03.29.07
Bushy’s latest PR disaster
Some astonishing things are happening in politics lately. Forget the Attorney General saga or the fact that we’re in the fifth year of war with no light at the end of the tunnel. Our President quoted an unnamed blog yesterday that was apparently written by an Iraqi, who claimed that the markets in Baghdad are starting to get busier and people are returning to their homes in Baghdad. There are even some neighborhoods in Baghdad where one can go unescorted by security. In other words—it’s getting better, folks. One CNN reporter urged the President to immediately return from the Neverland where he’s been hiding because there simply aren’t any safe neighborhoods in Baghdad.
Moreover, somehow this erroneous information migrated to the McCain camp and he also quoted this blog to drive this positive and uplifting message to his potential voters. So basically what we have here is this: Short of turning on television, reading horrendous exposes in the papers and magazines, let’s just source a questionable blog, which was probably sponsored by our government to begin with. We all remember that famous Lincoln group that was fabricating stories about “progress” in Iraq in Iraqi papers. That group was formed by the Pentagon’s “Department of Propaganda” a few years back to create uplifting bullshit about the dismal situation on the ground. I wouldn’t be surprised one bit if Lincoln Group is behind these blogs as well.
This drives the point I made a few months ago. Are blogs really ceasing to be one of the last honest mediums and becoming too groomed to serve a political or public relations purpose? There is nothing wrong with public relations professionals monitoring and potentially working with bloggers. But let’s not get carried away quite yet. Senior administration officials quoting these dubious sources to once again lie to the American public is beyond appalling. Our own White House is in its own P.R. disaster and I really don’t know how they’re going to spin out of this one. I wonder if Bush’s P.R. team is monitoring the dismay of the American people expressed through countless blogs with the same gusto as this “positive” information emerging from Baghdad. Somehow, I doubt it.
03.28.07
Wal-Mart tries again
Great article in this week’s New Yorker about Wal-Mart and its desperate attempts to improve its much tarnished reputation. To his credit, the writer, Jeffrey Goldberg, tries to paint a balanced picture and not trash Wal-Mart, and its P.R behemoth Edelman too much. But you can’ help but wonder: How sleazy and deeply flawed Wal-Mart is as a company and what would it be like to have them as a client? You can find the article here:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/02/070402fa_fact_goldberg
The problem with having Wal-Mart as a client, and having to stand by it as vehemently as Edelman does, is to try to genuinely believe in the fact that Wal-Mart can do a lot of good. I really wonder how many of the intelligent sophisticated employees of Edelman really truly believe this. Sure, Wal-Mart isn’t all bad. Provide thousands of items at great discounts? Check. Employ thousands and possibly scrape people off welfare? Check. Provide medical coverage for employees? Check. Sounds good right? What if that medical coverage has a $3000 deductible, as Goldberg points out, which is unaffordable for those with a salary of $17,000? I can’t afford that kind of a deductible and I have a much better job. What about all the sweatshops where these “cheap” items come from. And all the resistance to unions. How would one “spin” that?
Wal-Mart is a very difficult client. Wal-Mart belongs in its own bucket of sleaze, and whoever gets into that bucket with them becomes almost as sleazy as they are. Working for Wal-Mart is almost equivalent to being Cheney’s publicist. I wonder what kind of a moral breakdown I’d have to go through to be Vice’s spokeswoman. I couldn’t even imagine.
Just as I was writing this, I learned that New York City blocked Wal-Mart from opening a store here. According to AP, Ed Ott, executive director of the New York City Central Labor Council said “We don’t care if they’re never here…We don’t miss them.” Thank you, Ed, we sure don’t.
03.26.07
On Elizabeth Edwards
Allow me to veer off my usual observations about the online business and public relations and comment instead about one remarkable and graceful lady–Elizabeth Edwards. I applaud the decision of John and Elizabeth to continue campaigning, although her body will be ravaged with an unforgiving form of cancer for a long time. Bone cancer is incurable. It spreads through the body, immersing one into a remarkable and constant pain. Ironically, one can live with bone cancer for years but it is a very tough existence.
The only reason I know this—my mother died of bone cancer almost 15 years ago. I witnessed her suffer for several years and imagined in horror what Mrs. Edwards might be going through a few years down the line. I also know what her children will go through. And they will need an immense amount of support.
John and Elizabeth Edwards need a lot of strength to pull through their personal crisis in order to continue campaigning. For now they are in the game, and that shows a lot of character, not to mention ambition. I honestly think that John Edwards is the dark horse of this presidential race. But somehow I wonder if the couple will instead turn their presidential aspirations into an opportunity to bring awareness to bone cancer, which unfortunately doesn’t get much attention. I almost wish Mrs. Edwards will also set up some kind of an organization for the children of bone cancer sufferers. Maybe this will be Mrs. Edwards’ role. As a public figure, thrust into the spotlight by her disease, Elizabeth Edwards has a lot of power in her hands. Although as sick as she is, she needs to first and foremost take care of her health. I hope she puts this power to good use. I wish her well.
