PR in LA

Opportunity, not tragedy

2012-02-03T14:33:00.000-08:00

Perhaps I continue to live up to that silly notation in my high school yearbook. My best quality? Being an optimist.

But in PR, we constant advise clients that there are ways to turn a potentially negative issue into a positive one, to take the energy that might be generated over a controversy and use that to bring attention to a solution that you can control and win admiration for your stance.

Here is the latest example.

PETA is (sorry) losing its fur over over a proposed bill in Kansas that would make Toto the state dog. PETA, as reported here, believes such a move will create puppy mills to meet the eventual demand for cairn terriers. PETA doesn't have a problem naming a state dog, they would rather see it as a mutt, since, presumably, that is all you will find in shelters.

Here is your chance, PETA. Rather than take the usual negative stance that has hurt your image over the year, look for the opportunity to final leverage legislation and the money needed for enforcement to put puppy mills out of business. We all know the source of our coffee beans - to make sure we're getting them from a sustainable operation - why not a similar effort for the sale of pets?

Why not make Toto the face of a dog urging future pet owners to do the right thing?

Start your campaign engines

2012-01-18T17:54:00.000-08:00

California public relations and public affairs firms which have done well in the past with high-profile state issue campaigns shouldn't be worried in 2012, and beyond.

Today, Gov. Brown reaffirmed his support for both the state's very expensive high-speed rail project (that will be completed when my grandchildren have grandchildren), and a $12 billion bond measure to upgrade the state's aging water system.

For now, it seems the state water bond will make it to the November ballot, although the dollar amount may shrink. In previous state water bonds, several PR, PA and advertising firms have received handsome amounts to help convince voters to check "yes." Somehow, somewhere the forces come together to rustle up enough cash to pay for these expensive campaigns.

The gov's support for high-speed rail may prompt a renewed effort to seek outside help for outreach after the rail authority pulled back on an RFP and announced it would hire more staff to do the job in-house. We'll see. What do you think, Ogilvy?

More good news: The economy is definitely picking up. More RFPs are going out and companies are turning more to PR for help, primarily because PR has assumed a leadership position in social media. Anyone with transportation experience should look at the RFP issued by the folks who run Southern California's massive Metrolink system. (If the link doesn't work, sign up for "planetbids."

Treated water ready for prime time?

2012-01-11T08:48:00.000-08:00

Is recycled water past its "image problem"?

California and other parts of the world are coming to grips with a reality about water: Fresh supplies are available through recycling.

As parts of the United States deal with drought and billions of people around the world deal with access to fresh water, recycling is quickly becoming a critical solution.

Two major reports out this week should do wonders to put aside fears when taking water from sewage treatment plants and scrubbing it clean enough it to a point that we can drink it.

As covered in the Los Angeles Times, a National Research Council report said reclaimed water is as safe as conventional sources and greater use should be encouraged.

Meanwhile, engineers at Brown University reported on a new process that can remove heavy metals from water.

For now, various rules and regulations generally prohibit agencies from directly sending into our water pipes the very clean H2O that originated from a sewage treatment plant and was then scrubbed at a water recycling facility.

Today, this treated water can only be used for irrigation, injected underground (where Mother Nature is presumed to have a better handle on "scrubbing" this water), used for industrial purposes (companies want this highly treated water because of its nearly mineral-free quality) or other "non-potable" uses.

What's holding us back from sending this water into our households?

Perhaps it is fear. "Toilet to tap" is still an obstacle some water agencies face. This phrase, coined by a (failed) candidate for public office in Los Angeles, is one of the biggest public relations challenges when it comes to broad acceptance of recycled water. As PR pros well know, a negative label can stick much better than a positive and is hard to unwind.

Science tells us recycled water is safe. While new research and improved treatment technologies continues to help, PR pros have spent consider effort to erase perception and fear when it comes to reclaimed water.

When I speak about this topic, I remind people that (a) we are all drinking dinosaur pee and (b) the astronauts in the International Space Station are recycling 97 percent of their urine and perspiration for drinking water. The first part is silly, I know. But the second is meant to demonstrate that the science and technology are "here" to safely and effectively drink recycled water.

At a recent tour of the water recycling facility operated by the West Basin Municipal Water District (an update of a tour I took about 10 years ago), I drank recycled water. It tasted great. I'm still standing.

The journey to my lips began a few miles away at the massive Hyperion wastewater treatment plant where this water receives its first rounds of cleansing. Once at the West Basin facility, the water is squeezed through filters and membranes, then treated with an ultraviolet process. This final stage kills bacteria and viruses, rendering the water actually cleaner than what is being sent to many U.S. households.

The "UV" stage was added since my last tour and is the "killer app" for recycled water. It takes away the last imagined fear for the public - viruses. Less complicated UV systems are being constructed for use in undeveloped areas of the world, where fresh water is a much bigger issue.

In California, health officials will likely require more steps before agencies like West Basin can connect the "outflow" pipes from water recycling facilities to the pipes that send water to our homes. One likely step will be a 24/7, real-time monitoring (with online readouts) of this water as it is about to enter the drinking water system.

And you wonder why our water bills are going up.

Occupying our minds

2011-12-30T07:50:00.000-08:00

One of the foundations of public relations is understanding and evaluating your audience. We conduct countless surveys, analyze news articles and polls, and spend tens of thousands of dollars on research to make sure our message, our efforts are going to be received by a receptive audience. We build complex communications strategies based on this important research.

It strikes me, therefore, that the Occupy folks have not opened one book on public relations. If they did, they would realize that a protest at the 2012 Rose Parade will likely do more to hurt their cause rather than help it.

The Rose Parade is sacred ground for the legions of loyal followers. Which, in this case, includes tens of millions of Americans who are both the 1 percent and the 99 percent. The parade is the annual time for millions to be enchanted by the color and pomp (and occasional technological wizardry) of the floats, the back stories about the bands that held cookie sales to finance their journey from some small town in Iowa, the history of a particular breed of horse and the innocent beauty of the Rose Queen and her court.

It's the exact annual moment of the year when the country is trying to escape - from a hangover, from the things that went bad the year before, from the dread of what's to come. We want to smile and be awed. We're willing to risk a cold sleepless night along Colorado Boulevard for a spot to see the parade in person, to hear the bands and see the flowers.

Naturally, when news surfaced that the Occupy folks were planning to protest at the Rose Parade, there was universal feelings of: "No. Not my Rose Parade." The common reaction was bordering on feeling violated. The average person felt like they owned the parade. One of the last remaining treasures untouched by scandal, a few hours of pure fun and joy with a warmth of nostalgia was about to be the stage for a political protest. The reaction has been negative on a universal level.

So, why would Occupy folks whose goal seemingly is to gain mindshare, approval and sympathy choose a path that will do the exact opposite?

In public relations, we often are in the business of telling a client "no." What may seem like a great idea will backfire. Even with research that tells us it's a bad idea, some clients will go ahead with an event or announcement - with the negative results we predicted.

In this case, we would have to tell the Occupy folks that in spite of the potential to reach an international TV audience, your message will not be heard or accepted. In fact, you are likely to do more harm to your campaign. Any hope of gaining sympathy for the cause will vanish.

The audience research tells us you picked the wrong time and place.

Be thankful

2011-12-12T17:54:00.000-08:00

The tragic, senseless shooting last Friday (Dec. 9) in Hollywood is a reminder to cherish each day.

These were the words from one of the unsuspecting motorists whose car was hit by gunfire from a man standing in the middle of Hollywood and Vine. And it was a statement that a TV news team recognized was different enough to stay in the broadcast story.

Sadly, one of this gunman's victims died today - music industry producer John Atterberry. A chance encounter for this poor man, leaving a bank unaware of what was transpiring around him and getting shot by this crazed gunman.

On one hand, the prophetic advice from an almost victim is something we are all heeding - or should be soon. Live life like there is no tomorrow.

On the other side is our curiosity about the event itself.

Like many, I've been following this story since it first broke. First, the video clips from witnesses brought to life an incredible scene. Then we heard stories from individuals who either came to the aid of Mr. Atterberry, or from the drivers of cars that had their windows shot out.

Then we wanted to know: Who was this crazy gunman and why did he do this?

The answers trickled out in pieces, almost in a timed cadence.

TV news outlets have appeared to be out-hustling their counterparts in print to get the details. For instance, we learn the gunman actually reloaded - he fired 20 rounds, not 10 as we first heard. His former girlfriend told TV stations he was "stressed out" lately, upset by their recent break-up and allegedly met someone else who was giving him drugs that changed his mood and behavior.

This is a story that has captured the attention of most of Southern California, possibly beyond. Why? For many of the same reasons we professionals in public relations recognize are the elements of a compelling story.

It's local. Even if we never had driven through the intersection of Hollywood and Vine, we know a lot about this famous, iconic location. We know tourists from around the world venture to this place. We know it's busy. We can readily identify with it.

It shakes our sensibilities. This time, we were shaken in a bad way. Our sense of "peace" was shattered. It could have been one of us. When it's good news, we in the PR profession also try to awaken a person's senses, but in a favorable way. If we can capture a specific human reaction, if it's unusual enough and upsets the path or boundaries we walk with every day, then we have "reached" people.

It touches a nerve, a raw emotion. We all like to think we're immune to things the world throws at us, that we're built to handle the tough stuff. But for an event or announcement to really capture our attention, it needs to break through these immunity barriers.

There are a string of other factors that examine the human condition and its predictive nature when reacting to events and information, or in how we manage an emotional conflict that unwillingly takes us from our comfort zone. (I'd suggest reading the "Switch" and "Made to Stick"books by the Heath brothers.)

A senseless shooting is tragic. Very tragic. Life life to the fullest every day.

Why speed kills

2011-12-09T10:16:00.000-08:00

Southern California and other parts of the state were hit last week (Nov. 30-Dec. 1) by a weather system with all the resulting damage resembling a major tornado in the Midwest.

Take a moment to visualize this. Thousands of trees blown down, many onto power lines, cars, homes and streets. Roofs blown off homes. Large metal canopies toppled. Damage expected to be in the millions of dollars, but even officials are reluctant to come up with more exact estimates. Winds topping 150 mph over mountaintops, but probably higher because the machines could record faster speeds.

As a former journalist who has covered disasters across the country, this event had all the severe markings of an F1 or larger tornado. A disaster not as bad as the Northridge Earthquake or this past April’s tornado outbreak – there were no deaths, thankfully - but much greater as average natural disasters go. Certainly, worse than most floods or brushfires. A “tornado-like” scene is a phrase I would have chosen to use if I were still writing newspaper stories.

Currently, as a veteran public relations professional who prepares crisis preparedness and crisis communications plans for public agencies and private companies, the shoot-from-the-hip criticisms and questioning we recently heard from public officials and others are, sadly, to be expected and planned for in our modern era of unrealistic expecations.

Rather than learn from this experience, use this as an ideal opportunity to remind residents about preparing for a major disaster and draw comparisons to recovering from a tornado, one of the first major public statements we hear from elected officials is a loud chastisement of electric utilities for such silly things as not effectively communicating with its customers about the status of restoring power.

Does the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors really need to chew out a utility just days after a disaster and while they are still trying to make repairs on a 24-hour basis? Does the California Public Utilities Commission really need to investigate Southern California Edison for a “prolonged power outage?” This wasn’t a typical “power outage” where we find when a few transformers blown up. This was widespread destruction.

Where do such critical responses – a seemingly growing bash fest – come from? It is very likely because of what behavioral scientists have been telling us: Changing perceptions and expectations skewed to the here-and-now thanks in part to speed-of-light technology. We now live in an era where we expect instant results and rely on immediate communications. We can’t wait for answers so we make fast conclusions (Thank you, TMZ and Fox News). We want our opinions to be heard (Thank you, Facebook and blogs). Our expectations are now so maladjusted that acceptable behavior includes making broad, baseless accusations before we wait for more information and more facts (Thank you, Twitter and the “comment” section at the bottom of news stories on the web). A recent Newsweek article (“Money Brain”) discussed the impacts of the Twitter generation, that one-click shopping and instant messaging encourages a desire for instant gratification. Even comedians joke about impatience – the Lewis CK YouTube video “Everything’s Amazing, but Nobody’s Happy” has registered more than 5 million views because he skewers, among many targets, a spoiled, impatient airline passenger who lost Internet service.

And do impatience, instant gratification and skewered expectations affect memory? How soon did we forgot the early warnings from Southern California Edison and others that this “severe wind event” was significant enough that it would take “several days” to repair electrical lines? How soon did our own county officials forget that they regularly affix their names to emergency preparedness statements that, for example, advise residents that they may have to assume they will “be on their own” for several days in a major disaster? These warnings further advise resident not to expect contact with authorities or from utilities because they are placing all their efforts at restoring power, water and gas.

Expectations. We all know the images from the Midwest when a tornado cuts a path across a town. We don’t blink an eye when we hear, weeks later, that people are still recovering from the disaster. Yet, in a wind storm that remained severe for two days and wiped out power to nearly one-half million people (not a Midwest town of 30,000, mind you), the current state of expectation is: Why are you not moving faster? Why have you not catered to my need to get twice-a-day or more frequent updates on the situation? As a professional communicator, I must now advise companies that should they experience a crisis they will be forced to expend considerable resources to provide constant updates over multiple platforms, spend money on advertisements apologizing for not performing at super-hero speed and cater to “stakeholders” they never knew existed. And the statements they make must be short and lack any forward-thinking phrases so as to avoid a possible lawsuit.

Seventy years ago, it was hours before the mainland United States heard the news that Pearl Harbor was bombed. If the same happened today, millions would have known about it in seconds via Twitter. A former General Motors Chairman said he could take up to a week in the 1970s to make an important decision. Today, CEOs of major companies are under the pressure from a global market that never sleeps to act on major issues within hours, sometimes minutes.

It’s all about meeting expectations skewed by a faster moving and more demanding society. Somewhere along the way, patience was replaced by indignation.

Power of PR

2011-11-21T13:19:00.000-08:00

The city of Long Beach recently announced a major milestone in one of its many water conservation efforts: removing turf from 500 residential landscapes.

The turf-replacement effort, which first received high visibility in Las Vegas a few years earlier, is one of many to make homes and business more efficient with water.

The story sort of buried the lead - that drought resistant landscapes use up to six times less water. This is a huge number, given that half or more of the water delivered to Southern California homes today is used for landscapes. Most earlier estimates said water-saving gardens and landscapes could mean a 30 percent reduction in water use. (Help me out here - "six times" vs. "30 percent"... different levels of savings, right?)

These sort of numbers, if you begin to add them up for every household in Southern California, could mean a much more reliable water future. I'm surprised someone has not jumped all over this.

Water agencies in California are busy implementing a range of water-efficiency efforts to get residents and businesses to use less. They must meet a 2020 deadline to reduce per-capita water use by 20 percent.

While rebate programs like turf replacement are helping to achieve improved water efficiencies, cities and water districts also are implementing at rapid pace a "tiered rate" structure. These rate structures are designed to make it costly for people when they waste water. It's the same structure that electric utilities began using after that last big energy scare in CA.

While some customers will grumble and many will contend that they are using water wisely, a price structure combined with an allocation formula quickly creates "opportunities" for the average homeowner to realize that, yes, they can indeed save more water.

Most water agencies have figured out that getting people to first save water now - through a more "gentle" approach of rebates and tiered rate structures - will be the more friendly approach with the easier consumer acceptance.

But, alas, nothing is ever easy with water.

While water agencies are getting people to save, they also are seeing declines in revenues from water sales. Yet, agencies have fixed expenses, such as maintaining their vast infrastructure of pipes, paying for water treatment chemicals, meeting salaries, and other costs that can't be eliminated or reduced without jeopardizing the system.

So, they must raise rates. So often, water agencies will thank their customers for saving water, then are forced to turn around and say "Now, we must charge you more for this service." Not exactly the kind of reward a typical customer was looking for.

Many water agencies that implement tiered rates are trying their best to keep the bill for its average, water-efficient customer at the same level. These agencies are counting on a percentage of their customers still wasting water and, thus, paying huge rates for water above their monthly allocations.

More "news site" troubles

2011-11-08T11:28:00.000-08:00

Update Nov. 12: Central Basin has instructed its communications consultant to stop using a website where their stories were appearing under apparently fake bylines. The Los Angeles Times reported today that the water district believed the reporters were real and only became aware recently that the authors may be fictional.

In a statement issued Nov. 9, Central Basin said, among other things:

"Central Basin was not aware of issues related to the backgrounds
of the individuals whose names appeared alongside the stories and had no knowledge of their
biographies until it was brought to our attention, at which point the News Hawks website lost its
Google Certification and Central Basin’s vendor discontinued using the website.

...........
Credit the LA Times for not giving up on a story.

As much as I hate to see a water agency that does great work remain in the newspaper's cross hairs, and as much as I hate to see someone in public relations getting slammed in print....the public relations profession needs to take notice and learn from this one.

And, the water district may want to ask for help from PRSA.

The latest Times story about the Central Basin water district of Southern California is an update to their previous article about the water district's effort to secure positive coverage. The water district has been in bitter battles with another water district, which also is using deception on the web in attacking Central Basin.

As this blog wrote when the original story first broke, paying for positive coverage is full of danger.

The key issue remains disclosure...even more so with the latest Times article.

The latest Times story raises significant questions about the authors of "news" articles that appeared on a "news" website (that was subsequently removed by Google in its news streams).

These reporters may be phony.

The appearance from the story is that the public relations consultant hired by the district used various fake names, bios and photos for articles that he wrote for this "news" website on behalf of his client.

This certainly raises more damaging questions about the water district's effort to counter attacks by using some of the same misleading efforts they revile. Knowing the Times was about to do another article, the water district issued a statement about four days before the article was published. The water district challenged the Times to "see how" their response would be used in the article.

The problem with the statement is that it deals with the underlying issue of the battle between the two water districts, but fails to address the bigger, more damaging issue of credibility and disclosure.

While Central Basin may feel it has won some arguments with the Times about who exactly paid for what and how the website where positive news stories appeared was created, the latest story continues to raise damaging questions for the district.

Perhaps the best next step for Central Basin is to issue a statement that it has further reviewed its contract for public outreach services and conducted its own investigation to either (a) conclude its consultant has performed to the highest ethical standards or (b) it is ending its contract because the opposite was true.

Then the next step would be for Central Basin to develop and adopt a policy for public communications and code of conduct.

PRSA, Los Angeles would be glad to help. PRSA has done it before for other public agencies, including FEMA.

Let's the water games begin

2011-11-07T09:02:00.000-08:00

While the rest of the country will have its political antenna aimed at the White House in 2012, California will - or should - hear a lot of rhetoric about water.

As LA Times columnist George Skelton writes, the state Legislature has a big mess on its hands with a ballot-ready $11 billion water bond that probably will fail in a year if left as-is.

Behind the scenes, all the usual groups are lining up for a post-holiday free-for-all. Everyone knows the bond must be trimmed and it will be up to the Legislature and Gov. Brown to re-craft this measure by next May or June to make the ballot in time.

Let the games begin.

Mini crime spree - where is the reporting?

2011-11-02T20:51:00.000-07:00

(A bit of a deviation from normal PR topics)

It's Wednesday and in just three days, Southern California already has seen a month's worth of sensational stories of murder and mayhem.

But does anyone care?

Not that I need more or have some dark desire for grisly stuff, but as a former crimes reporter, I'm dismayed by the lack of solid crime journalism. This would be the everyday, basic police-beat reporting that is designed to give the public a sense of the unusual. This is the kind of news that should be important to us because we should treat life with greater respect. Especially when innocent people are gunned down in our streets.

Yet, through lazy journalism, budget cuts and misdirected priorities, we're seeing the kind of news that should shock us - crime - being supplanted by another kind of sensational news - celebrities.

I partly blame careless journalism for this devolution of sensitivities. Case in point:

A "good Samaritan" was shot dead on Halloween in Santa Clarita trying to intervene in a midday robbery in a parking lot. Basic police reporting calls for going to the scene, tracking down family and acquaintances, getting cops to talk on background (which can be done by veteran copy reporters who had developed a relationship with the cops), and more. Reporters need to describe the scene so we get a clear picture of the horror that unfolded. Why do this? Because a two-paragraph release from authorities is very skimpy on details. The public deserves to know the details because murders are supposed to be unusual and shocking.

But was any of this kind of reporting done? The majority of news organizations failed. One exception was the Daily News (my former paper), but this good reporting is only available in the print edition. Sadly, most people only get their stories online via blog links, searches.

Meanwhile, top stories on local TV are about, what else, celebrity divorces, celebrity probation violations, promos for network shows...

Sustainable influences and water risks

2011-09-23T08:19:00.000-07:00

Part I: Pension fund influence on water issues

Count a major pension fund as the latest group to "influence" a corporation's sustainability program.

Perhaps more noteworthy is what appears to be the fast-growing sector in the environmental risk reporting arena: water.

CalSTRS is the California State Teachers' Retirement System and the lesser known of California's two major pension funds (Calpers being the other). Sysco announced this week it agreed to a set of new environmental strategies proposed by CalSTRS.

Influencing corporate policy and governance is a big part of large shareholder group actions, aside from picking the right stocks. Until recently, these demands usually focused on ensuring a company focused on making profits and, say, avoiding ventures in high-risk countries.

Perhaps more influenced by legal and financial exposures than noble intentions, companies are adding more and layers to their sustainability policies. And large shareholders like CalSTRS are demanding more environmentally-related risk disclosures from a range of market sectors, such as for insurance companies as highlighted here.

CalSTRS submitted five environmental proposals to Sysco, but only two were adopted. Besides the water one, the other approved policy involved sustainable agriculture, which makes sense since the company is a food service industry leader.

There is room for debate on whether these adoptions count as a major win for CalSTRS, especially given the number of global companies that have voluntarily adopted water-risk strategies and Sysco should have a sustainable agriculture policy anyway.

Growing sector
The water-risk disclosure is quickly gaining strength, thanks in large part to a global non-profit organization essentially forcing companies to report full disclosure of their climate change risks and exposures.

First proposed in 2009 as a pilot effort by the Climate Disclosure Project, water risk management is now a major new reporting segment for the CDP. The CDP is about to send out its second major water-risk questionnaire to global companies.

The 2010 CDP water report is somewhat predictable: Most responding companies said stable, clean water supplies and access to these supplies are critically important. Nearly 90 percent of the responding companies said they already had developed water strategies and plans, but 60 percent had specific targets. Again, this makes sense since the CDP issued its questionnaire primarily to companies with some level of water-related risk and exposure. (Note: water risks also include exposure to floods!)

This area of environmental disclosure is still in its infancy - in terms of its true "impact" on the environment. As the CDP report reveals, many companies are unaware of their true risk to such critical issues as water supply chain management. In places like California, this means they haven't looked thoroughly at long-term risks associated with potential water shortages.

As has happened in the sustainability "movement" among corporations, it will take a few more years before any true "meat" is placed on the bone for water-risk reporting and true change occurs. While companies like WalMart are considered visionaries with regard to forcing real change in "greening" their products and supplies, these changes evolved after several years of "forced" disclosures and heavy lobbying by environmental groups.

Next up will be how public relations professionals should prepare for this next "hot" topic of sustainability reporting - water-risk management.

Paying for positive coverage

2011-09-13T08:42:00.000-07:00

10/3 Update: The Los Angeles Times has published a significant correction to its story and this changes some of the aspects of this column. Read the Times correction below in full:

"Central Basin: An article in the Sept. 14 LATExtra section about Google News delisting a website that had published stories "written in the image of real news" paid for by the Central Basin Municipal Water District incorrectly stated that the agency contracted with the website, NewsHawksReview.com, to create the promotional stories. The agency contracted with a public relations consultant, Coghlan Consulting Group, for the stories and other public relations efforts. Also, the article misstated that the agency paid the consultant nearly $200,000 under the contract. While the district approved paying that amount, it has paid only $70,000 so far, according to public records. The online and print headlines for the article also incorrectly said that the consultant created the website to tout the water agency and that it was financed by the agency. Although consultant Ed Coghlan stated that News Hawks Review was a part of his company and he was listed as a reporter on the website, he did not create the site for the agency and it was not directly financed by the agency. "

While this correction clears up the financial amounts involved and whether there was a direct financial or contractual connection between the water district and a "news" website, it doesn't change the basic ethical underpinnings called into question.

There still remains the issue of the News Hawks website appearing to be an independent news outlet, and how the water district - through its consultant - sought to obtain more balanced or favorable coverage through this "news" site. The major goal was to "build a base" of online stories favorable to the water district so that Google searches would bring these up first. This is a very admirable pursuit and one that public relations firms get hired to do all the time.

But, again, we do this through "earned" media under the presumption that we are getting stories published in "trusted" and independent institutions like the LA Times (of course, that trust is damaged when a reporter makes major mistakes). A story in the Times or other credible news organization is thought to have passed "the test" for accuracy and independence.

The Times' review of water district contracts combined with interviews of public officials who were quoted in the News Hawks articles clearly revealed an issue of the "independent" nature of these "news" articles. ("How about our own news outlet?")

Neither the consultant nor Central Basin have answered the question.

In its news release about the correction, the water district says it merely hired the consultant to provide news content for local news agencies. Google clearly did not see News Hawks as a "news agency" and delisted it.

Was it up to the water district to raise questions about whether this website was an independent news outlet? Yes. For other water agencies needing help in this area, ask this question: Is the "news" article I'm reading online or in print appear to be 80 percent or more verbatim to the news release or bylined article I had previously approved? If so, then it raises the question whether this was a "bought" story.

