CommCore MEDIAtor

Toyota's Image Re-Building: The Start of a Long Haul

2010-02-25T09:33:00.004-05:00

The headline from the past two days of Toyota testimony before Congress is clear. Toyota has finally shaped and disseminated a message of corporate contrition: we grew too fast, focused on revenues and profits instead of quality control and the customer, and we forgot what got us to the top in the first place.

But corporate messaging aside, predicting the outcome of the crisis for the world #1 carmaker remains dicey. Here are some thoughts on the Toyota testimony from the past two days:

1. Toyota was well advised that the Members of Congress were the stars. Toyota executives did not attempt to upstage elected officials. They knew this was political theater.

2. The apology from Mr. Toyoda to individual customers and their families appeared sincere, but did not give any additional information or ammunition to the plaintiff attorneys. Apologies are not admissions of facts. Still, for one of the most powerful Japanese executives in the world to apologize to the public in person before another country's governing body is a powerful statement given that country's traditional culture of organizational pride and personal accountability.

3. The pledges to do better also appeared to be sincere but the recent documents praising the victory in dodging U.S. sanctions for minimizing recalls were very scarily damaging.

4. It's unclear what impact the hearings will have on the audiences of existing customers and potential customers. Customer decisions will depend on whether the "fixes" work and when and if the bad news stops.

5. There did not appear to be any "Japan bashing" from the US lawmakers. Reasons: Toyota has worked hard to integrate itself into the U.S. Its American workforce and its impact on domestic suppliers is significant. Furthermore, lawmakers - despite the government ownership of GM and Chrysler - have no inordinate love of U.S. owned auto makers. Toyota played the Congressional game the way any domestic company would. Asking why the early memo and signals of problems weren't communicated to the U.S. subsidiaries was more questioning of corporate communications incredulity than any xenophobia.

For the moment Toyota may be stabilizing its seriously damaged corporate public image. But the automaker still stands on shaky ground. Fixing mechanical problems will only be part of the next challenge. Rebuilding confidence in its products, and regaining the loyalty of customers, dealers and suppliers is going to be a much longer haul. My biggest question: What impact does this continue to have on the next generation of auto buyers? The current ones wouldn't buy their parents Oldsmobiles. Will next gen buy a Camry or a Lexus just because it was in the driveway?

What do you think? Has the corporate image band-aid worked? Will it translate into renewed trust in the Toyota brand and its products?

Why Toyota is Not Tylenol: Victim, Villain or Vindicator?

2010-02-11T15:57:00.002-05:00

In 1982, I was privileged to work with Johnson & Johnson during the first Tylenol crisis. I was asked to prepare CEO James Burke for the critical "60 Minutes" interview that was a key component in communicating the comeback strategy for the brand and the company. I also worked with other senior executives who fanned out to local markets throughout the US to create a local presence in key cities. Other than SARS and 9/11, I can't think of another crisis that matches the unique circumstance of Tylenol. This is because J&J and its Tylenol brand did nothing to cause this crisis. In almost all other crises, there is an aspect of what lawyers call contributory negligence to the events. No company or organization willingly causes a crisis.
However, most of the time, there is an event that precipitates the crisis.

Due to the size and scope of its current crisis, some are comparing Toyota to Tylenol. I don't believe there are many comparisons. Please read the analysis of Toyota vs. Tylenol that appeared in PRNews Online. http://bit.ly/dwZ1gv

Assessing Mr. Toyoda's Role Through the Ongoing Recall Crisis at Toyota

2010-02-01T16:57:00.004-05:00

As the recall at Toyota turns from a crisis to a long term saga that impacts the company's reputation, the company is finally doing many of the right things and trying to avoid missteps. The full-page advertisements in 20 national newspapers, the helplines and emails, the updates and webpage buttons are all well and good and necessary. While these efforts may be too late to pacify many disgruntled customers, dealers and stakeholders, apologies are finally coming from North America heads (namely North American CEO Jim Lentz) and other company spokespeople. CEO Akio Toyoda was even quoted as recently as this past weekend saying he was "very sorry" to a local Japanese auto trade publication.

