21

This Tuesday morning, Sean Taylor, a Washington Redskin and one of the most powerful safeties in the NFL, died from a bullet wound he received a day earlier. Since I am sure that everyone reading this is familiar with the tragic details of his death, I won’t get into the specifics of the crime itself. Instead, I would like to comment on some of the early news stories that I read the morning of the shooting.

I was a bit disappointed at how every news story I came across indirectly and “objectively” linked Sean’s random shooting with events that took place in his past. Sure, when you are a journalist or a public relations writer it is usually a good idea to make your news reports interesting and relevant. But these attempts at “newsworthiness” seemed a bit disrespectful and inappropriate, especially so close to Sean’s time of death.

For example, every story I read online after the shooting on Monday included a short paragraph on how Sean was caught carrying a firearm well over two years ago, or how he received a DUI charge over three years ago. Some stories even included information on how Sean once spat in the face of a Tampa Bay Buccaneers player, or was overly aggressive in tackling a punter at an NFL Pro Bowl.

Can someone explain to me what actions during a football game have to do with being shot in the leg as your defenseless girlfriend and daughter watch in horror? The truth is, Sean's close friends, coaches, and teammates all say that he matured dramatically ever since the birth of his daughter, and that he was genuinely a good person.

My point is that writers and editors sometimes cross ethical lines in efforts to attract more readers who are interested in the sordid details. Although they might not do it on purpose, some of them are just downright insensitive. As it turns out, police investigators are now reporting that the murder was not at all related to any event from Sean Taylor’s past (although this could very well be part of a strategy to fool the guilty party). I’m not sure if the incident that took place on Monday morning is part of a much larger societal picture that needs to be studied. Even if it is, reporting a person’s death should always be done with respect.

CNN and the YouTube Debate

Last night's debate was the second so-called YouTube debate where the questions were submitted to the website and CNN chose which ones to pose to the candidates. The first is remembered for some wacky questions. One was submitted by a snowman. This one will now be remembered for the Hillary Clinton operative who got a question through.

Anderson Cooper apologized for CNN not noticing that the questioner was a member of one of Clinton's steering committees but bloggers quickly discovered that some of the other questioners who posed as undecided Republicans were declared supporters of John Edwards and Barrack Obama.

The YouTube debates were clearly the most memorable thus far because of their innovative format. It should have been obvious to CNN that political operatives would try to take advantage of the open format. According to their story posted on CNN.com, they checked to see whether questioners had contributed to any campaign. Bloggers however, just took the time to Google the questioners and look at the other YouTube videos they had posted, probably just five minutes of research.

While CNN has apologized, they've definitely been burned and FoxNews and right-leaning bloggers are using the incident as evidence of a left-leaning bias at CNN. CNN might try to hold another debate in this format, if they decide to do that they should make public the measures they will take to ensure that questioners are not misrepresenting themselves.

I Pledge My Allegiance to the Republicans …

Virginia’s primaries are open to all voters, or at least that was the idea. Open primaries mean that anyone can vote in either primary, regardless of their own party affiliation. It is the corner stone of democracy, giving each individual the right to vote for the person they want to see elected to the position. However, this policy has Virginia Republicans worried that their primary will be raided by Democrats voting for the underdog candidates to skew primary results. In an effort to protect their primary results the party has submitted a request to the State Board of Elections to require anyone applying to vote in the primary ballot to first promise in writing they will vote for whoever the Republican nominee is in next fall’s election.

In the science of persuasion the theory usually goes that consistency is a strong indicator of action. It is important to individuals to be, or at least appear to be, consistent in what they say and do. Therefore, Virginia GOP are betting that those willing to promise in writing their loyalty to the party will actually have an invest interest in their primary election and the party’s success next year. What they are failing to consider is those embolden enough to attempt to foil the primary results likely will not think twice about voting for their own candidate of preference next November, regardless of an oath they signed. And they could be alienating those whose loyalties aren’t necessary to the party first. Why would someone supporting Ron Paul because of his Libertarian ideals want to promise to vote for the Republican candidate if Paul decides to run as an Independent? Wouldn’t that individual’s loyalty be more with Paul as an Independent? What is the party offing them to vote for the Republican candidate instead of their preferred candidate?