Was it up to the consultant to divulge the true independence of this website? Yes.

Is disclosure still the best policy when creating and managing a public relations program involving the news media? Yes

9/14 Update: Ragan's PR daily covered the same and included the letter sent to the LA Times by PRSA Director Marisa Vallbona, APR, Fellow PRSA.
Update #2: LA Times reports that Google has removed the website financed by the water district.

Sooner or later, reporters will find out when you pay for positive news coverage.

Case in point today with the LA Times reporting about a local water district spending nearly $200,000 to place positive stories on a "news" site that gets indexed by Google news.

The water district has justified this as a legitimate expense and tactic because it is generating more traffic to its website and more interest in water conservation than sending out the typical news release.

So, here is a water district that I know very well, and which has battled a series of negative news articles and other attacks. I can certainly sympathize with this district: As these attacks grew over the Internet, it sought solutions to generate "balance" to the coverage.

But, as we see by the scathing news article, the solution ends up generating more negative coverage.

Worse? The tactic also creates issues for all other public relations professionals who are conducting their business within the ethical boundaries established by PRSA and from decades of experience acting with full disclosure.

PR veterans will tell you that shortcuts usually lead to a breach of ethics. An "easy solution" to generating positive news media coverage should send warning signals.

It is perfectly legitimate and ethical to hire a public relations pro to help an institution or company generate positive news coverage, to counter negative information, to go on the "offensive" to get "our" side of the story told, to promote the many other sides of a company that are doing positive things in the community, etc.

It can be hard work and the "wins" may not come as frequently as hoped. Yet, these wins and positive milestones are "earned" media - not paid. The news media is viewed as an independent group - so if we happen to get a positive story out of it - everyone will trust that story. It is credible reporting. That is why we PR pros work so hard at earning these stories. The credibility and trust associated with a truly "earned" story translates into incredible amounts of ROI for our clients.

Otherwise, any other effort that resembles a "news" story should be clearly marked as a "paid" effort.

Disclosure wins, every time.

Decades ago, Mobil spent considerable dollars in a paid advertising campaign to counter what it saw as unfair news coverage. These "columns" ran in newspapers and magazines, like Time and Newsweek. Although they were designed to look like news columns, they were clearly marked as "paid advertisement." The campaign was very effective for Mobil.

In the case of this water district, the goal was to build positive Internet traffic that counters the negative stuff on the web. Fine. Let it happen, but with a disclaimer. There are plenty of legitimate tactics to counter negative Internet traffic. Misleading the public into thinking they are reading "real" news stories is not one of them.

As for the PR industry and this latest episode, let's make sure we examine this lesson and not fall into "easy solutions." This simply would not have passed the sniff test for most of us.

Value of PRSA membership

2011-08-10T09:11:00.000-07:00

Since starting The Wolcott Company in 2008, I've enjoyed at least one or two new clients annually as a result of my involvement in the Public Relations Society of America.

If you are in the greater Los Angeles area, Thursday night, Aug. 11, is a great chance to discover the value of PRSA membership. It's a free mixer for non-members to check us out, ask a bunch of questions and see why this professional organization is the largest of its kind in the world.

Many people have asked me: What do I get out of my PRSA membership? I usually turn around and tell them: "As much as you want to put INTO the membership."

It's not a one-way street. This is an organization built on providing many things, but is only as good as the amount of energy and volunteerism we put into it.

What has it offered me? I've remained current - no, make that: ahead of the game - through affordable professional development. Networking and becoming involved on the local board and national committees have enabled me to build a national network of fellow PR pros who I can count on for just about any thing (advice, partnering, finding a specialty expert, etc.).

If you are not a member, now is your chance to see why being a PRSA member delivers ROI on your investment. Attend the free mixer Thursday night in Los Angeles. Details at www.prsala.org.

When Social Media can't fix things

2011-04-12T22:14:00.000-07:00

Companies are getting better at countering Internet-led attacks of products. But what about everything and everyone else?

Taco Bell is a great recent example for how a company has learned how to take swift, aggressive action to counter erroneous allegations about their product. The impact of social media and the speed by which rumors fly on the Internet have been widely felt. Companies are learning and realize they need to pull out the stops at the first sniff of problems.

Within hours and days of a lawsuit alleging Taco Bell's meat was more filler, the South of the Border crew hit hard and fast. Bold advertising proclaimed "Thank you for Suing Us." There were Facebook and YouTube postings. They bought keywords "taco," "bell" and "lawsuit" on search engines to ensure their official statement was the first link on Yahoo, Google and Bing.

The impact of all this won't really be known until April 20 when parent company, Yum, issues its next quarterly earnings. My guess: the episode will have little negative impact, and possibly positive financial impact. My prediction is that loyal Taco Bell customers decided to support the brand by eating more tacos.

But what about all the others who may not have the ability to respond?

And, what about the lingering impacts of items in cyberspace?

This week, two emailed videos many thought were long forgotten... resurfaced. The fact they "came back" means PR professionals can't relax.

In one, the video shows people putting their cell phones around a small clump of unpopped popcorn kernels. When people dial these cell phones, the kernels soon pop and popped corn falls around the phones. Within in this video are multiple clips of seemingly random groups of people - including what looks like a group of Japaneses-speaking young adults - all performing the same "test." The implication, of course, is that cell phones emit dangerous radio waves powerful enough to make popcorn pop.

The other video has two clips of cruise ships in rough waters. One is an interior shot of passengers and crew being pushed back and forth, chairs and tables sliding around and more havoc. The other is an exterior shot of a cruise ship being tossed around in a very stormy sea. Both videos are attached to an email that says, essentially, 'watch ships being tossed by the tsunami.' The implication being that the tsunami generated by the recent Japan quake caused these ships to run into trouble.

Trouble is: both emails are misleading. The popcorn-cell phone video was a marketing ploy by a company that sells wireless headsets. This was "uncovered" by CNN and others...back in 2008.

The cruise ship videos? One was from a cyclone off of New Zealand and the other from a serious storm off the coast of Majorca in the Mediterranean. Both incidents occurred in 2008.

A certain percentage of the population will believe emails like these because they are sent from friends. They will simply accept them on face value. Some may try to do a little digging, like through Snopes.com and Urbanlegend.com. But, really, who has the time for that? If they are seemingly "innocent" items, why bother digging?

But for cell phone manufacturers and cruise ship operators, these lingering videos can be troubling. Cell phone manufacturers seem to continually be forced to answer questions about the potential health impacts of their products.

Like a bad penny that keeps turning up, videos and emails simply don't go away. In spite of our best efforts, bad information can come back at anytime. They can inflame sensibilities, provide more "proof" to people who believe cell phones create health issues, cause people to rethink that next cruise and so on.

PR professionals know they can't relax. So, what are the strategies for "old" viral? Consider these options and questions:

Do nothing, particularly if the time frame is more than four years from original to recent occurence. In this case, you are playing the percentages. The "new" audience to these videos and viral emails is much smaller than the one who saw it originally. Sure, this is a gamble. But it's also known as risk calculation. (Talk to the insurance folks in your company). How much time and money should your company/client devote to squashing old emails and videos? If you choose to combat these, what are the risks of creating more unwanted attention? How much time do you spend to figure out the demographics of the "new" audience? Are they mostly older than 45 or under 20? The older age group will tend to be more skeptical.
Did it reach Facebook? If an old video is making the rounds just via email, it's not really a threat. But if it's being posted on FB, now it's a threat and requires some level of response. Don't overdo it. First see if ambassadors can act on your behalf with their FB friends - and tell them to "read this" for the truth. "This" being the link to your original official video or statement.
Is it a weed? One definition of viral means how long this "weed" lives and bothers you. Weeds will die either because of a lack of water, you yank it or spray it with weed-killer. On the Internet, "yanking" usually means lobbying YouTube to pull a video. Typically, YouTube will yank a video in copyright infringement cases, but it can have an immediate impact. "Weed-killer" is your assertive, aggressive social media/media relations/advertising counter-attack. Or, you can simply go silent and hope this weed dies for lack of attention.

Just remember: Even weeds have seeds.

M, M&A, SC and G

2011-04-11T07:40:00.000-07:00

Some initials for you: Maui. Mergers and Acquisitions. USC and Green.

Back from Maui and ready for some major PR work and news this week. Hawaii is still a great place, but its dependency on travel and tourism can create turmoil for some of my PR colleagues. Just as hotels and resort properties seemed to have withstood the global recession, now another global event will force another major change in strategy. Some hotels rely heavily on Japanese tourists while others focus on the U.S. market. The devastation in Japan is predicted to create a significant drop in tourists from that country to the islands. Now, resort properties dependent on Japan will begin to focus on other markets - which could lead to some fierce competition.

This was Spring Break time for Hawaii, and I was glad to see many friends taking their families there. Yet, there are signs of lingering trouble. When I last visited Maui in 2006, all the shops at Whaler's Village in Kaanapali were full. Last week, there were many empty ones. The fabulous Ritz Carlton at Kapalua, like many HI resorts, is in default. With higher fuel prices, the question is: When will Hawaii catch a break?

In case you missed it, Ruder Finn acquired The Rogers Group last week. Good news: They report no layoffs. Ruder Finn actually says it's hiring in SFO to bolster its West Coast operations.

The Rogers Group was probably ripe for a sale. The firm lost my friend and a great leader in Lynn Doll when she suddenly passed away last August. She was a driving force behind the firms' steady growth and success. CA budget woes didn't help, and the state was not renewing some contracts, including a large one for the firm.

Ruder Finn has long tried to be a strong presence on the West Coast, with many starts and stops. It had previously tried to build business organically. Now, it appears, RF has the ability to create growth through acquisition and bring in a well-known and very capable leader such as Ron Rogers. Aside from the normal M&A issues, it will be interesting to see if there will be new directions for Ruder Finn/West. Public affairs joins technology?

USC
Don't miss a great, free program this Thursday at the University of Southern California. The annual "Kenneth Owler Smith" Symposium, named after one of our great PR leaders from Southern California, will feature a discussion about the changing relationships between PR and journalism. More information here.

Green PR
A great program is coming to LA on May 16 - Sustainability Communications. This still-growing practice area of Public Relations is now creating new posts, new challenges and changing faster than social media. A very affordable event. Click here for more details.

When the CEO goes hunting

2011-03-31T17:03:00.000-07:00

Will the GoDaddy brand suffer because their CEO shot an elephant?

Right now, the social media networks are alive with calls for anyone with a GoDaddy domain to yank them because of this. A competitor is jumping on the bandwagon to try to gain marketshare.

What's surprising is the lack of mainstream news coverage of this - (at this hour). It probably will perk up, soon.

So, it remains to be seen if this incident will hit GoDaddy in the pocketbook, immediately and in the long term.

So far, GoDaddy.com has not issued any statement about this. If history is any indication, this story will get bigger and force a response from GoDaddy.

-----
April 1, 8 a.m PST UPDATE: The story has broken open. Parsons is defending his actions in interviews, such as here.
-----

For those who are discovering Bob Parsons videos for the first time, this one may be shocking. But, this is who he is. His image - bravado, take life by the horns (sorry, had to use it), live life to its fullest - is already defined, particularly by the brand of his company and the videos he stars in for the company.

But what is more shocking is how seemingly out of touch Mr. Parsons is with regard to the impact of his conduct away from the office. There are plenty of CEOs who like to hunt. Ted Turner's image only improved when he went out on hunting trips, or in later years for building up a herd of bison on his sprawling ranches (bison raised for their meat, mind you). Dick Cheney's image faltered when he went hunting.

But, elephants? In 2011?

Regardless of the facts or claims about the impact of elephants in certain areas of the world (overpopulation, etc.) and regardless of the fact that Parsons' video points out that the killing was necessary to keep a village from starving, and regardless that the entire elephant ended up feeding more than the local village...it was an elephant.

Does Parsons need to go on the offensive to explain all the "pros" for this, um - in his view - justified killing? Perhaps. He may have a slight opportunity here to crusade about the issue of problem elephants. (But I wouldn't use the word "problem.")

However, the real question is why a CEO of a leading brand like GoDaddy thought there would be NO consequences from killing an elephant. I'm sure there would be little or no repercussions had he killed a deer or elk. Killing an elephant begins to cross over into a different realm. Think: documentaries about killing dolphins.

True, this was the second year in a row for this kind of expedition for Mr. Parsons. There were no apparent repercussions the first time - but now the video is out for his second one. Lesson: Don't be fooled that a lack of reaction in the first instance doesn't mean there won't be screaming the second time.

The point here is this: At any level of rational thinking - killing an elephant and then boasting about it with a video is bound to prompt a significant percentage of customers to switch domain providers. That is a reasonable calculation to make before boarding the plane to Africa. This is bound to make some potential customers more carefully examine their choices. It may cause some employees to resign. There may be lasting impacts to the brand and the bottom line. What the CEO does in private life, as we all know, has direct impact on his or her company.

Update: In the NY Times interview, Parsons sees this act actually increasing sales for GoDaddy. He is perhaps bolstered by the nearly 300 "likes" on his video?

Were any of these possibilities considered before (a) the expedition was organized and (b) the video was posted? They should have been - especially for a brand that tries to appeal to a broad cross section of the world.

It could be that Mr. Parsons and GoDaddy felt that since they have "crossed the line" (i.e. using sex to sell their website) before, and only saw revenues go up, nothing will be different this time.

However, think about the core customer base for GoDaddy. I can only imagine the average customer is young, Internet-savvy, perhaps more males than females. (Which is why they can put sexy models on their website to sell domains). Yet, my hunch is that this audience probably favors humanitarian causes, save the planet stuff, etc. Elephants fall into these categories.

Is this an Internet crisis? Not now, but it could be soon. This story will likely continue to unfold and will be interesting to see how GoDaddy responds.

The pyschology of water

2011-03-29T08:31:00.001-07:00

On Wednesday, March 30, California Governor Jerry Brown is expected to declare the state's drought over.

And with this declaration, so goes a piece of leverage effectively used by water districts and others with a stake in California's water future.

Is it political leverage? Or, should officials simply be commended for take advantage of the tools in front of them?

Indeed, it seems logical to end the drought declaration in California. We have record snow pack and rainfall. Our reservoirs are brimming. Yet, as any scientist will tell you, one good year doesn't mean a true drought is over.

Some environmental groups and others opposed to proposed massive water projects and the bonds needed to finance them have been critical of how a politician, like our former Governor, used the word "drought" to sway opinion.

Yes, a scary word like "drought" does have impact. It gets people's attention. So, why not use it to your advantage? As a public relations or communications professional, you must tap into the concerns of the public, know what's on their mind and figure how best to make them pay attention to your issue and your arguments.

That is why we conduct polls and other research. That is why certain water bonds and measures win voter approval and some do not. This is how campaigns are conducted to get people to make changes in their lifestyle to save water.

It's no different from a candidate or an elected official using polling to determine what matters most to the public, then "speaking" directly at them about it. President Reagan was a master of polling to get legislation passed.

If you are not from California, it would seem rational to assume that a majority of Californians would approve financial efforts to keep our state's plumbing working. California is an economic powerhouse because of our massive water delivery systems. The fixes now on the table are to correct environmental impacts, prepare for climate change and prepare ourselves for the population growth we know is coming. About every 30 years, the state builds massive water projects. The last one was completed in the 1960s, so we're overdue.

Logical, right?

Guess again. Right up there with immigration and labor unions, water is a topic of angst and emotion in California. The debate, therefore, gets as muddy as the Sacramento River after a rainstorm.

Hence, the need to use key words to wage a campaign. Like the word, "drought."

Drought is simple to understand. It's also scary. And, it comes with pain (water rationing) and stark visual images (dry, cracked lake beds).

When I was managing a communications team at the Metropolitan Water District, we were about to launch a new water conservation campaign. I told my bosses that we had an advantage, a "leg up" on this effort because of all the recent stories about water shortages (the previous "dry" period before our latest drought).

The public, I said, was ready for our campaign because water was "top of mind." Our research showed this. So, I said, now that we had the public's attention, our chance for success was vastly improved. The public was already "primed" for our messages.

It would be much harder had we launched a water conservation campaign when it was raining, or water was not in the news. The public would be concerned with other pressing issues. It would take a strong "preliminary" effort to get water back in the news and, thus, "top of mind" for our audience to have them pay attention and listen to the "ask" we were about to make.

One California water bond many years ago was successful because they tapped into people's heightened concern - at the time - for the environment and, in particular, our famous coastlines. Part of the bond money would go for restoring wetlands, protecting coastlines, and such, while also providing millions for state and local water projects. Adding beneficiaries other than water projects was important because research showed overwhelming concern for the coastline, wetlands and parks.

Taking advantage of the public's current concerns, or to utilize existing conditions - like a drought - to help your campaign or issue is common practice.

So, now that the drought is over, what will water districts and water bond proponents use to win the hearts and minds? The public is probably "over" the drought. One less thing to worry about, right?. Today, they (we) remain concerned with, what, higher gas prices and food prices? Taxes? Personal safety? Education?

Yes, it will remain: "about the money." A bad economy postponed the last big water bond...to this year. So, what is the "leverage" to be used?

Social media rules keep evolving

2011-03-27T09:22:00.000-07:00

There was genuine surprise recently when UCLA Chancellor Gene Block issued a written and YouTube statement regarding a now-famous student video by a student who mocked and complained about Asian students at UCLA.

As any person in charge of student affairs at a campus will confirm, students can and will behave badly. So, when Chancellor Block issued a statement, there were questions.

"What promoted the Chancellor to respond to this? Really, he needed to issue statement....for this video?"

As the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday, the rules of the game have changed. A "local" incident can quickly become an international one when a video or other item gets reposted and multiplies faster than the spread of a cold at grade school.

UCLA did the right thing to respond quickly in the manner it did. UCLA recruits globally. Silence or a "standard response" on this incident could have been perceived in many negatives ways by current and future students, alumni, donors and other stakeholders.

Those who wondered aloud why the Chancellor issued a statement probably felt that in doing so, it gave greater attention to an isolated incident involving a bone-head move by a student. However, UCLA's media team was monitoring the student video and soon realized it was taking on a life of its own.

Fortunately, UCLA's chancellor was available for the video shoot. Media and public relations departments must have back-up plans and pre-authorization in place to videotape the "next-in-line" in cases like these, should the chief be unavailable.

As this incident points out, the rules of responding to social media crises keep changing, keep evolving.

Best laid plans

2011-03-26T10:02:00.000-07:00

This date in 1997 will always remain with me.

Back in the days when Video New Releases were an accepted practice between public relations firms and television news departments, my agency had spent a good deal of a client's money preparing a VNR, contacting health reporters across the country, and getting "Dateline" halfway there for a story about a new, breakthrough medical device.

Dozens of local TV stations were ready to receive the VNR via satellite. It was cut to look like a TV newscast. All they had to do was put their own reporter or anchor in the lead-in, place their station logo on the bottom and, bam, instant health news sgement. News stations vetted our material, so all was on the up-and-up.

This was an "issue" campaign. Our client made a new device that doctors could wear during surgeries to alert them when their latex gloves began leaking, and they were now at risk of infection. The problem we highlighted were cases of doctors unknowingly passing Hepatitis C to patients during surgeries. We emphasized "today" in our piece, as to create a sense of urgency for the TV stations to run it.

So, as I woke on this day in 1997, I was ready to celebrate a major effort and call the Dateline producer one more time to finalize this story. We had also done an Audio News Release, so I had turned on my radio on the way to work to wait for our story.

Instead, all I heard was this "developing story." The bodies of 39 cult members were found in a home north of San Diego. The Heaven's Gate group had committed a mass suicide.

My heart sank.

This was our one shot. Instead of our VNR airing on more than 60 stations across the country, it was broadcast in about a dozen. Dateline disappeared. All because of a cult. As a health story, this was a piece that could easily be dismissed in favor of breaking news.

We laid low for a few days, then tried to convince stations our "infection issue" story was still important. But our "opportunity" had passed. The medical device never really took off with doctors or hospitals. We soon lost this client.

Today, packaged news is not allowed (due to a 2004 scandal involving VNRs and the federal government).

Today, I always warn clients that breaking news could get in the way of our story.

YouTube most powerful medium?

2011-03-25T08:18:00.001-07:00

With all the hoopla over Twitter turning 5, let's not forget the most powerful medium still in play.

YouTube's force is only growing with no end in sight. YouTube has forced major changes for movie studios and TV networks, created a new life for music videos, prompted the development of new software and forced PR pros to develop entirely new strategies and action plans.

YouTube views continue to climb in monumental proportions. YouTube's own statistics, are mind-blowing.

35 hours of video are uploaded every minute.

70 percent of YouTube traffic is from outside of the U.S

More than 700 BILLION playbacks in 2010.

Who is taking advantage of this? Just about everyone.

Who are reaping the rewards? The savvy.

Two recent examples of the power - and consequences - of YouTube are Lady Gaga and Rebecca Black.

If you can sit through it, the one-hour Google interview of Lady Gaga is fascinating. She reveals a lot about her savvy use of video and Google, and just about any medium to keep her brand in play.

Then, we have poor little Rebecca. Yeah, poor little, 47-million-view Rebecca whose "Friday" music video has earned her cash, fame and, as we have seen countless times in similar circumstances - scorn.

PR pros have focused much of their YouTube attention on protecting their clients and companies, bracing for an online "hit" (read: Dominoes), or figuring out how to market a product via YouTube.

Seriously, all you need are these two examples.

PR pros hate it, I mean really HATE it, when a client says either: "How do we make this viral?" or "Can we get on Oprah?"

Here is my comeback: Unless you are willing to do something extreme - aka, "get noticed" for doing something totally unexpected - you won't get 47 million views of your video. And, what do you see on YouTube? People. Creative people. Like this guy.

But, you tell your clients or company, you can maintain and enhance your brands with a range of other YouTube videos and online efforts.

And, yes, this effort costs money. More than what Rebecca paid, but probably less than what Lady Gaga is spending on hauling her stage around.

Chester Berger, RIP

2011-03-24T09:43:00.000-07:00

Sad to hear that Chester Berger passed away. A PR legend and pioneer in both public relations and television news. He certainly was well known on the East Coast, but his reach was international and lasting.

The PRSA release offers some great insights into his achievements, but as you can imagine only scratches the surface. Chester's career and engagements in a variety of important endeavors goes much, much further. Check here for some additional insights.

Some of his most amazing achievements?

Chester, in some circles, is credited with being the first television news reporter. His pioneering experience in television made him a leader in how public relations determined specific strategies in how to work with television news. What seems routine to many of us now was uncharted territory then.

He was a pioneer in promoting the advancement of minorities in public relations.

His effective and trusted public relations counsel to AT&T is credited with raising the profile of public relations in the c-suite across the United States. See below.

My father, Robert B. Wolcott Jr., had the pleasure of working with Chester during my father's leadership at PRSA and in the early days of PRSA's Counselors Academy, which my father helped create. It is because of the efforts by these (and other) early pioneers that the senior executives of public relations agencies are now trusted advisors to the CEOs of major worldwide companies.

I had the chance to meet Chester several years ago when I traveled to New York City for PRSA leadership training. Somehow, PRSA had arranged for Chester to provide a "bonus" session for us - but it wasn't about public relations. In addition to everything Chester did and loved, he had a passion about history. As it turned out, he took several of us on an eye-opening "behind-the-scenes" history tour of lower Manhattan. Chester delivered on his promise that we would see and hear things no one gets from a local tour company. We heard a book of little known facts, like how the "crowns" on the top of fence posts around Battery Park had been knocked off by colonialists during the Revolutionary War. Millions of people pass by this fence and never realize this piece of history. But, Chester did.

Definition of SPIN

2011-03-18T13:54:00.000-07:00

As my colleague Gini Dietrich does so well in her SPINsucks blog, the "fight against destructive spin" becomes a constant battle for PR pros.

More and more PR pros are challenging blanket accusations by journalists and others.

We had to do it again this week during our PRSA/Los Angeles chapter event featuring three of Los Angeles' top television new anchors. (Check back in a few days for the video!).

Carlos Amezcua, who I count as a very credible and ethical TV journalist now at the local Fox affiliate, casually threw out a statement during the program along the lines of: "And, spin is what you do. I get that...."

Mike Furtney, a PR veteran, top crisis communicator and one of the most respected corporate comm guys I know, challenged Carlos' statement by plainly stating: "I don't spin." Which brought a retort from Carlos: "You do. See, you were spinning just then."

Of course, you always think of the better reply on the drive home, such as: "No, I'm just giving you additional facts and another side of the story that you can use in how you want to report.."

Now, it seems, we PR pros need to have in our wallets a little "briefing card" that defines spin and offers bullet points that we can use at a moment's notice.

I'll get this started. Feel free to add to this in the comments and I'll come up with a card we can all live with:

SPIN is destructive and, therefore, not something Public Relations professionals want to be associated with.

SPIN suggests manipulating the truth, hiding facts or presenting false information. My professional ethics prohibit me from doing any of that.

Do not confuse SPIN with the simple act of providing the other side of a story with facts and important points of view.

PR professionals are hired for a variety of needs, including the establishment of beneficial relationships between key audiences and a company, person or initiative. In the course of this effort, we are obligated to provide accurate information as well as important points of view to be considered. It's our job. Don't demean it by saying we "spin."

Journalist who believe all we do is "spin" - are not listening. We hope journalists listen and gather all the facts and information BEFORE they broadcast or publish their stories. Whether it's a PR pro or someone else in a credible, important position offering information doesn't change the fact that facts and important points of view are coming out of our mouths. Please, listen....carefully.