But this is a saga, not a flash-in-the-pan crisis, which means that there will be much more to deal with. There will likely be lawsuits and other legal actions, uncountable criticisms, and now there will be a congressional investigation.

Communications professionals and advisors like us are particularly interested to monitor and discuss ways in which Mr. Toyoda should and shouldn't be utilized as the company attempts to weather this storm. The similarities and differences with the Tylenol crisis have been well established. But, how is the Toyota crisis different specifically regarding the CEO's role? How should the CEO be utilized differently than Johnson & Johnson's Jim Burke?

In July of last year, when Akio took over from his father, Shoichiro Toyoda offered some sage advice to his son. The new CEO was taking the wheel at a time of a global retrenchment of the auto industry and significant sales slump, even for this well-esteemed and trustworthy 70+ year-old company. At the same time, critics discussed how there had been a shift in focus from the customer and reliability to increasing volume, market share growth and profits. Shoichiro advised his son that he should consider these great challenges -both external and internal - as opportunities to emerge as an even stronger leader.

Just a few months later, the accelerator pedal problem is now a full blown crisis that threatens to hurt sales by over $1B, and cause immeasurable reputational damage.

So, how does a communicator assess and utilize Mr. Toyoda throughout this crisis? Is it time for
Mr. Toyoda himself to speak on the national and local stages in the U.S., or is it better left to Mr. Lentz (http://tinyurl.com/yjkutsz) and others? Is Mr. Toyoda adequately skilled, articulate, and would he be embraced by a U.S. audience? Mr. Lentz has already posted at least two video updates on the Toyota YouTube channel, (http://www.youtube.com/toyotausa). Should that have been done by Mr. Toyoda or should his communication best be limited to a Q&A with a global business publication like the Wall Street Journal? Should he tour the facilities where they are implementing the fix, and visit the factories where there has been a work stoppage to talk to the workers?

If the company is really serious about refocusing on the customer, they should enlist dealers on a grass roots level to reach out to customers and employees. There is evidence that the dealers are doing that already, but how much support are they getting from HQ? Should Toyota consider developing a new "best practices" in assessing defects, faulty parts and testing that go well beyond the current NHTSA guidelines and industry norms? If so, than those efforts should be documented and turned into a communication campaign that Mr. Toyoda can begin to articulate to all audiences. Perhaps therein lies the opportunity Mr. Toyoda's father spoke of.

What are your thoughts about Mr. Toyoda's communication role here? Should it be expanded or curtailed? Should Toyota actively seek to emerge as a leader in safety or just hunker down and get through the crisis and hope that time will heal this wound?

Tylenol vs. Toyota

2010-01-28T17:38:00.002-05:00

Tylenol vs. Toyota

2010-01-28T17:22:00.002-05:00

Toyota's January 2010 massive recall and sales stoppage of vehicles has been quickly compared to the recall by Johnson & Johnson of Tylenol in 1982.

Most of the similarities are in the enormity of the recall and the proactive nature of the effort. However, there are more differences in the nature of the problem and the current similarity than there are similarities.

SIMILARITY:
Similar to J&J, Toyota is going beyond what it may legally be required to do in recalling vehicles. J&J went further than what was required by the FBI to pull products from the shelves. Toyota is getting a big splash from total sales and production stoppage.

DIFFERENCES:
Tylenol was a different product, a different situation and a different environment. The difference between Tylenol's facts - and perhaps including SARS and 9/11 as crises - is that there was no "contributory negligence" on the part of the brand or J&J. While no product manufacturer ever wants to have a problem or defect, the fact is that TOYOTA did something that caused the problem. In the case of Tylenol, these were well made tablets that "someone else" tampered with. No one at J&J has ever been accused of doing anything wrong.

