If Apple wants to be a major player …
In light of our recent analysis of Apple’s PR problems, we thought this post from The Observer might be of interest:
The event was an instructive shambles. In summary, the message was: Apple is good and makes great products; all smartphones have reception problems; Apple loves its customers, which is why it built all those cool retail stores for them; the iPhone problem can be fixed by fitting a rubberised “bumper” over the bezel; and Apple will give everyone a free bumper, so what’s the problem?
The press conference was instructive because it provided such a vivid demonstration of how inexperienced Apple is in its new role as just another company – and how inept Jobs is when faced with the hostile skepticism that is the routine experience of other CEOs.
“When it comes to responding to hostile or sceptical media coverage,” wrote one experienced commentator, “Jobs & co seem to be like a presidential contender who’s been able to skip the primaries and go straight to the general election – missing all the vetting and the hundreds of debates that help to surface any weakness or issues of concern, providing time to develop the skills necessary to respond to any situation. Jobs demonstrated what I've never seen him do in front of an audience: he not only lost his cool, he lost his charm. He was a like an arena rock star who can’t perform acoustic.”
Read the entire post: If Apple wants to be a major player it needs to start behaving like one | Technology | The Observer.
iPhone Deaf: Apple Needs to Answer PR Call
Lemon or Not, the PR Stinks
It’s painful to watch. As a devotee of many of Apple’s products–I’m writing this on a MacBook, various iterations of the iPod have been my constant companion for years–it’s just painful.
Beyond being excellent tools, these Apple products are a statement that I value style and substance, simplicity and elegance, reliability and value. Heck, I’ve crowed from this very blog about the excellent customer service in the Apple store.
That’s why it’s painful to watch the iPhone 4 debacle unfold. Apple, the standard bearer for the best in product development and marketing, has apparently plugged their “PR ears.”
Apple–can you hear the phone ringing?
Let’s review (from the New York Times):
The iPhone 4 has been Apple’s most successful product introduction to date. Yet problems with the antenna surfaced after the phone went on sale and have plagued Apple for weeks.
Apple sought to address those concerns nearly two weeks ago, saying that a software bug caused the iPhone 4 and its predecessors to display signal strength incorrectly.
But Consumer Reports on Monday called into question Apple’s explanation. The magazine said that it had tested the iPhone 4 along with other devices in a lab and determined that the iPhone 4 had a hardware design flaw. It said that it could not recommend the device to its readers until Apple fixed the problem.
Overall Verdict: Tone Deaf PR. (Or is that Dial Tone Deaf PR? Or just iTone Deaf? Punsters, you choose.)
The problem(s):
- They may have known about the problem before the launch–devastating in itself if true–it will rip the band-aid right off any efforts to stanch the bleeding to date.
- They have reacted to this situation almost as poorly as BP (though not on the same scale of disaster, it’s a relatively similar PR crisis for the company in terms of credibility).
- CEO Steve Jobs, known for his mercurial temperament and occasional forays into direct “customer service,” has not made the situation any better–in fact, he’s making Apple seem arrogant, petulant and blithe about the entire matter.
- Customer confidence in Apple is shaken–many are already concerned about Apple’s deal with shaky network purveyor AT&T (full disclosure: I have a family member who works for Sprint and I like their service)–and this makes it worse.
- Apple, so used to great press for many years, may simply be unprepared and ill-equipped to handle a crisis such as this (also demonstrated by the poor handling of the prototype mess a few months ago) ala Southwest Airlines and the “large” blowup with director Kevin Smith.
PR solutions for now involve mitigating the damage and putting procedures into place to handle the next crisis (and yep, sorry Apple, there will inevitably be more PR troubles in your future. Like death and taxes, Steve).
- Mitigating damage usually involves being readily transparent from the get-go. Your pride be damned. If you’re wrong, admit it, apologize, fix it, then drive on– or face the consequences. Half-assed fixes and vain hopes that it will “all go away” are stupid and just make things worse.
- Have a crisis communications plan in place. Now. If you don’t have one, you better get one. Consider it insurance–cheers if you never file a claim, but aren’t you glad you had it when the basement flooded? Click here for more on that.