Though I understand the rationale behind the request, presenting a united party front and garnering support for the party, I feel that the message they are sending is not an effective party tactic. Those who will truly place value in the oath most likely don’t need to make it. They are already loyal to the party. For those whose loyalties aren’t with the GOP likely won’t take the oath seriously.

The request has been approved and there is no practical way to enforce it. Instead of presenting a united Republican Party, in my opinion, the message comes off hypocritical. If the point of the oath is to rally the party behind any Republican nominee for president, why should it matter who votes for who in the primary? The point is a Republican will be nominated and that is the person the party should stand behind. The only way outsiders can come in and mess with primary results if Virginia GOP already have a choice candidate they want to support which goes against the very message they are trying to send.

Rent-a-Picketer

Strikes are popular again. Lately they've been all the rage. First it was the autoworkers against GM and Chrysler, then the Writers Guild, and now D.C. carpenters. Striking is a extremely powerful tool of communication. It occurs when someone believes in something so profoundly they are willing to bring a process to a halt so their voice will be heard. The interesting twist on the D.C. carpenters’ strike is that they have hired out homeless to walk the picket lines for them.

Yes, you did read me correctly the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters is outsourcing strikers. For $8 an hour they hire someone else to strike for them. The math does add up. Homeless are paid $8 an hour to participate in a strike against a construction company the union feels is treating its members unfairly. The carpenters are still able to continue working their $24 an hour job, while someone else tries to spread the word.

While the math may make sense it doesn’t seem to translate into an effective communication tactic. Isn’t the point of striking the personal passion behind the action? Hiring someone else to do it for you goes against the heart of a strike. The most effective messages come from the source and have the emotion behind them. According to NPR, one striker didn’t even know why he was there. The man is quoted as saying “"We're protesting, we're protesting…" Then the energy leaves his voice and he concedes, "I don't know."” The homeless take the work for the money, not the cause. In my opinion the case seems to be the same for the carpenters, they are more interested in maintaining their jobs for the money, while the cause is better left up to someone else. If they don’t care enough about their own working conditions, why should I?

Even Punks Need Good PR

Former Nirvana bassist Krist Novoselic is pretty disappointed with the producers over at the FUSE music television station. The musician turned political activist and author agreed to participate in what he considered to be a pretty redundant interview on the video for Smells Like Teen Spirit, Nirvana’s 1991 mega-hit that triggered a spiraling change in mainstream rock radio.

Novoselic walked into FUSE with an agenda. He felt it would be a good opportunity for him to discuss his interpretation of the word anarchy, as the Nirvana video is well known for its scenes of cheerleaders with the red letter A sewn onto their black outfits.

Krist views anarchists as groups of organized, “meeting oriented people” who associate outside of the state structure with those of similar needs and values, and he does not believe that the state should be viewed as an enemy. Instead of smashing the state, Krist believes in a transition toward political reform. Unfortunately, all the editors at FUSE left in the interview was Krist saying something about how the red letter A was placed in the video to reflect the underground values of the Seattle music scene.

The point here is that people and organizations looking to place a message in the media need to make sure they fully communicate with the journalists they are working with. However, many times asking for specific statements to be guaranteed placement in the final product can be viewed as begging, which may annoy a journalist to the point where a negative program will be aired. I am not sure if Novoselic has a public relations agent, but if he can afford one it just might improve his relationship with television stations such as FUSE, and guarantee him air time to discuss issues that are deeper than a cheerleader in a music video from 1991.

Going TOO Far...

It's interesting as PR practitioners the creative ways we employ to attempt to reach our audiences. Unfortunately, sometimes our tactics work, sometimes they fall flat and sometimes they actually work AGAINST us.

Business Week this week discusses the negative effects of the new DOVE evolution campaign -- or as they suggest, (D)evolution. The new campaign is attempting to help build women's self esteem and highlight the projected pressures of the fashion/beauty industry - but the attempt is so misguided that it's actually working against them. The last time I checked, doesn't DOVE sell beauty products? You don't want me to be vain and care about how I look, or worry about how fat my _____ (insert your own personal trouble area) is -- but maybe if I want a little bit of assistance, try DOVEproducts?

Their new commercials tell tales of women feeling insecure because they have freckles, or because they curl their hair, or get a nose job. As the Business Week article highlights, "A healthy girl can love herself and hate her freckles. Self-respect doesn't demand that we think we are perfect, or that we love every aspect of ourselves. "

While I applaud DOVE for going against the grain and working to challenge stereotypes about beauty - i.e. you don't have to be a size 0 to be beautiful, their recent campaign has gone just a little TOO far.

