My mantra of everything going Digital, Mobile and Video could possibly have another word added: Glass. I just ran across this use of corporate video, originally created to persuade large businesses to invest in the large glass conglomerate Corning,Inc. that proves that a compelling story–and futuristic applications can turn into a YouTube viral video:
If that’s a future version of an Apple iPhone, I want one!
In more than 20 years of professional PR counseling, I’ve yet to tell a client to utter the words, “No Comment” to the press. It’s akin to saying, “I’m guilty” or “I have something to hide” in the world of public perception. However, today, I am coining a new term, “Pulling a Charlie Sheen,” which leads me to my inevitable conclusion. If I were Charlie Sheen’s publicist–oh, that’s right, he just quit–I would tell him to simply keep his mouth shut. Whenever he does open it, he inserts his foot. Many American’s enjoy watching celebrity meltdowns on television or listening to their rants on talk radio – heck, even media sites like TMZ.com make a business out of provoking celebrities to anger in ambush interviews and paparazzi style photo opportunities. As a public relations teacher, we’ve enjoyed discussing the escapades of Charlie Sheen for the purpose of examining what not to do in a crisis PR scenario. It was actually a midterm assignment for my students. His story has all the earmarks of a disaster in the making. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is a disaster every day. What more do the students say? I will give every student in class 50 extra credit points if any of their blog comments to this post gets picked up by a national news outlet before our final exam on St. Patrick’s Day, March 17. Sorry Charlie! Coincidentally, a USA Today article here http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2011/03/charlie-sheen-this-could-be-my-final-interview-/1 quotes him as saying that yesterday’s radio call-in rant could be his last. I nearly fell out of my chair laughing in disbelief. If you believe that, I’ve got a great at-home drug rehab program for you.
Wikipedia turned 10 in January 2011. It has come a long way from its roots as a hackneyed collaboration of articles to up-to-date content moderated by editors around the globe. A recent survey from the Pew Research Center revealed just how popular the service has become. Read it here: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Wikipedia/Report.aspx
However, Wikipedia is still not accepted as a definitive source of news because the content and descriptions can be added by anyone and some people have figured out how to fake out the system. At the heart of the controversy is its banishment from academia. According to professional researchers, the information is not vetted using a more rigorous, scholarly method as used by its nearest competitor, Encylopedia Brittanica. Does it matter? Is the venerable Encyclopedia Brittanica nearing extinction? Will Wikipedia ultimately turn to advertising to fund its existence? Will this influence the content?
Here’s a test, search for the following words–Oliver North–using both services and then compare the results. (Naturally, membership is required to get detailed information from one of the services–which is a very important distinction.)
What are your thoughts?
Another year and another round of Super Bowl advertising. Some people actually watch it for the football game, but you wouldn’t know it if you read anything in the blogosphere about the (failed) half-time show or the consumer backlash over some commercials. Take Groupon for instance. Their ad touted human rights issues in Tibet, but for the purpose of advertising fish curry. The challenge, it seems, is to succeed at championing social issues, while not appearing insensitive or demeaning. Here’s a link to the advertisement:
What’s really interesting from a PR perspective is how the company is handling the situation. Here’s a link to a recent news article about the company’s efforts to apologize–sort of.
What is your opinion?
It seems there’s a publicity stunt worth commenting about nearly every day of the year. This one has an interesting twist. It started as an e-mail being circulated about a band improvising music after its instruments were stolen. The link in the e-mail take you to an iPhone video posted on YouTube. That’s not unusual. What is unique is that the entire band performance, on a NYC subway ride, was performed using iPhones/iPods by the band members, including vocals, guitar, drums and keyboard. Plugged into a Mac laptop computer and some small speakers hidden among the band members and voila! an instant concert performed for commuters. What is also relevant is that in only 3 days following the Internet upload, the video was viewed a million times. About a month later, over 4 million views on YouTube. An instant hit for the band Atomic Tom. Watch the video here:
Does the thought of Christmas shopping get you excited or wear you out? For a few holiday shoppers, the trend of flash mobs, a twist on the time-honored tradition of publicity stunts, turned into a cultural experience. Interestingly, a photography company tried a stunt, with the help of many, many dozen singers at a local mall. Watch and listen here for the results. (And by the way, Merry Christmas!)
