen that says "Sorry for the interruption, we will soon return..." or "This is a test of the emergency broadcast system..."

Jargon Translator

This app can be used by the reporter or analyst - it miraculously and in real time translates indecipherable jargon and superimposes it as sub titles.

The YouTube trailer, an Indispensable Part of Book Marketing

For almost as long as there has been a book publishing industry, authors (and their PR agents) have devised ways to promote books. In the article The Author Takes a Start Turn, the NY Times reports on how creating a YouTube video is becoming an indispensable part of book marketing.

Authors are increasingly filming first person narratives, or trailers, that talk about their books, in search of the viral magic that can seriously boost sales.  This is not necessarily easy.  According to the article:

"...people who spend their whole lives writing and people who are good on video turn out to be two very different sets of people,” said the best-selling author Mary Karr, who last year starred in her first book video for her memoir “Lit.”

But in the streaming video era, with the publishing industry under relentless threat, the trailer is fast becoming an essential component of online marketing... And now, those who once worried about no one reading their books can worry about no one watching their trailers.

Some are achieving success, and the article includes examples, such as this one:

Many consider Kelly Corrigan’s “Middle Place” the first book to gain real traction through its trailer. Released in 2008, Ms. Corrigan’s memoir of cancer and caregiving briefly hit the best-seller list, then dropped. In an effort to drum up interest, she began going on the breast cancer lecture circuit, speaking to women’s groups nationwide... she read an essay on the power of female friendship to a silenced audience, and ultimately, a standing ovation.

She began reading the essay at all her appearances, to rapt, commiserating listeners, and decided to videotape and post it online. But first she showed the clip to her editor, who immediately called in a roomful of Hyperion executives. “We thought it could be a breakout best seller in paperback,” said Ellen Archer, publisher of Hyperion.

What followed was a carefully orchestrated stealth campaign. Hyperion employees e-mailed the clip to about 30 people. It ricocheted, producing so many Amazon orders that Hyperion had to reship hardcovers. “It wasn’t slick — it was from the heart,” Ms. Archer said, “like that Hillary moment when she broke down in tears and people felt like they were seeing the authentic her.” To date, the trailer has had nearly five million views; the book has sold more than 300,000 copies.

Time out for Fun (and Orientation) at Old B.U. Stomping Grounds

This week we took our eldest daughter to Boston for orientation at Boston University, which she will be starting as an undergrad in just a few short weeks.

It was a real blast for me on a number of levels (or wicked pissah, as they say in Boston).  First, I am very proud of her in general - she had a great academic record in high school and is now ready for the big leagues.  She is a very well rounded kid, serious yet fun (OK I'll stop gushing now).  It is a big step, going to college, but she is ready for it.

Second, I am pleased that she selected my alma mater.  I attended B.U. as an engineering student in the early 80's, before somehow winding up in P.R. 

My post Age Regression via the College Tour documented my feelings and experiences about our visit to B.U. in my daughter's junior year of high school.  This time, it really was like going home again - my (soon to be ex) wife and youngest daughter (also a source of great pride) stayed in the dorms.  We visited many of my old stomping grounds - Newbury Street, Faneuil Hall, Copley Square, etc.  I stopped in at Newbury Comics - which was still there, in the same place.  I perused the displays at the famous Condom store, right next door to Newbury Comics, also still there (it was kind of surreal, condom shopping with my soon to be ex, but we get along OK so it was not that big a deal, we actually had a good laugh about it).

During some down time I ran some laps around  the track at Nickerson Field, the same stadium that hosted my graduation in '83 - I used to run there as an undergrad.

Some B.U. kids took us around town and kept us busy in-between lecture sessions, activities that seemed designed to keep the parent and siblings busy while the incoming students got the info they needed (scarcely saw my older daughter during the three days, that was fine, she was having fun, learning and meeting people).

I was thrilled that four of the six kids were Communications school students, and three of these are studying P.R.  One of the kids is an engineering major.  So I had a lot fun talking to these kids, and comparing notes about my time there.

I also felt a little like a VIP, as my name tag clearly identified my as an alum.

The McChrystal Affair: Important Story or Journalistic Cheap Shot?

So was it a journalistic cheap shot, which ran in a pop culture rag and made a big deal over over "routine kvetching?" Or was it an important article for a "sophisticated audience" by a "serious-minded agenda-setter?"

However you spell it, the Rolling Stone article about General McChrystal was a big PR coup for the magazine. There's been a ton of buzz in its aftermath, and a range of views expressed by commentators and the print media.

