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.
Keep It Simple, Stupid
Simply, sir. Simply.
You can learn valuable lessons on ways to implement your own communications strategies by observing current events. A perfect example of poor messaging strategy is playing out right now in New York City and the White House.
There’s a political firestorm over the proposed Islamic community center near “Ground Zero” in New York City. One side believes the community center is an affront to the people who lost their lives in the 9/11 attacks; another side believes it is within the rights of American citizens of all faiths to build a place of worship and community on private property.
President Obama has taken the latter position on this issue, but he’s having some serious trouble with his messaging:
President Obama’s comments on a plan to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero are not only giving opponents an opportunity to attack him but also reveal a messaging problem from the White House, a communications expert said.
“The danger here is an incoherent presidency,” said David Morey, vice chairman of the Core Strategy Group, who provided communications advice to Obama’s 2008 campaign. “Simpler is better, and rising above these issues and leading by controlling the dialogue is what the presidency is all about. So I think that’s the job they have to do more effectively as they have in the past [in the campaign].”
Obama has faced a torrent of criticism for what was called mixed messages on the controversial plan. On Friday, Obama said Muslims “have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country … That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”
The following day, Obama told Ed Henry, CNN’s senior White House correspondent, that he was “not commenting on the wisdom” of the project, just the broader principle that the government should treat “everyone equal, regardless” of religion. Then a White House spokesman clarified those comments.
[...]
“Communicating as a law professor does not work as president. It’s not worked,” he said. “You’re drawing fine distinctions and speaking in long enough paragraphs that they can be misconstrued and taken out of context and frankly, handed to your opposition to exploit. And that’s clearly what’s going on here [with the Islamic center/mosque comments].”
[...]
While many poked fun at former President George W. Bush for mispronouncing words and stumbling through sentences, observers note that he rarely had to backtrack on his answers because he employed a simple and direct messaging approach.
(Emphasis ours)
Like Morey, we believe you can be too smart for your own good. The president is indeed an intelligent man who appears to be struggling with having to pare his policies, opinions and arguments down to a simplistic statement.
We don’t see the president as cynically trying to have it both ways; we see him struggling with his professorial need to be intellectually evenhanded. That doesn’t work in a sound bite media culture. Of course, it also leaves you vulnerable in a “gotcha” political climate.
We’ve said it before; keep it short and pithy. The news media–whether it’s TV, print or online–prefer brevity. They love the sound bite. If you’ve prepared a few good, juicy sound bites you will likely have a positive effect on the story.
KISS, or “Keep It Simple Stupid” is an apt strategy. The same can be said for your communications: whether it be internally to employees or externally to the news media, simplicity is rarely misconstrued. Nuance and shading–even in the interests of being intellectually honest and evenhanded–leaves too much room for misinterpretation and damage to your brand.
President Obama may be getting this message now, if he doesn’t overthink it. Respectfully, Mr. President, you need to Keep It Simple, Stupid.
As a service to our readers, we discuss topical issues in a way that we hope will instruct their own communications strategies. In that vein, we welcome your comments about the communications aspect of this subject, but will not post comments about the controversy itself or the president’s politics.
Do What You Want. Be What You Are.
Great advice from the gurus at Brainzooming. Read the entire post, but this part in particular really caught my eye:
Don’t make them suffer through your brand identity crisis. This can be especially challenging for solopreneurs and small businesses with less considered brand identities. A huge part of a brand promise is predictability. Even if your brand is edgy, it should be predictably edgy. So when communicating with your audience, make sure you behave in a way that’s consistent with what your audience expects.
via Social Network Audience Strategies for Easy Participation.
In a world where people can actually make money by being edgy–even a tad vulgar (in a good way), irreverently funny and even inexplicably sexy, it’s perilous for the “solopreneurs and small businesses” who try on personas without fully embodying them. So enough with the Lady Gaga attitude, Mr. Insurance Salesman! To quote the wise men Hall and Oates, do what you want….be what you are.
True Story
A friend of mine is a successful Realtor–but more than that she’s a fantastic person. She recently told me that a prospective client was interested in hiring her to help sell his home–but it was in an area outside her geographic expertise. Certainly she could sell the house there and would do her usual great job–but she was very clear that she didn’t know the area as well as other Realtors who usually work that area. She didn’t want the prospect to feel that she was taking advantage of them for her own short-term gain.
Get this: the prospective client was impressed with her candor and is still considering hiring her.
I take her example to heart–in fact, I actually have done the same thing. Sometimes a prospective client will contact me–fully prepared to hire me–and I will often have to be candid and explain that while I can do what they need, I may not be their best option. I then offer to refer them to a colleague who can do the job more quickly, efficiently and cost-effectively. (But I will sometimes take the job if everyone is clear about what I think I can do–expectations must be realistic and understood.)
True, I may be missing out on some paydays. But in the long run I believe that by telling the truth and being invested in helping the prospective client succeed, they’ll remember me when they need something I can do best (or they will refer me to someone else who needs my services).
Besides, what if my Realtor friend or I did take jobs that we aren’t best-suited to do and ended up disappointing the client? Dissatisfied customers can be pretty vocal about it.
Maybe it’s karma, maybe it’s just doing what your Mom always told you to do. Telling the truth–up front–is the best policy.
