Filed under: Business columns, Political | Tags: public relations, Wayne Pacelle, Humane Society, PETA, factory farming, animal rights, animal abuse, target audiences
An excellent, in-depth NYT Magazine piece about the Humane Society’s transformation into a savvy lobbying organization over the last few years illustrates an excellent point: image can make a huge contribution to achieving business objectives. Rather than focusing on “spay and neuter your pets” campaigns, Wayne Pacelle, the CEO of the Humane Society, has fixed industrial farming – and the cruelty to animals it inevitably engenders – in his sights, and he started the campaign with the classic advice any good PR person would give: show, don’t tell.
Rather than relying on vague platitudes about how cruel factory farming is to animals, he sent an undercover operative into a meat plant in California, filmed ongoing, constant abuses, and turned the evidence over to the local D.A., eventually getting the $100 million plant shut down. That sends a powerful message, and bolsters the organization’s credibility hugely.
The Humane Society is using its new-found muscle to get a California ballot initiative passed that would dramatically improve the conditions under which industrially-farmed animals – primarily chickens, cows and pigs – are kept and killed. This could have ripple effects throughout the U.S., as California often is a trend-setter for such regulations. Establishing a track-record of success and leveraging it for additional success is another key benefit of a positive image.
In addition to showing the type of abuses they’re fighting against, Pacelle is leading the Humane Society down the path of compromise, drawing on his background as a lobbyist for the organization. This is a point of serious contention for points of view on either extreme of the animal-rights spectrum. Those who subscribe to the worldview of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) say that anything other than an unapologetic repudiation of using animals for food is selling out. Meanwhile, factory-farmers who keep their animals in tiny cages where they never see the sun, stretch their wings, or even have the ability to turn around, call Pacelle’s initiatives a stealth campaign to eventually eliminate meat and eggs as food.
As with all issues that involve politics, Pacelle is savvy enough to know that most people fall somewhere in the middle, which is exactly where he’s steering his organization. His effort avoids the uncompromising, attention-grabbing antics of PETA, which tend to alienate those just trying to get a burger once in a while, and maybe use their leather wallets without a guilt trip. This tells mainstream folks that it’s an organization they can support without feeling like they’re going to be accused of being a fringe-dwelling wacko.
And he has shown that he’s willing to compromise with factory farmers too, by dropping insistence on some measures they feel are too onerous in exchange for other concessions. This sends the message to factory farmers in other states – those not yet targeted by his efforts, but still on the list – that they will gain more by negotiating than by stone-walling. The underlying message to them is, “Do you want the undercover camera treatment, or shall we talk about how you can make changes that give you PR talking points?”
The first PR lesson here is to pick your audience carefully, and keep THEM in mind constantly. Pacelle chose mainstream Americans, which means he had to consciously decide to cut the fringes loose, knowing that he would take heat from them. But if they’re not his audience, that doesn’t matter.
The second lesson is to pick your messages carefully and back them up with proof points. In this case, it’s “Factory farming is abusive and unhealthy for you, and shouldn’t be allowed,” backed up by evidence that has real impact on people.
Filed under: Business columns, Customer relations, crisis communications | Tags: Cheryl Crispen, crisis communications, foreclosure, MBA, media relations, Mortgage Bankers Association, mortgage crisis, public relations
The Mortgage Bankers Association, once a quiet, below-the-radar organization whose very name would induce yawns, has been thrust into the harsh glare of the media spotlight while ravenous hordes of reporters try to pick their flesh for useful bits for their stories. The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) didn’t see the economic meltdown coming, and are not prepared for the blame they are having to fend off.
The New York Times reports that a protester tried to “arrest” Karl Rove as he sat on stage at a panel discussion during the MBA annual convention in San Francisco yesterday, and screaming protesters filled the sidewalks outside the venue.
So this is a great opportunity to see how an organization under fire officially responds. Cheryl Crispen, the MBA’s Sr. VP of Communications, took the opportunity to voice an opinion shared by dictatorial regimes the world over:
“It was unfortunate that they chose this venue to protest whatever they chose to protest,” Ms. Crispen said. “We believe in free speech, but we believe there is a right time and place for it.”