03.21.07
All Hail Mizz Vanity
Are you hot enough to be a coveted date for those who’re seeking love online? Well, one self-proclaimed 8.2 Jason Pellegrino says Internet dating services attract a lot of desperate people but they aren’t necessarily good looking. The solution? To start your own dating service and admit only people who’re above 8.0. Whatever that means. In other words, good looking. Very good looking. You submit your photograph, and the online community votes whether to “admit” you into their “hot” clan or not.
Sorry, Jason Pellegrino, but you’re hardly an original. A few years ago I had the pleasure of renting a room from one particularly vain lady who one day appeared on Good Morning America…representing BeautifulPeople.net. For those who don’t have the time to waste on mediocrity, they can attempt to join Beautifulpeople.net. All they have to do is submit a photograph and then over a 72-hour-period, the members vote them in. Or, of course, not vote them in. One hefty fee later, and you’re one of the rare beautiful people. Diane Sawyer was puzzled to no end. But BeautifulPeople.net’s people relented and said they have a right to exclude anyone who’s not up to their standards. And they’re proud of it.
I went on both sites just to check them out. Of course I can’t “surf” the desirable singles because I have to be voted in first. But Beautifulpeople.net makes it absolutely no secret that this is a highly privileged site designed for good looking people only. Their goal is to narrow down the pool of dating applicants only to those who’re gorgeous enough to be admitted to say a Hampton’s Party, or New York fashion week, and thus, their website. Not surprisingly, half the pictures of the new members posted on the site showcased new members very scantily clad. And have I mentioned they were all white?
At first this all seems really funny. It’s partially funny because these sites take themselves so seriously. But somehow, reading about these websites made me reminisce about the days when Internet was truly anonymous. When you could be whomever you wanted without having to showcase your six pack to be admitted to yet another artificially created and somehow very coveted club. But all that said, maybe these people have a point. Good looking people want to be near good looking people. It makes them feel special and accepted. Maybe they have a hard time finding dates as well, which makes them not that different from those lonely fat desperate types they want to run away from. So, for today, let’s all hail vanity and its right to exist online and off. And for those of you who don’t have to surf to find love, bless your lucky stars for your hottie significant other.
03.16.07
Please don’t fly JetBlue in the winter
I actually use JetBlue quite a bit to fly home to California. Boy, am I glad I am not flying home tonight. Once again, JetBlue is canceling all of its two hundred something flights out of New York City. Crisis PR aside, this will affect JetBlue’s business. My first reaction—is flying JetBlue a good idea altogether?
JetBlue said on its website the passengers will be allowed to rebook the flights for further date. The airline also introduced a passengers’ bill of rights a month ago, potentially making other companies and airlines follow suit. The bill of rights first and foremost promises the customers to be treated fairly if the flight doesn’t leave the gate on time. But what about a cancellation? Is this a fair treatment?
“We’ve always tried to take a wait-and-see approach with the weather … believing that people want to get to their destination late, rather than never,” White said Friday. But since the Feb. 14 storm — and the maelstrom of complaints that followed — JetBlue has had “a shift in thinking,” Sebastian White, JetBlue spokesperson, told Associated Press.
Back in February, during the storm when thousands waited for hours on end, the public was more inclined to forgive JetBlue because of the good reputation the airline has established in the past. This time, the airline is being too cautious and thus, can be seen as becoming unreliable.
This is no longer about their public relations, which, as I mentioned before, they handled very well. This is about someone being able to book a flight and actually get to the destination without overtaxing other airlines because of your airline’s shortcomings. This is about knowing the airline will do everything in its power to actually get you to your destination. At the same time, would you rather be stranded at an airport waiting for conditions to improve or know that your flight is cancelled and thus make other arrangements? As I am writing this, I learned that American Airlines cancelled something like 100 flights out of JFK, and Delta cancelled 65. I am looking out of my window and the weather looks dismal. Maybe it is better to know you’re not going anywhere in advance. Maybe this is good PR after all.
When life gives you lemons, eat Quiznos
According to Consumerist, a shopper blog, Quiznos has a regulation in its crisis management plan that says that in the event of natural disaster, terrorist attack or other ills, the company’s sandwiches should be immediately distributed to relief workers, victims, city workers, and others. Sounds like a great idea, right? Well, of course, if the sandwiches are to be given out to help out the struggling the community. In reality, Quiznos wants to make its brand as visible as possible for publicity purposes and exploit the natural disaster to push its products.
You can find the blog here:
Let’s say for fairness sakes, that there’s nothing wrong for a company to seek publicity. All companies do that, as well they should. But to exploit natural disasters to push its own brand? I say that’s blatantly wrong. Perhaps Quiznos never meant for any of it to sound so harsh or for any of it to leak to begin with. I have a hunch Quiznos will go into serious damage control over this. Sad to say, if something serious were to happen and Quiznos were to go through with their plan, it sure would make them look good. This little leak is a stark reminder that corporations and their publicity practitioners ought to be more and more careful of leaks and have to be prepared for all sorts of crisis communications.
03.08.07
How did we trust the guy named Essjay?