And of course, the media world is profoundly different from 1982. While J&J didn't think so at the time, the company had a relatively easy time of controlling the story and the message. The media was print, radio, TV and advertising. Now, it's the kitchen sink, with YouTube, chat rooms, Twitter and blogs the most difficult to control. J&J was hampered by not having a web site to post its information, Toyota is using its http://www.toyota.com/ for releasing information. I'm personally a bit surprised at the relatively small size of the button on the home page.

One more item. During Tylenol, J&J Chairman Jim Burke was the face of the brand and the company. So far, no one from Toyota has emerged to give this terrible event a human dimension. In addition to the web site, I'm surprised that Toyota is not using its YouTube channel with even a brief statement. Now that the crisis has gone global, it would be appropriate to have a faces of the company and post in many languages to reach more customers.

How do you think Toyota is doing?

Yogi Berra Tells It Like It Is

2010-01-21T15:45:00.002-05:00

Lessons for Business Leaders from the Massachusetts Election

2010-01-20T11:04:00.010-05:00

The talking heads and columnists will analyze/spin the politics behind the Massachusetts upset by Scott Brown (R) over Martha Coakley (D) for Teddy Kennedy's U.S. Senate seat.

At CommCore, we think there's a lesson or two for business leaders in all this: First, know your customer. Second, celebrity CEOs don't necessarily win over buyers.

In the first case, Coakley and her team ran a weak campaign that never connected with voters:
- She lost the sound bite war. Her gaffe was calling Curt Schilling Red Sox star pitcher and blue collar hero a New York Yankee. In contrast, Brown had a slam dunk with the line, "It's not the Kennedy seat, it's the people's seat."
- She made tactical errors like going to Washington to meet with lobbyists and major donors a week before the election. The cumulative effect made it appear she was elitist, out-of-touch, didn't know who the voters were, or understand their angst about so-called Big Government and Fat Cats.
- She never introduced herself with a compelling storyline to back her law enforcement credentials as a prosecutor. How many people knew her husband was a cop? How come he wasn't out there in person and in TV spots touting her toughness and caring for everyday citizens?

Can you imagine a business successfully touting its product or service without a thorough understanding of the customer, the market, and communicating a compelling brand message that resonates? That's what Coakley failed to do. Wealthy suburban lawyer Brown, meantime, drove around in a highly-visible old pickup truck with 200,000 miles on it, and was portrayed as a hero of the people.

The second point, about celebrity CEOs, reminds us of the old line from Tip O'Neill, a Bostonian and former Speaker of the House. O'Neill's mantra: "All politics is local." So while "national CEO" President Obama is personally popular in the state, he couldn't convince Massachusetts voters to change their minds about the candidates/products in front of them despite his star quality and oratorial skill.

Lesson number two for business leaders: senior executives' popularity and celebrity are assets to be tapped carefully and selectively. They are not substitutes for an enterprise properly framing and communicating strong brand and product messages that meet a target audience's needs and wants.

Can you think of businesses and their leaders who have made the same mistakes as the Coakley campaign? Conversely, which business leaders have learned the communications and public relations lessons and managed best to connect with their target market?

Timing Isn't Everything, But It Counts For A Lot

2010-01-14T16:03:00.007-05:00

The Rev. Pat Robertson, one of America's best-known evangelist broadcasters, created a firestorm Wednesday night even as he was busy soliciting donations for earthquake-ravaged Haiti on his Christian Broadcasting Network's flagship show, "700 Club." Robertson intimated that Haiti had been cursed by God for making a pact with the Devil to kick out the country's former French colonial masters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXiyceNZmiU

"You know ... something happened a long time ago in Haiti....They were under the heel of the French...They got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you get us free from the French.' And so, the Devil said, 'OK, it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out," Robertson said. "You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after another."

