PR Matters

The ability of the media to ‘spark’ a controversy, and that of social media to ‘fuel it’ has rarely been better illustrated than the histrionics raging in Australian over the comments made by the new Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, when asked the question:  what advice would you give your daughters about sex before marriage.

The question was posed by The Australian Women’s Weekly when doing a personality piece on Abbott. His response [not to give away their virginity lightly] is, I would have thought on face value, acceptable enough fatherly wisdom.

However, when you are a politician, nothing is taken on face value.

As would be anticipated, the reaction to his comments has been as diverse as ‘a brilliant answer’ to ‘yet another self-acknowledged one-time drug-taking, Vatican roulette-playing, shagabout, white, middle-aged male telling young women not to do what he did when he was their age’ (an Australian comedian).

Now Abbott is an experienced politician, and his media minders are hardly likely to be lightweights, so it’s not unreasonable to assume he knew what sort of reaction he was likely to generate. The decision to answer the question the way he did had to be deliberate, and was designed to achieve a specific result.

Post coverage analysis will tell him whether he obtained what he set out to achieve.

By and large, New Zealand politicians have steadfastly refused to allow or inject their families into media coverage to raise their profile. In Australia, some at least are obviously not so reticent.

I think the Kiwi approach is the wiser.

What is of real interest to those of us who work in the media world is the power social media has to take the initial story, and fragment it into stories about politics, parenting, morality, religion, feminism, manipulation (of the media), hypocrisy and personal choice, to name a few.

For those who have doubts about the power of social media, have a read.

One only hopes that the media does not seek to prolong the controversy by asking Mrs Abbott and her three daughters as to their views on Mr Abbott’s musing. Enough is enough!

1. Where did the man on the street go?

Web 2.0 where? We wondered if the exuberance around the democratising power of the all-access-internet we saw mid-decade hasn’t become a bit deflated in the past year or so. Could the man on the online street have been shouted out by the noisier and better resourced?

With a host of new web tools and loads of corporates, newsmakers, brands, politicians and NGO’s joining in the discussions, there is real concern over authenticity of content.

We need the man on the street to speak out to ensure the balance of power remains fair.  We need genuine two-way conversations, or this fantastic medium will become another advertising forum with one-sided conversations.  Certainly the economic downturn has redirected people’s focus, but we are predicting a comeback of the everyday opinionated. And what a comeback it will be!

2. Will the media make it? 

Of course they will, but in what form? They have copped it with both barrels and boy it shows.  Barrel one – technological change has seen news content migrate online without a viable commercial model. Second barrel – audiences largely want their news ‘without’ advertising at a time, place and in digital format of their choice. Add in the reduced effectiveness of traditional advertising, which bankrolls most media, and ouch.

Some outfits will no doubt falter, but by the decades end we are likely to be paying for quality news one way or another, and we won’t mind or probably even notice. Check out the New York Times who are on the brink of making it pay and they need to, because let’s face it, delivering real news real well costs a packet.

3. Why are we more interested in the fallen mighty than the mighty issues?
 
Despite the scary state of the world (think world peace, climate change and economic upheavals), celebrity news will always win the day.  The value in seeing the private foibles of the mighty such as our media stars, politicians, business leaders and sports stars played out in public is immense.  We think it might have something to do with the fact that it makes people feel better about their own lives, knowing that even the rich and famous don’t get it right all of the time.

To err is human and to recover is clearly seriously divine. Unfortunately the message to the impressionable is that professional success allows for serious personal failures – providing we apologise.  All it takes for those in the public eye who have been caught out is to make a heartfelt mea culpa, fall on their sword or better still, check in to rehab, and all is forgiven – eventually.  While it might take our mind off the real issues at hand, it prompts real concerns for the impact it might have on younger generations.  Do some media not have a responsibility to truly hold these people to account in the people’s court?

