How the News Media Can Frame an Issue
Click photo for source.
The long-awaited (yet largely ignored by the public as far as I can tell) Presidential Oil Spill Commission’s final report was issued last week, with a comprehensive examination of what happened before, during and after the fateful events on BP’s Deepwater Horizon platform. Certainly within the report there is plenty of fodder for Public Relations and crisis communications pros. One thing that struck me involves the way certain members of the media decided on a frame for their stories and stuck to it.
Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post picked out this nugget about CNN’s Anderson Cooper (emphasis mine):
From Chapter Five, page 139:
“Local resentment became a media theme and then a self-fulfilling prophesy. Even those who privately thought the federal government was doing the best it could under the circumstances could not say so publicly. Coast Guard responders watched Governor Jindal — and the TV cameras following him — return to what appeared to be the same spot of oiled marsh day after day to complain about the inadequacy of the federal response, even though only a small amount of marsh was then oiled. When the Coast Guard sought to clean up that piece of affected marsh, Governor Jindal refused to confirm its location. Journalists encouraged state and local officials and residents to display their anger at the federal response, and offered coverage when they did. Anderson Cooper reportedly asked a Parish President to bring an angry, unemployed offshore oil worker on his show. When the Parish President could not promise the worker would be ‘angry,’ both were disinvited.“
“This unattributed statement is completely false . . . [the claim] that it was journalists who were encouraging residents and state and local leaders to ‘display their anger at the federal response’ is offensive.”
Use Your Powers for Good, Not Evil
Star Wars is a convenient (and yes, overused) pop culture touchstone. Let me state for the record that I enjoy the movies, but aside from a fascination with Darth Vader in my pre-teen years I’m not one to quote lines from the movies.
Well, okay, except for “these aren’t the droids you’re looking for,” which I say accompanied by a bizarre hand gesture. Actually I replace the word “droids” with whatever topic the conversation is orbiting, which could be anything from “delicious martinis” to “diapers” to “male pattern baldness solutions.”
Anyway, one thing public relations professionals have to be keenly aware of is (as the man said in Star Wars) using their powers for good, not evil.
Case in point, Institute of Public Relations Malaysia president Datuk Mohd Hamdan Adnan, who made no bones about it: “Among the negative activities of certain media practitioners are spin doctoring, flacking, astroturfing, opponent defining and fronting. All these can threaten peace and order in the country.”
He continued (source here):
“Presently, almost all organisations require various PR expertise and as such, PR practitioners must have the skills to fulfill that need.”
He said among the benefits from the creation of a Public Relations Profession Act would be recognition and prestige for the profession in Malaysia, monitoring of the practices and developments of the PR profession and industry, and ensuring PR practitioners had acquired the education, and suitable training and experience before being recognised as qualified PR practitioners, in line with other professions that were protected by statutes.
Sounds like the way lawyers and doctors administer their profession in the U.S., eh?
Not a bad idea, especially if you agree that the abuse of information, facts and the warping of motive and intent can be disastrous. In the United States, there is no such governing body for the profession, aside from the purely voluntary standards and codes of ethics as set by the Public Relations Society of America or the International Association of Business Communicators.
Both codes are admirable, forthright and necessary–though completely unenforceable. Just as it was in the Wild West, any modern-day snake oil salesman can sell elixirs with malignant properties across the electronic frontier. Corporate mistakes can be hidden under layers of spin; governmental lies can be excused by propaganda, customer complaints may be expunged from the “public” website.
This is the way any skilled–and unscrupulous–public relations professional can use their powers for evil. Instead of owning up to mistakes or misjudgments, clients can activate the PR machine and through “spin doctoring, flacking, astroturfing or opponent defining and fronting,” come out smelling like a rose.
It’s easier in a way. Clients who want that sort of thing will love their “PR man” for it. But in the long run, is it the best thing? I mean, is there any doubt among serious minded people that BP’s PR mission was not one of transparency, but obfuscation and deflection? Okay, and just how do you feel about BP?
BP is only one example of the misuse of PR in a culture rife with the warping of facts to turn public opinion. What is the culture of spin doing to our country? Indeed, to our selves?
I am not saying you throw your client to the wolves when the going gets tough–but you don’t take the easy way out and commit lies of omission or commission, either.
What’s hard is to have the courage to tell that high-paying client when they are indeed wrong–when these are indeed not the droids they’re looking for.
If they made a mistake or did harm, clients should be advised by PR professionals that a policy of honesty, contrition and a desire to do better is in their best interests and indeed the interests of society as a whole.
Ultimately it’s the client’s decision, but public relations professionals shouldn’t enable shifts to the Dark Side.
Google Commands Big Cash from PR-Damaged Brand
Public relations is all about reputation management–your credibility is the coin of the business realm. We’re pretty hard on companies and brands that take a cavalier attitude about their credibility–because once you lose that, it’s all over. Or is it?
Admittedly, we have strongly implied that you can’t buy your way out of a PR disaster, but the oily BP sure makes us think twice:
Before BP could stem the oil gusher at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, it unleashed $100 million in ad spending, largely on network TV, to stem the damage to its image. But it also started spending heavily where it had never spent much before: buying ads in Google’s search results.