Journalists regularly count on PR pros to tip them off to a good story, to bring experts and officials to their microphones, telephones and tape recorders, and to present them with reports, documentation and other details they need to offer a balanced story.

PR pros recognize the best way they can perform their job is to earn a reporter's trust. PR pros around the world earn this trust every day, every hour. How? By being credible, through honesty and with clarity.

Are PR pros frustratingly quiet sometimes? Yes, when there are issues of the law, personal safety and similar serious consequences involved.

Do all those practicing public relations honest and credible? No. Just as their are "bad" doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc., there are "bad" PR pros.

Japan quake and LA news

2011-03-11T08:47:00.000-08:00

When news breaks, broadcast still rules the day. But do newspapers have to give up completely?

Watched the 10 p.m. news Thursday, March 10, when the initial news came in live about a major quake in Japan. About 30 minutes later, the first images came in. By 11:15 p.m., it was clear a major disaster had occurred.

In the old days of newspapers, when I entered my first career choice about 30 years ago, newspapers would not "go to press" until late at night. If major news occurred, it wasn't that difficult to make the pressroom grumble by telling them: "We're redoing Page One."

Before the 24/7 era of news, newspapers HAD to wait or scramble in the wee hours to make sure they had the latest news in the papers hitting the front doors of their subscribers. The average citizen was conditioned to rely on their newspaper in the morning for the "latest."

Obviously, much has changed in 30 years. But, do newspapers have to give up?

The Long Beach Press Telegram that arrived at my house this morning (March 11) did not have the quake story. Nothing. Nada. The Los Angeles Times carried the quake on the front page of its second, or "Extra" section.

Like I said, in the old days (yeah, I'm old), both of these fine newspapers would make sure I had that story in my morning newspaper. Front page. They would have held the presses to make sure they had respectable coverage in print.

Have newspapers figured that everyone will simply go to their websites? Is the assumption that the printed edition is simply not capable anymore of being timely?

Changing news media landscape

2011-03-05T10:45:00.000-08:00

Excellent piece by LA Times media columnist James Rainey about how investigative reporting has morphed. It remains alive and, for the moment, well.

PR pros whose responsibilities include media relations, protecting reputations of agencies or individuals, etc. - you should take notice of this shift. There are new considerations to evaluate in how you do your jobs. (see below).

As a former journalist who did his share of investigative reporting, it's been sad to watch newsrooms thin and newspapers become a shell of their former selves. Newspapers play an important role in this country. For example, if it wasn't for two very good reporters, a gusty team of editors and a supporting publisher, the Washington Post would never had published a series of stories that led to the resignation of a president. For example, a city manager, staff and council members in the Southern California city of Bell would still be reaping outlandish salaries and benefits had it not been for the persistence of the LA Times to seek public documents.

Good journalism is good for the country.

As Rainey highlights, it takes money to run a newspaper. When newspapers lost revenue to other "news" sources like Google, staffs were cut sending some great investigative journalists scrambling for work. Some in the PR world breathed a little easier - because the odds of getting a dreaded phone call for comment on a controversial story were starting to go down.

Yet, veteran journalists don't leave this planet too easily.

Sure, a few were picked up by PR firms. Thankfully, many have joined forces in the non-profit arena, collaborate with mainstream newspapers and universities and, it seems, remain the same, if not better, force they once were.

What can we, as PR professionals, learn from the "new" landscape?

Facts, figures and analysts. The new era of journalism has created an additional class of journalist - the analyst. No fact or detail is too small or mundane to analyze. Wikileaks get the attention, but the non-profit news orgs are working harder with the information they uncover by analyzing trends that otherwise wouldn't have been noticed. While you are working with clients to figure out if you have a "Wikileaks" situation on your hands, keep the broader landscape in mind. Are interactions with others, such as customers and subcontractors, searchable?
How easy is it to misinterpret the information that is publicly available? Although this scenario has kept crisis communication experts in business and we PR pros have had to issue plenty of responses to offer clarity and balance to a published story, the new era of investigative journalism - perhaps pushed along by citizen journalism - is prompting a new wave of crusades. This new rush into scouring records has already led to some stories being published with fanfare that, frankly, did not deserve the front-page treatment. (I know my journalist friends will disagree. But consider that even the Wikileaks founder is starting to back away from his earlier "blockbuster" statements about what the yet-undisclosed Bank of America records will reveal). So, at the first hint of an investigation, don't relax. Assume it's a five-alarm fire and pull out the stops to develop a strategy and assemble the troops. The odds are greater now that a "Pro-Publica"-styled investigation will see ink - and a lot of it.
It's no longer regional. With greater collaboration among news organizations (Is the word "scoop" gone forever?), an investigative piece won't just be published by the lead newspaper and stay in one town. As Rainey's piece highlights, one news organization will take the lead and the others will add their local angle to it. Be prepared for calls from multiple news organizations about the same topic. Be prepared to launch community relations/government relations action plans in multiple locations. Be prepared to post responses and conduct social media campaigns across multiple geographies.

Publicists vs. public relations

2011-02-28T17:28:00.001-08:00

Of all things.

Charlie Sheen's situation actually provides another great case study to help public relations professionals explain how our job is different from the duties of a publicist.

Today, Sheen's long-term publicist, Stan Rosenfield, quit. The story on ABC's website carries some pretty handy terminology that should help the mainstream media and the general public understand the differences.

It is clear that Stan, a very well respected publicist, has had his share of offering up "unique" defenses of his clients. You know, the kind of explanations that instantly draw a "yeah, right" response by the masses, yet remain effective because the "official word" helps deflect more attention or helps quiet the story.

Stan's efforts worked well for Charlie, because up to the last few weeks, the public was mostly sympathetic to Charlie. Even after Charlie nearly killed himself, allegedly strangled his wife, destroyed a hotel room, did enough drugs to wipe out a million lab mice and more. Even after all that, Charlie was not hated. So, Stan must have been doing something right.

So, before I give more props to his former publicist, the point is this: While public relations professionals are routinely called upon to defend reputations, the PR pros who follow codes of ethics do so without trying to "spin" the story. They advise clients on how to get out of a jam - and that usually means being apologetic and remorseful, to right the wrong, to admit guilt and to ask for the public's indulgence while we try to get past this difficult moment.

But it's tough to get our "difference" pointed out. We both - publicist and PR pro - are in daily contact with the same crowd: journalists. All they see is someone trying to "sell" them a story or "spin" a story.

It is difficult for PR pros to point across the field and say "See those people? They are publicists." As if we should also add the word "evil" before that job description, followed by: "We're not like them. We're better."

We can't do that. For one, our professional counsel and strategy usually tells clients not to deflect the attention and certainly not respond to a negative with a negative. Second, there are many good publicists who have the respect of journalists. The late Ronnie Chasen was noted for that.

So, how do we distinguish ourselves?

I know many good PR pros who would never accept a problem client. It's important to note that we certainly are great at crisis communication - because something "out of character" happened to a company. Yet, there are plenty of PR pros who drop clients with questionable backgrounds and character. Why? Because PR pros don't like to lie or hide truths and if a client's day-to-day operation and DNA gets into the red zone of deceit, we'll walk away.

PR pros continually advise clients that it's better to offer up the truth - sooner rather than later. A client will earn greater respect with the media, and the public, if they are upfront and honest. Problems go away sooner this way. If you try to hide something, it will be found out eventually and blow up to a worse problem.

We don't spin. (Keep reading a great blog on this call SPINSUCKS) Spin is a "daily" event. PR pros are more concerned with long-term reputations - and that's done by building trust and credibility, by reading and understanding the audience and making sure we communicate in terms they will understand and accept. Proven, proven, proven.

Like publicists, we also tell stories. There are a thousand stories to be told with a lot of competition within a very narrow space to get our story heard, and heard correctly. So, PR pros must know how to effectively navigate this landscape. To make sure our story "breaks out" from all the other noise and clutter.

RIP Nancy Carr

2011-02-22T09:32:00.000-08:00

Public relations pros should take note of this passing.

I did not know Nancy, but her reputation as a communications executive seems to be matched, or exceeded, by her heart and charitable nature.

Look at today's brief obituary, but more importantly, look at the comments from her friends.

I would hope all PR pros look at the importance of not only giving out of your pocketbook, but also out of your soul, as Nancy did to rescue cats.

And, of course, we still battle the "name game" - we are public relations professionals, not publicists.

Best Green Journalists?

2011-02-16T15:23:00.000-08:00

Please provide comments (below) on your recommendation for journalists who cover green and sustainability issues very well.

We are holding a media breakfast in Los Angeles next month. We'd like to get insights from those who cover this area.

Thanks.

PRSA Social Media Policy is out

2011-02-09T12:06:00.001-08:00

PRSA members get an additional bonus today - a social media policy and toolkit.

This is one more example of PRSA taking a leadership role and providing true value to its members.

It will be interesting to see how many read this policy and begin adopting the principles with their own work and with their clients.

Did it miss anything? Your comments are appreciated. Yes, only PRSA members can view it.

A tireless business advocate

2011-02-06T12:03:00.001-08:00

Sad news to hear about the passing of Lee Harrington. Lee was a former client when he led the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation.

Reports say he died while surfing near his home in Hollister. He was 64. Some nice words here from his successor.

Lee was one of the more focused business leaders I've met. He always had the bigger picture in mind, didn't suffer fools lightly and was looking at least two steps ahead of the rest of us. He did not contain his opinions when it mattered, which usually occurred when he needed to get leaders to move off a position to reach the best solution for the greatest benefit for the broadest audience. He was extremely well connected and in the difficult and thankless world of business and public policy, he was one of the rare ones to have leaders drop their party affiliations to realize what was really best for CA.

He also was an practical optimist, and let his smile and warm personality carry the day in the toughest of times.

After he left the LAEDC, he remained deeply focused on making Los Angeles and Southern California a better place for business - by leading the Southern California Leadership Council. While this org is focused on bringing big names together, he also made sure budding leaders were exposed to these "insider" meetings to see how it was done.

Lee, we'll miss you.

The power of Social Media - A reminder

2011-02-03T21:38:00.001-08:00

When I began this blog post (check your watch), Volkswagen's "The Force" video had about 3.1 million views - IN JUST TWO DAYS. By the time you are reading this, the views could be....(you guess!). Probably not a record, but worth noting.

As was reported in Mashable, Volkswagen created this as a Super Bowl advertisement. We all know that companies gear up for the Super Bowl. They pay gobs of money because....a lot of people watch the Super Bowl.

However, about two years ago, companies began to test a "pre-release" of their Super Bowl advertisements. Sort of a: "Let's see what this social media buzz is about about" test.

I'm hoping to hear more about the strategy behind this early release on YouTube. The agency behind this, Deutsch, is certainly a killer at producing great TV ads. (Think: "Snapple," "DirectTV" and the California Milk ads with Cow auditions.) But I'm not sure it was their call to go viral early.

For now, all I can surmise is:

Put a cute kid in a Darth Vader costume, add a dose of very subtle vexation and pint-sized physical humor, all the while listening to a very familiar score and then close with child-like amazement and fulfillment. Add in about the best 60 seconds of editing I've seen in a TV ad in quite some time. (Did ILM have executive producing credits on this?)

Result:

Someone said: "This has GOT to go on YouTube, now." Any parent, especially moms, instantly fell in love with this poor kid, and his astonished "look" at the end. You can so read his mind, "Did I do that?" It came at a moment when the world was a bit crazy, so we needed a laugh. We posted this cute video on our Facebook pages, tweeted it and, boom, an overnight hit.
I'm sure about 5 percent of the listed views are repeats as co-workers and families tugging at sleeves, saying "Come over here, you've got to see this."

By far the hottest video on Volkswagen's YouTube page. Their other "teaser" Super Bowl ad is not even close.

I can tell you that I now like the Passat because of this ad. Seriously. They gave this car just the right about of "classy" look to be a "sale."

So, now what?

Is there a strategy to keep the momentum going?

I'm sure my fellow PR colleagues would love the chance. Do you leave it as viral video and hope people stay glued to their screens during the second-quarter commercial breaks? Or, do you try to get some news media coverage about the "pre-bowl" buzz of this gem? Who is the little guy in the costume and how many "takes" did it take to get those great little "moves" of frustration and amazement? What did Lucas think of it? Will there be a sequel? (It is based on a movie, after all).

If we needed any reminder of the power of social media, more than 3 million hits in 24 hours is a good start. No, that's a great start. Hey, Volkswagen, you just made an advertisement that was viewed by 3 million people and you didn't have to pay a cent for placement. Think this may shake up some traditional advertising channels, like Fox?

Which brings me to the final consideration: Where does it really go from here? We now live in the world of "metrics." Will "The Force" capture more than our views?

That galaxy is not so far, far away.

When all else fails, blame PR

2011-01-31T13:07:00.000-08:00

Most PR professionals today realize we live in an era of transparency.

We also know we have a job to do. We need to make sure our client's side is being heard. We are hired to conduct campaigns. The good firms know our job is best done with facts, not spin.

I've found the most effective firms at getting their point across are ones who use facts, and use them well.

Those on the losing end of a campaign will generally start blaming everyone except themselves.

Case in point is the continuing skirmish we call California Water.

Sure, this is a highly charged issue and a lot of "political muscle" is used. Deals are made. Issues are resolved in court. Companies, water agencies and others hire public relations companies to help them, just as they hire attorneys or accountants. The task for a PR agency could be simple, like creating fact sheets, or complex, like creating and implementing strategies for a long-term campaign involving elected officials, top government officials and more.

But when it comes to taking your case to the public, the good PR and public affairs firms rely on facts. And the really good ones don't attempt to cover up the blemishes. The good ones anticipate the arguments from the "other side" and will respond with ... facts (not spin).

So, what happens when the "other side" appears to be losing the argument? They blame "high priced..PR" firms conducting "sleazy propaganda campaigns" and make other accusations that lack fact or attempt to elicit some kind of emotional response with outdated descriptions.

When you hear these sorts of phrases, beware. It's actually...spin.

Such is the case today with an opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle by a fisherman's trade association.

For example, this column argues things "that you won't hear" from a campaign being waged by a well-know PR firm. The problem is: Most of the apparently "ignored" or "buried" facts are out there...and have been for quite some time.

For example, state water associations and others readily discuss how water is divided in California with up to 80 percent of the state's supplies used by agriculture. What the fisherman's author fails to mention is the percentage of state water supplies set aside for environmental needs, such as protecting the very fish he wants to catch.

I'll grant you that one side of this water battle is gearing up for a skirmish, and is or will soon go on a campaign. That's what we do, to get a win on our side. And in California Water, not everyone wins. But a good PR agency knows you can't fool anyone with spin or hiding the facts. The risk in going down that path is great and creates enormous risks at damaging the credibility your side needs to be effective.

Media dust

2011-01-30T09:04:00.000-08:00

What a month for my former employer - the Daily News.

And what an interesting look at how the quest for profit can hurt the assets that truly will bring you a return.

First, former managing editor Doug Dowie (and one-time public relations force in LA) lost an appeal in a criminal case for defrauding taxpayers and is set to begin a 3.5-year prison sentence in February.

A few weeks later, Dean Singleton stepped down as CEO of MediaNews Group, the parent company of the Daily News and a host of other papers in California and across the country. Singleton was a founder of the fourth largest newspaper holding company in the U.S.

Both events could draw some observations about changes in the world where we PR types maneuver, and possibly how leaders can lose sight of the things that make companies strong.

First, Doug. He was my boss at the Daily News. Later, he was someone I encountered in PR circles. Actually, we usually found ourselves on opposite sides in the tightly-wound world of public affairs and Los Angeles government.

Dowie was among the few dozen of us who made a transition from newspapers to public relations in Southern California. Many of us did so because of limited newspaper career options (see below) and because PR paid better. OK, there. I said it.

The connections and contacts we nurtured as journalists were suddenly valuable to an agency. This continues today, especially because of the erosion of traditional newspapers and the growth of the public relations profession. It's a point worth remembering: Value. Human value.

Sadly, as well documented in his trial, Dowie stepped way out of bounds in running the Los Angeles office of a well known PR firm. His critics will quickly assume that as the head of the Los Angeles office of a major PR firm, Dowie was pressured to show profits. That pressure, they assume, led him down a dangerous and costly path. The PR firm has never fully recovered its LA standing.

And there was greater damage. In Dowie's wake was a disaster for many PR agencies in Los Angeles. The city immediately cut off all PR contracts - a harsh move considering that scandals have occurred with other consultants (engineers, etc.), but the city never imposed a total blackout on those industries. But, here we were again, defending what we do for a living.

I had the joyous task, as president of the Public Relations Society of America's Los Angeles chapter, of trying to help PR recover its standing - both with the city and with our overall image in a major metropolitan area. Then and now, PR remains an easy target. ("Why can't city staff handle these duties?" "Why does government need PR?"). Of course, you can't remind the elected officials who are taking shots at you that they have relied on the same PR and public affairs leaders to boost their political capitol, win critical initiatives, negotiate consensus, and communicate with their constituencies. You can't convince journalists why public agencies, and private corporations, need strategists to protect reputations or get information published through the very medium that delights in taking shots.

Today, the impact of Dowie's very public case on local PR and public affairs seems to have faded. Agencies rightfully have earned government contracts to manage the serious business of communicating important initiatives and projects, securing consensus, and more. Questions about why "outside" assistance is needed versus what can be accomplished by in-house staff are less frequent. (Asking this is the same as saying in-house city engineers with no background in building a steel bridge are the better choice over an outside engineering firm that has designed dozens of bridges. They both have basic engineering skills, but wouldn't you rather look for the specialist, the one with experience in the project you're about to do?)

Perhaps the lessons for PR managers in the Dowie case is to place the appropriate value on your work and to go after the accounts that will bring you an appropriate return. Governments are not cash cows, certainly not today. But if your work is valuable, and your team is valuable, then make sure everyone knows that price ahead of time.

Singleton also was not a revered subject within his industry, at least not by the working journalists who saw this CEO more concerned with profits than quality journalism. This was his mantra long before anyone could envision the current financial demise of newspapers. Journalists dreaded the news that their paper was being acquired by Singleton because cuts were coming. Journalists want an owner whose priority is producing good journalism. It's a great motivator. It's why journalists will accept low pay.

So, after years of being concerned with bottom lines, rather than investing in human capital, MediaNews is hurting. The same could be said for the demise of Circuit City. Although reports will point to many reasons for this retailer's implosion, the lack of dedication to its staff was very apparent.

The lesson? At the end of the day, it all comes down to people. Great companies value employees, and realize their success is built around what their employees produce. It seems so easy, right?

A tragedy I'll never forget

2011-01-28T07:58:00.000-08:00

Twenty five years ago, I was a young reporter at the Battle Creek Enquirer in Michigan.

As an afternoon paper, we had our stories written and edited by morning so the presses could begin to roll and deliver copies in newsstands by the start of the lunch hour. It was a different era of news back then. There were morning papers and afternoon ones. I never inquired why Battle Creek chose to be a "p.m." paper, but it worked for our readers.

With the stress of deadline over, I got up from my desk and began walking over to the "news desk" side of our newsroom. These were the folks who edited our stories, put headlines on them and designed the pages (we called it "laying out" the pages).

I was a news junkie. I would use this time to glance over the shoulder of our "wire" editor, who would check the computer a few times to see if there was any late-breaking news that needed to be included in the "home" edition. The "home" would be printed when the presses stopped and changed out the rolls of paper. The wire editor was one of the few with the privilege to view stories coming out over the "wire." This was long before Google would give everyone this kind of access. By reading over the wire editor's shoulder, I was able to see the latest stories popping up around the country and the world.

In reality, we had about two hours between the downtown edition and the home edition printing cycles. So, if a big story broke, either locally or somewhere else, we had a chance to get the "latest" story to our loyal subscribers by the time they got home. Yeah, kids got out of school, jumped on their bikes and delivered the Enquirer way before dinner.

As I walked by the wire editor, a "holy s..t" muttered from his mouth. On his screen was a notice from the Associated Press.

"Flash: The Shuttle Challenger has exploded on takeoff."

Back then, a "Flash" was the most serious, most instant way the Associated Press could alert news organizations around the world that a major story just happened. It took on so much more importance today than the typical "breaking news" we see on TV today. Back then, "Flash" outranked "Bulletin" for urgency.

It took us a couple of seconds to comprehend. I immediately ran into the editor's office and said we needed to stop the presses NOW. Yeah, I got to say that famous line. It took Dave Smith a couple of seconds to comprehend what I was telling him.

He got on the phone to the press room, then the publisher and the began barking out orders. He and the news editor ran toward the press room to stop the presses. Some papers were already printed and being loaded into delivery trucks. We stopped those trucks, but one had already left. However, the circulation folks managed to catch up with the driver and caught him as he was loading the first paper into the news rack. There was no way an Enquirer was going to be sold without this story in it.

As a journalist, certain instincts and training kick in. You must put aside your emotions and focus on your job. This appearance of a cold heart usually draws criticism and hatred from people who can't figure out why we are asking questions during a difficult time. The questions may seem heartless, but we have to gather information - even in the worst of moments.

I felt a certain emptiness in my gut - this was going to be a very, very difficult next several hours, even days.

When a space mission like this - with all the built-up emotions of putting our first teacher into space - goes terribly wrong, a journalist realizes not only is this big news, but it needs to be "covered." You'll see what I mean, in a moment.

This mission - unlike most other Shuttle missions before it - was special to, well, pehaps every American. There were thousands of teachers across the country who applied for the spot eventually won by Christa McAuliffe. Christa's journey to the moment she was seen smiling and waving to the crowd as she boarded was documented in incredible detail. Millions of students followed her training, turned in papers about space travel and possibly dreamed about being in space one day.

The Space Shuttle program, when launched in the early 1980s, did capture our attention and raised our spirits. But like the other space programs before it, the country began losing interest in Shuttles a few years after the first launch.

With "STS-51-L" set to launch on January 28, 1986, NASA had both re-captured the country's interest in why we go to space, and began giving us the idea that astronauts could be any of us.

As David, my editor, returned from the pressroom, our tiny little newsroom sprung into action. Some were still in shock. Half-eaten lunches on our desks were being tossed aside for notepads and phone calls. The first few paragraphs of the story pushed their way out onto the wires. The TVs came one. It became incredibly clear a major disaster just hit the nation.

Our instincts told us we needed to cover this story - fast.

First, we quickly needed a new downtown edition with just the headline on top and the first 6 or 8 paragraphs - and papers needed to hit newsstands before lunch was over. As the news desk was redoing the front page that would be soon burned into new press plates, our newsroom began figuring out assignments and how we would try to "cover" this story.

We had two hours.

Dave and the other senior editors made a great decision. We would create an "EXTRA" with four pages that would be "wrapped" around the papers we had first printed. The four pages would be filled with mostly stories our staff would write, mixed in with the stories we could get from the "wires."

Trace Christenson (my friend who still works there) remembered a letter to the editor from a former Battle Creek resident about how he enjoyed his new home in Florida because he could watch the Shuttle launches. Trace tracked him down and got a "Battle Creek" resident's first-hand view of the disaster.

Two local teachers applied and one was in the final rounds to be the first teacher in space. Local classrooms were watching the launch. Our education writer, Nancy Kaley, was able to track down both teachers. We tracked down professors at nearby universities who were space exploration and rocket experts. How could something like this happen? Their theories proved to be mostly accurate. Our photographers caught people glued to TVs in storefronts. There were many other stories we wrote.

As a "newsman," this was our finest moment. We published stories in two hours that took some news organizations two days to produce. We published in-depth and meaningful articles. We gave our readers about as complete a package as they could get that day.

I still have a copy of the front page of the "Extra" next to my desk. I'll dig out the complete section soon.

And, then, after reading the stories....I'll probably cry. I'll cry for Christa and her six crew mates. For the thousands who built and got the Challenger ready to fly. For the young, innocent dreams instantly shattered. For a nation whose heart never completely healed from this cold day that took a terrible turn just one minute and 13 seconds after liftoff.

Carrying a tough message

2011-01-26T08:10:00.001-08:00

What happens when you, the messenger, are tasked with delivering a message that no one can grasp? It's a message that instantly creates doubt and suspicion.

Stick to your message, right?

Kudos to scientists and others who kept insisting that California is not out of a drought, not just yet.

When the "left coast" was battered by storms in October, November and December and the snowpack - California's natural water reservoir - was 200 percent of normal, everyone figured the drought was over. Man-made reservoirs were filling, some were overflowing.

With these visual images, it was hard to tell the public that...well...we're not out of the woods, yet.

If you have lived in California for a few decades, you know the weather can change. As a skier, I have experienced many seasons when the skiing was great in December and..then...bam, it was lousy for the rest of winter. Sigh. I'm watching the snow slowly recede from the San Gabriel Mountains.

State water officials are cautious ones. And, in a message they repeat often, one period of heavy rain does not mean an end to the drought.

So, as state officials prepare to sample our snowpack Friday, their cautionary tale about a "change in the weather" could mean we still have limited water supplies may just prove to be true.

When "critics" clamored for a declaration that California's drought was over, state officials and scientists instead were bold - they stuck to the message.

Reputation buster

2011-01-25T07:32:00.000-08:00

Are there any trust surveys for water agencies?

Water and California have lived a contentious live for more than 100 years. As "documented" in the film Chinatown, those pesky Southern California businessmen "stole" water from the landowners of the eastern Sierra Nevada to help turn Los Angeles into a global economic engine.

Perhaps aided by the film, the ill feelings remain around to this day. Talk about a bad taste lasting in your mouth for a while.

Whether you're a water agency or a major corporation, trust is critical. (Note: the annual "Edelman Trust Barometer" is out today).