4. Is there a journalist in the house?

The principles of the 4th estate are to hold the powerful accountable, to scrutinise and to provide transparent information on behalf of the citizenship so we can all choose how to vote, work, or shop.  This scrutiny requires experienced, thoughtful people working in an environment free of hefty commercial imperatives.  That’s a big ask given an environment where newsrooms are stretched to their limit, and media owners are screaming for more efficiencies to drive profit they now can no longer raise from advertisers.

But never fear, journalists are a nuggety lot, and while it will take some time, we predict the next decade will see the rise and rise of the individual journalist.  Once the true value of their content is understood, and we have a workable way to pay for it, the face of news is set to change for the good.  This new breed will be real life crusaders with massive spheres of influence standing clear of news organisations to become brands in their own right, and they will cover the gamut of political viewpoints, single handed.

5. To Blog or not to Blog?

Our final question is an easy one really and the answer is an emphatic yes! While we may be a tiny drop in the Blog Ocean of billions, we are determined to shine in our own way.  We hope you keep following us and using your people power to ask the questions and pose new issues.

In Ypres, 1914 a Christmas Eve ceasefire became the stuff of yuletide legend.

The truce began when German troops decorated their trenches, the soldiers placed candles on trees and sang Christmas carols. Not to be outdone British troops responded singing their own carols back in English. In no time the two sides were shouting greetings to each other, there were calls for visits across No Man’s Land where small gifts were exchanged. Whiskey, jam, cigars and chocolate was shared and the artillery in the region fell silent that night.

This exceptional outbreak of peace reminds me of the news over the summertime here in New Zealand, it’s as if our world stops speaking for a month. Could this outbreak of ‘nothing happening’ be because all of us in the information exchange business have waved a white flag and sent the news on holiday?

The news goes soft. Not a peep is heard from the courts or councils, the lobbyist and legislators languish. Business leaders too are mute, our captains of industry have headed off in the caravan and so have the agitators and activists. The Beehive itself is silent. Even the sports reporters have given up the ghost.

The papers are scrawny and the news bulletins truncated. They will contain stories from the seaside, teens running amok, cute kiddies frolicking, kooky animal stories, a freak storm perhaps, sunscreen warnings, surf beach rescues and the road toll.

The lifestyle pages will be chocka with recipes for leftovers, anniversaries of other things, musings on the future or the past from famousish New Zealanders and book reviews. The news in other words – will be nice.

This is not a global news-truce, the Northern hemisphere draws a breath for Christmas but their news-machine barely misses a beat. It is us who have a full hiatus of real news and maybe that’s just the way we like it.

While the media still can’t get quite enough of the story, some quarters have gone quiet on Tiger Woods. 

After his ho-hum apology, Tiger is giving the world the silent treatment in a strategy to deal with the ruckus over the snowballing allegations of multiple infidelities. Keeping Mum is not a bad idea, in truth, particularly while the appetite for scandal is still sky high, and anything he says will have news editor eager to keep him selling papers. 

Bizarre indeed was the sight of the feckless cocktail waitress, one of his alleged partners in this concupiscence, publicly apologising to Tiger’s wife on global TV for her part in the dalliance.  Just what Mrs Woods wanted, I’m sure.

But there is another quarter that appears to have quietly turned its back on the sport star – and these are his sponsors.

 According to a report in the LA Times data compiled by the Nielsen ratings company, no Woods ads have appeared on television since Nov. 29, two days after he crashed his Cadillac SUV outside his home in Florida.

This has got to hurt. Forbes have his sponsorships worth $110 million.

Across a range of big swinging brands like Nike, Gillette, PepsiCo Inc.’s, Gatorade and Tag Heur, the sponsors’ response plan appears to be to keep aspirational images of Tiger out of the public’s face until this blows over.  Given their substantial investments in this “property,” brand managers are holding their breath and hoping like mad that the worst is over for the golden boy of golf. Meanwhile golf viewers are switching off in droves – TV ratings for golf down 50% – affecting advertising revenues.