It didn't take long for the statement to create tremors of its own. Religious leaders such as Franklin Graham (son of evangelist Billy Graham) condemned the comment. "He must have misspoken," Graham said of Robertson. "But we need to get on the path of helping people right now. God loves the people of Haiti. He hasn't turned his back on Haiti." White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, "At times of great crisis there are always people who say really stupid things." White House advisor Valerie Jarrett said on ABC that she was "speechless at that kind of remark. Our heart goes out to the people of Haiti....That's not the attitude that expresses the spirit of the president or the American people, so I thought it was a pretty stunning comment to make."

The Christian Broadcast Network website today contained an official statement claiming Robertson was speaking objectively about Haiti's history that has led "countless scholars and religious figures over the centuries to believe the country is cursed. Dr. Robertson never stated that the earthquake was God's wrath," the statement reads. "If you watch the entire video segment, Dr. Robertson's compassion for the people of Haiti is clear."

There are times when efforts at "clarification" ring hollow, and this is one of them. At CommCore we advise our crisis communications clients that timing is one crucial factor among many when deciding whether to apologize for a public statement that created controversy, intentional or not, or whether to try to explain it away.

With the very real possibility of tens of thousands of fatalities in Haiti at this very moment, and the prospect of a rebuilding effort that will take years to complete, now is not the time to parse phrases and try to convince an audience of what Robertson may or may not have "meant" to say.

Now would be a time to come right out and apologize immediately for making a statement that regardless of whether it was interpreted correctly, was ill-conceived and inappropriate.

What do you think? Can you come up with other misguided efforts at revisionist history after a controversial public statement created an uproar?

Crisis & NBA Players with Guns

2010-01-07T12:02:00.002-05:00

Power of LinkedIn Groups for Entrepreneurs and Communicators

2010-01-06T14:43:00.001-05:00

Here's an ongoing case study of a great use of LinkedIn Groups that solves the entrepreneur's issue of where to go for inputs and advice.

I say ongoing because fellow professionals are still chiming in with advice.

Here's the issue: A solo PR practitioner has a delicate and challenging crisis situation. The details are less important than the concern that unless handled well, the situation could get blown out of proportion through media coverage, negative blogging and community activism.The practitioner doesn't have 4 partners down the hall to brainstorm with, so she put out a request on a LinkedIn PR group for help ASAP. Unlike too many LinkedIn postings which are paper-thin marketing pitches, this one was a genuine request.

Over the past 18 hours I've seen 20+ thoughtful responses, with both analysis and practical suggestions. The responses refer to each other and build into real consultative help for the practitioner. Here's a sample of what the requesting PR person wrote to her colleagues: "You are all amazing! I'm sending a few of you private responses to your questions...We now have solid plans in place for just about every situation we can think of. I can't thank you all enough."

Seems to me this is the essence of what social media - especially among professional communities - is supposed to be about: less self-promotion and more genuinely useful conversations that leverage the knowledge and skills of a particular online professional community. As professional communicators, that's something to remind ourselves about the next time no one responds to a LinkedIn posting.

Anyone else with such a good experience with LinkedIn?

In Crisis Communications Perception Is Reality

2009-12-29T12:59:00.007-05:00

Point One: The only thing that matters as much as a leader BEING in command of a dangerous situation is whether he or she APPEARS to others to be in command.

Point Two: The only thing that matters as much as what you MEAN to say is what other people THINK you meant when you said it.

These are tried-and-true lesson of crisis communications learned once again the hard way by the Obama Administration in the wake of the failed attempt by an alleged Nigerian terrorist to blow up an American jetliner over Detroit on Christmas Day.

Regarding Point One: The administration waited three days to have President Obama address the nation from his vacation in Hawaii. Before he spoke out on TV about his order to security agencies to re-examine the entire terror suspect watch-list process, weekend news reports had him "monitoring" the situation while he was played golf. By Sunday and into Monday morning reporters and commentators on several networks and in some major newspapers were openly questioning the president's judgment on that score. Of course the President was on top of the situation. But sticking to your tee time for a round of golf is not the media image you want of your Communicator-In-Chief in the 24 hours following the potential loss of close to 300 lives in a domestic terror incident.