For the past decade, at least, water agencies in California and across the country have been studying ways to build reputation. Driving this has been the increased use of bottled water ("What, you don't trust tap water?") and price increases (witness the public reaction to the latest price hike proposal in the Sacramento area). I was part of an informal gathering of agencies trying to figure out a campaign to build trust in water agencies. The Water Research Foundation has commissioned reports about improving public trust.

Sadly, most water agencies spend more time worrying about image, or trying to explain the complexities of what they do, rather than take bold steps to build trust.

It's a challenge. One factor influencing the angst over public trust of water agencies is purely political. A handful of directors elected to water boards view their positions as stepping stones to higher office. If they can't build voter support at the water board agency level, then....

Also, water agencies sometimes are on "the other side" of environmental questions. A water project sometimes will create significant environmental issues, which then pits a water agency against a well-run environmental group. They should be on the same side.

Like many corporations, water agencies have the daily tasks to be concerned with and rarely afford enough time to look at the big, longer-range picture. And, then, they are puzzled why a rate hike is shot down by the public.

Water agencies also are the "most local" utility around. The headquarters for gas and electric utilities may not even be in the same state and the regulatory bodies that decide rate increases are hundreds of miles away.

What's the answer, or...answers?

Somewhere along this liquid history, water agencies lost a great reputation/brand - that of being an agency created to protect the public health. What better image could water agencies enjoy and maintain? Is it too late to try to recapture and promote this reputation?

With water price hikes in the short-term future for water agencies - and these hikes sometimes in the 40-50 percent range! - strategies to build trust and improve reputation are needed now more than ever.

Even with a well planned reputation strategy, customers may still grumble about rate hikes, but at least they will understand why and begin to trust their local water agency with "doing the right thing."

Right now, water agencies are too easy a target for voter/customer anger.

Calculating the total green picture

2011-01-18T17:43:00.000-08:00

The Los Angeles Times today hit upon the ongoing dilemma of companies trying to be green.

Public relations pros engaged in this arena will tell you many stories about restraining their clients from boasting their "greeness." Why? Because someone will challenge it, have some proof it's not as "green" as proclaimed and, poof, opportunity lost, reputation tarnished, blah, blah, blah.

For those of us advising clients about how to communicate their advances in sustainability, we know all too well about the bar being raised.

For instance, the Times' story zeros in on the issue of a "total carbon footprint." A few months ago, this was not on the radar.

Many clients are proud of their LEED-certified building(s). By themselves, these buildings are great testaments to the ingenuity, commitment and foresight that a small investment can make to reduce pollution, save our resources and try to slow down that pesky climate change thing. There are plenty of good reasons to build to LEED standards.

Clients will proudly point to the LEED plaque on the wall. They will notice this on their materials they give to customers. They will hold press conferences after completion.

But wait. Shouldn't you also look at the "rest of the story"?? Did you know there is more to this story?

The question now before developers and owners of green buildings is: How much carbon are you using "outside" of the building? This includes the energy your employees expend to get to work, the travel you take, etc. (Some of this is the foundation of CA greenhouse gas emission laws).

All this points to the problem of a "rising bar." The feds and many state governments continue to impose new rules. Environmental groups and other NGOs are asking more in-depth questions and changing how they "rate" products and companies. Impacts are being recalculated every day.

For PR pros, there are a few simple steps to consider when dealing with the "rising bar" of green standards.

Survey the landscape. A sustainability program you communicated six months ago will not enjoy the same "mood" or conditions today. The most current research is needed, regardless of whether you are launching a product or an initiative. Companies that are providing these kind of reports include the Shelton Group (with its "EcoPlus" report) and GreenBiz.com. I also monitor GreenTechMedia for trends and issues.

Focus on "first audience first." Before proclaiming to the world a new green product, a new green-related initiative or strategic direction, give the loyal audience the first look. It's better to have knowledgeable ambassadors support your announcement or direction, especially in an ever-evolving platform such as "green" news. And, they serve as a test audience. OK, call it a focus group, but it's the much safer route. If it flies with the inner circle, move to step 3.

Secure the NGOs. As aptly explained by established consulting firms, such as the Environmental Impact Initiative, companies are learning that you need a credible partner. The partner can advise you on, say, where to locate that new LEED building so you are not ending up causing more greenhouse gas emissions by forcing employees to drive further to work.

A must event in January

2011-01-15T08:05:00.000-08:00

The Public Relations Society of America, Los Angeles chapter, holds its annual "State of the Industry" session on January 26. Sign up here.

This event usually draws a large crowd because we either get to see some of Los Angeles' top PR executives offer some unvarnished views about where our profession is going to do well in the coming months, or where it will fail - or there is a perspective or prediction that came out of left field.

Usually, we get both.

It's always good to read the trades for these "trend" stories, but I always get some additional insights in this LA panel because of the caliber of the panelists and because we get to ask them pointed questions.

Hope to see you there.

Timely response?

2011-01-13T11:53:00.000-08:00

If past foibles did not teach the average CEO, politician, public figure, etc. on how and when to respond to a crisis, what will?

Too numerous are the case studies of late. Dominos. Toyota. BP. Jet Blue. Tiger Woods. All examples of why you need a crisis plan, or at least the framework of how to respond when s*** happens. Read: get a response out fast.

So, why did Sarah Palin wait five days to post a video response to the attacks on her that rose from the Tucson shooting? More importantly: Why did she post the response ON THE SAME DAY when President Obama was going to give a pivotal, emotionally laden address to the nation at the memorial ceremony in Tucson?

Who is advising her? Who is writing her stuff?

The contrast is captured perfectly in many stories, most notably today's New York Times piece by Michael Shear.

Besides being prepared to respond quickly, the other major lesson learned here is not new, either. Experienced crisis communications counselors will frequently advise to "take the high road" and avoid "being negative" in a response. Sadly, Palin attacked her critics. Rather than talk about the issues she felt were important, she went on the defensive.

Big mistake. You never win being defensive. The public will remember how you responded. They may not remember every word, but they will remember your overall tone.

It wasn't as if no one saw the tone of Obama's speech coming. The calls for being civil in discourse were everywhere.

Finally, I'm curious to know my colleagues' thoughts about format? A video posted on her Facebook page? Did she come off, with that direct look at the camera, a little cold and a little flat in delivery? Contrast this with how Dominos CEO did his response. More relaxed worked for the pizza king. Stiff for the Alaska queen didn't.

Where the wild things roam

2011-01-04T21:36:00.001-08:00

Mysteries make for great novels. They also make for great conspiracy theories.

For PR, the dead birds in the South and a Navy captain's inappropriate video provide some great reminders. Like, how a story can get wildly out of control. Like, why PR plays such an important role in organizing and communicating meaningful information during the uncontrolled moments.

In short: damage control.

Like, immediately knowing the news media's "mindset." In many cases these days: The news media is quick to judge, quick to apply highly charged adjectives and quickly reach their own assumptions.

In short: Living in the world of open speculation. (And occasionally cast as a "news" story).

If left to our own devices, a certain percentage of us will go wild with a story like birds falling out of the sky. I know I did, very briefly, with the "mystery missile" launch in Southern California a few months ago. I was convinced it was a missile, but after the evidence came in, I agreed with the experts that it was an airplane's contrail.

If all we do is listen to broadcast news, a certain percentage of us will be led to a conclusion.

Ah, yes, evidence. It takes too long for the evidence to come in. Only lawyers will be restrained at the outset. They are trained to wait for the evidence. Trial lawyers, prosecutors and detectives can provide plenty of stories about how first appearances can generally be wrong.

The rest of us? We're ready to issue verdicts instantly. Human nature, at least in how we've become conditioned (see blow), is to seek conclusions more quickly. Or provide judgment and our own opinions. Have you read the number of reader comments to stories?

Reason and understanding thrown out the window?

In today's instant information age - we demand immediate answers. If we want answers, we Google it and usually land on Wikipedia. Who is that actor I see on my favorite show? Go to IMDB.com. How old is my favorite rock star? Did I just hear that my favorite celebrity couple just broke up? I betcha TMZ.com or CNN.com has it.

Facebook enables us to link stories of our liking and share with hundreds of "friends."

Online information is only good for "established" or frivolous stories. It doesn't work for emerging news or stories with too many unanswered questions. Our current "demand-for-information-instantly" mentality doesn't know how to handle delay or lack of detail.

A PR professional's skills and ability are only becoming more important.

In the case of the Navy captain, he became the latest victim of a video that was easily accessible. When will everyone realize that today, with emails, videos (Dominoes Pizza), even voicemail (Tiger?) it's best to stay clear of recordable material?

But in the latest incident, it doesn't help when Katie Couric openly asks in the CBS Evening News broadcast (Under "Navy Lewd Videos") "Does Captain Honors hold any chance of preserving his career in the Navy at this point?" Talk radio was alive with this story (and the dead birds).

The news media has the right to ask questions and investigate, but open speculation and pronouncements (instantly calling it a "lewd" video) only fuels a public mindset ready to instantly judge.

Crisis Communications taken by storm

2010-12-21T16:18:00.000-08:00

As public agencies nervously prepare for the worst of California's storms and the East Coast growls at a snow forecast from heck, it's a timely reminder about that one thing we tend to forget: Crisis communications planning.

Not.

Since it's currently raining snakes over my house, it's too late for planning. Now (borrowing from one of my favorite movies), it's more like: "Effie, Brace Yourself."

Below are four tips for last-minute crisis "bracing" as they relate to disasters or other approaching events that can turn ugly quickly:

Boot ready. Sounds silly, but do you have waterproof hiking boots? You'd be surprised how many times this piece of clothing comes in handy. What else? Warm, rainproof jacket. Extra clothes and socks. A hat. I have a backpack ready to go, stuffed with a charged netbook (and portable modem with my Verizon wireless account - assuming wireless won't be accessible) and flashdrives with important contacts, documents, sample press releases. Extreme measures? Put a tent and sleeping back in the car, along with some non-perishable food. This could take a while.

Connect ready. Is your Blackberry/iPhone/Evo/? currently charged? Do you have a plan on how to reach people if a cell phone dies or the cellphone system goes down? In an earthquake or major disaster, the hands-on team crisis team knows it must go into "automatic" mode and keep managing the situation without electronic communications. If the company email goes down, does everyone have everyone's personal email addresses? (Been there, done that with my Yahoo account).

Geographic ready. Will you rely on your Garmon to get you to a disaster scene? What if Garmon (I have VZ Navigator on my Blackberry) goes down? Do you have an old-fashioned map (in LA, we used to love those bulky Thomas Guides)?

Body ready. At a case study presentation, I was impressed by the story of a PR manager who knew a storm was coming...and headed to bed to grab few winks. Why? Because he knew that in a few short hours, he probably will be awake for a very long time. He knew he would be his best with a few hours of sleep. A sharp mind is critical in these cases - whether to offer advice or when speaking to the news media. Too many PR folks will stay up....waiting, monitoring, prepping... and forgetting to rest.

A fiesty newspaperman leaves us

2010-12-20T16:51:00.001-08:00

Sad news today that Mike Tetreault, a former colleague at the LA Daily News, passed away Sunday night from a battle with cancer.

He was, simply, a great editor. He loved newspaper work.

I had the privilege of working for Mike and alongside him for a brief time. As an editor, he was among the tough ones. He questioned everything in your story, which was his job. His editing advanced your story. It wasn't a wordsmithing effort just to please his own sense of style. He treated every story on its own unique merits. He simply wanted to make sure the story was, first, factual, then read well.

He was, as others have said, "wickedly funny." I was the victim of a few of his jokes and pranks. Such as the time when I left the office for an assignment and also remained logged into my computer. We had clear instructions to log off if we were leaving our computers. I'm sure, back then, there were good reasons for this. Seizing the opportunity and, perhaps, wanting to make a point the hard way, Mike began sending Daily News staff some very peculiar messages under my name. I got the point.

As an editor, Mike rarely had a byline. He was behind the scenes, but his role was critical to the Daily News publishing credible stories and sending reporters off to cover events that he knew mattered to the public. For this, I had much respect for Mike.

Tetreault (pronounced without the "ult" at the end) will be missed.

How to make enemies

2010-12-19T08:36:00.000-08:00

As a young newspaper reporter, a wise editor once offered some great advice. If someone calls you, upset about a story you did and accuses you of libeling them or printing false statements - don't go into a defensive mode. Instead, calmly listen to the complaint, tell the caller you will look into it and, if true, will discuss a possible apologize and possibly print a correction.

It's not about your ego, he said. It's about conflict resolution.... which weren't the exact words he used, but essentially it meant the same thing.

It's much easier to diffuse a touchy situation than to keep your guard up, do battle and really tick off the other party. The harder stance and more defensive you become could lead to a lawsuit. The "understanding" stance will bring the heat level down by several notches. Angry people file lawsuits or find other ways to make your life miserable.

"Diffusing" the situation is advice I've given multiple time to clients. Sometimes in the course of everyday media relations, sometimes in the heat of a crisis.

I was reminded of this after reading a story in The Wall Street Journal about financial support for Lance Armstrong and U.S. cycling.

In this story, it becomes clear an early supporter of Lance and his quest for Tour de France titles later became an enemy bent on revenge after a business dispute. The dispute is now very visible, which has put Lance under more intense scrutiny (about doping allegations. Based on what you read, which is all we have, it appears the initial steps in this business dispute could have been handled differently - and, if so, Lance may not be facing a more public, broader set of allegations. (For the record, I am a Lance supporter. The guy worked his tail off and won 7 TDF titles - after beating cancer.)

Sure, examining the dispute - via a news article - is second guessing and arm-chair quarterbacking. And, who knows? Even if the parties were more gracious at the start, the results may have stayed the same.

There is, however, plenty of other similar examples where diffusing a tricky situation at the start saves you plenty of headaches later.

The worst crisis scenario?

2010-12-14T10:14:00.000-08:00

Update: 1:50 p.m. see below
Disasters occur daily, but the worst involve death.

Perhaps the worst crisis communications scenario for death is an officer-involved shooting (OIS in police lingo).

Yet, many police departments are limited in how they can communicate a response.

Consider an OIS shooting this week in Long Beach. A man is shot dead by police after the man pointed at them what they thought was a real gun. It turns out the man was holding a garden hose nozzle.

Here is the official news statement. The news reports, while factual, are highlighting the obvious. The reactions from family, the general public..are predictable. See video for more. This is not the first time someone was killed by police for pointing something that "looked" like a weapon.

Public relations professionals prepare countless clients for the worst, including death. Potential litigation prevents some information from being revealed right away. If a situation turns into a crime scene or police investigation, a company's communication options are further limited.

In the corporate world, PR pros many times tussle with attorneys about what can be disclosed and when.

Now, consider the greater frustrations for a communicator within a police department.

The investigation will take a while. With a long absence of updates and details, the outcries can get louder and the speculation more rampant. Our PR training and experience frequently counsel clients to provide regular updates as quickly as possible - to fill the void and not let a situation get out of control.

An investigation will conclude the shooting and officers' conduct were justified - or not. A lawsuit will follow. The tragedy will be publicized many more times. The department's reputation will be battered for weeks, perhaps months, maybe years.

As unfortunate as this is, there are many predictable cycles to this crisis situation.

Some police departments have responded well to these type of incidents. In some cases, policies need changing or improved training is required. The public can more readily accept these steps because they have the appearance of contrition, accepting blame and responsibility and a desire to perform better. However, if a shooting falls within department policy, many will still demand change and the time to rebuild trust and reputation will take much longer.

Unlike most other crisis situations (like an oil spill or bank failure), an "OIS" holds a special place in the minds of the public - because we "see" them weekly on TV shows. The plethora of TV crime shows has, in effect, infused the public with a perception about what happens on the streets. This has given rise to "arm chair quarterbacking" and second-guessing. Add in the number of shows that portray "bad cops" and, well, the public is now more inclined to assume the worst when real-life police shootings occur. Sure, there are real-life incidents of wrongful deaths and "bad cops" but statistics show there are fewer and fewer of these. And, as police departments will tell you, there are also cases when an officer hesitated and was killed.

So what additional PR steps can police departments take?

Community meetings are known to help, because these settings permit police leaders to explain things outside the immediate emotions of the latest incident. Ride-alongs with reporters used to work when more people read newspapers, and were able to get a more in-depth look at the risks, dangers and split-second decisions that cops make daily. There are balances to be struck between seeking sympathy and simply wanting greater understanding.

And, I'm sure, there are plenty more options for departments. Branding? Yes, police department associations have examined this, as well as other measures to improve their overall public image.

But in the case of an OIS resulting in death, it would seem departments would - at a minimum - need to develop a specific strategy that includes multiple objectives and tactics.

Thoughts?

A legend passes

2010-12-05T12:58:00.000-08:00

I never had the opportunity to truly learn directly from Joe Cerrell.

But his lessons were easy to find.

Cerrell's passing this past week brought praise from many corners of the world.

As a Republican, I was usually prevented from piercing the "club" of Joe and his tight circle of Democratic friends. But it was clearly evident - both as a journalist and later practicing my craft in the same arena where Joe was held in high regard - that most people held very positive opinions about Mr. Cerrell.

The praise was not by accident.

Like many I hold in high regard, Joe was down-to-earth and accessible. He personally greeted you as if you were lifelong friends. He would provide a thoughtful response to your question. He would be concerned for the bigger impact of his actions or the actions of his clients. Any photograph of Joe Cerrell would immediately tell you that you were observing a friendly, caring individual.

Joe's stature and influence could have easily been used recklessly and ruthlessly in the high-stakes game of California politics. It's not that Joe didn't know how to wield some "tough influence" when needed, but it wasn't to demoralize or dehumanize, to belittle or to humiliate.

Fortunately for all of us, there are plenty of living, accessible examples of Joe's character and principles. I hope they remain visible for a long time. These are valuable lessons.

What would you do with $$

2010-12-01T09:26:00.000-08:00

Newspapers can right the wrongs. A journalist gets a call from an angry member of the public or a whistleblower (usually because the person hasn't received "justice" from an organization or government agency) and the battle is under way.

Sometimes, no, check that, most times these stories engage public relations professionals.

Case in point with today's Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez (one of my favs). His column focused on a homeless vet who found a wad of cash (nearly $1,000), turned it in to authorities (LA's bus agency) and was hoping to claim it after the 30-day waiting period.

Of course, these stories only appear because things didn't go according to plan or logic.

The actual bus agency policy, as Lopez found out, does not return found money to the finder if no one else claims it. Lopez, who has a special place for homeless (remember "The Soloist"?), pursued this story with the intent of helping the homeless vet. Had he been on a mission to discredit the bus agency, this story could have turned out a lot worse for the agency.

Lopez' pursuits eventually took him to Marc Littman, a PR pro in the executive offices of the bus agency. Littman is a true veteran of managing many significant stories at one of the nation's largest transit agencies. In this case, Littman apparently realized this story needs his boss' attention.

As one might imagine, public agency policies occasionally defy logic. (I know, I worked a public agency). If what Lopez wrote was true, the reasons behind the found-cash/don't return policy were right up there is the head-scratching stratosphere.

Whether through PR counsel or his own calculations, the bus agency CEO did the right thing. He returned the found money to the homeless vet and vowed to change the policy because it didn't make sense to not reward honesty.

PR pros know this was the right choice. They would almost universally have counseled this decision in this direction.

However, the story also points to another issue at the bus agency: Internal communications. Again, if Lopez was on a mission, he really could have blasted the bus agency for not making sure their employees know policy. A front-line customer service representative thought the original policy was to give the money back to the finder. Hopefully, the communications staff at the bus agency will make sure the word on the new policy is clearly articulated, reaches all critical staff and is clearly understood by all who deal with the public.

Appearances and Opinions

2010-11-26T12:29:00.000-08:00

Two reporters. Two water stories. Same newspaper. Much different writing styles.

And the result?

On Thanksgiving, the Los Angeles Times published a story about the proposed canal or tunnel around the Sacramento Delta. In this story, the reporter draws focus on the state and federal pumps as the main reason for negative impacts on Delta wildlife, although recent science is indicating that ammonium from agriculture runoff is perhaps having a bigger impact. The reporter acknowledges there are other "players" causing problems, the reporter chooses to paint the pumps as "the most conspicuous villains."

Conspicuous villains?

The next day, the LA Times publishes a story about another water CA water canal. Although the focus of this story is safety, the tone of describing this water system is much different. The reporter describes this water system as "an engineering, hydrological and agricultural wonder." Yet, anyone who has involved in water issues will tell you that this canal also has its environmental baggage, particularly being another "straw" that takes water out of the Colorado River and leads to downstream environmental issues in Mexico.

Engineering wonder?

Two different reporters. Same topic. Same newspaper. Vastly different writing approaches.

Here's a tricky question

2010-11-24T10:23:00.000-08:00

It seems I wasn't alone.

The Better Business Bureau is a "non-profit" organization that issues letter ratings to businesses reflecting how they treat consumer, customers and vendors. These ratings apply to all types of businesses, including public relations agencies such as mine. (I happen to have an A- rating).

Yet, where is the oversight for an organization that hires telemarketers to hound businesses with high-pressure tactics to sign up for memberships? Following an investigative piece on ABC's "20/20" program, the Los Angeles Times reported on this and the high salaries earned by some BBB executives.

Ever since I formed The Wolcott Company more than two years ago, I've been hounded by the BBB Southern California chapter. They found me through my membership at a local chamber of commerce. And, boy, were these telemarketers good at their job. They offered all sorts of reasons why I should pay a membership ($400), starting with this - a membership - is the primary way they produce income. So, they started with the "poor is me" approach.

As a solo PR consultant, I calmly informed the BBB telemarketer that my reputation was based on my own personal reputation that I had carefully crafted and managed over nearly 20 years of being in the business. But that launched an entire different tactic for the telemarketer about other reasons I should join. Most of this reasoning was flawed. However, I recall my dad, a PR leader and owner of his own firm, mentioning he supported the BBB. Back then (1970s), I can only guess the BBB was a different organization. So, based on my dad's memories of "supporting" the BBB, I thought I would "test" a membership for one year. With some reluctance.

After a year, I let the membership expire. And, thus, began the hounding. Over the past 12-14 months I have been called about a dozen times and my responses have become increasingly R-rated. Despite my pleas to have my name removed from their call list, I still get called. The last one began with "Well, we see you've been checked out by 22 people and we would love to tell them more, but your membership is.." If I did this to my potential customers, I'm sure they would complain to the BBB and my rating would suffer.

As the ABC report highlights, the BBB of Southern California essentially ran a "pay to play" operation. This is pretty evident given my last phone call from them. I can only assume I have an A- because I'm not currently paying a membership.

Now comes the damage control. I searched, but could not find an AOR for the Southern California bureau. However, they do issue a lot of news items on their website, suggesting they have an AOR and a great in-house staff.

The BBB of Southern California has two major crises to deal with - the salary of their top executive and their membership tactics. It will be interesting to see how this one is handled - especially given the BBB's reputation is based on "rating" others on their business practices. This is an incredibility HUGE credibility/trust/reputation matter to handle.

Any takers?

Sticker shock for water

2010-11-16T10:35:00.000-08:00

What happens when you blend a bad economy, labor costs, an effective outreach campaign and a drought?

Of course, higher water rates.

What happens over the next year or two will be worth a look for any PR professional and, for some, worth a deeper venture to offer your expertise. A bold prediction but this could be the next big "consumer experiment." The laboratory we like to call public sentiment could see some new tests, twists and turns from water rate increases.

Until now, water utilities have escaped serious consumer backlash from periodic rate increases. As the cheapest bill on one's desk, water doesn't generate the level of anger or frustration that, say, our phone bills do or another increase in health insurance. For sure, there have been sporadic consumer protests, but they remain scattered and short-lived.

Widespread consumer revolt is also muted because water is "local" and mostly unregulated. Gas and electric utilities have 100 times or greater number of customers, are more regulated and have major consumer watchdog groups going to battle over every rate increase request. Although private water companies are regulated and have combined larger customer bases, lower water bills generally keep consumers quiet.

Soon, I believe, the angry consumer will focus their frustration on the water bill.

Why? Water (and corresponding sewer) rate hikes have taken hold, a lawsuit already has been filed, a massive water bond was delayed but will likely come back, the economy is impacting water use, and perhaps some really big whammies are just around the corner.

It's easy to see that what we pay for water will soon be at the level of our other utility (commodity) bills. In some places, it's already at that level and if you own a large amount of land, the water bill could exceed the other utility costs.

It is a public relations conundrum.

On the one hand, some really effective public outreach campaigns in CA have successfully changed water behaviors. Although precise studies are lacking for the region, individual cities like Los Angeles and Long Beach are reporting per-capita reductions. A few dry years, nearly a decade of persistent water conservation messaging, the imposition of mandatory water restrictions (only water your lawn 3X a week), greater acceptance of "green" calls to action and some unique rebates have combined in such a way that consumers have permanently changed their water habits.

Now add a bad economy into the mix. Consider the number of homes lost in foreclosure, sitting idle without any water use. Consider former homeowners now renting homes - and choosing to save money by letting their lawns die ("Why should I care? It's either I'm paying the water bill or the rent - can't afford both" - actual quote from a renter I know).

When consumers use less water, that means a drop in revenue to water utilities that are stuck with huge fixed costs - like labor - and rising costs - like pipeline maintenance, power and water treatment supplies. Don't forget pension commitments, either.

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (my former employer - and yes, full disclosure, I get a meager pension and health benefits through an option to "retire") already has raised rates nearly 50% and has no plans to stop. A preview of "how bad" water rates could be for nearly 20 million people may occur next week (Nov. 23) when a special board committee looks at the future. Just how do you handle a $120-150 million revenue shortfall?