In one ill-conceived message, Ms. Crispen not only displayed ignorance about what was being protested (evincing an appalling lack of awareness for somebody who’s supposed to know the issues), but also implied that the protesters should protest the Mortgage Bankers Association somewhere other than where the Mortgage Bankers Association happened to be holding its annual convention, and perhaps even on a day that nobody from the Mortgage Bankers Association would be around.
Unfortunately, this quote was not accompanied by any others in the NYT story that would acquit Ms. Crispen of the charges of practicing PR without any skill whatsoever. But a look at the San Francisco Chronicle story about the same event notes some very good messaging from Ms. Crispen:
“It makes us committed to helping every single homeowner we possibly can to stay in their homes, and I feel that energy,” Crispen said. “Nobody benefits from a foreclosure. The borrower, the homeowner, does not benefit. The lender who provided the loan and has been in the game does not benefit. So we, as an industry, are doing everything we possibly can to help those homeowners who are able to stay in their home stay in their homes.”
This, to me, is excellent messaging. It doesn’t address all of the protesters’ concerns head-on, like greed, or the rights and wrongs of the bailout (which are losing propositions for the MBA anyway), but gets to the very heart of what moves people in this crisis: its effect on people’s abilities to remain in their homes. If you hit that message, you take the heat out of all the other stuff.
So there are two lessons here: the first is that you can get burned by a reporter whose story angle is against you, and there’s probably nothing you can do about it. The NYT story quoting Ms. Crispen is a good case in point, since nothing good from her was used. However, I should say that parroting political philosophies espoused by repressive regimes likely isn’t going to help your cause.
Second, when faced with rabid opposition, make sure your messaging gets to the core of the issue and doesn’t take on the stuff you can’t control or can’t win.
Filed under: Business columns, Customer relations | Tags: Beaufort Books, Customer relations, Jewel of Medina, Little Mommy Cuddle and Coo, LittleBigPlanet recall, Mattell, public relations, Random House, Sony
Sony’s recently-announced recall of its Playstation game LittleBigPlanet provides an interesting juxtaposition of strategies when it comes to offending people on religious grounds. This is tough turf for PR folks, because you often can’t win: if you recall or otherwise take dramatic action to “fix” the problem, your actions could be construed as admission of doing something wrong, and it may not ever placate the easily-offended, in which case you will have spent huge amounts of money for no gain.
If, on the other hand, you don’t take dramatic action right away, you could alienate paying customers; if their complaints gain traction with others, you could face a major publicity problem that makes you look unresponsive if you end up recalling the offending items anyway.
As a PR person, it’s fascinating to watch these dramas unfold and to see how the various companies rationalize their decisions to their customers, shareholders, and others.
Random House dropped the controversial novel “Jewel of Medina” after determining that its publication would anger some Muslims, in particular those who are so offended by such content that they might commit acts of violence against the publisher, author, or bookstores selling the work. Another publisher – Beaufort Books – picked up the novel, and I’m sure is thrilled by all the free publicity generated by Random House’s decision. Random House said it made its decision based on safety concerns, which essentially says that they’re not going to take a stand against intimidation just for this book. Okay… we know where they’re coming from; they’re mainstream, they just want to make money peacefully. Beaufort, on the other hand, makes it clear that they pick up controversy and run with it.
In another case of giving religious offense, toy giant Mattell, as well as many retail stores, have so far refused to pull the Little Mommy Cuddle and Coo doll off of shelves, despite some loud voices and global media coverage about its alleged uttering of the phrase “Islam is the light,” which some are saying is deliberate, and an attempt at prosyletizing. Mattel’s response – while not pulling the doll out of stores – has been to rectify the perceived problem in future editions of the doll. Here’s part of its response to concerned customers:
Please be assured that:
-The Little Mommy Cuddle ‘n Coo dolls feature realistic baby sounds including sweet cooing, giggling and baby babble with no real sentence structure;
-The only scripted word that the doll actually says is “mama.” There is a sound that may resemble something close to the word “night, right, or light.” To avoid any potential misinterpretation, we have eliminated that segment of the sound file from future production.
