President Obama is certainly going to get more than a taste of Budweiser this afternoon. As a matter of fact, I think he and his advisors are getting a bad taste of how misjudgments in the communication process quickly allow a recession weary media to drink in an episode that has all the popularity once enjoyed by Cheers, but none of the levity.

 How far and how fast this earnest President has come! He’s gone from a media darling and star orator to a lightening rod of controversy for the brewing industry, The Christian Temperance Union, Alcoholics Anonymous, various Police Unions, Harvard, and the black caucus, among others. And all of this for not staying on message on one question in an otherwise perfectly choreographed news conference.

 Being a “Monday morning quarterback” on communications issues gone awry is easy. Being thorough enough to anticipate infrequently asked questions is very difficult, but necessary when working for arguably one of the most important people in the world. Unfortunately, the follow on management of what transpired leaves vast room for improvement.

 First there is the issue of beer and healthcare, which normally don’t mix. Taking a stab at being a nice guy by offering your neighbors the opportunity to sit down and talk things over a “cold one” was used with great success by my father in the 1950s. But he wasn’t President. And he wasn’t pushing a major healthcare initiative that was already losing steam in Congress and becoming less popular with the people. Frankly, the solution to the mini-crisis has become almost worse than the initial issue. The opportunistic stakeholders in the issue at hand seem to be multiplying exponentially as they seek to tag onto the reach and frequency afforded by Presidential coverage. This non-issue has developed a life of its own that may have legs even beyond the economic recovery if things keep going the way they have.

 Wouldn’t a simple meeting between the disputing parties have sufficed? Wasn’t there once again message slippage without much forethought? This afternoon’s meeting between an academic scholar, career police officer and the most powerful chief executive in the world to mend fences didn’t have to include beverages that don’t align with a major health care initiative. But I would suppose that if tea, or lemonade, or iced coffee were being served, their respective interest groups would have brewed, or mixed up, initiatives to tout their own agendas. Such is the power of the Presidency.

 Mistakes and snafus occur in even the most carefully drawn out public relations initiatives. But they can be minimized by careful planning, staying on message, and using plain old common sense as issues unfold. The latter is a euphemism for maintaining enough perspective of the broader situation to accomplish the objectives the initiative originally set out to do.

 I hope the Budweiser horses don’t make an unscheduled appearance near a certain house on Pennsylvania Avenue this afternoon, or that there aren’t too many picketers for various causes, or too many network interviews with executives of those causes, or too many book deals offered, or ………

 Edmund R. Belak, Jr.

Head of Corporate Communications and

Investor Relations

Tweet This Post  Delicious This Post  Facebook  Stumble This Post 

No comments »

If one of the world’s finest orators and PR savvy individuals, who is supported by a stellar media team, can turn his audience away from his message overnight, how can an average CEO, or senior manager avoid the same pitfall?

In choosing to comment forcibly on a local racially-charged incident in Massachusetts (the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Gates), President Obama slipped off his message and may have blown his opportunity to set the stage for a positive vote on his health care reform package. Instead, we have an incident that the media had already put to bed with the “Police Department Drops Charges” articles being brought back to the forefront in a crescendo of he said/she said pieces with accusations and refusals of apologies flying hither and yon. More “fun” than healthcare reform? You bet. What was he talking about, anyway?

The President’s press conference earlier this week was supposed to be remembered as a carefully staged and intelligent plea by the President of the United States to convince the people and their elected representatives of the need to engage in comprehensive health care reform. But it will actually be remembered for our country’s CEO providing an answer to a question about a difficult incident involving one of his friends, even though he wasn’t there and didn’t have all the facts. Hmmmmm…..

This example is not utilized to comment on the merits of healthcare reform, or to opine on whether a Harvard professor or a Cambridge police officer had his facts correct. It just drives home the fact that it is really, really hard to get control of the media message when you are being reactive to a situation, especially a difficult one that raises deep rooted fears, or is applicable across a wide audience. It also points out that even the most experienced executives can wander from carefully drawn paths. So what is a PR professional supposed to do?