What happens at MWD spreads out at practically every local water agency between Ventura and San Diego. The rate structure MWD adopts now will be felt in a year or two at the local level. MWD supplies about half the water needs for Southern California.

As evidenced this week in Oceanside, changing political landscapes will also enter into the blender of water rate discussions.

Perhaps water will need to take pages from the playbooks of other utilities. Cost cutting is a major focus of energy as are the advantages of a Smart Grid and putting the responsibility of energy management in the hands of consumers. But will water agencies be able to cut costs fast enough to avoid the major rate hike?

One more item to add into the discussion - the long-standing perception among individuals that water is different from other utilities. One needs water to live.

Stay tuned. Stock the fridge and find a comfy chair. This show will be a good one. Watch this blog for more on this topic.

Firing off a volley?

2010-11-09T12:33:00.000-08:00

Missile mystery, Part Two. Is our government hiding something or what?

Where are the hard questions from the news orgs?

OK, since my previous post, a few more news orgs and bloggers are picking up the story. But, so far, my disappointment in the news continues. Where is the good journalism? Where are the hard questions?

Here are the questions and pursuits I'd be taking.

Pentagon says "they don't know" whose missile it is. Well, then, did our detection systems catch this launch? Did our jets scramble? Did NORAD pick this up on their radar last night? They can spot a launch anywhere in the world.

If our jets didn't scramble and the alarms didn't go off, then what does that mean? Either it tells me that the military really does know, this missile launch never happened (KCBS? Any explanation?) or some other explanation. I'd hate to think this launch was not detected, because that means my fears from the Cold War days are finally realized - anyone can launch a missile off our coast and take us out before we can say "Hunt for Red October."

Look at the carefully worded statements from NORAD. Not a complete denial.

What about Congress? Has anyone checked with our reps with oversight in defense?

Again, where is the aggressive news reporting to help us understand what the heck is going on?

News when you beg for it

2010-11-09T08:10:00.000-08:00

Update (9:56 a.m.) The LA Times updated its story. And the "reporting" only gets worse.

As a former journalist and newspaper editor, I long for the good ol' days. You know, when newspapers really dug into a story. When news organizations reported on stories that people "should" know about, and not the stuff that tickles their fancy.

As circulation declines continue and the corresponding rise of "fluff" appears on local TV news stations, as viewership on the major TV news stations decline, as news magazines grow thinner or simply give up and become an online-only "publications," one has to wonder about the future of news gathering and reporting. And our sensibilities.

As much as I become encouraged that good reporting is not dead - as evidenced by this year's aggressive and solid reporting by the Los Angeles Times in uncovering financial corruption in Bell and other local cities - I come across situations like a mystery missile launch. And, I get depressed all over again.

My journalist "antenna" (you really never lose the instincts) is buzzing with this. So is my disgust.

Last night as the sun was setting (Nov. 8), the KCBS (Los Angeles) television news helicopter records a missile launch off the coast of Southern California. We're used to a few of these a year because of the nearby Vandenberg Air Force Base, where sometimes secret military satellites rise above the earth and give us interesting looking contrails. But this missile wasn't coming from Vandenberg. As best anyone can tell, it came out of the ocean south of Vandenberg.

So far this morning, this story is still a minor one in the news cycles. MSNBC is almost laughing it off. From what I can gather (via Google) so far, only an enterprising TV reporter at the CBS affiliate in San Diego has dug a bit to give the curious a hint of what happened. SAN DIEGO! The Los Angeles Times offered only a brief this morning. As of 8 a.m. (PST), there were only 25 stories in a Google search. The story wasn't even on the web site of the TV station that "broke" the story..until just a few minutes ago.

Am I just an aging, former newspaper reporter longing for the old days, or is this lack of reporting an indication of all that ails news today?

The KFMB reporting opens up the door to the bigger story. The President is in Asia. Perhaps the U.S. fired a test ICBM from a submarine just to demonstrate we have a presence in the Pacific? As a visible show of strength to the countries the President is visiting, or near?

On the one hand, it's "comforting" to know we still have a pretty good missile system. But, when was the last time one our submarines "exposed" itself with a test launch? Isn't the whole idea of our "triad" missile system (land, air, sea) to be a bit stealthy in the ocean? One has to assume that the U.S. alerted a few other countries that we were only doing a "test" because an ICBM launch like this would certainly get a few of them on alert.

You can see where my line of questioning would go...if I still had my press pass and a desk in a newsroom.

Just because the rest of Southern California did not get alarmed by this missile launch (the LA Times brief used the word "gorgeous" ! and we were more intrigued by a truck crash that closed a freeway!), shouldn't mean this is a story that gets easily passed over with a "hmmm..that-was-strange" level of reporting.

I go back to this: When was the last time the U.S. fired an ICBM? From a sub? Off the coast of a major U.S. city? While the president was out of the country?

We get better reporting with Hezbollah aimlessly fires missiles into Israel. Here in the U.S., the top five stories this morning included how well Conan did on his opening night return to TV. (The local CBS TV "news" lineup also included another "story" promoting Hawaii Five-O).

So, is this lackluster reporting a symptom, an indicator? In the old days, when news departments felt responsible to give the public the news it "deserves" to know about, the public responded. As much as the public expressed negative sentiment toward the "all you write about is negative news" argument, journalists went to sleep knowing they fulfilled their responsibilities.

Now, when news decisions are based on what "we think" the public wants to know (i.e. which movie won at the box office, which celebrity was arrested), it strikes me as feeding into an overall decline that further contributes to the death of good journalism. And a public without all the news they "should" know.

Miners and the news

2010-10-14T08:53:00.000-07:00

It's been a few weeks since 33 miners captured the world's attention. Yet, how the story was covered is a valuable PR lesson. It's worth a look back to prepare for the future.

When it became clear the miners would finally escape their tomb, television news went into overdrive. As they should. It took almost 24 hours for all of the miners to travel more than 2,000 feet in a metal escape tube to their freedom. In the build-up to the first rescue and the ongoing coverage as each emerged, CNN, MSNBC and others scrambled to keep information fresh.

Prior to 24/7 live news coverage, these stations and cable news outlets would cover a drawn out news event by relying on an anchor sitting at a desk and the occasional cutaway to "the scene." Today, with computer graphics, web cams, and plenty of "experts" for commentary and insight, the story of the day will don multiple layers.

Consider what we saw as the world waited for the rescue to begin and in the minutes between each miner's rescue:

CNN made a replica of the rescue tube in their studio and had an anchor go inside to get a sense of how tiny it was;

MSNBC found a U.S. astronaut who was "trapped" in space and determine he was the closest thing to someone surviving an ordeal like this.

CNN interviewed magician David Blaine, known for his "escapes" from situations that put stress on his body.

In between we had experts talk about the miners' mental and physical health, what kind of let down they would feel once the world's attention went away, the intricate procedures to drill the rescue shaft, the kind of medical attention they were getting and so on. Then, the president of Chile decides to put live cameras in the cave where the miners were trapped and in the rescue tube.

It's been about 40 years to a comparable news event. A lot has changed. Some hasn't. When the world watched Apollo 13 take four days to limp back to earth, television news focused mostly on the scientists and engineers scrambling to find solutions, and on the astronauts' families. But they also:

Created a scale model of the Apollo spacecraft and lunar landing craft to demonstrate how the astronauts were surviving on limited oxygen, energy and heat.

Took us into a full-scale replica of the spacecraft to get a feel for the cramped conditions

Interviewed former and future astronauts about their training and experiences

The PR lesson? Think about how "you" would fill the news, minute by minute and hour by hour - and keep it fresh. This is not an exercise for the timid. The tendency among many PR professionals is to avoid the appearance that you, on behalf of a client or company, are trying to capitalize on someone else's tragedy by suggesting an expert to interview or an angle to cover that leads back to your company in a positive way.

But, TV news is not timid and they are looking for all sorts of stories, as evidenced above. So, "feed the beast" in these prime opportunities. Chances are, a good showing will mean TV news will look to you again, and again.

PR firm or advertising agency?

2010-09-20T14:07:00.000-07:00

History books will tell you that the modern public relations agency was born within advertising agencies.

So, what happens when an advertising agency tries to offer public relations? Or, vice versa.

Will the agency lose its advertising brand when trying to call itself a public relations agency? Will a public relations agency lose any appearance of its primary focus by also offering advertising services?

Many advertising and PR agencies have figured the best course of action is to create a separate company within a company - to ensure distinctive brands. My old firm - Stoorza - did this when they acquired an advertising agency.

Without the "separation" clearly defined, existing and potential clients can be confused. Worse, an agency risks diluting its strengths and brand image.

Case in point this week: A Southern California boutique advertising firm is called a "PR Agency" in a story. Adding insult - the reporter accepted on faith statements that this firm was one of the "best known PR firms" in the region and didn't bother to check there were at least three other true PR agencies in that region with higher billings, a longer client roster and higher name recognition. (Disclosure: Stoorza's office in this region evolved into one of those agencies. And, I provide consulting services to another one of those firms.).

I'm sure this advertising agency does great work. The diligence required for anyone seeking PR services is to, well, look first for a PR firm whose core strengths are PR.

Cause celebrity: Aniston and bottled water

2010-09-07T07:34:00.000-07:00

Since I live in the LA basin, my non-California colleagues (or recent arrivals) ask about how to attach a celebrity to their cause-brand-product, etc.

I usually defer these questions to my good friend Rita Tateel - who does this for a living through her highly successful The Celebrity Source company.

But if you live and work in LA, you need to keep track of this stuff. The hard questions for PR pros are:

Credibility: Does a celebrity really help your product or organization if consumers questions that celebrity's actual private commitment to your product or cause;

Impact: Will a celebrity really make a difference to your cause?

Trends: The public can be fickle. (see below).

Old school thinking: Consumers are getting more savvy about celebrities and causes. Consumers were generally skeptical of celebrities who appeared out of nowhere to support a cause.

New school: Celebrities have become more savvy, in part to Rita's coaching, I'm sure. It can't be a one-and-done appearance for a celebrity. They need to demonstrate a lengthy commitment to a cause.

RE: Trends. Celebrities have led the way in environmental causes. Toyota's newly introduced Prius took off after a Los Angeles PR firm successfully convinced about a dozen well-known actors to show up at the Academy Awards in the fuel efficient vehicle (instead of gas-guzzling limos) as a pledge to help the environment.

But are all celebrities linked to environmental causes?

Just as it shocks us to learn not all actors are Democrats, it shouldn't shock us when someone as famous as Jennifer Aniston promotes bottled water. Gasp!

The furor over bottled water is still there. But will it harm Jennifer? Will it cause other actors to abandon their bottles?

No, not for now.

Although Peter Gleick went after Aniston in a recent Huffington Post piece and Peter has a good track record of starting a battle that he can win (and he has his own book to promote), the bottled water industry is not going away.

The news media (and, presumably, Jennifer's fans), were much more interested in Jennifer's "abs" in the photo spreads for her Smart Water advertisements. (Just Google Jennifer and Water Smart and see what I mean).

Which reminds us that our interest in celebrities begins and ends with their...well, celebrity.

Sure, celebrities - in their off hours - can have an impact on a cause. The "Stand Up To Cancer" show this Friday is fueled by celebrities. George Clooney was honored at the Emmys for his charitable efforts.

But Madison Avenue can still win over the color of ribbon you wear on a jacket, or the wristband.

At least, as I said, for now.

It's a matter of the economy. In good economic times, the public will be more receptive to making decisions based on the environment and other factors related to corporate social responsibility. When the economy still sucks, the public will look at price - and, in the case of bottled water - a beautiful, athletic and well-toned actress.

My only advice to Jennifer, and the rest of the acting industry keeping the bottled water industry in business: Be ready for the mood shift. Have your plan ready to explain how you also are taking extra steps - far beyond what most humans do - to recycle those bottles.

How to pause on TV

2010-09-04T08:50:00.000-07:00

Brain freezes happen.

As a reporter covering the Midwest campaign loop for the 1980 U.S. President election, I had writer's block for nearly 2 hours after a Ronald Reagan speech. Obviously, this was before the 24/7 news cycle or I would have been looking for a new career the next day.

Having coached dozens of executives and others for public appearances and on-camera interviews, I watched - like all of us - the recent awkward "silence" of AZ Gov. Jan Brewer during a live TV debate. (CNN covered it well here).

Two points from my end as a presentation coach.

1. The instant recovery. We are human. We make mistakes. We shouldn't expect perfection, even from polished politicians. (But, we do.) The trick is to be armed with a standard line when you stumble (and, you're going to stumble) or when asked a tough question. With a rehearsed line embedded into your brain, you can easily "fall back" to the defensive position, and use a trusted phrase to fill the "dead air," and give yourself a chance to recover .

Also, set your clock. The "trigger" for "dead air" is at three seconds. Practice this timing, so your brain knows when to bring up the instant "back-up" line.

There are straight-forward recovery lines such as: "Let me try this again." Or, when asked a tough question: "That's a good question. Let me make sure I understand exactly what you are asking."

But humor is better in the "brain freeze" moments because it quickly eases the tension and can evoke sympathy and empathy. "Well, that was a warm and fuzzy moment, wasn't it?" Or, "In the replay, I know this is going to sound better."

2. The longer recovery. Gov. Brewer did not have an immediate line at the time of her brain freeze. But, she did try to recover on a subsequent radio interview by confessing "It was the longest 16 seconds of my life." Fortunately for Gov. Brewer, the news media stayed interested in her (it is, after all, a governor's race in AZ) and she had opportunity to explain herself.

As much as we all want everyone to "move along" and forget a past mistake, some folks (like the news media and opponents) won't let go. The clip is now permanent and if it's good enough, it will make it to the Daily Show.

To win the "final word," you need to evoke poise, confidence and, again, a bit of humor. Also, gently insinuate that there are bigger issues to discuss by asking questions and putting others on the defensive.

If you don't take immediate control, then opponents have room to question your character and intellect.

The key is to not be defensive, not admit you made a mental mistake, nor dwell on the mistake. Address it with a quick reply, and transition to your message. It's not: "Look, I know I stumbled and had a brain freeze. We make mistakes, don't we? Can't we get on to the real issues?"

To appear you're in control and have collected your poise, it's: "I'm glad I can show that I'm human. (Or, with a grin on your face: "I'm glad you enjoyed my warm and fuzzy moment.") But did you catch the point I was making? We need to (create jobs/improve the economy/etc.)?"

And, it doesn't hurt to have staff providing the news media context and background about, say, how great leaders like to reflect on matters before making big decisions.

The young, the CSR and the Brand

2010-09-02T08:00:00.000-07:00

What good is your effort to be a Socially Responsible corporation when a large sector of the population simply ignores that factor in their buying decisions?

A recent study of Canadians may upset the prevailing thinking about how companies improve their brand and their bottom line.

Corporate Social Responsibility, or CSR, is an increasingly expensive branding proposition for companies. Most research shows consumers are increasingly looking at a company's reputation in their purchasing decisions. Even in a poor economy, more and more consumers are looking beyond just a good brand name or a discount.

While the actual percentages of CSR-based product purchases are still low, the trends tell companies they must keep examining which social causes to support. Like, saving the environment or cancer research.

However, research released this week by a Canadian advertising firm indicates the under-30 crowd are more ambivalent about a company's reputation in their purchasing decision. (Which seems strange to me, since I perceived all Canadians as being ultra-sensitive about the environment).

What's more, it seems social media has had a huge influence on how the younger audience developed a lack of interest in social issues. (Insert rant here about twitter and the devil).

It shouldn't be too much of a surprise that younger audiences are more swayed by "flash" and glitter and "coolness" versus whether a product is made by a company that wants to save the rainforest. If you've had a teenager in your life, you don't need research to tell you this.

But with this Canadian study examining a broader prime buying audience all the way to, gasp, age 29, the conventional wisdom is in a mild turmoil. Yeah, we can see how a 22 YO is not looking at social causes. But a 29 YO?

Prediction: Watch for a slew of more research diving into both of these issues (CSR among young folks and the influence of social media on social causes).

So, are you among the many professionals are scrambling this week - wondering if they need to recalculate their CSR recommendations based on one study, or wait for other research to come in?

A Client Win - UCLA Extension

2010-09-01T07:13:00.000-07:00

The Wolcott Company recently earned two positive and prominent placements in the New York Times on behalf of its client - UCLA Extension.

The first was an extensive piece about the value to mid-career professionals of returning to university for continuing education.

Click here to read some insightful quotes from UCLA Extension Dean Cathy Sandeen, and the perspective of a student.

The second story looked at how schools like UCLA Extension are offering foreign language courses to meet the growing demand among adults for a quick "immersion" in a language.

August 23, The Week

2010-08-23T07:19:00.000-07:00

The national and international public relations scenes are busy. Pros are scrambling more and morewith crisis projects than product announcements. From tainted eggs, to a tainted cyclist, to the economy to reviving off-shore drilling to international work, like helping a company with a rash of suicides.

This sort of work is a blessing because of so many projects being shelved.

In California, the world seems to revolve around electronics (all things Silicon Valley), energy, politics, unemployment and going back to the school. Look behind the headlines and you'll find teams of PR pros hard at work on these subjects.

Unemployment
The biggest story in the works is the economy. Look for a rash of stories being developed and pursued this week and next about back-to-school sales as any sign of hope for our economy. Followed by news of layoffs and store closings. Message points are being crafted now to demonstrate the strength of chain retailers - in spite of the gloom. Can Christmas be saved as the ships begin to land in the LA and Long Beach harbors with goods from China?

Electronics
Meanwhile, PR pros are doing their best to keep the "home energy" story in the news. Somewhere, there is a belief that consumers have the ability to buy or install more efficient devices. What? Not throw away my money on an iPad or new cell phone?! Watch for unique campaigns in the coming weeks to convince consumers to buy energy efficient washers, refrigerators and similar consumer goods. What? You haven't noticed these items being pushed into the main aisles at Lowe's and Home Depot?

Energy
Cities, businesses and utilities are required to buy more "green" energy. As the City of Los Angeles scrambles for cash to develop more wind and solar projects it will own, it will be forced to rely on buying green power from existing sources. Case in point is today's announcement about a nearly half-billion-dollar debt sale to "pre-purchase" wind energy from ...Washington. What happened to all the wind farms and solar projects in the Southern California desert?

Politics
Mid-term elections are keeping many communicators busy across the country. In CA, the final push begins for the multiple ballot measures and our two big races - Governor and Senator. Public affairs pros are putting the final touches to the annual post-Labor Day surge. Get out your goggles and rain coats, the mudslinging will reach hurricane strength.

A good person

2010-08-16T20:00:00.000-07:00

One hopes the memories don't fade quickly.

A capacity crowd jammed the chapel at Forest Lawn in Glendale last Friday (Aug. 13) to pay their final respects to Lynne Doll, the president and partner of The Rogers Group.

Aside from the shock of her early passing - she was only 48 - it became clear to the audience that Lynne had "left her hand print on the hearts of everyone she met" (as one speaker noted).

Aside from her incredible achievements as a public relations executive, it became clear that Lynne was a dedicated and loving mother and wife, sister, daughter and more. As I and others know by being within her presence over the years, Lynne made everyone feel special, like you were a good friend, your suggestions and ideas were to be treated with respect and dignity and the time to live is for today.

It became very clear that Lynne packed two normal lives into one. She just had that much drive and zest for life. And, for that, there was a large turnout.

As many of us commented afterward, the mark of a good life is how many people turn out at your funeral. Hers was an envious one for all the right reasons.

Aug. 16 Week Ahead

2010-08-16T07:24:00.000-07:00

It's back to school for many. And, with Labor Day approaching, we're just a few weeks away from California's final big election push.

So, let's look at one upcoming story important to public relations professionals.

Land development
California has received much attention over a November ballot measure to suspend a state law requiring reductions in greenhouse gases. Backers of Proposition 23 argue that it doesn't make sense to force companies and institutions to spend large sums of money on greenhouse gas reductions in a bad economy. The state ballot measure, if passed, would suspend "AB 32" until unemployment rates drop to 5.5 percent. (The current jobless rate is more than 12 percent).

However, another state law is on the books, not subject to a "recall" ballot initiative and is on its way to make life more challenging for cities and builders. "SB 375" is designed to "influence" local governments in planning decisions to reduce urban sprawl and encourage more "transit friendly" cities. To read more about the impacts of this law, read a recent Riverside Press-Enterprise story.

While the next few weeks of attention will be on the state ballot measure to suspend one greenhouse gas law, perhaps the more far-reaching law is proceeding.

WHY IMPORTANT?
After water, greenhouse gases are the biggest environmental story in CA. The state will continue to grow, so laws are being written to make communities more sustainable. In general, this means reducing commute times and improving public transportation to reduce air pollution.

Public affairs professionals, mostly those within the building industry, are doing their best to influence the design and implementation of the rules and "targets" surrounding SB 375. The draft plan covers 18 metropolitan areas. The CA Air Resources Board will consider these rules at a Sept. 23 meeting. As you read this, many public affairs officials in the Golden State are busy drafting comments for their clients.

For now, the immediate impact of these proposed rules is with the multi-million-dollar building industry. However, other industries and organizations are gearing up to help cities comply. These will include the public transportation sector, energy devices and others. In short, a lot of industries and private businesses that have or will need public relations help.

The lawyer in me

2010-08-12T20:18:00.001-07:00

As a journalist, I think I had to sign a pledge to hate attorneys.

Most were always in the way, blocking the path from the information I wanted for a story. A few I could work with and get off-the-record background.

Yet, I understood attorneys had a role to play: To protect their client.

As I transitioned into public relations, "protecting the client" was among my new duties, too.

I soon learned many of the tactics used by attorneys also worked well in public relations. (Please, don't tell them I said this).

Among these lessons that came in handy were:

Short statements. We call this: "Staying on Message." For attorneys, the less "information" out there, the less room for interpretation and innuendo. This is especially helpful in crisis communication situations. If we put out too much detail too soon, we're giving the story more life than it needs at the moment.

Investigation. Some of the best defense attorneys and prosecutors I know (I covered many high-profile criminal cases) and some great detectives always assume nothing. Usually, the first story changes as facts are gathered and the investigation proceeds. What may appear to be solid "facts" invariably change.

These two lessons were in play this week for JetBlue and their former flight attendant who received a lot of attention for his use of multiple "f" bombs and an emergency chute to resign.

JetBlue didn't say much right away. First statement was standard. Then they had a little fun with their blog and reminded everyone that the rest of their flight attendants really do care about customer service, passengers, safety, etc. They gave out $100 vouchers to the passengers.

The reason they didn't want to say much is that investigations can turn up some interesting details. And, investigations take time. Especially, when police and others need to interview passengers, collect evidence ($25,000 to replace a chute), etc. And, to find out more about Steve the flight attendant.

And, for JetBlue, there was an unexpected bonus: A surge of sympathy for all flight attendants and the crap they have to put up with.

So, now, it seems, after a little more investigating.... the pendulum is swinging against our working class hero. The lovable image, the thousands of Facebook friends, the sympathy from others who feel just the same, the "Free Steve" t-shirts and a nation who seemed to embrace this guy....may soon fade as we begin to hear reports that our former flight attendant may not be so much a victim as a perpetrator. Heck, even Donald Trump is calling this guy a lousy employee and raises a great question about whether we all could count on a potential unstable flight attendant in an emergency.

Time will tell if he remains a folk hero. Much of this depends, I reason, on whether he makes it on Leno, Letterman or one of the morning TV news shows. And, how soon he does this. The longer he waits, the better his 15 seconds of fame disappear.

The PR community is going nuts on this one, with every expert offering their advice. If I were JetBlue, I would read these blogs and comments on trade articles - because it's all free. Some great ideas are out there -- just for (Hey folks, stop giving away this stuff).

From a corporate perspective, JetBlue has been handling this perfectly. They said little and let investigations take their course. And, guess what, the story is changing.

Politically correct political donations

2010-08-09T11:01:00.000-07:00

As we PR veterans know all too well, one act can undo years of good work.

Following negative media coverage and store protests, Target's CEO last week apologized to employees for a $150,000 donation to a Minnesota organization that supported a Republican candidate for governor, who happened to endorse a constitutional amendment supporting "traditional marriage."

It is pretty clear Target's intentions were narrowly focused on supporting an organization that was pro-business. The challenge for any major, highly visible corporation is, therefore, to conduct the due diligence and secure the agreements that ensure the organization being supported with such a large check doesn't venture too far off the farm.

A company can't expect the organization receiving the funds to automatically recognize all parameters of how the donation is to be used, or evaluate all the repercussions of the organization's actions. An organization may think it is acting responsibility, but it's up to the company to explain every last detail and practically direct the organization's political movements.

The Wall Street Journal on Friday covered the dangers of new campaign finance rules for companies. Target seems to be the first test case, although it would seem a company the size of Target would have known better.

Although Target clearly states (on its web site, primarily) the intentions of political contributions, the rules of the game work differently. It's impossible for a company to donate to a cause or candidate and add "we only support 'this' side/part of the candidate." A candidate's "total" platform is taken into consideration for any donation.

Thus, Target soon was placed on the mantel of supporting an anti-gay candidate for the donation to a pro-business organization, which then happened to endorse a GOP candidate who....

The single donation has nearly wiped out Target's previous stellar reputation as being an LGBT-supportive employer.

So, what does this all mean?