-Because the original sound track is compressed into a file that can be played through an inexpensive toy speaker, the final sound may vary from the original recording.
To me, this is a clear indication of Mattell’s underlying logic – to issue a recall of all the dolls with this perceived “problem” would be to give in to irrational hysteria, and they’re not going to do it. They have chosen their key message in this furor (there are no real words other than “mama,” and the rest is unstructured babble), and like any smart company, they’re going to stick with it and repeat it as often as they can.
I think it’s a smart move, and probably the right one. The only reason they’d have to issue a recall would be if people got into such an outrage over it that they effectively organize and get some coordinated media coverage and customer action going. This is not inconceivable, given that Fox News and other conservative news sources seem to be credulous chroniclers of the “Islam is the Light” theory. In such a scenario, Mattell would probably have to back down, which would be a blow to its credibility, depending on how it’s handled.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I will admit to a bias regarding this particular situation. As an American who is Muslim, I find it difficult to stomach all this religious sensitivity, no matter which side it comes from; I am embarrassed that the people who riot in response to “offensive” cartoons call themselves Muslims, and I’m appalled that such a big deal would be made out of a doll’s babble. So, this bias might be coloring my analysis of Mattell’s (and others’) responses to religion-based sensitivities. I hope not, though.
Regarding Sony’s recall of LittleBigPlanet, I think they made the right move. Sony is a global company, and dozens of countries in which they do business are majority Muslim nations that buy a LOT of electronics. Having lived in Saudi Arabia for a long time, I can assure you that Sony is the gold standard for electronics, especially if it has the “Made in Japan” label. The last thing Sony needs is for something small and insignificant, like a piece of background music soundtrack, to derail their image internationally. Hence, the full-throated response: apology, recall, delay in hitting store shelves.
Filed under: crisis communications | Tags: crisis communications, Customer relations, Grandpa's Knob, Noble Environmental Power, public relations, wind power
This story is a great example of what not to do – ever – when the media is after you in a negative situation. According to the article, Noble Environmental Power is rumored to be facing financial troubles and is unable to continue its projects in progress. Nobody from the company was easily reachable (and the reporter even described seeing the empty desks from a window), and when he reached a spokesperson at the company’s Connecticut headquarters, the flack promised to send a statement and then didn’t.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong.
Before, the company just looked like it was facing financial troubles, which is understandable in the current economic climate. But by avoiding questions and lying to reporters, they’ve officially passed into the category of sketchy characters, reminiscent of fly-by-night operations that bilk people out of their money and skip town.
Let’s say the company was only suffering a temporary setback, and they pull themselves together and get back to work… what kind of a select board would want to continue doing business with people who leave their offices unattended and won’t respond to questions? What kind of investors would want to keep their money with people who disappear – or at least give the impression that they’ve disappeared – when tough questions are asked?
This is exactly the kind of organization that people, companies, and government entities avoid, so as not to get burned. If they can’t even talk about their troubles, the public won’t assume they’re any better at solving them.
Filed under: crisis communications | Tags: Carl Cushing, crisis communications, meat inspection, media relations, public relations, USDA, Vermont Livestock Slaughter and Processing
From a communications standpoint, a situation can be described as a crisis for a business if it threatens the organization’s image to such an extent that its ability to continue conducting business is impacted. A slaughterhouse that is forced to recall some of its products is an excellent example, as was reported yesterday in the Times-Argus.
The best way to respond to these reputational threats is quickly, forcefully, and with complete honesty, which is exactly how this slaughterhouse owner conducted himself. The USDA announced on Thursday the 16th that E. Coli cases had been linked to meat from Vermont Livestock Slaughter and Processing, and the owner, Carl Cushing, announced a voluntary recall that same day.
His quick response is one element of good crisis communications, and another is what he said. He noted that his meat testing protocols are even more rigorous than they are required to be, and based on his decades of experience as a state meat inspector, he doesn’t know how the contamination was linked to his facility. Nonetheless, he wanted to “overreact” to be on the safe side.