Turns out that one of Wikipedia most “prolific” contributors, who went under pen name Essjay, and claimed to be a professor of theology was…nowhere near that. He was a 24-year-old Ryan Jordan who didn’t even finish college.
Now, Wikipedia has fully entered crisis PR and said that it is going to seek proof of credentials from all the contributors. Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Wales, told the Associated Press that contributors would still remain anonymous but the company would require proof that they actually went to school and got a degree in something. Not a bad start, considering Wikipedia already has something like 1.7 million entries in English alone, it’s about time.
I must admit, I relied on Wikipedia a lot in the last year. For the most part, it seemed like a trustworthy source, although I would always be tempted to check facts. I did see a few mistakes (Apple launched iPod in 2003. Really? No, can’t be.) but for the most part, Wikipedia provided a very good basis for information.
This story made me realize that much more how much of what we read, see, or buy online is based on trust and trust alone. I don’t really think about this trust, I have been an active participant in the online space for years. I do it automatically. These types of stories make me think and really pause. How much fraud is out there to begin with? How did Ryan Jordan, a man with such a non-descript name, parlay his way into writing thousands of articles, some of which, I am sure became reference points for other people? The founder of Wikipedia is said to be a big believer in anonymity. Maybe this very anonymity has its downsides too.
That said, there’s a bad apple everywhere. Let’s this be just a bad seed. But let’s also think every time we read something on these user generated sites. We shouldn’t take it all at face value to begin with.
03.05.07
YouTube Early Struggles
BBC will broadcast its clips on YouTube. Not just the news, but clips from some of its best shows. Lots of other smaller companies are signing up for YouTube as well. As the Times reported last week, about 1000 smaller media companies are now on board, including the NBA (not so small, but still). The NBA and its fans would be able to broadcast clips from games. Others include the Sundance channel, smaller video producers, and a company called Wind-up Records. Fans will be able to stream clips online, as well as listen to some of the music the company offers.
So what’s the problem? These guys aren’t making the news. The Times reports YouTube has signed up for more than 200 partnerships per quarter. I am sure their PR departments are working overtime, but its falling on deaf ears and that is unfortunate. The fact that NBC and Viacom don’t want to work with YouTube seems more hefty and disappointing, but it shouldn’t be. The big guns want more money or want to launch their own video casting sites. This would be my guess. They also don’t want to dilute the brand and show CSI clips amidst the sea of amateur singers and kittens YouTube is unfortunately famous for.
Regardless of whether Viacom and NBC sign up for the service, YouTube will become a great platform for video broadcasting online. It will also be a very useful tool for public relations professionals, as they look for more ways to showcase their clients’ videos or to make announcements, the way JetBlue CEO did recently. It may also become a new way for young filmmakers and producers to show their work.
It seems to me YouTube is still deciding what its brand is going to be and some great players are coming on board to help out. For now, I’ll watch re-runs of “Absolutely Fabulous”, and keep my fingers crossed Jon Stewart comes back. But if he doesn’t, maybe I’ll tune into something new, something I haven’t heard of, and discover a new talent. That’ll definitely be worth the time.
Peeling oneself away from Paris
Last week Associated Press said they will stop writing about Paris Hilton. The celebutante was caught driving with suspended license and AP put out a 300-word report about the incident. But after that AP announced this would be the last time they will report about Paris, barring anything critical from happening. I, personally, applaud this decision. I am sure the reporter covering her is also breathing a big sigh of relief. This is brave and ballsy. AP, one of the founding organizations of American journalism, and one of the most reliable news sources in the world, is essentially saying that it is refusing to make a story out of something that is a non-story. Paris Hilton is not a story by any journalistic standards. And therefore, she’s not crossing any more AP wires. Thank you, AP.
Years ago, Dan Rather made a decision not to report any more news about Chandra Wilson, until her remains (or she, alive) were found. This decision also made the news. Rather always talked about courage. He even signed off from his last broadcast by wishing his viewers courage. For him, courage meant many things, including being able to stand up for one’s editorial conviction.
The other day, CNN followed the courage of their convictions when they chose not to broadcast from the funeral of Anna Nicole Smith, opting to cover the bus overturning on the Atlanta highway for hours on end. It wasn’t perhaps as juicy, from the gossip point of view, but this was a respectful decision that set the network apart from the rest. By the same token, AP set itself apart, and took what some may see as an unpopular route, but ultimately, a respectful one.
I wondered what it would be like to live without celebrity news altogether. It’s easy for editors to argue that reporters must continue writing about celebrities because this is what people want to read. But this is a self-perpetuating machine. The more we hear about celebrities’ lives, the more we think we want to hear. But if we stopped hearing and reading about their romps, rehab stints and love lives, would we really miss them all that much? I hope more outlets continue to refuse coverage of Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears and Nicole Richie’s arrests and struggles in rehab. Let’s welcome brave, courageous editorial decisions not to follow the pack, but to strive for higher levels of journalism. We’d all be a little healthier hearing less news about someone’s ultimately very unhealthy life.