- Do you have public relations professionals in place who have handled a serious media meltdown before (see Southwest Airlines link, above)? But more importantly, are they empowered to do their jobs? Having a PR pro on staff with crisis com experience is great–but if you don’t let them manage the situation (I’m talking to you Mr./Ms. CEO) then it’s like the house is on fire and you order the firefighters to sit in the fire engine while you throw gas on the blaze.
- Fix the problem. Apple customers are fiercely loyal–but there’s a limit. The grudging rebate on the initial iPhone release was the first sign that Apple’s core (sorry for the pun) customers could be taken for granted. Not smart. GM did that. Have a look at their stock price now. Oh wait, they don’t have a stock price.
After the iPhone rebate mess a few years ago, Steve Jobs said:
We want to do the right thing for our valued iPhone customers. We apologize for disappointing some of you, and we are doing our best to live up to your high expectations of Apple.
If only he had done this right off the bat with the iPhone 4. Perhaps at today’s press conference we will see something like that; a solid, satisfying fix for those who have purchased the iPhone 4.
Apple, your iPhone is ringing. Pick up the phone.
Friday Quickie from The Bad Pitch Blog: Hiding Behind Vocus
Use VOCUS or other PR email platforms? Be careful how you use them. Read on…
Got another “pitch” sent via an email marketing platform. I won’t go off on the tangent explaining why I so loathe this approach with every fiber of my being multiplied by infinity with the intensity of a thousand suns — on a stick. But I will share with you a DISCLAIMER that was at the top of this particular piece of spam:
This press release was sent through the Vocus PR platform. Should you no longer wish to receive these communications, please unsubscribe through the link in the footer. If you do not want to be listed on the database, please contact Vocus directly to request for your details to be removed: PHONE NUMBER
If you’re not taking the time to validate your lists whatsoever and think the above disclaimer helps your case? You’re content to spend life polishing turds. Fine, I’m in a mood. But to hide behind Vocus which BPB knows, loves and uses from time to time is lazy.
Read the rest here: The Bad Pitch Blog: Hiding Behind Vocus.
Also worth a read (related to graphic):
Brand New Day or Fight Another Day?
“I just hate our logo–we’ve had it two years and business is flat.”
“People buy more from fresh, new companies.”
“The news media will cover our name change. No, really, they will.”
Pity the person who has heard any of that from their boss, board or consultant. People get antsy when business flattens or declines, and often instead of examining the product, service or marketing strategy, attention is turned to the brand itself.
Your brand is your company’s or organization’s public face. It’s your identifier, your differentiator and not a plaything for the bored or those grasping for an explanation of declining market share. I’ve worked in several situations where the boss was convinced by branding consultants or “brand alchemists” that the only thing holding them back was their brand identity.
Hold on a second–I should say strongly that changing your brand is not always a bad move–far from it. I work with some branding consultants and firms who are downright kickass at what they do. They just happen to be professional enough to tell a client when they don’t need a rebrand. (Sound crazy? Nah. Just ethical and smart in the long run. What company is going to hate a consultant who saved them from wasting thousands of dollars?)
I’m by no means saying that a lousy logo, tagline or brand message is worth keeping simply because it’s expensive to rebrand. What I’m getting at is that before you make any move towards engaging a brand identity firm you do some research, serious thinking and some long conversations with objective people who have no skin in the game.
It’s all about brand equity. Wikipedia says “Brand equity refers to the marketing effects or outcomes that accrue to a product with its brand name compared with those that would accrue if the same product did not have the brand name.”
If you’ve invested thousands of dollars and years of consistency in your brand and decide that it’s what’s holding you back; then you need to put pen to paper and ask “If I jettison our identity and create a new one, how much will it cost?” Are you prepared to flush your brand equity–essentially zeroing out your name recognition–and pay a consultant or tie up your marketing team for weeks or months? (Not to mention waiting perhaps a year or two to see if it pays off.)
Google “costs of re-branding” and the results may take your breath away. Some claim that research alone for a re-brand lies in the $50K range–that doesn’t include creating a new logo, tagline, website, collateral printed material, etc.
Well worth a second thought, wouldn’t you say?
Is it your marketing strategy, rather than your brand identity? If so, then a complete overhaul of that strategy–not necessarily your logo and brand identity–is in order.
As for the news media caring about your re-brand? In general they will devote time to your re-brand only if it’s really lousy one. It can also be a PR nightmare if you tick off your current customer base (see Coke, New. or more recently Tropicana.)