Well, I'm sure over the next few days, you'll hear all sorts of suggestions for PR, such as:

Target should ask for its donation back.
Target should reinforce its ties to gay organizations.
Target should support a pro-gay candidate.
Target should embark on a subtle gay outreach advertising effort (following the first two efforts).

Fact is, Target shouldn't change too much. The much-publicized boycott won't work, they never do. So, there is no need to over-react. The apology letter should work, for now. And, I'll bet my next paycheck, Target is working this behind the scenes with all its existing contacts in the established (read: moderate) gay community to maintain dialogue.

Plus, Target has invested heavily over the past 5+ years in corporate social responsibility and being a progressive employer and buyer. This "bank" of goodwill is available and will eventually pay dividends in this latest detour.

An over-reaction by Target could do serious harm to the rest of goodwill bank. An over-reaction could make Target look like it's "scrambling": unorganized, afraid, doesn't know what it's doing, weak, etc.

The Week Ahead: Aug. 9-13

2010-08-07T08:05:00.000-07:00

New Feature

Starting today, PR in LA will post every weekend its best (ha!) predictions about a few, select anticipated events, news and other actions that public relations professionals should watch, run away from or will be unable to avoid because they are part of it. (Feel free to tell the editor what he's missing)

So, here goes:

Water in California
Monday, Aug. 9.
In an unprecedented event, the CA Legislature is expected to vote on bills to remove the $11 billion water bond from the November ballot. Opponents want to keep Prop. 18 on the ballot... so it can be defeated. Prop. 18 was shaping up to be another famous and expensive CA ballot battle, which meant good revenue news for a few public affairs agencies, video companies and advertising agencies. Organized labor was gearing up to defeat it, which meant the same good revenue news for those agencies on that side. This battle was growing. It even had DC-based groups getting into the act.

WHY IMPORTANT: Hundreds of local water agencies used the ballot measure - and the multiple news stories about "dire" water future - to ask customers to reduce water use. It's a lot easier to get people to act when water is in the news all the time. With the "buzz" gone, agencies must scramble to find new ways to catch the attention of their customers to keep them "water efficient." Plus, the ballot measure had loosely defined money for education and outreach programs, which could have meant contracts for PR/PA agencies for at least 5 years or longer. (Unless these funds get "lost" like relief aid to Haiti).

PREDICTION: Legislature will pull it from the ballot. Opponents will now gather themselves for less visible and more scientific-based battles, like the "Delta Stewardship Council" and water flow reports (Read: only the water geeks will follow). Water PR goes local and will be spotty, at best. Agencies would be smart to start meeting with local water utilities to plan for 2011 outreach plans, develop budgets and convince utility officials of the importance of "investing" in customer good will now for future rate hikes and, perhaps, a ballot measure in 2012.

Green
Thursday, Aug. 12.
The city of Los Angeles is still limping along trying to shed its dependence on coal and natural gas as a source of power, and keep up its efforts to create more green energy production. The battle plan for this is the agency's "integrated resource plan," just released last month. No surprise: it's going to cost $3 billion or more to not only seek new, greener power, but to also maintain aging infrastructure (i.e. "reliability."). Translation: rate hikes.

WHY IMPORTANT: Public outreach is critical. The LADWP has been beaten up severely in the past for not doing enough to warn customers or get them engaged in the rate process. Add to this the battle between the City Council and LADWP over the last rate request. DWP has a new leader and how he handles this IRP and outreach effort will likely be highly scrutinized. (We hope someone notices). A kick-off workshop on Thursday, Aug. 12, should garner some news media coverage, unless another celebrity is thrown in jail.

PREDICTION: It's still a no-win situation for LADWP. The November CA ballot has Prop. 23, designed to remove aggressive greenhouse gas emission reduction efforts promoted by our governor. This battle is raising doubts about green mandates hurting economic recovery. Uncertainly over how hard to push for alternative energy sources, at least for the next few months, will make it extremely difficult for LADWP to promote a realistic energy plan to the public. And, the IRP is a complicated document to communicate. Plus, most utilities simply hold "workshops" (rather than aggressively promote them) to "comply" with outreach requirements. If Thursday's initial workshop gets a large turnout (public and media), then public opinion may turn toward LADWP's favor.

Services set for Lynne Doll

2010-08-05T11:17:00.001-07:00

UPDATE: Services are now set for 2:30 p.m. Aug. 13

Here is the release from The Rogers Group about Lynne's passing. Services are set for Aug. 13.

Lynne Doll
Public Relations Industry and Community Leader Dies at 48

Lynne M. Doll, president of The Rogers Group and widely-respected leader in the public relations industry, died Aug. 3 of a stroke at Glendale Adventist Medical Center in California. She battled cancer for three years and was cancer-free at the time of her death. Lynne was 48.

For more than 25 years, Lynne was instrumental in expanding the breadth of The Rogers Group’s expertise and leading a series of high-profile and award-winning campaigns for major corporations, brands and government agencies.

A nationally recognized crisis communications expert, Lynne was known for her handling of tough challenges in public relations and risk management, and was sought out by top corporations for her counsel. Lynne also directed the agency’s public sector practice, serving as a key strategist for several major social marketing campaigns and leading the agency to win numerous awards and national accolades for public education campaigns in the areas of health, environment, education and early childhood development.

For her professional and community contributions, Lynne was recognized with several awards, including: “P.R. Professional of the Year” by the Public Relations Society of America’s Los Angeles chapter; Los Angeles Business Journal’s “Women Who Make A Difference,” for her commitment to non-profit organizations; and the “Distinguished Alumni Award” from California State University, Northridge (CSUN).

Of equal importance to Lynne was being a hands-on manager known and loved for her integrity, keen insights, and sharp wit. Under her leadership, TRG cultivated a working environment that values camaraderie and innovation along with a commitment to ongoing professional development, leading the company to be named one of the top agencies in the country to work for by The Holmes Report.

Lynne’s passion for community involvement and volunteerism was a driving force behind the development of the agency’s Community Involvement Program, which encourages staff to contribute time, talent and money to organizations in need, with support from TRG.

“Lynne was one of a kind, “said Ron Rogers, chairman of TRG. “For 25 years, I have treasured our friendship and our mutual trust, loyalty and business partnership. I have always admired her and will miss her beyond measure.”

Lynne served on the Boards of Directors for Planned Parenthood Los Angeles and The DAISY Foundation. Previously, she served on the national and regional Boards of Directors for the National Conference for Community and Justice, an organization that fights bigotry and racism, as well as the Los Angeles Fire Department Community Advisory Committee and the Advisory Council for the president of CSUN. She was also past president of the Board of Trustees for The Walden School, a private elementary school in Pasadena, where she served on the Board for six years.

Born and raised in Los Angeles, Lynne was married to her husband, David Lans, for 24 years. Her 13-year-old daughter Natalie carries on family traditions of philanthropy, culinary prowess and good humor. Lynne also is survived by her mother, Carol Doll, and three sisters.
In lieu of flowers, donations may be made in Lynne’s name to Planned Parenthood Los Angeles (www.plannedparenthood.org/los-angeles) and/or The DAISY Foundation (http://www.daisyfoundation.org/).

Services will be held at Forest Lawn Glendale on Friday, Aug. 13 at 9 a.m.

A Good One Leaves Us Too Soon

2010-08-04T20:10:00.000-07:00

Lynne Doll was one of those rare individuals. Not only was she smart, quick, a proven leader and thoroughly knew her profession, she also possessed that rare quality of being a nice person.

I don't know any other way of describing her.

The business world is full of executives who've stomped on others on their way to the top, or found sport in humiliating others in public. Lynne was not in that category, not even close.

Don't get me wrong. She was no pushover. But, she never saw the need to degrade anyone or "position" herself as better than others to prove a point, excel or emerge the winner in a debate.

Lynne, who died suddenly last night (Aug.3), left us way too early. Hers is a devastating loss for many reasons.

She was among the first PR executives I encountered in my second career. She wasn't quite president and partner of The Rogers Group, but she was getting close. I was used to hard-nosed managers, having come from the newspaper world. I heard stories about similar managers and executives in the corporate and agency public relations world. As a rookie in the PR business, I expected to get criticized for mistakes or not having a complete strategy or idea to share.

So, I was braced for abuse, tough talk and more.

In my first job at an agency, my firm shared an account with Lynne's. My first experience with her was the same as my last - pleasant, easy to work with, encouraging ideas no matter how stupid. She appeared genuinely interested in you and what you had to say.

So, I responded in kind and a professional relationship ensued that has lasted nearly 18 years. As I got involved in other PR activities, including being on the board of the Public Relations Society of America/Los Angeles, I would find the occasion to call on Lynne - usually for a favor. She always answered my call, or returned it that same day. She wasn't upset or somehow concluded that I was taking advantage of her pleasant demeanor. Perhaps I was. But she didn't mind.

Her career as a public relations professional was marked by many successes, and giving back to her profession. So, it's no mystery why the PRSA/LA chapter honored her, when she was still executive vice president at Rogers, in 1999 as PR Professional of the Year.

A recent telling quote about Lynne's professional accomplishments was in this week's Los Angeles Business Journal interview with the guy who hired her. Ron Rogers said the best decision he made in his career was hiring Lynne.

We will miss you. And, I hope all who you touched will remember the lessons you left behind.

A true class act.

Just wait for it...

2010-08-02T18:13:00.000-07:00

Tracking - and anticipating - public attitudes are fundamentals to public relations.

But, with quicker access to information via Google, Twitter and other online resources, are attitudes changing faster? And, if they are, is the conventional wisdom to "go with the flow" and adapt your strategies as soon as the shifts occur?

Or, do you take the "long view" and promote a steady, more constant message or program with the understanding (hope?) that opinions will eventually come back to the point where they started?

It's like that history lesson - do you win the battle but lose the war?

It's also like driving Los Angeles freeways. (OK, it's like war). You can hold steady at 65 mph - in a lane other than the "fast lane" -and let all the others whip by you at 80. If you've done this before, you know that eventually, you'll catch up with the speeders because traffic moves in groups. The "blockage" formed by the next "group" of motorists will cause the speeders to slow down and allow you to catch up - at your nice even pace of 65. You may have lost the temporary battle, but you won the war.

But if you drive in LA, it's hard not to speed when given the chance.

So, are we then "tempted" to speed up and change our PR habits because everyone around us is moving faster? Or, is the better action to create a message and stick with it through the rough spots, knowing the war will be won?

Check out what has happened in cities around California when it comes to using treated wastewater and turning it into safe drinking water.

Almost 10 years ago, this idea was dead in the water (sorry for the pun). A Los Angeles City Council candidate (he didn't win) wanted an edge (publicity grab?) and coined the phrase "toilet to tap" in his singular campaign platform to block a proposed wastewater treatment experiment by the city. Although the science backed the city's idea and state regulations would prevent any direct use of treated wastewater in the city's water system, "Toilet to Tap" did the trick. It was easy to say. The phrase created an ugly image and, bam, the idea was killed. The city was ill prepared for the public anger created by a simple phrase, and never got the chance to recover from the initial blows.

But rather than totally abandon the concept, other public agencies stuck to their guns and proceeded with the same plan. The science and the process were improving. And, it also helped that California's water future was becoming more and more dire.

The first agency to succeed in changing public opinion on "treated wastewater" as a drinking water solution was the Orange County Water District.

This summer, it was the City of San Diego's turn to demonstrate how a proposed water supply solution, bolstered by a consistent message and unwavering strategy, allowed an idea to reach its proper destination.

As chronicled by a San Diego Union Tribune writer, not only was there no public opposition to the decision to proceed with a "toilet to tap" plant, the city received support from some very notable and high-powered environmental organizations, among others.

For sure, success for Orange County and San Diego was attributed to other important public relations tactics - primarily in coalition building and, in the case of Orange County, significant public outreach. And, for sure, they had the benefit of evaluating past failures and making adjustments.

More importantly, in my opinion, was that public agencies did not change course for the early, easy wins. Even with the speed of information at supersonic levels over the Internet, and the risk of public opinion getting out of control because a few well-placed antagonistic comments, these public agencies demonstrated the value of holding onto the long view.

Does this mean you can't make adjustments? Of course not. But as these examples have proven, public opinion can shift back to your favor - if you allow it.

Presidential perspectives and an update

2010-08-02T14:32:00.000-07:00

If you missed it, the recent PRSA/Los Angeles presentation of "Presidential Perspectives" with four current or past White House communications officials was a smashing success. For those of you who did not plunk down some money and hoped to see it on a video somewhere soon...the wait is going to be a little longer.

My hope is that this one event did demonstrate to non-PRSA members the value of being a member. If the rare insights into communicating from an international platform were not enough, then consider the chance to mingle with many "heavyweights" in the PR industry in the prime networking hour before the start of the program.

Meanwhile, one of the panelists is moving on. Camille Johnston is leaving the White House to become Siemens Vice President of Corporate Affairs. The release is here. It's a great move for Siemens, which is moving its corporate headquarters to Washington, D.C. Glad we caught her when we did for our panel.

The best question posed to me that night was: "Is this an annual event?" Whew! It was a miracle pulling this one together, but I'd be open to an annual event of this magnitude. Send me your ideas to denis@thewolcottcompany.com

Transparency

2010-07-12T07:36:00.001-07:00

Is it a dance, a battle, a friendly joust?

As a former journalist, one the toughest decisions in my entire adult life was to switch careers to "the dark side."

Sometime early in the course my life as a reporter, I was given the adage of "don't trust PR people." They will try to spin you, keep you from the person you are trying to interview, and are generally not to be trusted. It's a credo, born from the inherent trait of all good reporters and editors to be skeptical, that spreads and morphs through newsrooms and many times ends up in the reporting of men and women who profess to be unbiased.

I many times have to explain that a public relations professional's job is to not tell lies or hide the truth, but to simply make sure the other side is well represented. Or, in the case of a crisis, make sure the client is protected and to prevent greater damage. Of course, it doesn't help when PR colleagues make a bad pitch. Tolerance levels are predictably low among many reporters.

Paul Holmes makes a great point about transparency in light of the Pentagon's recently issued guidelines.

When I switched careers nearly 20 years ago, my integrity remained very important. I carefully chose to work for a PR firm that epitomized my principles of openness and to represent only upstanding clients. My firm PR firm made it clear it would never represent tobacco companies, for example.

Despite my ethical commitments, I found a few former colleagues couldn't comprehend my move and suddenly cast me into that category of untrustworthy flak.

Skepticism is fine. It's needed in journalism. (A great lesson from a former editor: "When I look at the ingredients on a box of cereal, how do I know they list everything that is in there?")

Yet, permanent distrust with no ability to consider or evaluate the information that I, a PR person, am giving a reporter - is not healthy. Journalists need to uphold their credibility, and so do I. I'll tell a reporter why I can't give out certain information. They don't like it, but many times they understand. My hands are tied. I routinely give out background information "on background."

Good media relations begins with us, the PIO, or PR specialist or anyone charged with holding conversations with the news media.

Fake Press Release copy cats

2010-07-08T08:37:00.000-07:00

Well, it seem there are copy cats out there.

The latest fake press releases announced the deaths of CA Senators Boxer and Feinstein. Good thing we have enough veteran reporters left at newspapers to begin investigating and fact checking before "running with it."

See here for earlier posts about other, more elaborate fake releases, their potential to harm and how you should be preparing for them. And see here about one other recent fake press release.

Are you ready for an attack, even if it's a hoax? Probably not.

This sounds very familiar, especially for us in CA. We know we live in earthquake country, we hear constant reminders to be prepared and to have our emergency kits ready. Yet, most of us are not truly ready for The Big One. I don't think the oversized box of granola bars and the hiking boots in the trunk of my car get me even close to "prepared" for a major quake.

Like yesterday's little shaker in Southern California, the latest fake press release is another wake-up call for preparation. So, why don't we, as PR professionals, take action for this and other potential crisis scenarios?

Try these simple tips:

It's like dieting. Losing weight requires discipline. Life is full of multiple deadlines and tasks always right in front of our faces. But, many experts tell us, losing weight can be tough because we lack control to take steps "every day" to reduce weight. Losing weight comes in small, but consistent doses. The same principle applies to crisis planning. A little bit of it each day will eventually show results. So, spend 15 minutes every day (or, at least once a week) on crisis planning.
Dream. Now is the time to consider possible responses and the "what ifs." Today, it is fake press releases. Tomorrow, it could be a social media attack on your client's product. In the calm, it's much easier to visualize how you would respond. The best crisis communications pros do this all the time. That is why CEOs turn to them, because THEY HAVE THE ANSWERS at their fingertips. Because they played out a scene in their heads.
Read. Every week, search for a crisis, either current or past. Track back any press releases. Examine the outcomes, including longevity of the crisis. Analyze what went right, what could be done better. Discover the nuances or factors that you never considered. Avoid the impulse to critique or play "Monday Morning Quarterback."

Rebuilding images and empires

2010-07-02T09:58:00.000-07:00

Stories about Tiger Woods are fewer and far between.

Surprised?

Things should change in the coming days, however. If the divorce court hearing proceeds as planned in Florida, pundits will once again evaluate whether image rehab is on course.

At least one reporter got the ball rolling early with an excellent overview.

Expect it to be a tough time for sports writers - given the World Cup finals, the All Star Game and the Tour de France all occurring at the same time. That would leave radaroline, TMZ, the NY Post and others of similar ilk to provide coverage. Yuck. (And, then there is Mel Gibson).

So, what is - or will be - missing from the analysis? Again, this is a column about public relations, so the examination is focused on the impact of reputation, and the lessons we in PR can learn to counsel our clients.

No. 1: Total impact. The Woods empire crumbled. No one has really looked at how many people lost their jobs or the revenue lost by businesses as endorsement deals ended, tournaments saw lower turnouts, few Nike golf balls sold, etc.

No. 2: The kids. No, not Tiger's and Elin's. What lessons were learned by the thousands of youngsters who began playing golf because of Tiger? The ones who play golf through his foundation? The ones who bask in the gifts and events from his foundation? Yes, we know this was another example of why children should not idolize athletes. (One exception: You can go ahead and idolize recently deceased UCLA basketball coach John Wooden). But Tiger shows no sign of slowing down his foundation or his visibility with it, as evidenced by a recent gig with Bon Jovi. While most pundits will focus on whether Tiger can rebuild his image through his golf play and examine how other athletes-in-trouble have fared, they haven't examined how TW Foundation scholarship recipients are reconciling who is giving them money for college, or why Woods is even still connected to a foundation that presumably promotes and rewards ethics and good behavior. Who is showing up at fund-raisers to be part of Tiger?

For PR professionals, the Woods saga is a gold mine for education and experience. Some of the takeaways, so far:

People still want to forgive. If you are representing someone who has a "hint" of goodness that's demonstrated in public, the masses will wait to see that person "come around." Contrite works. Apologies work. "I've changed" works. Give it some time. Just look at Elliott Spitzer. Yet, if someone appears to be a permanent bad boy or girl (i.e. Lindsay Lohan) with no hope for recovery, feel free to bail.

Attention spans are growing shorter. Our world is so wired, and overflowing with information, that we constantly "move on" to the next saga or story. Our fascination with individuals and their tribulations are either compartmentalized ("I'm not one to dwell in this area") or there are plenty of celebs who just seem to get into trouble. For all we know about Tiger, the latest Mel Gibson saga seems worse - right now!

History softens the image. Although anyone can research a sorted past on Google, the public doesn't lift a finger to "go back" on someone's life. As time passes, a person's past is reduced to fewer and fewer lines of definition. We define our Presidents in assigned adjectives. FDR was the "New Deal" president. Andrew "Old Hickory" Jackson and so on. Tiger will be remembered as a sports figure, first. His personal travails will become less and less important as his wins amass.

Losses can be calculated. Although every PR pro criticized Woods' actions (or, inaction) early in the scandal, the silence and hiding seemed to work. Refusing to issue statements or answering media questions quickly eliminated the major aspect of the scandal - the numerous women telling their side of their alleged relationship with Tiger. If Tiger acknowledged anything more than "transgressions," additional details would simply provide more fuel for the fire. Whether this tactic works for the next person in trouble should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

All of this now tells us that if you have a client in trouble or a crisis communications problem that doesn't involve a publicly traded company, the following rules of engagement may be in play:

The public and the media may not pursue all penetrating questions, or explore more in-depth "societal" questions. Of course, be prepared for them.

Unless you are representing someone like Octomom or Bernard Madoff, you stand a very good chance of counseling your client through any crisis or reputation nightmare. Preach patience and sticking to message.

So, now about BP........

Best LA PR event...now pay for it

2010-06-28T10:14:00.000-07:00

What price for education?

I've heard a few comments about non-member price for the PRSA/Los Angeles July 13 event.

So, let's do the drill. What else would you fork over $75 and what is the return?

A nice dinner and bottle of wine. Sure. That's in the "relaxing" or "I deserve this" category. Or, "It's been a while since I got out of the house with my husband/wife/partner" justification. If you are lucky, you get two hours of being away from the kids and "America's Got Talent."

That comes out to $37.50 an hour.

The July 13 event the Millennium Biltmore will come out to $25 an hour, if you show up at the start of reception and stay till the end.

What price for networking?

The July 13 event will be one of the biggest gatherings of public relations, public affairs and public information officers in Southern California. We're expecting 300.

In Los Angeles, it would take you at least six months of driving, phone calls and other events to connect with all the folks you'll see in one setting. Let's say you spend 2 hours a week driving to and attending social functions and chatting with colleagues (online counts). That's probably 52 hours in six months. Calculate your hourly rate...starting now.

Treat your client.

A consistent theme for successful client relationships is to "give back." My dad had Dodger season tickets and used them extensively to treat his clients. The results were obvious. Clients stuck with him for a long time because the felt they had a relationship with my father's business, rather than one focused on billings.

Good seats at Dodger stadium are $75, and you still must pay for parking and food. And while it's a nice little one-on-one time with a client, the "education" element is not there. Really, how do you translate a routine fly ball into a tangible communications lesson?!

A relationship builder is July 13, where presidential politics and behind-the-scenes maneuvering is told in stunning detail. I'm going to remember this one better than how many times Manny reached base safely.

It's all about the value, the opportunity and the education.

When you consider the return on this investment (client happiness and a learning experience), the fewer times you will be on our freeways (to meet a colleague) and a very nice setting, the price is not an obstacle.

Seriously, what else are you going to do with that $75? And, get some exclusive, hopefully educational, information.

PR wire mishap

2010-06-17T09:08:00.000-07:00

It happened again. A fake news release went out. This time, the victim was General Mills. As reported in today's The Wall Street Journal, the fake release erroneously said President Obama was investigating the cereal maker's supply chain.

Although PR Newswire acted quickly to instruct journalists to disregard the fake release and said it was sent out by an "unauthorized user," the incident is another reminder that hackers and pranksters still operate and are waiting to pounce or pull a fast one.

The stakes are huge. Market share can decline. Reputation is temporarily affected, requiring huge amounts of time and money to calm nervous investors and stakeholders. See here for an example of stock decline when a fake release went out.

Attacks can occur in many forms, but "fake news" seems to be a route of choice. And, despite the best controls added after each one, loopholes are found and folks just let their guard down. We like to think ALL news outlets verify information sent to them, but it doesn't happen. Rumors run rampant online, particularly with blogs.

Public relations pros are aware of these potential attacks. Instant monitoring services that send alerts to your cell phone are a great tool to "stay on top" of breaking news about a client, industry or issue.

Interestingly, this fake release went out after midnight, possibly on the hunch that those who may be monitoring the news would be asleep.

However, most international companies are generally prepared 24/7 with teams and individuals around the world under clear instruction to notify superiors the second they hear or suspect trouble. If your company doesn't have this fundamental crisis communication system in place, the General Mills incident provides a nice poke to get going.

Also, don't rely entirely on technology, such as alert systems that scan the Internet for key words. A "human" backup system is always a good bet, especially if a rumor reaches someone via a phone call or, gasp, in person.

So, here is the BW item. (Business Wire was either quick to issue a "security" response or just lucky a message to its members was already in the works.) Interestingly, there is no message on PR Newswire's site, as of this morning.

A Message From Business Wire CEO Cathy Baron Tamraz

June 2010

Dear IR professional:

We are aware that the competition for your business has never been greater, and that some companies may be confused by the cacophony of conflicting competitive claims.

To help you navigate through this minefield of misinformation, Business Wire would like to focus on the two most important reasons clients use a newswire: disclosure and distribution.

DISCLOSURE:

Business Wire is all about full and fair disclosure. Our patented news delivery system, NX, ensures simultaneous, real-time distribution of material news to ALL market participants.

Further, our security, redundant technical systems and operational procedures are audited annually by world-class accounting firms in multiple jurisdictions, providing for 24/7/365 delivery. We are proud that our proven disclosure model continues to provide the greatest transparency possible, with equal access for institutional and individual investors alike - always using the latest web-based technologies.

Several competitors have recently launched do-it-yourself filing systems. We view this as a disaster waiting to happen. With nearly 200 editors in 21 newsrooms worldwide, we authenticate and validate our members, vet copy for accuracy and legitimacy and catch countless client errors, particularly on market-moving earnings releases.

The coding, keywords and meta-tagging (XHTML) that we add to each release are critically important in how copy is processed by advanced search engines, enterprise IT systems, algo traders and databases. These sophisticated systems filter and route copy based on complex criteria, providing for maximum release visibility, and conforming to the international standards of the IPTC (International Press Telecommunications Council), a global consortium of major news and information services.