Which reminds me, golf is what Tiger does exceptionally well.  Before he became the pin-up boy for multicultural morality and family values, perhaps we could all return to the real game, please?

* apologies to poet William Blake

It’s been interesting to watch the sports media trying to take the Tiger Woods story to new levels – despite his almost complete silence on the matter, until this morning, that is, when he offered further comment. Until now, in the absence of any new information, the story had become one about him not talking to the media. 

In fact, coverage had descended to a debate amongst various journalists around how he and his camp are handling the matter and if this might be the right or wrong approach. 

It is a bit like a kiwi rugby fan watching an All Black game and offering what usually sounds to me like very useful advice on their performance.  Why don’t the real coaches do the same thing if it is so obvious? 

Of course the Tiger coverage and AB commentary are symptoms of only seeing the situation from one perspective – from the outside looking in. Very few people know the full story, but even more importantly, only those on the inside know what the overall strategy is.  So what’s really the end-goal here? 

In the case of issues being played out in the media – the response, or lack thereof, may have very little to do with that strategy, or it could be a key plank in the strategy. Likely we will never know.  Most important are the people directly affected, and the task of the issues manager is ensuring their needs are met. 

In managing any issue, the needs of all of the stakeholders and key audiences need to be considered. Sure, media are critical, but they may be one of many.  Similarly corporate reputation is important, but not at the expense of others. (In Tiger Woods’ case, I suspect his wife could be slightly more important. But then again, I don’t really know.)

As PR professionals we might enjoy exercising our grey matter by sharing our views on how an issue is being handled, but we must accept that if we are not directly involved, what we say is pure conjecture.

 As 2009 winds down and the “year in review” stories begin to roll out, there is sure to be plenty of “informed” comment on how different organisations and individuals have fared.  However, we should keep in mind that much of this is an individual person’s view, and most likely one that is not fully informed.

We’ve all heard plenty about the potential threat to the reputations of business and brands posed by new online tools.

These networks, coupled with the ability of Google to draw a crowd on any topic, can spread bad news far and wide. It’s simple: pick an issue, mix in some influential commentary, and then watch the trending and traffic stream based around the keyword take off. Instant crisis.

We were interested to note a new development which could help balance the communication ledger somewhat, and help turn a possible crisis into an opportunity to communicate.

The fascinating new tactic has been termed ‘media accountability’ by its leading proponent, New York PR man Jim McCarthy.

We’d been keen to hear your views on this. So follow the link:

http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/11/new-public-relations-beating-back-bad-press-with-google-adwords/

Google’s Sidewiki, an application that appears as a browser sidebar where you can read and write entries along the side of a webpage, could become the ultimate platform for those who like to share their views and opinions. Brands and business had better sit up and take notice of this development.

Sidewiki is a new way of allowing anyone to contribute information, comments, observations and criticisms right there on a webpage. Think about this for a second, with Sidewiki, any web based article can be transformed into a public space of unedited thoughts ranging from super insightful, through helpful and witty, to downright malicious.

Many of us who are comfortable with the free-for-all of social networking spheres may not see this as a big deal because currently blogs, micro and otherwise, are the open forums in which people discuss all manner of things, including the performance of brands. 

But Sidewiki will make these conversations mainstream. 

It will now be impossible for brands to broadcast a message or to communicate in a one-way traffic style and not potentially be called to account.

This new tool makes two- way communication the only communication option for brands as people now have the ultimate soapbox to express their views, right out there for all to see.

For corporations, the Sidewiki forum drives home the importance of being able to stand up to scrutiny and being prepared to engage in robust discussion, with the added bonus of being able to defend your position too. Bring it on!

First off, I need to state that I am a complete fence sitter when it comes to GMOs and Nuclear power. The way I see it is that in an ideal world, we would enjoy the potential benefits while we fully manage the risks. But reality is always less simple.

It has occurred to me of late that in the not too distant future, New Zealanders are going to have to think quite seriously about the potential of GMOs, nuclear power and other technologies that will enable us to meet our carbon emission targets, growing power demands and attempts to stay in the game, let alone keeping ahead of it.