Regarding Point Two: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's appearance on a Sunday TV talk show was marked by one sound bite that could come back to haunt her: "The system worked." Huh? The alleged terrorist got on the plane despite missed warnings to American security agencies that he was considered a potential threat, including a warning phone call to US authorities several weeks ago from the young man's father. He carried explosives and an incendiary device through security in Amsterdam. He managed to light the device, but failed to cause an explosion apparently because of a detonator malfunction. And he was taken into custody when a fellow passenger tackled him, preventing him from trying again to cause the blast. The "system" worked? Shades of Alexander Haig.

Of course what the Secretary MEANT to say was that the post-incident response worked, and the nation's security operations remained intact and on alert. She was trying to reassure the American public. But that's not what the sound bite conveyed. If anything, it made government leadership appear to be disconnected from the reality of a near-miss caused, in part, by the failure of security agencies to spot the threat in advance.

In times of crisis perception IS reality. At CommCore Consulting Group we counsel our clients that how leaders appear and what they say is as important as what they know and what they are doing. What do you think of the President's and Secretary Napolitano's handling of their responses to this crisis?

If the Washington Post didn't hear or see the tree fall, it still may have happened.

2009-12-28T10:03:00.003-05:00

Remember the riddle: If a tree falls in the woods and no one was there to see or hear it, how do we know it really fell? The new answer is because of cell phone camera and Facebook and Twitter. Take the recent snow storm in Washington, DC was not only big news in the U.S., it made headlines in Europe. So did the Tweet-up Snow Ball fight with the gun toting off-duty officer. http://bit.ly/7Xz6kW

I saw it as a story and photo in a London newspaper. I was first struck by the fact that the Washington snowball fight was a web and Tweet-up public event. And I thought that 20 somethings didn't use Twitter. Not sure how many text messages played a part, but probably not very traditional land line calls were involved.

Fast forward to the snow ball fight and the off-duty officer didn’t like his Hummer being hit by snowballs. It wasn't a reporter from the Washington Post that saw him draw a weapon, it was a snowball revelers with cell phone cameras. http://bit.ly/7yiCSR

The cops issue the usual denials that he drew a gun. Not so, because photos and videos are on YouTube, blogs and pasted on a Facebook page and pretty soon the "traditional media" is picking it up. http://bit.ly/8ccFSh So, a London newspaper writes a story about a tweet-up and Facebook postings and calls it reporting.

Remember the more serious Virginia Tech shootings and the first videos on CNN were from a shakey cell phone. The early videos from demonstrations in Iran were from cell phones. The first information on the point is that in today's world every cell phone is a camera and every tweet could be global news.

Crisis communicators can't relax if an incident doesn't make it to traditional local news. Don't be paranoid, but monitor the news, Facebook, twitter and blogs.

Value vs. Values: Is There Anything We Should Know Before We Pay You A Gazillion Dollars?

2009-12-22T08:21:00.005-05:00

A recent harvardbusiness.org article published by Bloomberg used the Tiger Woods fiasco to question the value of celebrity endorsements (http://bit.ly/6kzMMy).

Using celebrities to promote a brand, product or service has been a tried-and-true marketing strategy for decades. Celebrities have reveled in the publicity from image-building campaigns; in turn brands, products and services have harnessed the push-and-pull between celebrities and the public to drive awareness and increase sales. Everybody wins, right?

What has changed? As the article notes, increasingly the personal lives of many celebrities raise ethical dilemmas that - when made public - harm not only them, but the reputation of any associated brand. Skeletons in the celebrity closet are as old as the hills. But here's the not-so-new twist: there's no privacy any more. The explosion of the Internet in the past decade, and of social media in the last five years has taken care of that.

