Listening In the Internet ‘Hallway’
Photo credit: www.trueforcedloneliness.com/
Received some nice amplification of my recent interview with the Spiral16 blog:
You’re going to be hearing more about this as we get further into the social media age, but Alex Greenwood outlines the case for monitoring social media as a means of growing a business or other organization and protecting its interests. Isn’t that what PR is about?
[...]
Alex Greenwood likens social media monitoring to being out in the hallway, say, the Internet, listening to the talk there. How do you know your organization’s name will come up? You don’t until it does, or a reporter calls. But even if your organization doesn’t come up for a while, the names of competitors, or the emergence of new business conditions, will be generating buzz. If you’re listening, you’ll be gaining valuable new business intelligence.
“Companies and organizations that monitor the social media space today – and use the data to address problems and opportunities –are years ahead of the game,” Greenwood believes. “Aha,” he adds, “a competitive edge. Who doesn’t like that?”
Read more at: Listening In the Internet ‘Hallway’ | Flack Me.
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.
Best PR Advice…Ever
The Cover-Up was Worse Than the Crime
“When you’re in the mix of these really obtuse situations where nobody really knows the facts, in some sense the facts are less important than your posture toward the facts,” says Mr. Reeves, the former Merrill Lynch media relations executive.
“People are reasonable. They know companies make mistakes, and people will forgive an honest mistake. They will not forgive a dishonest cover-up.”
via P.R. Missteps Fueled Fiascos at BP, Toyota and Goldman – NYTimes.com.
The Lawyer Vs. P.R.
Credit: http://pharmamkting.blogspot.com
This week we’ve looked at some of the most wretched P.R. crises, spurred by a comprehensive article in the New York Times. Today, we look at the fight behind the scenes to minimize P.R. and legal damage:
In times of crisis, communications professionals and lawyers often pursue conflicting agendas. Communications strategists are inclined to mollify public anger with expressions of concern, while lawyers warn that contrition can be construed as admissions of guilt in potentially expensive lawsuits.
For BP, this tension burst into view in May, when executives went to Capitol Hill with officials from two of its contractors: Transocean, which owned the offshore rig that exploded, and Halliburton, which aided BP in drilling. Executives from the three companies each disowned culpability while pointing fingers at one another.
“What that screamed is the lawyers are in control,” says Mr. Reeves. “All it did was get everybody all the more peeved at them.”
It’s a tough call. Legal is trying to keep you out of court–or worse jail. P.R. is trying to save your credibility, and by extension your business. Based on my experience, I believe honesty is the best policy. Transparency is critical.
Of course, I also believe BP would have fired me on the spot, because I would’ve recommended we throw ourselves on the mercy of public opinion–ala Tylenol.
If there is no doubt mistakes were made–if you’re caught dead to rights–then your appeal to the Court of Public Opinion (not to be confused with The People’s Court, though a bailiff named Rusty is always cool) should go something like this:
Scenario: ABC Company has been accidentally dumping factory greywater into river tributaries that feed stock ponds. There’s no wiggle room–they’re busted on 60 Minutes.
Here’s the statement I would recommend:
“ABC Company admits and takes full responsibility for our mistake. We take our commitment to the environment very seriously. This event has not only been embarrassing but an inexcusable violation of the trust the public has bestowed upon us. Our usually reliable safeguards and policies were not followed and we are taking measures to discipline those who caused this failure. We will also work with the community to undertake reasonable measures to clean up the leaked water and make whole those damaged economically by this incident. It is my sincere hope that we can regain the trust of our community and strengthen that trust as we move forward. Thank you. My chief engineer and I will be happy to take questions about our next steps.”
I can hear some of you now: “Dude, that’s nuts! Never admit guilt!” True, you have to protect your company and its assets; this is a statement of last resort. However, plenty of people will disagree with our strategy of telling the truth even as a last resort.
To that we say this: if you’re caught by 60 Minutes, do you really want to be the guy sweating under the grueling geriatric grilling of Mike Wallace? You won’t win.
Mistakes owned-up to quickly are a matter of forgiveness. Drag your feet, dissemble or lie and it becomes a matter of corruption, criminality or mistrust. Ducking or covering up and apologizing only after you have nowhere else to hide–or under court order–will effectively destroy your reputation and cost you in money, energy, time and brand equity.