So before you go for a brand new day, think carefully. It may be that your brand just needs a better marketing strategy under it–and it needs to live to fight another day.
New Public Relations Firm Takes Versatile, Collaborative Approach
March 8, 2010
For Immediate Release
Contact: Alex Greenwood 913.907.4426 * Alex@AlexGPR.com
New Public Relations Firm Takes Versatile, Collaborative Approach
KANSAS CITY, MO– A need for a versatile, collaborative approach to business communications inspired AlexanderG Public Relations, LLC.
“Getting the message out–whether it’s a small business or Fortune 500 company–isn’t the same as it was twenty years ago. It’s not even the same as it was two years ago,” owner and principal Alex Greenwood said.
“Besides the evolving news media, the rise of social media tools like blogs, Twitter and Facebook have changed the rules of the game; the competition for attention has risen exponentially as the channels for information access have mushroomed,” he said. “We work with clients to evaluate their goals and get their message out through the best channel.”
Launched in February, Greenwood’s firm has formed strategic partnerships with nationally recognized leaders in social media, visual image production, advertising and marketing. “The integration of these disciplines is the best strategy for success,” he said. “The days of public relations being a profession isolated from marketing, advertising and new media are over. We believe in a collaborative approach.”
AlexanderG Public Relations also offers media training, speechwriting, crisis communications and a variety of issues management services. The firm serves companies of all sizes, non-profits, individuals and public initiatives.
Alex Greenwood has earned a reputation for success and ingenuity from his more than twenty years experience in public relations, journalism, marketing and broadcasting. His career has spanned several industries including broadcasting, healthcare, non-profit organizations and higher education.
His work in the news media includes positions as an editor, journalist, radio talk show host and vice president of Kansas City Public Television. Alex left the television industry to form a communications division for EventPros, Inc., one of Kansas City’s leading special events firms. Since 2008 Alex has served on the EventPros Inc. production team as director of marketing and public relations for KCRiverFest, one of Kansas City’s largest community festivals. He will continue in that role in 2010.
For more information, visit the website at http://www.AlexGPR.com or call 913.907.4426.
Strategy, Strategery and Management By Hair on Fire
By Alex Greenwood
In my 20 years in the world of work, I like to think I’ve seen just about every permutation of communications/message management. I’ve worked for companies or organizations that set up intricate, focus group-driven strategies and never budged a millimeter from those plans. 
Conversely, I’ve worked places that had ’strategery’: they thought they had a strategy–perhaps even had one on paper, but in real life it was really pretty seat-of the pants stuff. It was all do/say what works well at the moment, worry about future implications later.
The third type of communications management I’ve experienced is by far the worst: hair on fire. The hair on fire plan involves one faction of the organization demanding a coherent strategy, another part bucking that strategy; and a third, ultimately dominating faction who believe in a nihilistic, “damn the torpedoes” flurry of activity–running around with their hair (figuratively) on fire. Every day is a new day. “The strategic plan’s a great idea but it doesn’t apply today” or “we have a strategy?” and activity (however fruitless or pointless) equals performance.
All three of these communications/messaging management areas have their problems–even the competent, stick-to-it strategy (there needs to be some “wiggle room” even in the best strategy).
However, even strict, no-improvising adherence is usually better than sitting down for a day or two and hammering out a strategy then locking it in a drawer and rarely revisiting it– ala strategery.
Strategery-oriented organizations know in general what they’re supposed to be doing, but somehow January becomes June and June becomes October and very few communications-related goals are achieved because strategic plans are not followed or even revisited for tweaking. In effect, they are an exercise like climbing the rope ladder at a team-building event–you feel good about completing it and everyone pats each other on the back, but it has dubious far-reaching benefits.
Hair on fire: well, all I can say about that is good luck. If you work in an organization that cannot come to grips with a coherent, basic communications strategy and instead spends all its time and energy reacting instead of managing communications to prevent brush fires, then you need help. Fast.
All it may take is one PR crisis, the loss of key personnel or a competitor with its stuff together to start your company on the path to failure.
Which communications management does your company or organization practice? Do you have any horror stories–or better yet, stories of hair on fire being doused by a competent strategy? Let us know in the comments section–you can remain anonymous.