The standard stock and trade of the PR industry is messaging and media training. But there is media training and there is MEDIA TRAINING. Even the most practiced of trainers—those who work with clients to get their messages down pat, video tape and critique mock sessions again and again, and rehearse frequently asked questions—often miss the boat. Why? Because it is the INFREQUENTLY asked questions that throw executives off, and last night’s press conference was a perfect case in point. We, as PR counselors, need to do a better job of assessing the media landscape and news cycles prior to our clients’ presentations, announcements, or speeches. And we have to ask ourselves the question: “What if?” And we have to prepare our clients for probable impossibilities and improbable possibilities. If you don’t believe me, ask the White House press corps today.

There is one other thing… no matter how well-trained and how experienced our clients are, we have to look them in the eye just before the interview, or appearance, and tell them—with all the senior counsel we can muster—to stay on message, stay on message, period.

The bigger communications issue that surfaces as a result of the President’s snafu is the comparison between the near success of a carefully constructed proactive public relations effort and the less successful reactive effort that is now being done on the fly to counteract the spin cycle moving the public and legislative bodies off the health care message. That’s not to say excellent crisis management can’t turn the situation around, but it won’t be done through a Town Hall Meeting in Cambridge, or a simple photo op of a certain professor shaking hands with a certain police officer.

Edmund R. Belak, Jr.

Head of Corporate Communications and Investor Relations

Tweet This Post  Delicious This Post  Facebook  Stumble This Post 

No comments »

Am I no better than a third-rate ambulance chaser?  That question crossed my mind as I began to think about Michael Jackson’s death and which of our clients would be available to comment to media on the Jackson story.

After Jackson’s death was announced, I-like so many across the globe-felt a sense of disbelief and sadness.  Random memories began to surface… the “Bad” cassette tape from fifth grade.  The “Thriller” album from kindergarten (my first new and really only LP; albums were already going the way of the dinosaur).  The feeling of excitement — which exists to this day — when “Billie Jean” is played.

Yes, all those thoughts were there.  But quickly, they were replaced (at least temporarily), by the question that every publicist should always ask in any breaking news situation, “Which of our clients can comment to the media?”

If you’re not a publicist, you might well say, “You ARE a third-rate ambulance chaser, Linden-a media hack, and you have no sense of decency!”

The accusation is understandable, but not on point.  It is one thing to simply throw someone on television or to journalists to speculate about Jackson’s personal life and question his character.  It is another thing to have an experienced expert comment on the process.

And so, when he died, I immediately thought, this is as much a business story, as it is a personal and tragic epic.  Surely, someone will need to walk viewers and readers through the aspects of Jackson’s business empire, his royalties, licensing and copyrights.  What happens, I asked, to his empire, which is so large and yet debt-filled and unclear in terms of its control?

At the end, we contacted one of our clients (a prestigious accounting firm), and worked to obtain high-tier media opportunities on behalf of one of its music licensing accounting experts, who works with major entertainments artists.

His expertise helped explain the process and what happens more generally to artists of Jackson’s stature in terms of estate and music licensing issues.

No doubt some might argue, “Why does any of this need to be discussed at all?”  Again, a fair question. But, Michael Jackson was one of the greatest performers and celebrities of our time.  His death was one of the major stories of the year, and it is my job to ask how our clients can be a part of that story in a dignified, helpful way.

If a client can ultimately educate, explain and show a viewer or reader how a process works (without character assassination), then a firm like ours has succeeded.

Perhaps that’s why I wouldn’t feel comfortable working with tabloid programs and pitching so-called experts who shoot from the hip to explain “Michael’s mindset” and “last days.”  Granted, those folks have a view to express, but I don’t want to be responsible for putting forth those views.  At that point, I believe, one really does become a third-rate ambulance chaser.

by Seth Linden
Senior Vice President

Tweet This Post  Delicious This Post  Facebook  Stumble This Post 

No comments »

Something extraordinary has certainly occurred in the world of media and communications.