In another life I was Vice President of a $70 million healthcare management firm. We made some mistakes from time to time. As a rule, we told the truth and did our best to make it right (at least anytime I had any say in it). It wasn’t always profitable. I wasn’t always popular with the management team. I have no regrets about that policy.
I have no idea if there were intramural arguments between BP legal and P.R.–but if there were, it looks like legal won. Hmm. After being obstinate, disingenuous and a total PR failure, you have to wonder what BP’s management thinks in the dark midnights of their souls. Do they admit–if only to themselves–that they made a bad situation far worse?
Did the money they thought they were saving by reducing lawsuits outweigh the complete meltdown of their brand–thus hindering future profits? Or was the fact that their profits would far outweigh relative short-term damages the controlling factor?
Did they stay up nights worrying about this? I doubt it.
Can the P.R. Crisis Be So Bad You Can’t Fix it?
Our look at P.R. missteps continues, inspired by an article in the New York Times about recent P.R. disasters. Today we look at the question posed early in the article:
Are some crises so dire that public relations victory is simply not on the menu? And, if so, what’s an embattled company to do?
Yup. There are times when no amount of good P.R. advice will make up for lousy decisions, a lack of planning or just plain evil-doing. Read on:
Eric Dezenhall, a communications strategist in Washington who worked in the White House for President Ronald Reagan, argues that the standard playbook is useless when the facts are sufficiently distasteful. (He would know. He once represented Michael Jackson after allegations of child molestation.)
Mr. Dezenhall is particularly scornful of the classic imperative to “get out in front of the story,” as if swift disclosure provides inoculation against all ugly realities. When the facts are horrible, he argues, the best P.R. fix may simply be to absorb the pounding and get back to business, while eschewing the sort of foolish communications gimmicks that can make things worse.
Consider Tiger Woods. His now-infamous fondness for women other than his wife enthralled the nation, all the while torturing corporate sponsors who paid gargantuan sums to associate their brands with his winning image.
“What was Woods supposed to do?” Mr. Dezenhall asks in an essay in the publication Ethical Corporation. “Call an immediate press conference and rattle through a list of lady friends declaring, ‘Tiffany, yes; Trixy, no, Amber, don’t remember …’? And if Woods had pre-empted with a confession, would this have caused the news media, bloggers, pundits, Hooters waitresses and everyone else to collectively reward him with their silence? Not a chance.”
Our take on Mr. Woods and others caught with their…ahem…hands in the cookie jar:
What I’ve learned after nearly fifteen years as a crisis communications consultant and practitioner informs my recommendations on how to save your rear end when the effluent hits the rotary oscillator:
1. Tell the truth (or as much as you can without getting yourself thrown in jail–ask your lawyer if this is applicable.) This rule is a little different for celebs who wreck their cars and/or marriages than it is for a company caught cooking the books or polluting the water table; but the essence of it is the same: don’t dissemble, don’t lie. Here’s a pretty good statement for a celeb/politician who did a bad thing that hurt no one but himself and/or family:
“I have made a terrible error in judgment that has unfortunately hurt my [spouse, kids, significant other]. I have let my family, friends and supporters down, and there is nothing I can do at this moment to fix that. Though this incident is certainly of interest to those who have [followed my career, supported me, bought my albums, seen my movies, etc.], I would appreciate some time and space so I can work this out with my family. I would also ask for restraint from the media and remind them that there are real people caught up in this situation through no fault of their own who deserve as much privacy as possible. If we get to a point where we would like to share more, I assure you I will contact you. Thank you for your consideration, good day to you.”
[If you are crying, wipe your tears with a handkerchief. Walk away from the mic. Now. Take no more questions. NO MORE QUESTIONS. No rambling, Governor Sanford. ]
2. Shut up. You’ve made your statement. You’ve either said you are going to work this out privately with your family or your company has laid out what it is going to do to make the situation right (or you’ve lawyered up and said you have nothing to say due to pending legal action). So shut up about it and get busy. Resist the urge to use the media as a confessional. Save that for when your marriage/company is cleaned up and solid again.
The article shifts gears from personalities to corporations:
Much the same can be said for BP, Toyota and Goldman, he suggests, with attempts to win public affection almost certain to be viewed as insincere so long as real problems persisted — oil spilling into the ocean, cars crashing, Wall Street profiting while ordinary people suffered.
We’ll look at that in our next post. Stay tuned.