Disclosure is too important to leave on auto-pilot; there is no substitute for human intelligence in the handling of material news. With Business Wire, there is a complete audit trail for each news release - every step of the process has a permanent footprint that can be retrieved in the event of unusual stock activity, a stock halt, etc. These safeguards are of critical importance in the event of legal or regulatory review. Equally important, with Business Wire, every step of the disclosure process is handled in-house for confidentiality and quality control assurance; we won't outsource disclosure.

.....

Young adventurers

2010-06-12T08:08:00.000-07:00

An event can stir the imagination...and controversy. Being prepared for all angles is an essential component of public relations. Otherwise, the pitchforks are out.

When Abby Sunderland left the California coast for a solo, around-the-world sail, the 16-year-old was dispatched with mostly well wishes. Perhaps in a calculated way, Abby's parents chose to focus on her skills, the journey, the equipment and not dwell on the dangers. They probably knew there would be plenty of adults with questions and criticisms. Not much they could do about skeptics, they figured. They had the experience already with their son and probably expected the same with their daughter.

If anything is certain, no two events are the same.

Public relations professionals prepare for the worse, and conduct deep analyses of public sentiment. If handling a client or project where controversy is apparent, a key goal of our work is to ensure "our" side is heard and understood. It's not spin. Our jobs are to ensure facts and other points of view and perspective are considered. We know there are plenty of critics - educated and otherwise. News is generated from controversy. As a famous newscaster once said, "We don't report on the number of planes that take off and land safely."

So, the key is to anticipate controversy and how reporters and bloggers will cover the story.

From there, public relations professionals utilize their skills and experience to design and execute a plan that brings balance and fairness to the coverage, or, by other means, get our client's story "heard" by the public.

There are hundreds of case studies detailing how a solid public relations strategy and program helped bring balanced news coverage of a controversial subject. And, there are plenty of examples detailing either a failed or non-existent public relations program.

Perhaps the Abby Sunderland story will be a case study.

As Abby sailed out of sight from the cameras on Jan. 23, the criticism subsided. (Perhaps just as her parents anticipated). Other matters took our attention, like an oil spill. But when disaster struck this week and Abby's boat lost its mast in a fierce storm requiring a rescue, the lions were out for the kill.

Now, unlike their son's successful end to his around-the-world sail, Abby's parents were faced with the next-to-worst ending.

News coverage questioning the sanity of Abby's parents to "let" their daughter take this trip was brutal. In his lengthy Associated Press article, reporter John Rogers sought out a variety of experts to offer their insights and points of view. One sociologist said parents are pushing their kids too hard to excel, and questioned the maturity of any 16-year-old to handle a journey like Abby's. This is certainly the most prominent argument heard from parents and others criticizing Abby's parents.

So, what would have been a public relations strategy to manage this? Some key messages would have been nice for the dad. Not the "life in general is dangerous" or "no more than driving a car" ones. Those have only enabled the critics to build ranks and get louder.

Perhaps the strategy would have started last summer. Let a reporter go along for a sailing trip with Abby as she put her "Wild Eyes" to the test. Have an expert sailor join her to evaluate her skills. Perhaps have a sociologist or psychiatrist put her through some tests about her reasoning skills. Or, find an expert to discuss how children are growing up faster and many are handling tasks and challenges much tougher than previous generations. (Let's not forget that 16-year-olds have gone into battle, given birth, run families, etc.) The goal here would have been to show the world that Abby was not your typical 16-year-old.

Perhaps an additional strategy would have been to line up the "women's" support. The sexism is now very obvious - what was okay for Abby's brother, who also sailed around the world solo as a teenager - was not okay for her.

And, where were the supporters of adventure?

There is still time to bring balance to this story, but the Sunderland family will need to act fast. They have a few days before the "reunion" photo/event. They can line up the supporters. If not, the pitchforks won't be put away.

50 years ago

2010-05-20T08:41:00.000-07:00

Peer.

The word instantly suggests someone who is your equal: In ability, qualifications, social status, age, background and so on. In Great Britain and Ireland, a peer is any member of the five degrees of nobility. (What are the degrees? See below).

In the profession of public relations, we thoroughly enjoy our peers. Why? There are multiple reasons:

We share common traits and similar daily challenges

We're equally motivated to represent clients and carry out campaigns

We constantly seek opportunities to meet, to share ideas or to commiserate

The last reason my father knew well. To Robert B. Wolcott Jr., the value of his peers was very clear. As the founder of his own public relations agency, "Bob" Wolcott had two peer groups: Fellow CEOs at the many companies he represented and fellow PR executives.

The first peer group was critical to his business. CEOs at major national and international firms like Voit Rubber, Westin Hotels, General Telephone, MGM, Sunkist, Bank of America and others had to believe that Bob was one of them. It was critically important for a "PR Man" (As they were known back then) to earn the trust of a CEO. Like now, public relations was under scrutiny for its value to a company. So, Bob had to demonstrate he was part of the CEO peer group. That meant Bob had to talk and act just like a CEO. He had to understand the complexities of running a company, from the outside forces that influenced corporate decision making to knowing who to trust as your lieutenants to making the right hires. That's why, for example, he joined the major business clubs, like Los Angeles' famed California Club. Within these walnut-walled, high ceiling halls, Fortune 500 executives mingled with business objectives in mind. It was a place to be seen, to interact among your peers, and to make deals happen. Bob also insisted that he had direct access to CEOs at his client companies. His advice and strategy must be shared with the most important decision maker - directly, at an executive-to-executive level. A direct meeting was the only way to clearly demonstrate his full value to a client company. It was a business rule that served him well - both in building a respectable client base for his company, and later in life when he was a solo practitioner and being hired directly by CEOs for his counsel.

The second peer group was equally important. More than a half-century ago, the top 100 public relations executives in the United States knew each other very well because they created a "club" called the PR Seminar. As a peer group, they sought a special type of annual gathering with the appropriate level of programing. If you are running a PR agency or a communications division at a major corporation, your issues are much different than, say, what is facing the account supervisor at an agency. World events, public policy and economic indicators were - and remain - more important to the executives and their daily decision-making.

Consider this entry in my father's journal about why he enjoyed the annual PR Seminar peer group meetings:

"...I've always labeled them as a 21/2-day brain stretcher. Why? The subject matter was rarely about public relations. The sessions were devoted to all sorts of corporate subjects, government activities and the like....we had speakers the likes of Don Rumsfield, Don Moynihan, Reg Jones - GE's CEO, famed NY Times Editor Scotty Reston and many more. I remember an engrossing 3-hour session led by Art Miller, the widely respected Harvard Law professor."

And another reason:

"Another major benefit was mixing with your peers. I can't tell you how many times I got calls from (peers) asking me about people, organizations, etc., in this area. I, in turn, could always call them. One time, a client was having difficulty getting to the right person at Kodak. So, I called Dave Metz, the SVP of PR, and he gave me the name and that immediately removed my client's roadblock problem."

Fifty years ago, Bob Wolcott created the Public Relations Society of America's "Counselors Academy" so executive members of PRSA had their own peer group. Back then, PRSA needed this "club" to compete with similar peer groups such as the PR Seminar, the Arthur Page Society, the National Investor Relations Institute and others.

Forming the Counselors Academy probably helped my father's path to becoming PRSA's president in 1966. Counselors was the first "special section" to be created within PRSA. Today, PRSA has 16 sections, covering various specialties and peer groups from Sports and Entertainment to Technology to Public Affairs. It was inevitable to see more sections. The public relations profession has grown in substantial numbers over the past 50 years, so it is only natural that we seek a way to remain within the "right sized" peer group that cater to our specialty(ies).

As they gather in North Carolina this week for the annual Counselors Academy conference, my colleagues will be seeking the same thing my father did 50 years ago. A once-a-year opportunity to exchange ideas among peers and an opportunity to "stretch one's brain" away from the daily grind of running an agency or division. Nestled within the dense Pisgah National Forest among the Appalachian hills, there will be CEOs of well known PR agencies, solo counselors, the heads of major PR departments within corporations - all networking and seeking knowledge to be better company executives and communication professionals. (Sadly, I couldn't make it).

As a relative newcomer to Counselors, I am just getting started with a new group. I know there is a lot to look forward to - from my peers. Already, I've made many new important friends across the country. I've called on them, and they've called on me. I've been encouraged to be more entrepreneurial. I've been exposed to all sort of new ways to think like an executive. Thanks, dad, for making this happen.

Trivia answer: Five degrees of nobility are: duke, marquis, earl, viscount and baron.

Water over the dam?

2010-05-02T08:45:00.000-07:00

In six months, Californians will vote on one of the biggest public water bonds in the nation's history.

However, this week, in central California - the election is now.

Hundreds of the state's water leaders will gather in Monterey for the semi-annual conference of the Association of California Water Agencies. ACWA represents the largest percentage of water interests (hundreds of private water companies, groundwater groups and a few others are generally not members of ACWA).

The bond will be the talk of this conference. It will be the rallying cry. Behind most presentations will be THE BOND.

Although some bond election efforts began months ago (and another push naturally starts after the June primary is done), the REALLY BIG push begins this week once the state's major water players leave Monterey, armed with inspiration, key messages and, hopefully, a better sense of how the campaign will be waged.

Gauging from prior gatherings, big news may come out of the conference. But, I predict, an end to the drought won't be declared here - nor anywhere else in 2010. (I'll explain "why" further down).

This "non-news" or silence could be the loudest and most deciding factor in the November election, and will be important for state water leaders to understand during all the speeches in Monterey this week.

Snow has built up on the Sierra Mountains, putting pressure on the Schwarzenegger administration to declare an end to the state's three-year drought.

Of course, since this is a blog about public relations, it is interesting to see how multiple sides are waging their battles over the $11+ billion bond to improve the state's water supplies. If you are keeping track (and more of that here), below are some of the tactics and arguments in favor or opposed:

Some unions oppose because debt payments on the bond will cut into the states general fund and, therefore, affect the size of future state wage increases and benefits;

A leading farm organization opposes because it is trying to leverage some guarantees - totally unrelated to water - from the state Legislature in exchange for a support position;

Many environmental groups and some politicians allege the bond is filled with pork projects (CA Legislature admits this) and will only lead to further environmental damage (dams?) without securing more water conservation (read: growth continues in CA).

From an "advantage" standpoint, declaring an end to the drought would likely have significant implications on the success of the bond's passage. As someone directly involved in one (failed) state initiative and behind the scenes in a few others, and as someone whose career involves understanding public sentiment, having a hammer like a "drought" hanging over one's head is extremely helpful in trying to win favor for a water bond. It also helps to have a drought-themed message to neutralize the bond has too much pork drumbeat. If the drought is declared over, then bond proponents will be left with using a bag full of less-dramatic, less-compelling and certainly less romantic arguments and messages.

The last water bond in 2006 won because proponents used "protecting nature," "clean water" and "saving our coastlines" as key message points. Who wouldn't love these images floating around in the minds of the electorate as they head to the polls? What's more: Writers of previous initiatives secured endorsements from environmental groups, like The Nature Conservancy, because the bond measures included features that they wanted. And, there were not really any lawmakers who could vocalize opposition to a point of being noticed.

Yet, this year, environmentalists and a few lawmakers are taking various shots at the November water bond, and it's getting some play in the news media. The good news for supporters is that most of these attacks are technical in nature. They are arguing the finer points of CA's water complex system - and history. Complexity and detail are not going to win elections because they only confuse and alienate voters (and the news media). Old battles are not to be fought here, lads.

What will decide the bond are more traditional factors, such as:

Will the economy be upbeat? In a good economy, voters feel less reluctant to vote against money-related ballot measures. Currently, we're trending to better times in November;

Endorsements. Can opponents join forces and have their arguments heard in a unified voice over the roar of a well-funded proponent campaign? Not likely;

Turnout. This is a mostly GOP-supported bond in a year with the governorship at stake. If a GOP candidate wins for governor, it's likely the bond will do well. Although we have leading Dems supporting this bond, it's still a partisan election;

Local. The battle for this bond will be waged in the backyards of every water agency and state legislative district. If proponents do a good job explaining how this bond will benefit "my" community, it will pass, and;

Money. The last water bond passed with more than $30 million in outreach and advertising. My guess: the November water bond will need at least a $50 million election budget to win. (Interesting to watch: The "Save Our Water" campaign is ramping up again this year. It wasn't around in the last water bond election. It is modestly funded. Will these water conservation message have an influence on the bond?).

Now, before someone reads this column and says, "You see, those PR folks want to keep the drought around just to win the water bond," let me offer some science and other factors about why the drought won't be over anytime soon (at least not in 2010):

Although we have a large snowpack, the DWR already is predicting that a large amount of runoff will be absorbed back into a very dry watershed even before it reaches rivers and other surface water sources that feed our state system. So, 140+ percent of snowpack won't translate into 140+ percent of water into the state system;

The snowpack will be enough to give us a normal supply year, but not enough to refill our depleted reservoirs. (See "court restrictions" below);

One good year does not end a drought. This is the case in the upper Colorado River watershed, which is still experiencing an extended drought in spite of two "above-average" years of rainfall, and;

Although not part of the typical drought equation, court orders restricting water flows out of the Delta will limit supplies to cities and farms regardless of how much snow rests in the Sierras. Declaring a drought over with court orders still in place will create serious confusion in this important election year.

See you in Monterey and on the campaign trail.

Western expertise

2010-04-30T11:53:00.000-07:00

Amazing statistics and case studies, expert insights, and, of course, networking.

You missed it in Palm Springs, where we just concluded the PRSA Western District Conference. Perhaps one of best short-term, cost-effective conferences for professionals. We had everything for everyone, no matter your experience level.

More to come with some postings on the www.prsawdc.org site.

Perhaps the most fun we had was midday Thursday, as we were starting the media panel (with Newsweek, Wall Street Journal and Wired). Evan Hanson, the editor of Wired.com, was telling me that they were about to break the story about the dude who found Apple's prototype iPhone and sold it to a tech web site.

The lost iPhone4 story was one of the biggest out there the last week. And, now, in the middle of a PR conference, the crowd had the benefit of witnessing breaking news. Wired had conducted good 'ol fashioned investigative journalism and found the mysterious person who found the lost phone. We got this story first.

OK. Perhaps not every conference will have scoops break before our eyes. But I've been going to these for a decade now and I've never been disappointed. Mark your calendars for next April in Las Vegas.

iPhone and the news coverage

2010-04-26T13:36:00.000-07:00

Not sure what caught my attention more: The front page Wall Street Journal story about "annoying Orange" or the escalating saga of the lost iPhone4?

Lucky for folks already registered for a conference later this week in Palm Springs - they'll get some expert commentary on both. (Well, maybe not about Annoying Orange).

Perhaps the experts can sort it out for me. Like, why I'm more inclined to watch multiple episodes of Annoying Orange rather than figure out the First Amendment battle over the lost iPhone4?

The Palm Springs panel this Thursday (April 29) will have top mainstream journalists analyzing the influence of online journalism and blogs, and how we in the PR profession use social media channels to distribute news about clients, causes and organizations.

I'm moderating the panel. As it was, I had plenty of other stories and case studies to offer up to the panel for analysis. Then I came across the dynamics of "Annoying Orange" and the scandal of the lost iPhone4.

For sure, the panel will tackle topics and issues critical to how public relations professionals conduct themselves and how we recommend strategies to clients. Namely, what is the influence of social media on mainstream journalism?

The issue is one of the more pressing ones for PR pros today. As PR pros continue to use (exploit?) social media to promote clients, products and causes, there are growing risks of credibility and influence. Mainstream journalism is still considered the most credible, by most surveys. Yet, mainstream journalism has lost audience share to social media channels, blogs and specialty online-only news sites.

Public attitudes and viewing habits continue to shift, such as with product reviews. CNET, Wired and other mainstream sites are holding their own, but then Gizmodo breaks a story about Apple's latest phone and all bets are off. Are mainstream journalists changing their reporting techniques in deference to the influence of blogs?

For public relations professionals, understanding how these parts are moving and where the machine is headed are critical to our future. We need to remain relevant, on top of our game.

Do we ask: Is a Facebook buzz better than a front page story on The Wall Street Journal. Is a YouTube video with 200,000 views better than a story picked up by the Associated Press for a national run?

For PR pros, there are generally two key considerations when using social media: Where to place product or other news and how to place it. "Where" depends on what research is telling you about getting the most buzz. In many cases, PR folks will develop a strategy that suggests placing news at "XYZ" blog first , where it will soon blossom into greater and greater coverage because "XYZ" blog is so popular. "How" usually suggests either "exclusivity," a multi-faceted launch on multiple channels, a gimmick like a YouTube video (or lost phone?) or perceived "leak."

In the end, the key is to get "influencers" and "tastemakers" interested - to buy product or move the needle.

Many still consider mainstream journalism a very important channel for influencing, especially when dealing in the rapid spread of misinformation over the Internet.

So, for example, a question to the panel will be: At what point does a journalist from a mainstream news outlet start noticing fast-moving "news" on a blog and turn it into a story? It's been nearly 20 years since a "leak" about problems during a beta test of a Microsoft browser software changed the rules for online information and what constitutes "news." Since then, we've had hundreds, perhaps thousands of crisis communications fires that began on the Internet.

Do mainstream journalists feel compelled to set the record straight, even if the information is false? Does a rumor become "news" just because "it's everywhere" on the Internet? I promise we won't revisit the Domino's Pizza video.

But, I can tell you that many mainstream journalists first viewed the lost iPhone4 story on Gizmodo as a prank by Apple.

One question I may pose to the panel deals with freedom of the press and whether CA's trade secrets law trumps the 1st Amendment. Charges are likely in the missing iPhone4 story since police issued a search warrant on the reporter's house. Could this case have a chilling effect in the blogosphere? Or perhaps with mainstream journalism?

OK, you ask: What about Annoying Orange? There is no real PR consideration for Annoying Orange, other than to marvel at its popularity. And, that its fame rose to a point where it was finally noticed by one of the biggest mainstream news outlets.

I won't spoil my opening line at the panel on Thursday.

Week in review

2010-04-16T17:46:00.000-07:00

A few notables in the PR world this week:

BIG CHANGE of the Week.
My journalist background, which included being an editor of a newspaper, meant I was a stickler for grammar, spelling and the AP Stylebook. "AP Style" settled all disputes, including difficult ones I encountered as a PR professional. ("Why can you capitalize Our Energy Program?"). One change I frequently made in copy was The Associated Press' insistence to call it a "Web site." (Capital "W" and two words.) On Friday, AP changed the phrase to lowercase and one word. So, everyone, it is now "website." You win.

SURPRISE of the Week.
The amazing lack of continued analysis of Tiger Woods' emergence. Sports writers did a fair job analyzing (attacking?) his mood after finishing 4th in The Masters. One of the best analyses was here. And, there was some attention given to the announcement of his next match (April 29 in North Carolina). But for all the attention given Tiger in advance of his return to golf, the silence after the match was unexpected. As written earlier, the Woods saga is a great case study for public relations. Perhaps Tiger is not as big as some of us predicted. For all the PR analysis dumped on us since last Thanksgiving, the post-first-game-back analysis by PR professionals was severely lacking. Often I and my colleagues will counsel clients through a crisis, saying it just will be a matter of time before the crisis is over and "yesterday's news."

Of course, this is a personal tragedy and the question is whether Tiger can be forgiven to the point that he can gain back some portion of his incredible pre-scandal popularity whereby sponsors use him again to pitch their products. Sorry, Tiger, but you are a lab rat in this study. The question now is how much longer with the science experiment - the analysis - continue?

LATE BREAKING news of the Week.
The old saying in PR is to break bad news on a Friday. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission did just that in charging Goldman Sachs with fraud. Aside from losing $12 billion in shareholder value at the end of trading Friday, Goldman Sachs - previously a Wall Street darling - now has a major public relations situation on its hands. No doubt, teams are working overtime in crafting statements, preparing for continued bad news, and developing a counter-attack. So, yes, another case study in the making.

YAWN of the week?
Water is big news in California in 2010. So, when two big groups came together to set up a series of public meetings this past week in Southern California to discuss (sell?) the $11 billion water bond on the November ballot, why was attendance so low and why did the news media not show up? Expect this attention deficit to end after the June primary, when pro-bond publicity engines fill their tanks and increase the noise level.

Social Media's biggest news
Twitter's announcement that it will, finally, make money was one of the biggest stories of the month, if not the year. Promoted tweets add a new dimension to how others already making money off of Twitter. (See a story here about an indie band earning some cash.). Twitter is rolling out slow with this one, but look for PR folks to go into overdrive on the creativity front because of this new dimension (threat?). Twitter's dramatic rise in popularity made for some very clear PR and marketing strategies to promote clients. With Twitter now offering an advertising platform, look for new strategies from the PR side to remain relevant.

Don't cut the (video) budget

2010-04-07T12:40:00.000-07:00

The recent video campaign by Megan Fox and others to prevent major cuts in California's school budget illustrates several points that PR pros need to make when advising in favor of a video.

And, when to use celebrities.

Companies and associations are frequently advised to produce a video for a product, issue or initiative to accentuate a public relations campaign. This is only a recent opportunity with the advent of YouTube.

Yet, too often the advice is to go cheap. Cheap means low production qualities, such as a hand-held digital video camera that makes a shot jumpy along with poor lighting and sound quality. Or, worse, post a video from your Web cam. All these contribute to fewer views, no real connection with your audience and, worse, a lousy brand reputation.

Consider the Megan Fox-CA budget cut video. This was a quality production with good actors, professional lighting and sound, ideal editing and a good script. There is a director, a good location, props and more. Sure - many folks (include Megan) donated their time for this cause. Chances are, a corporate video will need to pay for actors.

The point is clear and simple - good production values result in a better image, captures the audience and delivers the message.

As public relations professionals, we must advocate for higher quality videos. There are plenty of sound reasons to argue for a $10,000 or greater video budget. The return on this investment is easy to calculate, not just by number of views. There are plenty of places to find ROI information to build a convincing budget argument. It also helps to use a video production company that will help you build your case for an adequate budget. YouTube has its own blog on this.

And, most importantly, the PR pro must do what they do best in these cases - analyze the audience and the message to make sure they line up perfectly for the client, or company. I cringe every time when a mid-level manager at a company suggests, "Let's do a YouTube video" for a project without any thought given to:

Is this appropriate for the overall strategy?
Who are we targeting with this video?
What do we want this video to say or do?
Do we know whether our audience will even connect via video?

Or, when someone says, "We need to get a celebrity" for our video or campaign.

The education script worked with Megan because she had an important message to say and they injected the right level of humor. But many times, celebrities don't work. If you need help figuring out why (or "when"), go talk with Rita Tateel at the Celebrity Source.

So, now have fun looking at Megan Fox again.

The dollar value of social media

2010-04-02T08:17:00.000-07:00

I was not among the early adopters of social media. (Or, as some of my favorite bloggers like to more accurately define as "online social media.")

My wait-and-see approach has helped before. Well, most of the time. (Good thing I didn't place any bets on my prediction as a young reporter that USA Today would fail).

As social media blossomed, my clientele at the time - mostly public affairs and government agencies - were among the difficult bunch to convince about the value of social media. So, I could wait. Old school worked for them. And, I was good at old school stuff.

Now is different. There are plenty of case studies detailing the success of a well-designed social media effort. The "power" of social media across all sectors is well documented. In no time in our history have so many groups of people been "moved" into action for so many causes or so easily prompted to make purchases. We had a president elected in large part through the power of social media. We are connected like never before.

Yet, keep in mind that many hurdles remain when it comes to establishing the budget for social media. Many executives and senior managers don't participate on Twitter or Facebook, therefore they remain skeptical. It's a difficult thing to wrap their heads around. Just this week I sat face-to-face with a client as he was navigating a Web site from his office PC and gave me a blank stare when I asked him to "try a different URL." Hmm.

Then again, I'm not sure I set a good example. Somehow, I manage to carry out an occasional social media effort while still carrying a clunky Blackberry Pearl in my pocket. Not exactly the status symbol that defines a social media driver. But I do get approving nods for having a netbook.

So, my friends ask: What do you charge? A recent chat on #solopr asked similar questions, in part, perhaps because the economy is showing signs of recovery and the days of discounting our services are over. I think I shocked a few when I said I plan to charge more for social media efforts in Q2.

As an independent practitioner, my approach to social media billing is simple. It's not unlike how I attempt to build the case for any kind of PR budget.

First, explain the power of social media to a client. This is the shortened version of the conversation:

It takes a lot of energy.
It takes expertise.
It requires a comprehensive strategy.
It involves a larger audience. (Beyond your target ones - because social media has a built-in "growth" factor).
The rewards are great, but the risks are sometimes greater. (See "expertise" above)
It's no longer a one-way discussion, but a dialogue. (See "energy" above)
Don't be afraid. If it's managed correctly, it won't open the door to a flood of customer complaints.
The percentage of your audience using social media - as their only source of information - is rapidly growing.

Second, recognize that dollars previously set aside for advertising are now being splintered, with a portion going to social media efforts. Marketing is trying to grab these extra funds, so you must have a great case to argue why public relations needs to be guiding this ship and in charge of these dollars. One key to success here is demonstrating that social media will end up costing less than advertising, but results will be the same, if not better. Can you do charts? It helps, because the marketing department is using charts. Another point to make is that the PR departments at Fortune 500 companies are hiring in-house social media experts.

Third. If you happen to work for companies that don't advertise or have limited advertising budgets, you need to build convincing arguments about how social media is an "add-on" to your pre-existing public relations budget. All too often, public relations professionals are willing to keep budgets the same, and simply drop some traditional functions to add in social media tactics. Trading is not an option. The basic functions and skills of public relations remain constant (analyzing audiences, predicting trends, etc.). Yet, executing social media is a more intense endeavor than placing a press release on Business Wire or organizing a community forum or conducting an informational campaign. Social media campaigns live longer, they evolve and require significant attention to the audience. In many instances, the traditional items - like press releases and events - don't go away. In the end, it's extra work.