Check out the video for yourself - let's hear what you think!

http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/home.asp

Read the Business Week article at:

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/nov2007/id20071112_700681.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_innovation+%2Bamp%3B+design

Going Negative

This morning Politico reported that the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney is facing internal strife over whether or not to air negative political ads. Apparently, the Romney campaign has prepared ads that attack front-runner Rudy Giuliani. The campaign is uncertain whether running the ads would benefit the candidate.

I noticed that our current PR textbook, Public Relations Writing, counsels against using negative advertising. This section of the book, however, does not pose the question in light of a political campaign. Debate over whether negative advertising works has been a a constant of campaigns since John Adams battled Thomas Jefferson.

While many candidates try to remain only positive, inevitably either the campaign itself or a third-party will launch attacks. There have been a number of studies done to gauge effective the effectiveness of going negative. The studies have come down on both sides of the issue so there is no formula for determining when candidates should resort to negative ads. (See this paper for more in depth analysis).

I think it's good for Romney to be prepared to go negative on Guiliani but it's probably too early to actually air those ads. It's early in the campaign and Romney should try to maintain the squeaky clean image he has right now. Going negative is a risk, but it's worth taking if well-planned and executed.

The Districts' Return on Investment

Many in the District are up-in-arms as the Washington Nationals take their business outside of the city. According to the Washington Post, $36 million from business and nonresidential utility taxes was used this past fiscal year to offset the $611 million the city has already invested in building the new stadium. Yet, despite District funding, the baseball club’s charitable arm plans to host their major upcoming events in Maryland’s Montgomery and Prince George’s counties.

These moves are personally insulting to District council members who feel the annual black-tie gala and FanFest should take place in the home of the Nationals. The council and local businesses have fronted large amounts of money to the team’s stadium and are being repaid with a cold shoulder. It seems to me that the National’s charitable arm is being anything but. They are making a fatal flaw in maintaining a mutually beneficial relationship with its stakeholders. People engage in a relationship if they see a benefit in it for themselves. They are more amenable to granting favors or carrying out a desired behavior if it appears to be in their best interest.

In response to the overwhelming disapproval being voiced in D.C., the Nationals’ president claims events should be held all over the area because it is a regional team. He adds, events will be planned in the District in the future; but, no plans have been solidified yet. This is no consolation for those who have been working so hard to welcome the Nationals to their home in D.C.

An organization should work for the best interest of its publics, not itself. The Washington Nationals’ appear to be brushing off one of its most critical publics, its supporters. Usually local proximity brings with it greater loyalty. If the Nationals’ are not careful and do not closely examine the public relations steps it is taking with the District, it could be jeopardizing an already delicate relationship.

The Perils of Celebrity Endorsement

Yesterday, Rudy Giuliani received the endorsement of prominent Christian conservative (and former presidential candidate) Pat Robertson. Over the years Robertson has developed quite the reputation for his outlandish comments including a call to nuke the State Department.

While the endorsement does help Giuliani with certain conservatives, I'm not sure whether it's a net gain for his campaign. As a Christian and Republican myself, I don't have a lot of respect for Pat Robertson and, in my own experience, I don't know many conservative Christians who do either. Many Christians see his comments on knowing the will of God as embarrassing to the faith and quite possibly blasphemous.

This all leads to the peril of celebrity endorsement. Between now and next November Giuliani is going to have to answer for any craziness that Robertson decides to put out there. Corporations know all too well what can happen when one of their superstars makes a mistake.

A few years ago, one of the major stories revolving the Kobe Bryant rape case was his endorsement of Sprite. When Bryant was prosecuted, Sprite immediately canceled the contract but there were still lots of press reports that contained "Sprite" and "rape." Celebrity endorsement is a double-edged sword and any deal should be closely considered before you embrace any individual endorsement.

Looking into the future I see a press conference where Giuliani faces down the following question: "Mr. Giuliani, Pat Robertson has claimed that the reason we haven't captured Osama Bin Ladin is that America continues to tolerate the sin of homosexuality. Do you think we'll find Bin Ladin if we start prosecuting homosexuals?"