You might say that's "duh" obvious. Yet sometimes it takes a monumental crisis to get a message through. (PS: As we at CommCore Consulting Group like to ask, "Is your brand crisis plan up-to-date?") Just ask former Tiger sponsor Gillette (http://bit.ly/5aWD7Q). It was only a matter of time before a run-of-the-mill Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears-type embarrassment struck a truly global figure and marketing phenomenon of the stature of Tiger Woods. And now that it has, the question posed by harvardbusiness.org is a legitimate one - is the risk of human frailty being exposed worth the return? If this Paragon of Everything can crumble so quickly before our eyes dragging himself, his family and associated good brand names with him, then what chance does your standard everyday celebrity endorser have?

Perhaps, as the article suggests, it IS time to revert to marketing and messages that link customers directly with brands, products and services without the filter of a famous figure. In a time of increasing skepticism about institutions and leadership in general, maybe the best way to communicate a brand story and value proposition these days is simply to say what it'll do for you.

What do you think? Is the marketing and messaging slogan for the next decade going to be, "Ask Not What a Celebrity Can Do for Your Brand; Ask What Your Brand Can Do for Everybody Else?"

Tiger and Headline Writers

2009-12-17T09:33:00.003-05:00

Tiger and the White House Party Crashers

2009-12-04T13:00:00.003-05:00

Tiger Woods was the best thing that happened this week to the still nearly-famous (will they soon become infamous?) Michaele and Tareq Salahi, the Virginia reality-TV aspiring couple who "crashed" the White House state dinner last week and didn't show up when invited for Congressional testimony.

First Tiger. He didn't know, forgot or wasn't told: Get it over early. The sin is rarely the deed, it's almost always the cover-up. His belated apology and statement took the heat off...temporarily. Next time he tees off at a tournament watch out for a few errant golf shots aimed at the press. Long term damage to Tiger the Golfer and Brand Tiger and is unclear. In a game known to be as much about mental discipline as physical prowess, will Tiger be able to focus as much on the dimpled white ball? For the Tiger Brand, as a private public figure, Tiger's prior great reputation is helping him now.

Second, the Salahi's, who can't seem to retreat from the news. Let's look at the other involved parties (sic). Start with the Secret Service, which has been candid and forthright with owning the problem: "Bottom-line: We're responsible. It could have been very easy to make a phone call or get on a radio and verify if someone was on a list. This is still our responsibility as we've said from the beginning," said Secret Service spokesperson Edwin Donavan.

Note to Tiger: If you make a mistake, direct and rapid acceptance of blame, works. According to media reports, the security breach occurred when Secret Service personnel at a first check point thought that the Salahi names would be checked at a second check point. Playing the game of "Alphonse and Gaston" with security - even with a crush of well dressed party goers - is not acceptable.

Crisis response is also about what did you learn? Assume that there has been analysis among the President's protective detail there will much tighter controls for anyone getting into the White House for any occasion.

The White House Social Office is also in a higher state of Crisis Response. Reportedly, in the Bush administration there would have been a staffer at every entrance with the social list (and perhaps photos of guests) comparing notes with the Secret Service. At the entrance used by the Salahi's, no one from the social office double checked the names on the invite list. Columnists have been having a field day about the social office being more concerned with being scene at the State Dinner than doing the quasi-security job.

As to the Salahi's, aka "Facebraggers" for using Facebook to post their photos, we still don't know where their saga will end. The Washington press has been replete with stories about their personal lives, efforts at social climbing, family feuds and debts. They are vehemently claiming that they were invited to the ball but decided once again not to prove the claim when asked by Congress to tell their saga. And the MO is all about playing the American celebrity game and trying to get paid for their appearances in the news to tell their story. Stay tuned, PT Barnum will probably raise his head and there will be a media sucker who can't resist the habit for the "exclusive". Then we’ll have the crisis of the press that pounds on the media that gets the exclusive (and bemoans the ratings hit).

Arrested for NOT Tweeting?

2009-11-25T11:12:00.003-05:00

When Tweet Time Becomes Jail Time

2009-11-24T11:44:00.003-05:00

It's probably a first, getting arrested for NOT tweeting. This also falls into the category of: be careful what you wish for, especially if it's on a social network.