In P.R., the father of publicity stunts, P.T. Barnum made a name for himself while promoting the circus. Whenever the American Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Baily circus came to town, it was usually preceded or accompanied by a publicity stunt. These stunts included parading an elephant through the town square, acrobats or trapeze artists performing feats of strength or skill to encourage public attention and get the media to promote the event. It’s no different from the stunts created by companies today to promote new products. Some of these stunts are intentional, others are not. For example CEO Steve Jobs of Apple periodically responds with rather blunt, condescending e-mails to customers who complain or question him. (see here: http://gawker.com/5641211/steve-jobs-in-email-pissing-match-with-college-journalism-student?skyline=true&s=i
Enter Kentucky Fried Chicken. More recently known as KFC, home of Colonel Sanders if you remember the iconic founder, the company has embarked on a new strategy to attract customers using the behinds of college co-eds. It’s crass and irrelevant. See the story here: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2010-09-22-kfc22_ST_N.htm
College students market KFC product on their rears
The bottom line (pun intended) is exactly what one brand expert suggested: Clean up the stores and make a better product. Bunless chicken sandwiches?
Harris Interactive recently published a survey that measured the percentage of Americans who believe the statements made by spokespeople from certain types of companies. The results are revealing about the opinions American’s have about specific business categories. Here are the results:
Accounting Firms: 67 percent believe, 33 percent don’t believe
Banks: 62 percent believe, 38 percent don’t believe
Health Insurance: 51 percent believe, 49 percent don’t believe
Mortgage: 49 percent believe, 51 percent don’t believe
Credit Card: 36 percent believe, 64 percent don’t believe.
Where does your organization stand in terms of credibility with customers?
Like the passing love affairs that Donald Trump has with each new wife, cracks seem to be appearing in the I-Heart-Obama campaign by American media. Today’s article by marketing columnist Denny Hatch is a fair criticism of PR gaffes by the current administration. And this critique is from a man who was an unabashed supporter of the current president. Regardless of your political bent, his comments are right on the mark when it comes to perception vs. reality. It’s an interesting read: http://www.targetmarketingmag.com/article/barack-obama-ceos-dont-understand-art-science-public-relations/2. What’s more, among the many links in the article regarding possible replacements for his presidential press secretary (both Democrats & Republicans), I found this particular video clip from an interview with George Will on the Charlie Rose show circa 2008. Note this juicy quote: “The three great love affairs in world history were Romeo & Juliet, Abelard and Heloise and the American Media and Barack Obama. And we’ll see how long this one lasts.”
According to an article from the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/14/AR2010051405390.html?hpid=topnews, Toyota recently conducted opinion polls designed to test messages that would discredit researchers who criticized the company’s actions following the sticky accelerator problems of recent months. At the heart of the story, are the actions of a polling firm (and its associated PR agency) that were designed to debunk the credibility of experts who testified before Congress about Toyota’s failure to respond adequately to this safety issue. And there you have what seems to be a straightforward story: influencing public opinion using research practices designed to directly attack “unfair or false assertions.” However, the story seems even more misleading, or confusing the more you read: the individuals involved appear to already be biased against the automaker! One is an auto industry safety consultant who authors a blog critical of Toyota. The other man is an auto technology professor in Illinois who conducted a study that supposedly revealed Toyota engine design flaws. (Toyota officials claim the same test would generate the same results for all automobiles.) Oh, and by the way, the safety consultant works with victims’ attorneys. Is the headline of this story misleading? The idea of intimidating witnesses is wrong and likely illegal, but what of the credibility of the witnesses themselves? If your business was threatened by nasty bloggers (allied with lawyers intent on destroying your company or suing you for millions) or a “test” conducted by a vocal critic, wouldn’t you deem it fair to present the facts and tell your side of the story? It goes on every single day in American politics with candidates and elected officials fighting each other through research, opinion polls, pseudo-science, etc. Case in point: When was the last time you had a rational conversation with someone about the Theory of Global Warming (now called “Climate Change” by proponents) without getting into a heated discussion–pun intended–with someone who has plenty of evidence and science that appears to be politically motivated? Ugh.
Apparently more details of this particular Toyota poll will be made public next week. Then we’ll likely hear more about how egregious the actions were by Toyota…but perhaps what will be lost in the message is whether or not the critics themselves are legitimate. Ask yourself this, do they have a personal investment or professional credibility at stake? What is their motivation? What do they have to lose or gain? Of course Al Gore will promote his environmental world view. He stands to make a lot of money by promoting hysteria. Perhaps this post didn’t go where you thought it would, but let me leave you with one more thought: follow the money trail and it will always reveal much more. Your thoughts?