Impeach Cheney? OK, Let's Talk

In a dramatic turn of events, House Republicans shifted their votes en masse on a privileged resolution brought by Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich. The representative and presidential candidate has tried to differentiate himself from the field by introducing a bill to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney.

Earlier this afternoon, Kucinich offered a "privileged" resolution calling for impeachment of Cheney. When a vote on whether to proceed with impeachment was held Republicans first voted against proceeding. Late in the vote, however, Republicans began to change their vote. The 15 minute vote was then held open for nearly an hour while Democrats struggled with whether to have the House debate impeachment.

Eventually another procedural vote was held and the resolution was sent to a committee where it will probably not be seriously considered. The basic Republican strategy appeared to be that the far left Democrat members would embarrass themselves by making outrageous charges against Cheney. Which begs the question: do the Republicans get positive PR by letting certain Democrats make fools of themselves or do they get negative PR from trying to defend Dick Cheney, the most unpopular VP in recent history?

Personally, I think it's mostly a wash. Like a lot of House floor rhetoric, it would invigorate the partisans on both sides but probably turn off a lot of middle America. This incident will probably contribute to Congress's increasingly low approval ratings. It does, however, show that the Republicans can successfully throw wrenches into the legislative process and embarrass Democratic leadership.

The whole incident does illustrate a PR tactic that is seldom used but can be quite effective. If your opponent is willing to hang themselves, lend them a rope.

A little goes a long way...

Hopefully, this doesn't turn into a rant...but then again a little rant never hurt anyone, right?

Yesterday, someone very important to me deployed with the USS Harry S. Truman Strike Group. The normal stories ran in the paper - children with sullen faces, wives crying and girlfriends desperate for another kiss. It's the same circle of stories. Ship leaves, people cry, ship returns - people happy. Regardless of how you feel about the war - left or right - our service members are risking their lives to fight for a freedom they've been told needs to be defended.

With such large goals to accomplish and so much at stake, I think the U.S. Navy needs to take greater steps to include public relations as a more significant part of its administration. As a practitioner in the defense sector, I can't help but feel that there is much that could be accomplished if there was a larger PR presence. Especially with such a sensitive political climate, we worry so much about what we can't say - that we forget all the many things we can say. More than just a story about a sailor sadly deploying on a ship - tell about why he joined, what he hopes to accomplish or some of the lessons he's learned on his journey. Even stories about the spouses that support their service members would bring to life some of the many 'true lives' of service families.

The point of my rant - more than just working as a public affairs person - there is much that PR practitioners can bring to the defense arena. The audience is captive - the stories are around us- we just need to use the tools we've learned as practitioners to help communicate all the many messages that our publics need to know.

Instead of regurgitating stories - hire a PR person and really communicate with your publics. Have we not yet learned that a little good PR goes a long way?

Tax Money Well Spent?

Planning on taking a drive up to Philadelphia to visit family over the holidays? You may want to consider taking the train this year.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that the city’s parking authority has spent $382,000 this year alone on promoting its image to the public and lawmakers through the media and lobbying. According to the report, six years ago the parking authority spent only $3,000 annually on public relations. The Inquirer estimates that the city has spent the cost of nearly 57,000 parking tickets on PR services since 2002.

Many critics are wondering why the city is spending so much money on hiring public relations practitioners and is still unable to provide more funding for local schools. Helen Gym from Parents United for Public Education states, “They sit there and hand dollars to all these politically connected people and lobbyists.”

The last time I drove through downtown Philadelphia was in the summer of 2006, and it took nearly an hour to find a parking spot. When I finally did manage to find one, the price for parking greatly exceeded what I had paid for lunch earlier that day. If these public relations practitioners truly want the public to believe in Philadelphia’s parking system, they should spend more time focusing on a true plan before spending thousands on publicity and lobbying.

The Dark Lord of Political PR

To initiate this new blog and its gothy color scheme, it's only fitting to link to an excellent piece on a PR practitioner who threw the ethics book out the window decades ago and has made a career out of the mischievous. Matt Labash, in the November 5 Weekly Standard, wrote a feature on Roger Stone who's functioned as a political consultant to everyone from Richard Nixon to Donald Trump.

After an embarrassing incident in the 1996 campaign (read the story for the details), Stone moved from Washington but has been active in New York state politics and work for corporate clients. Stone has certainly been successful on some level, but has gained a reputation most people wouldn't trade for all the money in the world.