British scientist Dr Robert Winston has said that we need to be more open to new technologies so we can keep pace globally. He’s not wrong. Last week at the annual Food and Grocery Council conference, two of the keynote speakers highlighted changes that may need to take place if we are to feed the world and ensure human intelligence keeps pace with computers. 

If GMOs are the only means of preventing billions of people starving to death, it will be pretty hard to keep it in the box. Then on the flip side, movies like Food Inc paint the food industry as giant manipulators of the world in order to reap the profits. Are we equipped to reconcile these positions and at the same time solve these very real problems?

Honest and transparent communication will become even more critical, but often the truth is too boring. We truly need a media who report, not sensationalise the realities of these positions. With shrinking newsrooms under increasing commercial pressures and the more experienced journalists often being let go, this is sadly less likely to happen. Perhaps the emerging social media sphere will evolve into a forum based on true expertise?

New technologies always raise new questions. Would a science that enabled a paraplegic to walk be halted because it breached our moral ethics? Currently there is already a scientist in Europe who uses himself as a human guinea pig – or should I say android, to test mind driven robotic implants. 

The reality of new technologies being able to solve some very serious and imminent problems is upon us. And as clean, green nuclear free New Zealand, how well are we informed to be able to manage these dilemmas?

As the Hon Maurice Williamson pointed out, had we invented Viagra we would be sitting very pretty economically. But we didn’t! So what’s next? Which companies will have the intestinal fortitude to take on people power for causes that they believe are for the good of the people? This is an interesting dilemma but who is debating it?

There is a fascinating story in today’s National Business Review about some alleged liquidation hi-jinks. Basically it is about the suitability of a parade of possible liquidators, but our interest is not in the substance of story but the issue of over-disclosure.

The story notes that one of apparent liquidators, in a series of them, was one Melissa Watson. It went on to state that not only was Ms Watson unqualified for the role, she could not be impartial. The grounds for the lack of partiality being she was one of three friends of the person whose building was being put into liquidation, Brent Clode.

The alleged source of this friendship?  Mr Clode’s page on the social networking website Facebook!

This raises a number of questions, like:  what is the status of your relationship if you are not featured on the Facebook page of someone you know well; if you are not on Facebook, do you have any friends, or does anyone care about your friends; and, is Facebook a form of over-disclosure, or plain honest transparency?

This story does illustrate the TMI-factor of social networks.

When a child does something they know is a bit naughty and are likely to get found out, we call this attention seeking behaviour.  So could it be that the Hon Rodney Hide was seeking more than a suntan when he took his partner on the now contentious trip overseas?

Was the ministerial trip yet another clever PR strategy to remain in the public eye, or perhaps Rodney Hide was boldly stating that he does whatever he wants and the consequences be damned? Apparently he has been forewarned of the potential public scrutiny now also being suffered by his partner and family.

Whatever the motivation this time, Mr Hide does do headline-catching with aplomb; I mean who could forget the yellow jacket he sported continually during the election period? The man was a walking rosette for the Act Party and prior to this I would’ve been hard pressed to name their party colour, but now it is burnished in my mind – permanently!

His stint on Dancing with the Stars was impressive and revealing in more ways than one. Rodney is not averse to getting some of his kit off. That said, the pre-transformation body of Mr Hide made the front page when his attempt at the Auckland Harbour crossing came unstuck a few years ago.

So perhaps one can appreciate his motivation for wanting to show the world his physical improvements. The Act website shows a lovely picture of Mr Hide at the opening of the Diocesan School for Girls Aquatic Centre in March this year.  It offers the perfect combination of children, community spirit in his electorate and an opportunity to see the real man.

So I do take my hat off to Mr Hide for his efforts in keeping his name in the media, but as the equally press-friendly populist Winston Peters learnt at his peril, not all media coverage is good coverage.