On top of the quick response and messaging, I cannot over-emphasize the importance of making sure the information is readily available to reporters. If Mr. Cushing had hidden from the media spotlight rather than talk to the reporter, the story would have been infinitely worse for his image and reputation. Similarly, if he hadn’t said the right things – in other words, if he hadn’t been completely forthcoming and let us know that safety is his top concern – he would have come across poorly. Reporters smell BS a mile away, and I assure you, that smell comes across in their stories.
This isn’t the kind of situation that public relations professionals point to as a model for proper communications; after all, this issue is still open and could go badly for Mr. Cushing. However, for a first-response, this is top-notch.
Take-away lessons here when your organization is under threat: respond quickly, respond thoroughly, be accessible to reporters (which might even mean seeking them out).
Filed under: Business columns, Customer relations | Tags: investor passes, Jill Post, Judith Dark, Killington, Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners, Martin Post, Powdr Corp., ski resort, SP Land Co., William Langlais
A Rutland Herald story today details how a fight between the Killington ski resort and folks who hold lifetime passes to the popular slopes has been cranked up a notch after a federal judge ruled that it could go forward as a class action lawsuit. The fight started after Kilington’s new owners told people with lifetime passes that the passes would no longer be honored after the 2008-2009 season.
From a public relations standpoint, this decision defies every ounce of common sense a person could have when it comes to keeping your customers happy. In addition to being a heartless, greedy act on the face of it, Killington’s justification for having jilted their most loyal skiers turns on esoteric legalese and accounting issues:
Killington’s new owners cancelled the investor passes saying the passes were issued by Sherburne Corp. and its successor company and both ceased to exist after the recent purchase. The defendants further explained that they purchased the ski areas’ assets and not the company.
That’s just sad. Anybody with a lick of sense knows that if you buy a company, you buy the obligations of that company too. To claim otherwise might be sound legal advice, and really smart accounting, but outside of those fields, everyone else in the world calls that what it is: trying to wiggle out of an obligation.
One of the folks quoted in the story put it very well:
He said he’s at a loss to explain why Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners and SP Land Co. would put up such a fight. “It’s really bad PR and just all around bad business sense to take the actions they’ve taken,” he said.
This reinforces my conviction that everyone has a gut feel for good public relations. Corporations should take a hint and tap into their own gut feel, even if their accountants and lawyers advise otherwise.
Filed under: Business columns | Tags: Boeing, IAM, IAMAW, negotiations, union
On October 9 I blogged that the messaging coming from both sides of the Boeing/IAMAW negotiations dispute showed how the players viewed their positions and outlooks for the future. The union (the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers) see that a weak economy and the general, nationwide decline of unionized workers has them tacking into the prevailing winds, while Boeing is willing to lose $100 million a day to make sure its future isn’t locked up by union-negotiated restrictions.
The latest news notes that mediated negotiations failed to breach the impasse. Boeing put it pretty succinctly:
“We want to resolve this strike so employees can return to work, but we cannot sacrifice our ability to continuously improve productivity and our long-term competitiveness for an agreement.”
Boeing is talking to shareholders and workers simultaneously with this statement. The union’s position – as reported, anyway – tends to speak only to workers:
“Boeing made it clear that they wanted vendors, subcontractors and suppliers to perform the work our members do and that our members weren’t in their future plans” for the delivery of parts and materials or inventory jobs in the factories, Blondin said. “Flexibility and competitiveness is one thing, but when the company says that means it can eliminate jobs, this union can not agree with that.”
This is messaging that is decidedly unimpressive to non-union workers, who themselves don’t have (or expect) the kind of job security that unions typically negotiate, and it certainly doesn’t resonate with shareholders. Another element to the union’s messaging is pay and benefits:
Boeing’s 11 percent raise offer over three years fell short of union demands, and workers rejected the company’s plan to have them shoulder more of their health-care costs.