Last week Def Jam record label executive James Roppo tweeted that 15-year-old Canadian pop singer sensation Justin Bieber would be signing autographs at a Long Island, NY mall clothing store. Screaming teeny-boppers began lining up as early as 7 hours before the event.

As the day grew longer, the crowd -- mostly pre-teens and teens -- reached an estimated 10,000. A sudden surge forward caused a stampede of youngsters worried they would not get in to see their idol. Police, fearing injuries, asked Roppo to re-tweet that the event was cancelled. He refused. It took tweets by Bieber himself, who was prevented by authorities from entering the Mall, to get word out to social networks for teens stay away from the event. "They are not allowing me to come into the mall," Bieber tweeted. "The event...is cancelled. I don't want anyone hurt."

Only minor injuries were reported. But Roppo was arrested by authorities and faces potential charges of reckless endangerment, criminal nuisance, obstruction of government administration and endangering the welfare of children. Def Jam Records later issued a statement citing the safety concerns of "the police and the Fire Marshal" that "prohibited the event from taking place."

Could it be, however, that the cause for the cancellation was the use of social media in the first place that excited young fans into a frenzy? The instantaneous delivery to thousands of tweeters enamored with the teen heartthrob, and their subsequent real-time re-tweeting of news of the Bieber appearance, might well have been its own firestorm in the making.

Another question -- about both the medium and the communication -- is what responsibility did Roppo or others have to continue communicating?

One of CommCore Consulting Group's first rules of communication is to consider all potential implications before you decide how to reach out. On reflection, might not Roppo and Bieber realized that exciting thousands of impressionable young fans at an instant on their mobile devices and computers could proliferate into a potential crisis? We wonder if Roppo was in essence shouting "fire" in what became a crowded theater, one of the exceptions to First Amendment rights. What do you think?

Carrie Prejean - not a good moment for Media Training

2009-11-19T09:04:00.005-05:00

Talk about programming and bad media training, Carrie Prejean gave a bad name to a serious craft last week in the interview on the "Larry King Show." See YouTube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R0a9xq6uek

While we weren't part of the prep, it was pretty obvious that the former Ms. California USA was pre-programmed to not answer any questions about what went on in the actual negotiations between her side and the Miss USA pageant. When Larry King asked about what motivated Carrie to enter mediation, Ms. Prejean immediately went to default mode and interpreted the question as one asking about the content of the mediation, which was off-limits.

Not answering certain questions is an appropriate response in specific circumstances, i.e. when asked about proprietary information, classified information, studies not completed, litigation, personal information and several other subjects. But it should not be invoked when asked other questions.

Couple this with the pre-preprogrammed stunt of taking off the mic and walking off the set and we have to conclude that Carrie was poorly prepped and coached.

There's a reason there are terms of "earned" vs. "paid" media. If Ms. Prejean was willing to "use" Larry King, then she should understand and/or be counseled that the ticket for "free" publicity is the credible answer to some questions.

What's your view?

Will they be flexible?

2009-11-09T10:20:00.003-05:00

This week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will hold a public hearing on Social Media. The formal name of the hearing is Promotion of Food and Drug Administration-Regulated Medical Products Using the Internet and Social Media Tools (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-22618.htm).

Catchy name huh? But there's hope in the government speak. We all know how the internet and social media have dramatically changed our lives. They have provided access to information, research and data for patients and caregivers. We can be much better informed on almost all aspects of health and wellness.

Yet this explosion scares regulatory agencies such as the FDA. The Agency has enough on its plate with drug approvals, monitoring what's being used, tainted products like peanuts and spinach, dealing with approved marketing and promotion of products within label.

The hearing is the hottest ticket in DC this week. Only 60 speakers allowed, and 800 people asking for seats in an auditorium that only seats 300. From what we've heard, the FDA first wants to listen to different views - ranging from large pharmaceutical and medical device companies and their associations, to Google and Yahoo, to web site and content developers. The first day is more general, the second day is more focused on Adverse Events. After the hearings, the speakers will also add comments for the record. If you can't get there go to http://www.fdalive.com/webcast.cfm for the streaming video.