How much did BP spend on search? In two months, BP went from spending very little on search advertising — about $57,000 a month — to becoming one of Google’s top advertisers, dropping nearly $3.6 million in the month of June alone, according to an internal Google document obtained by Advertising Age. That pushed BP into the upper echelon of search advertisers, in a league with Expedia, which spent at least $5.9 million in June, Amazon, which spent at least $5.8 million, and eBay, which spent at least $4.2 million.
This is a significant outlay, even for BP, which spent $94 million on advertising in 2009, and $78.7 million in the first six months of 2010 alone excluding search, according to Kantar Media. Search advertisers only pay when their ads convert or get a click, and in June the crisis was still at full-boil, driving clicks on BP&’s ads. But if BP kept spending at this rate, search would’ve become one of its bigger advertising line items by the end of the year, up there with network, cable or spot TV.
[...]
BP’s increase underscores how important Google has become for reputation management, and in the battle for public opinion. In the wake of the spill, Google was a natural first stop for people seeking information, and BP bought up dozens of keywords associated with the disaster such as “oil spill,” “leak,” “top kill” and “live feed” as it vied for clicks with news stories, images of oiled wildlife and plaintiff attorneys trolling for clients.
via What Big Brands Are Spending on Google – Advertising Age – Digital.
According to BP, ad expenditures during the active spill were $5 million per week.
BP’s ad strategy now follows the typical trajectory of crisis PR, he says. It didn’t start out that way. BP was slow to connect with consumers and gulf residents right after the spill. Tony Hayward’s numerous gaffes didn’t help the company’s image, which came across as inept and out of touch. There’s little question that his mismanagement of the company’s public image led to his ouster as CEO.
So how’s the advertising paying off in PR improvement? A recent AP poll says that “some 66 percent of those surveyed continue to disapprove of BP’s performance, down from a whopping 83 percent in June.” Though still dismal, it does look like the ad spending is helping. However, it’s also certainly due to the fact that time has passed and the oil spill isn’t leading the newscasts anymore. The public has turned to the latest Sarah Palin Facebook pronouncement, Paris Hilton’s cocaine possession arrest and even something important, like the president’s new rug.
Sure, we’ve seen the TV ads BP is using to rebuild its tattered, oil-stained image–that was as predictable as a blob of oil on the beach at Destin. But who would’ve thought they would have spent all that coin on Google search ads?
Clearly, the internet is now the 800 lb. gorilla of reputation management, and Google has some serious bananas.
Hat tip to Shelly Kramer for inspiring this post.
Warren Buffett Agrees: Fire BP CEO
Warren Buffett, the billionaire “Oracle of Omaha” agreed with our previous assertions that BP CEO Tony Hayward (already pushed in the background, but still a symbol for the mess BP made) should be fired.
Good to know we’re on the right side of the Berkshire Hathaway investment genius.
Click on the link below to view the brief video on slide 7 “Buffett on BP.”
Warren Buffett On The Economy, The Deficit, LeBron James And BP (VIDEO).
BP Gets New Face…Will It Work?
Regular readers will note that we have called on BP to do one thing to give them some PR breathing room: fire or otherwise silence the tone-deaf CEO Tony Hayward.
Well, looks like they have done so in the person of BP managing director Robert Dudley. Hayward has been shunted to the background in favor of the Mississippi native. He did a deft job handling Meredith Viera’s pointed questioning on this morning’s “Today Show” on NBC.
A key thing he said is that BP would be “listening” to all parties. A smart move, as this is the first step in making amends: letting people vent, express their feelings and list what they need to be made whole. This is a good first step in raising BP’s sunken PR ship. He also stayed out of the prickly 
federal moratorium issue.
The question is, will he make a difference over the long haul?
The Wall Street Journal’s blog has an excellent rundown of opinions from the punditocracy.
We’ll be watching, and yep, commenting on the PR moves made by all players in this tragic situation.
What do you think? The comments section awaits your thoughts.
Take One for the Team, Tony.
What should BP CEO (and foot-in-mouth disease victim) Tony Hayward do to ease the PR disaster of the oil spill?
Assigning one spokesperson who can stay on message is a start.
Two spokespersons (Hayward and COO Doug Suttles seems to be in a pissing match over who gets to shoot their mouth off in front of the cameras) in a crisis communications situation is almost never a good idea, especially when there is apparently no message coordination. 
Hayward needs to be silent. Some argue he needs to put on a hard hat and clean up the mess with crews on the beach. That’s ridiculous. People will perceive that BP is once again trying–and failing–to manipulate the story in their favor in a blatant way. As CEO, he needs to issue carefully vetted, printed statements only– and only statements that support what their designated spokesperson is saying to the media. If they picked Suttles, he at least has a presence that doesn’t suggest complete ineptitude and emotional vacancy.
Or…
Hayward should take one for the team and resign. He’s a dead man walking already; BP will certainly give him the boot once this whole mess is over. But I think it would speak volumes if he were to exit stage left now. It might just give BP a moment of breathing room with the public so they can get their PR act together. I can’t say I’m optimistic about this happening though.
And P.S.: BP’s apparent heavy handed attitude towards the media (i.e blocking access) is PR suicide.