Again, as the economy collapses before our eyes – sporadic stock market rallies notwithstanding – most folks feel grateful if they can keep their jobs and their pay isn’t cut. Nor would most folks reject three years of guaranteed raises as insubstantial in this economic climate.
So, it seems Boeing is signalling its intention to continue holding the line, and the union is signalling that it’s fade into irrelevance will continue. A PR consultant wouldn’t be a bad idea for the union at this point.
Filed under: Political | Tags: image management, McCain, messaging, Obama, presidential campaign, public relations, reputation management
How the candidates for president present their images to the public has hit the headlines a few times during this campaign, but now that the election is just a few weeks away, one of the biggest stories of the election season has become how the McCain-Palin ticket has failed to conduct their image management effectively. For public relations practitioners, it’s nice to see our profession in the headlines. Although I will admit, as a voter, to being insulted by the notion that mere communications about the candidates will sway me more than the candidates’ actual positions.
Nonetheless, we rely on the fact that correctly communicating a person’s or organization’s attributes can mean the difference between success and failure, and nowhere are the stakes higher than the run for the presidency.
So what’s the main critique of McCain that can be used as a lesson by those running businesses or non-profit organizations? To answer that question, let’s look at the criticism McCain is facing from both Republicans and Democrats, as reported by the AP and the New York Times:
“He has to make the case that he’s different than Bush and better than Obama on the economy,” said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
He’s cheery and smiling during question-and-answer sessions with crowds but becomes visibly annoyed — even surly — when he reads aloud scripted attacks on Obama and Democrats.
They said McCain can prevail if he presents himself as the optimistic visionary the public wants at deeply worrisome economic times.
“He has an opportunity to step up and be a forceful leader during these challenging times,” said Ron Kaufman, a veteran party operative who also worked for Romney. “McCain got the nomination because that’s what his brand is, but somehow it’s gotten muddled.”
The main thing he needs to do,” said Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman from Minnesota, “is focus on a single message — a single, concise or clear-cut message, and stick with that over the next 30 days, regardless of what happens.
This last point is, arguably, the most important. Public relations, when done well, is about getting your message(s) to the target audience in the best way possible. The simpler the message, the easier it is to get it into people’s heads, but the trick is finding one that’s not just simple, but also resonates with your target audiences and moves them to action. In political campaigns it’s even harder, because you have people actively working to discredit your message as soon as you utter it.
Nonetheless, it’s not impossible, as the Obama campaign has shown. They have stuck with “change” (as dull as that may sound initially) since the get-go, and made sure everything they say falls under that umbrella. McCain’s messaging has seemed to bounce around quite a bit – focusing on Obama’s lack of qualifications and other alleged shortcomings (I come at this from a totally non-partisan standpoint, so I don’t judge right and wrong in terms of content), as well as trying to embrace the “change” mantra himself. This, it seems to me, made the McCain campaign far too Obama-centric, which – in the long-run – simply serves to focus more attention on Obama.
McCain’s supporters are right to be nervous. The last few weeks before an election can be the most important, but one of the principles of good communications is that repeated messaging over a long period of time will work. Obama has made that investment already. McCain’s only hope is that those who remain undecided until just before it’s time to pull the lever almost all decide to go with him. That’s looking like an increasingly slim possibility, given the polling numbers so far.
So the take-home lessons are: carefully choose key messages that impact your target audiences positively, stick with your key messages through thick and thin, and don’t focus on the competition.
Filed under: Political | Tags: CBS, David Letterman, Late Show with David Letterman, McCain, politics
On September 27 I blogged that John McCain’s decision to cancel his appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman was a painful decision, because he knew he’d take merciless comedic flack, and that it would last for weeks, if not months. But the alternative was for him to be seen joking around with Dave while the financial crisis unfolded before our appalled eyes. The comparisons to Nero fiddling while Rome burns would have been in the headlines before the first commercial break.
So I advised in my blog – surely one of the most well-read of any others among McCain campaign staffers – that McCain’s best course of action would be to let the issue fade a bit and then jump back into the guest appearance with both feet and take his hits.
And it appears that’s exactly what he’s going to do. I’m glad to see I can make a difference in the world.