User-generated content technologies such as Twitter, mobile video and YouTube took the lead in reporting on the civil unrest in Iran, while CNN and the New York Times were forced to rely on this content for their reporting on this monumental global event.

Since journalists were barred from the streets, the use of user-generated content was born out of necessity, but in the aftermath several questions emerge:

• Does this represent a one-time event, or a sea change in the media environment?

• Has the user-generated content-led coverage of Iran permanently shifted the media environment to the point where user-generated media is an equal partner to traditional media?

• If so, what are the ramifications for corporate communicators and PR executives?

Consumers definitely value social media content created by other users. Businesses and institutions also are embracing and creating this content in an effort to communicate more directly with their customers.

If the model for media coverage seen in the Iranian protests becomes the norm, and journalists accept user-generated content as a (nearly) equal voice, then we as communicators will be faced with a truly integrated communications environment — bloggers and Twitterers will expand on stories written by the mainstream media, and “professional journalists” will advance stories originated by user-generated content.

If this mindset takes hold, then collaboration can happen with stories on every topic, not just in cases where individuals with social media broadcasting capabilities happened to be first on the scene, such as in Iran and the Hudson River landing of U.S. Airways flight 1549.

Companies that have considered traditional media and social media audiences separately need to begin embracing an integrated communications strategy that takes advantage of the increasing interplay between the journalists and other audiences that produce content, such as customers, investors, concerned citizens, and even regulators.

Given that CNN and the Wall Street Journal are looking for story ideas on YouTube and Facebook, companies must ensure that the messages disseminated via social media are aligned with the messages being delivered to traditional media. Therefore, social media efforts are direct communications to traditional media journalists.

by Daniel P. Bingham

Director, Interactive Communications

Tweet This Post  Delicious This Post  Facebook  Stumble This Post 

No comments »

Now that the SEC has finally chimed in on the “to disclose or not to disclose” medical melodrama faced by Apple’s board regarding Steve Jobs’ liver transplant, we’ll all feel much better.

Perhaps not as well as Mr. Jobs does presently-and certainly not as well as Apples’ shareholders who held the stock since last January. But was the decision to clearly withhold material news an expertly crafted exercise in corporate miscommunication, or just a very lucky coincidence of market timing in which corporate and macro economic events would have trumped whatever decision was made?

To those who believe the proof is in the proverbial pudding, the consistent appreciation and current price of Apples’ stock stands as witness to the board’s “wise” decision to obfuscate. Certainly investors would have fled in droves had the charismatic founder’s peril been disclosed. But would they?

Key product launches were successfully announced prior to Jobs’ absence and a literal market tsunami drove large cap techs throughout the first half of 2009, creating the near appearance of something clearly bovine in the equities space.

To those who believe a level playing field is in order at all times, under all circumstances disclosure of materially important material news is … well…. materially important.

There is and can be no other way.

The concern being that if investors weren’t told and Mr. Jobs became permanaently incapacitated (or worse), the stock would have cratered and shareholders would have sued with abandon. And another great brand would have been tarnished.

No CEO is forever–not even Steve Jobs. It is the legacy of their corporate deeds, not their books, that determines history’s take of CEOs tenure. And certainly from a product innovation, shareholder reward and customer service standpoint Jobs stands tall, very tall. But he has a chance now to give back to the system that has literally given him his life. Apple should become less implosive and take upon itself a sincere and significant cause- related marketing effort to do everything corporately possible to support and enhance the organ transplant system in the United States. No other company is so well positioned to do so in terms of technology or cachet. And no other CEO is so well positioned as both spokesperson and beneficiary.

by Ed Belak

Director, Corporate Communications and Investor Relations

Tweet This Post  Delicious This Post  Facebook  Stumble This Post 

No comments »