In his excellent NY Times op ed, David Brooks says that McChrystal and company's tirade was just an example of the usual belly aching that has been going on forever when important people and big egos are involved. The difference now is that we are in a culture of exposure that thrives on this inside baseball scuttlebutt.

He writes about how a culture of reticence morphed into a culture of exposure over the past 50 years: 

...after Vietnam, an ethos of exposure swept the culture... It became the task of journalism to expose the underbelly of public life... Then came cable, the Internet, and the profusion of media sources. Now you have outlets, shows and Web sites whose only real interest is the kvetching and inside baseball.

... General McChrystal was excellent at his job. He had outstanding relations with the White House... But McChrystal, like everyone else, kvetched. And having apparently missed the last 50 years of cultural history, he did so on the record, in front of a reporter. And this reporter, being a product of the culture of exposure, made the kvetching the center of his magazine profile.

By putting the kvetching in the magazine, the reporter essentially took run-of-the-mill complaining and turned it into a direct challenge to presidential authority. He took a successful general and made it impossible for President Obama to retain him.

The WSJ reported yesterday about the Rolling Stone's record of breaking big stories, and the potential of the McChrystal story to give it an image lift:

Rolling Stone continues to battle perceptions that it is merely a biweekly window into popular culture, not also a serious-minded agenda-setter for a sophisticated audience... Rolling Stone has a long history of covering politics and wars dates back to its launch in 1967.

The enduring value of the McChrystal article rests in its potential to burnish the magazine's reputation as a serious journalistic enterprise. Four of Rolling Stone's seven National Magazine Awards in the past decade have been for political stories

The article also details the publication's efforts to promote the story:

The publisher gave an advanced copy of the article to the Associated Press last Monday in a commonly used tactic to generate prepublication excitement. By Monday night, the commander's comments were rumbling across the blogosphere. On Tuesday morning the article briefly appeared in full on two other sites. With the story taking off, Rolling Stone was compelled to break from its standard practice to rush the story online.

Got Pork? The Other White Meat

 I don't know exactly why, but I have always been  amused by the ad campaign: Pork - the Other White Meat!

It could be because my slightly warped mind is usually working over time, hyperactively darting around in search of irony and word play at every opportunity.  And that particular phrase seems rife with potential. 

These thoughts occurred to me as I scanned one of my favorite parts of the NY Times Saturday paper, "Most Popular," from the business section. It shows the most popular blog posts and articles of the week.

My eyes quickly zeroed in on a story I had somehow missed in the Bits blog; Unicorns, the Other White Meat. This I had to see! I found it, read it, and have to say that the post delivered on the promise of its juicy headline.  It is about the website ThinkGeek's tradition of April Fool's posts, and what happened with the latest:

As ThinkGeek needs to up the ante each year, in 2010 it decided to create a product called Canned Unicorn Meat. The tag line for this new delicacy? “Pâté is passé. Unicorn, the new white meat.”...

It was, of course, fake.

Although it is probably clear to most nerds and wildlife experts, the National Pork Board, an organization devoted to pork and related businesses and farms, saw a threat to the national brand of pork, otherwise known as “the other white meat.” So the organization sent ThinkGeek a cease-and-desist letter.

ThinkGeek published the letter and offered this apology on its Web site to the board: “We’d like to publicly apologize to the N.P.B. for the confusion over unicorn and pork — and for their awkward extended pause on the phone after we had explained our unicorn meat doesn’t actually exist.”

I know I am tempting fate and the ire of the National Pork Board by writing about this, but hey, you don't have a blog called Revenge without being willing to take some risks - that is the way I pork roll, baby.

Do we need a new metaphor for "Talking Head?"

I have a post on Social Fluency today that takes a closer look at talking heads - not the band, but the phrase as it applies to news pundits.

The post takes a closer look at a question asked by the NY Times: Obama's recent speech was roundly panned by the media elite, but does that really matter any more - do the pundits still have same sway over public opinion that they once had before the advent of citizen journalism?

I include an excerpt from the article and added:

There is no denying that the punditry still has some impact – their opinions get recycled and repeated endlessly.  Indeed, their near universal agreement on Obama’s speech became part of the evolving story line.

But it is pretty clear that we are becoming a nation of pundits and news publishers.  Every time you share a link on Twitter, Facebook or in a blog post you are publishing news.  Add some analysis, and voila!  You too can become a talking head.