Finally. Raise your hand if you are finding yourself working longer hours with a social media effort? I imagine I'm seeing a lot of raised hands. (Which is amazing because that means you took your hand off your iPhone in the middle of a tweet). Your time is valuable, so charge for it. If you need a social media "vendor" - so you can have dinner with the kids at least once this week - then add that to a budget. Social media is overwhelming the PR profession, especially for soloists. So, find partners you can trust. Need a reasonably priced online newsroom? Try newscactus.com. Need a great digital marketing service? Try McCue Marketing's project content group.

In budgeting social media for a client, you may need to take it in steps. It is good to have a rate chart listing general, basic functions of a social media effort. Your rate should be at the top. Don't be afraid to build in a mark-up if you bring in a service or companion provider.

The key, however, is to properly price your value. At an agency and now on my own, I've had great success is seeking a bigger budget. Clients recognize value and expertise cost more. As a solo practitioner, you bring to a client incredible expertise and experience that can't be placed on a menu. You bring passion. You bring a big-picture strategy to communications. You are a counselor beyond just the communications side of a business. You are the whole package. Don't sell yourself short.

Crisis and communication treading water?

2010-04-01T07:50:00.000-07:00

Last night's Los Angeles City Council rejection of a rate hike for DWP customers is a prime example of why public relations is a much needed profession.

Communication was the driver in this issue. And, in the heat of the moment - when the dialogue reached "crisis" proportions - a lack of communication resulted in failure for one side.

Multiple parties had multiple agendas, viewpoints and positions. Each side was doing it's best to argue its point - either publicly or behind closed doors. There was a ton of information to share.

My political friends will say that shrewd negotiating skills - those possessed by lawyers and public affairs professionals - were the most critical factor in this process.

I disagree. All parties in this debate were out in the open on this one, they took the battle to the streets, to the news media, to any location that would give their side the advantage.

On a tactical level - a lawyer or political guru may bring tremendous resources to the table. On a political level - trades are being made. But in terms of gaining advantage, it comes down to communications and all the functions wrapped under the public relations umbrella.

This episode was about making a convincing argument. Start with the right key messages that resonate. Develop fact sheets and other materials to back up your point. Anticipate what the other sides will do and say and have "counter" statements ready. Look for other organizations to support your side. (The mayor pulled out Al Gore for this one). Figure out who will have the most credibility on the issue and place them before the public. Test the message. Rehearse because you will only get 30 seconds of TV news time and one paragraph in a story. Carry out a campaign to articulate your side. Engage the news media and other interested parties. Keep your message focused and clear - and don't waver. Anticipate course corrections.

This is public relations. It's not about "image" but about artfully and effectively communicating with the public. It's not about "spin" because in a debate like rate hikes - spin will get you crucified. It's about bringing out facts that, of course, support your side but more importantly reveal additional details that others (news media, the public, potential supporters) did not know and need to consider.

This was one very complex public relations effort because a lot was at stake and because multiple arguments were being made. A mayor who recently hired a pro-business "czar" is now proposing a rate hike that business groups said would create more layoffs and even force companies to leave town. It was a rate hike coming at a time when citizens are still eating meat loaf and baloney sandwiches and looking for work.

Slice up this classic public relations effort and you'll find the art of analyzing trends, predicting consequences, managing communications between a company/organization and the public, counseling, implementation and then moving into crisis mode.

In the final analysis, the winning side had the better public relations plan.

To its credit, the pro-hike side did try to communicate one of the more important facts - that the city is facing emission reduction mandates and there is a long lead time to achieve these requirements. But that was countered with: "well, let's see if we can postpone this until the economy improves." (Look at how this "let's defer" decision played out at the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California - when its board rejected a larger water rate hike a few years ago, only to later realize it was really needed and now they are playing catch-up in a down economy). The mayor tried to emphasize new green jobs from his proposal, but that was countered by questions of whether these were simply a transfer of existing jobs.

Communicating your side. It is: creating a strategy and incorporating the functions of communications, community relations, government affairs, media relations, speech writing and more.

Public relations.

What to expect when Tiger hits Augusta

2010-03-28T08:14:00.000-07:00

It has become a public relations case study, unfolding before our very eyes. An international figure facing a major personal crisis. With the Masters golf tournament approaching, the eyes of all my public relations colleagues will be glued to the TV and other news mediums to see what happens next.

I submit the Tiger Woods story is perhaps one of the most unique, from a public relations standpoint. And, no one has been right or offered the perfect public relations solution. Myself included.

Early in this saga, within the first few days and weeks of the famous Thanksgiving night car crash, some news columnists suggested this story was none of our business. I said here they were wrong and I think that argument has since been proven ridiculous. The actions of a top CEO - Tiger is head of a major business enterprise - can have significant consequences if they impact the operations and financial outcomes. In Tiger's case, he had built an image that was integral to the success of his enterprise. That image included being a family man and someone we could respect because he appeared to be living his life in an ethical manner.

So, for us PR folks, we now are wondering how Tiger will recover, and how much he can recover. This is what we have seen from Tiger, so far: Silence, entering rehab, a very scripted public apology, back to rehab, an announcement he'll return to golf, two interviews with time limitations ("hope fans like me and some topics are still a private matter"), Tiger seen swinging a golf club at Augusta.

The next huge step is when he returns to the links. Tiger must play golf. That is his business, both from the prize money of a tournament and from the endorsements. He lost all but two major sponsors.

Tiger was very shrewd in selecting the Masters for his return. Fan decorum rules at this prestigious course will help control any public outbursts that would be captured on camera. At least, around the links. Augusta can't control what happens outside, or when the world's media roam the course to interview fans. A few other writers have their own view of why Augusta is a prime location for Tiger.

Here is my prediction. The stories at Augusta will be (a) fan reaction and countless "man-on-the-street" interviews, (b) Tiger's game - can he play under this stress?, (c) endless recaps of Tiger's saga, (d) a look at the media covering this event, (e) why other players are upset by the distraction, (f) oh, yeah, the guy who won the 2010 Masters - and it won't be Tiger, and (g) assessments after assessments of how did Tiger fare? And multiple stories in between. Will Tiger take Arnold Palmer's advice to be more open with the media?

What is not known is whether Tiger will visit the press room during the match to take questions. He'll have to if he wins. Will CBS call him into the booth? Likely. But don't expect much.

In my view, the days following the Masters will be the most important. Ari Fleischer won't be there to guide him. Tiger will have gotten this "first-game-back" off his back and will be looking for normalcy on the horizon. And that includes his family.

No, the most crucial days for Tiger and the rebuilding of his empire will be following Augusta. The fan reaction at the next golf tournament, his ability to control his message, will he remain married and his ability to show remorse - in a genuine way.

The World Water Day no one knows

2010-03-22T08:26:00.000-07:00

It's the first Monday of Spring. It's also World Water Day,(that link is sort of a "fake site - the real Web site is here) an event via the United Nations that will go largely unnoticed in the United States.

Only a few water geeks, some environmental organizations and a couple of water agencies are mustering any kind of "event" to draw attention to one of the planet's most serious issues - clean water.

For a public relations professional, this is both troubling and perplexing.

First, let's talk about this day. There is much to contemplate today, and possibly a few steps for you to take. For starters, you can donate to a great charity to help provide clean water in Haiti. Or, buy something and support Southern California's Heal the Bay (Yuck - only because it's so, so, well, cheap?). Or, sign up for a water forum in Orange County. Or, read the April issue of National Geographic and find out about CA's problems. Or,read about one possible, but expensive, solution to the Golden State's problems. (Perhaps CA's "water day" will be the Nov. 2)?

The real purpose of World Water Day is to make sure the entire planet is well aware of how fragile life is in many parts of Earth. Clean water is hard to come by. Even having a supply of water is hard to come by. The "haves" are to help the "have nots."

Sadly, in Los Angeles, World Water Day 2010 is a non-event (you may have missed a forum last week at the natural history museum). In fact, World Water Day in the U.S. is just a smattering of events across the country. One of CA's most visible water guru is not even in our state.

How did this happen? How did a major United Nations effort simply fade to black in a country that affect the greatest positive change? The "haves" are not engaged.

Any public relations pro will tell you that keeping a major initiative "top of mind" requires a strategic campaign, constant marketing efforts, broad support from the federal government and state governments, cool events and partners (preferably corporate ones). And, in today's world, a strong social media effort.

None of this exists with the U.N. World Water Day. At least, not in the U.S.

It's not enough to throw up a pretty Web site and hope people see it. It's not enough to get a "few" children in the U.S. engaged by wearing a T-shirt for a day. Giving out ideas about how to conduct a World Water Day event in "your city" without any follow-up push is like asking someone to trim a tree without shears. The U.N. is not lacking for money to do some publicity.

So, how about we - the public relations profession - gather (virtually, of course) and develop a campaign that makes World Water Day 2011 the biggest ever in the United States?

Come back here to see how this develops.

One way to stimulate the economy

2010-03-10T16:16:00.000-08:00

CA elections can reap rewards for some of the Golden state's top campaign firms and advisers.

This year looks like public affairs shops, individual consultants, advertising groups and others will reap significant gains. Millions will flow into CA organizations. And, just in time for a few.

While much of the focus has been on the governor's race, where candidates are employing multiple consultants, some of the real cash is on the propositions.

Take, for example, PG&E's spending on little known Prop. 16. The Capitol Weekly has a great report here.

And that is just for the June election. The November propositions, like the $11 million state water bond, are already on pace for record expenditures from the "for" and "against" teams.

Check back here for a tally, soon.

PR firm rankings - the battle and LA

2010-03-09T07:08:00.001-08:00

When I was switching careers from journalism to public relations more than 15 years ago, I had the benefit of a father who was considered a leader in the industry. He suggested I meet a few of his colleagues for what were essentially informational interviews. Many of these executives and managers would point out some required reading, and almost all pointed to O'Dwyer's annual ranking of public relations firms as a starting point when looking at places where I may want to work. They also suggested I get his annual directory.

This week, O'Dwyer's again published its annual ranking of independent public relations firms with major U.S. operations.

Yet, the list is not without controversy. It wouldn't be an O'Dwyer's product without controversy. At least, not until recently.

Missing from this list is Waggener Edstrom, which in prior years would have ranked second.
Read Waggener's explanation here. And, make sure you read the comments for O'Dwyer's lengthy counter, which can also be found on his blog. Eight other firms are missing, including one of my favorites - Peppercom. PRNewswer interviews Jack about "why." O"Dwyer's offers its own explanation here.

The issue revolves around O'Dwyer's asking firms to pay to be listed, and because Jack was personally offended by how some firms treat him.

Of course, the real story is - or should be - how firms did financially in 2009. The list confirms the "heard-on-the-street" talk that this firm or that firm was struggling and laying off staff in a tough economy. For us in Los Angeles, the list is a great insight into the success of some well-known agencies as well as a chance to see how some start-ups are faring.

There are some positive stories in CA, like with Allison and Partners, IW Group, VPE, Edge, and Idea Hall. Sadly, there were more CA firms reporting declines in revenue than gainers. This simply confirms what we were hearing in 2009. (And, see how some firms reported success with a small staff!)

2010 appears brighter, based on the number of RFPs being posted in CA and talk on the street.

Yet, it's hard to know whether the O'Dwyer list will remain relevant. It's hard to find another U.S.-based news outlet where the publisher/owner lets personal bias and feelings enter so prominently into the public arena. (Does anyone see the irony that in the "comment" section of O'Dwyer stories they do not allow "personal attacks"?)

It's hard to see how O'Dwyer can remain in business or expect to keep/build readership when he is constantly biting the hand that feeds him. In an era where trust is so important to news outlets, how can O'Dwyer expect his readers to believe a PR firm list is accurate when he purposefully leaves off agencies because they did not pay for the ranking or they refused to talk to him? How can the O'Dwyer news columns be trusted if the reader has to decipher Jack's own "codes" - like "NANA" to describe the Public Relations Society of America?

This is the former journalist in me. A company refuses to talk to you or give you information? A typical newspaper would fight around the stonewalling and still find a way to report the numbers. We expect this of a newspaper and, in turn, this kind of reporting earns our trust.

O'Dwyer's is needed in the public relations industry. There is plenty of news to cover, plenty of room for comprehensive coverage of the industry. I would have rather seen more in-depth coverage about why some firms showed revenue gains in 2009, comparisons about staffing levels, etc. This is more meaningful news that I can use.

But, honestly, can I recommend to an up and coming public relations professional or college graduate that O'Dwyer's list is recommended reading? Jack? Think about the principles of journalism first.

CA Agriculture communications

2010-02-18T13:31:00.000-08:00

Whether it's dancing raisins, happy cows, a "can a week" of almonds or eat more guacamole, California farmers have spent millions of dollars on advertising campaigns designed to get us to buy more Golden State products.

But do we really appreciate our California farmers?

We're about to find out, via a Canadian public relations and advertising firm - of all things.

The California Agriculture Communications Coalition, via the Western Growers Association, has awarded a contract (advertised as $357,500 over three years) to AdFarm to "communicate the value of the agriculture industry to the state of California and reconnect consumers to the source of their food supply."

The Coalition is the result of a realization that the state's 90 or so agricultural organizations were not together on message and that might be hurting the ag industry's ability to grow in CA. A more unified approach with consistency in communications would help, was the conclusion.

Some may argue that CA's ag industry's worst enemy right now is not a lack of consumer appreciation. I can't tell you how many times I was told in school about the greatness of CA's farm belt, and how it delivered almost all of the nation's fresh produce. No, right now the farmer's worst enemy is court-imposed restrictions on water deliveries. Did anyone see the mile after mile of dust-bowl farms in CA these past few months?

Now comes a Canadian advertising and public relations firm to help on image. It will be fun to watch. Check back for updates.

A Tiger of a statement coming?

2010-02-17T12:02:00.000-08:00

It's been three months and counting for Tiger.

Silence.

Until this Friday, Feb. 19, when he is expected to hold a press conference to.......announce his return to golf.

And, what else? Tiger?

Public relations professionals have almost unanimously criticized Woods and his inner circle for mishandling the golfer's misfortunes from a communications and damage-control standpoint.

I contend his silence may have been the best strategy.

What do you think?

His last "statement" about this was Dec. 11 on his web site, saying he was taking a leave of golf and he was sorry, and he asked forgiveness. He said he wanted to devote his time to being a better father and husband....and person.

In the interim, he has lost a large number of major sponsors. His fellow golfers have turned on him. The PGA has lost money.

He has been the subject of rumor and speculation, much of which - in theory - he could have prevented, controlled or balanced had he spoken or made any visible appearance.

But, my god, look at his case and you'll see why silence may have been the best thing. One affair could have been forgivable. But, a seemingly endless stream of women? This was far too much to overcome for an international figure who had built an empire both on his capabilities and his good-guy image. Does anyone honestly believe a press conference - where we could see a "visibly emotional" Tiger - followed by appearances on Oprah and other carefully crafted publicity tactics would have prevented these losses?

His fall was simply too big for immediate communications.

There has been no true precedent for Tiger. Kobe was a singular event. Other "infidelities" among popular figures were just as limited. And, I contend, no other athlete had the same image or financial empire or impact on his/her sport. So, I argue, it is not as easy as everyone believes - that you can pull out the standard public relations manual and begin the damage control/recovery game.

In Tiger's case, taking a breather may have been the best strategy. Let the damage occur - and it would have occurred like this anyway. Let everyone take their shots. The "truth" in this case is ugly - so why let Tiger try to give his side or try to answer to each and ever little detail? If he talks, it only keeps the story near the top of the news cycle that more. I believe we would have had more press coverage if Tiger spoke right away. So, give it a proper amount of space between "incident" and "press conference."

Why?

People want to forgive Tiger. Sponsors want Tiger back. The PGA needs Tiger. Come back too soon - which marks the start of the forgiveness period, and Tiger makes sponsors and the PGA look too greedy, too eager. Come back too soon and fans won't be ready to forgive. Their anger, hurt and disrepect will still be raging. And, if he is truly trying to repair a marriage - let him. Kobe became a better husband and father, so it's possible. But Kobe didn't have an empire to reassemble.

Tiger's case is simply too big to rush it. I know my colleagues will think I'm nuts. This may be the one and only time I say silence is better.

What do you think Tiger should say Friday? Leave comments here.

Social media, trust and who's controlling it

2010-02-16T08:25:00.000-08:00

First, congratulations to my friend Gail Becker for getting the LA Times to write about her company's latest trust barometer survey regarding social media and how people view who is credible in the this environment.

The Edelman Trust Barometer is a great tool for all public relations professionals.

Now, comes the debate.

In public relations, there has been a battle on two fronts when it comes to social media.

One front is who controls, drives social media at a company - is it marketing or the public relations department? Public relations pros have successfully argued that social media is one tool among many to communicate with your audiences and, thus, one needs a comprehensive strategy. Therefore, public relations should be in charge because this is what we've been doing for decades. Period. End of story.

The other battle is over specialization. Social media created an explosion of smaller firms specializing in social media. While the "big firms" did what they are good at - either creating speciality divisions or gobbling up small shops - companies recognized certain advantages of using smaller, more nimble firms specializing in social media. In fact, some of the most successful social media campaigns in the past two years were conducted by small, independent firms. Check the names on the awards listings.

It's hard to tell why companies chose another service provider over their agency of record. But it's been done before and it will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

In the tech boom of the 1990s, dozens, perhaps hundreds of specialty firms were created to handle the $million of work offered by start-ups. And, like now, existing public relations agencies created speciality divisions to handle that brand of business. I know, because I was put in charge of building the technology practice at the Los Angeles office of the once mighty Stoorza, Ziegaus and Metzger public relations agency. After a while, the best and strongest rose up to take most of the tech business and emerge from the tech bust. However, some of the best and most profitable specialty firms were bought by the bigger agencies. Now,while many tech specialty agencies exist, the conglomerates can easily handle tech accounts.

Today may be different. Unlike the past, companies are more comfortable in having multiple PR agencies vs. a single AOR. So says Fred Muir, formerly of Burson and Marsteller, at a recent PRSA-LA event. If true, then more firms specializing in social media should be around for a while (if they can resist tempting offers by the biggees).

And that means the other battle has begun - who will "drive" the conversation about social media. Edelman's survey is already the subject of debate by the specialists. For example, see the "Endless Plain" blog entry here.

For the good of the profession, let's not leave doubt in the minds of potential clients. Research-driven strategies and tactics should rule the day.

Check back here soon for a listing of some of the better (my opinion, only) social media commentators/experts.

You Tube does it again

2010-01-28T08:34:00.001-08:00

Santa Clarita City Councilman and former mayor Bob Kellar found himself in hot water these past few days after his comments at an anti-illegal immigration rally were spread to a wider audience via You Tube.

Plenty of politicians and others have suffered the You Tube fate or other instances where a comment can be recorded and re-broadcast. This latest incident only reinforces what public relations experts and media training professionals have long advocated: Pretend the microphone is never off.

While Kellar's defendants accurately portrayed his comments as "rhetorical hyperbole" and that the elected official is known for not always speaking in the most politically correct terms, the uproar highlights the need for any individual in the public eye to assume there is a video camera or tape recorder within range of their voice.

Former CA assemblyman Mike Duvall is the most recent example of how a comment can end a career. But, if you Google "politicians caught on You Tube" you will see a host of other examples.

It's not easy for elected officials and other public figures to walk on eggshells and speak "on message" all the time. In many cases when a slip occurs, a politician is in a setting among sympathizers and supporters. In this atmosphere, the guard can come down a bit. Feeling they are among "their kind" who share their views, a public figure will feel more comfortable and "tell them how they really feel." In other instances, they mistakenly believe they are in a non-public setting. In Kellar's case, the factors converged. He was among people who supported his views on illegal immigration. It was a rally on a Saturday and he was not representing himself as a city councilman.

I suppose I should be thankful. These missteps keep me in business.

Trust

2010-01-26T09:05:00.000-08:00

Forbes recently came out with the "10 Most Trusted Celebrities" list, based on research conducted by a Los Angeles-based firm.

While the story begins with why Tiger Woods is obviously not on the list, the story fails to mention that Tiger still has a chance at redemption and recovery. That is, if you simply look at the Forbes list, you will find a couple of celebrities who had their own hiccups and who have managed to move past their personal issues to regain public trust.

A simple Google search should help you find which two of the top 10 celebrities had their own issues. Yes, these missteps did receive mainstream press coverage. No, these personal failings did not even come close to the level of Woods. But, there was damage to the image. At least, only temporarily - if you can believe this latest research.

Certainly, the Tiger Woods fall-from-grace is one of the biggest, if not THE biggest for an international figure. So, one would reason he has a much bigger hole to climb out of and a longer time frame in which to regain public trust.

And that's the point of all this - public trust makes good business sense.

Ever since a few news organizations - like Newsweek and one of its columnists - initially questioned America's fascination with celebrities and argued why a person's private life shouldn't have anything to do with their regular job, there have been plenty of other stories that correctly highlight the ingredients to earning public trust and maintaining a positive reputation.

The entire picture DOES matter. Individuals build a positive public image to earn trust - because they know earned respect will turn into greater financial earnings. There are many core values that we place with corporate leaders - business acumen, decisiveness, ethics and team building. A company's stock price can rise or fall based on the perceived "strength" of its CEO. And, there have been many cases where a "moral misstep" has eroded public confidence in a top executive - even if that leader's business skills remain unchanged. Look at how trust matters leading into DAVOS 2010. Most polling indicates banks have a long road ahead of them to regain public trust. And regaining trust begins with a business leader's ability to earn public respect.

Regaining trust is not impossible. Just look at a couple of celebrities who now are part of a top 10 list.

Top 6.573 things

2009-12-09T07:48:00.001-08:00

It's the time of year for 2010 predictions, musings and rants. Among the many, I'll add mine.

1. Shorten your top # list.

Top (fill in the number) lists are growing shorter. Do you remember "Top 20"? Today, if you come across a top 100 list, you will skim the top 5, maybe the top 10. A few gallant efforts are trying to keep the Top 10 list. (David Letterman will be the last holdout).

Many bloggers are trimming to 5 or 6 points.

Short attention spans? Too many blogs? Smaller computer screens (like my cool new netbook). The scrolling resistance movement?

Let's face it: The fast pace of Twitter and other social media sites is literally leaving you with only 37 seconds to read a linked story before you have to check Tweetdeck again.

The love affair with lists won't entirely fade because bullets and numbers seem to package info very nicely for us. Journalists seem to love them.

So, keep manufacturing lists to get attention.

But, really, we simply don't have time to read any list longer than, say, five things.

(Um, gotta go. I just got 14 new emails, 300 new tweets to check and a long lost high school classmate who just found me on Facebook.)

2. Pithy works. The English language continues to suffer. Spellcheck is used less. The watchdogs we grew up with (i.e., William Safire) are no longer around to beat on us for bad grammar and stupid phrases.

Somehow, we no longer cringe over bad writing, just bad pitches. If it's glib, we'll read it. Substance will continue to take a back seat. But, as long as Snopes is around...Sigh.

3. Sensitivity training needed. Please keep the sensitivity training in court orders and other judgments handed down to public figures, like overpaid athletes who run into stands to fight with fans or a barely audible rapper who beats on his girlfriend.

You see, when the TMZs and the Perez Hiltons of the world rule by shock value, there needs to be a balance. Our only reminder that values still have, well, value is when someone is ordered to do community service. The sentencing phase in celebrity court cases still draws huge amounts of attention.

Side benefit: Cutting the anointed idols down to size is our only hope in slowing the pace of reality programming. (Did you hear about the "marriage referee" show coming next year?)

OK judges - time to be even more creative. Wouldn't an appropriate sentencing order in 2010 require a drunken, out-of-work actress to work five days a week at a Rescue Mission to feed the homeless? Or for a new reality show to be created on Court TV to follow a wannabe-boxer-who-plays-right-tackle in the NFL as he picks up trash along the freeway or talks to young boys about the dangers of pre-marital sex?

4. Aggregating continues. The cry of "I just need one site that gives me everything" will continue as millions of more blogs and Web sites appear and strain the world's server capacities. Anyone or any company that delivers this solution will be placed next to Ben Franklin or Thomas Edison and hailed as delivering the eighth wonder of the world. Yeah, I know: Google, Bing and others are trying.

5. "Instant" moves into "future." Today, I can use a Droid to scan an item at my local clothing retailer and compare the price online to find the cheapest price. Instantly. If the online price is cheaper, I can actually stand in that retailer's store, order the same product over the Internet and somehow escape without the store manager giving me angry stares or spraying me with a cologne sample. I can use the GPS function of my phone to hunt down a reporter attending the same conference, or become the "mayor" of a coffee shop. My Google page is automatically refreshing my current search with Twitter updates.

Now is now.

So, what's next? Telling me what's going to happen. Now, that will be cool. Heck, the Weather Channel has been doing this for years.

Think of all the time I will save if someone can tell me that my PR pitch to the Wall Street Journal (online edition, of course) will fail or succeed before I waste my time crafting that perfect pitch.

6.573. Four jobs. Multitasking and working from home were simply training and a precursor to morphing a single job description into three or four. Employers won't hire one person. They will hire a fourth of a person. We'll all work from home, answering to 3 or 4 bosses or "paycheck providers" (as the new mantra emerges). The possibilities under the new economy are endless.

Still with me? Then you must not have a Twitter account.

Happy Holidays.