We believe that if the FDA decides it needs to create rules for social media, they should be as flexible as possible to accommodate technological changes and new applications. For example, if FDA had created rules last year, the Agency would already need to adjust due to the explosive growth of Twitter.

Here are some of the questions that FDA must grapple with:

If the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) can use Twitter, Facebook and other social media to communicate info on public health issues such as H1N1, why can't regulated drug and device companies use the same technology to communicate (perhaps with links to ensure fair balance)?

To what extent are companies responsible for technologies such as Sidewiki which make it look like information next to the company or product site might be viewed as company sponsored information? We doubt the FDA would risk a fight with Google and try to ban such web innovations?

How can Social Media help companies do a better monitoring AE's (adverse events) for their products?

Should companies be required to monitor the entire web for any mentions of their product?

We hope it's an informed and open discussion that helps FDA provide proper control and guidance for regulated products in a Wild West world.

Visit http://bit.ly/MWy5w for our Video blog on this subject.

FDA and Social Media

2009-11-06T14:14:00.005-05:00

The Burger King Lie-Detector Ad: Future Communications Shock?

2009-10-05T09:35:00.005-04:00

Ad industry tongues are wagging over the much-anticipated TV commercial and live webcast featuring NASCAR racer Tony Stewart. Stewart signed a lucrative contract endorsing Burger King earlier this year. On Oct 20 he will take a live polygraph test to prove that his mouth truly is where the money is - that he likes and eats Burger King hamburgers. http://tinyurl.com/nfb9qj

The ramifications of this campaign run far beyond the already-shaky credibility of celebrity endorsements. It makes me think about the super model we media trained who was endorsing a garden-variety department store cosmetic. Did anybody really think she really used that brand when walking down the runway or appearing in other product ads? Did anybody even ask her, much less suggest she take a lie-detector test?

Even if an incident is circumstantial, it could give a spokesperson's reputation a big hit. (Imagine if a hungry Stewart were caught on a post-polygraph video clip grabbing, say, a McDonald's burger at the racetrack because a friend picked one up and passed it to him.)

For professional communicators in PR, public affairs, and corporate communications, the notion of a public campaign like Burger King's built around "proving" authenticity is a sobering precedent. Though one innovative ad campaign certainly does not a trend make, how far-fetched is it to imagine a day when such "proofs" become de rigeur in product advertising? Then, could we see polygraphs or other litmus tests in the broader communications arena - for political ads, advocacy campaigns including attack ads, or any public statements by senior executives and officials?

OK, maybe that's a stretch. But on the other hand, the broad media industry has been known for seizing on trends that capture the public's imagination. The implications for reputation management could be enormous. What do you think? Is this a one-time gimmick? Or is it potentially a first step down a new road of high-profile executive and celebrity accountability, even if the initial Burger King foray is just for publicity?

For us, the bottom line for communicators is this: truth, transparency, and consistency of messaging and branding have never been more important to reputation than today.

To Tweet or Not to Tweet?

2009-09-30T09:43:00.003-04:00

Think Before You Tweet

2009-09-25T09:35:00.006-04:00

The good news about social media is that it expands our information sources. The bad news is that the lack of editing and filtering can cause repercussions.

Take for example, professional athletes, who have taken up blogging and tweeting. We now have insights into training camp, games and other aspects of the sports and are not beholden to sports writers, and electronic media coverage for all of our information.

Now let's drill down to Washington Redskins linebacker Robert Henson. He tweeted his reactions to being booed by the hometown fans, calling the Redskin faithful "dim wits".. He also tweeted: "The question is who are you to say you know what's best for the team and you work 9 to 5 at Mcdonalds." http://tinyurl.com/y9sb2pk

Now that's a sure way to go viral and the equivalent of a referee's whistle (dare we say "tweet") for a 15 yard social media penalty. In soccer, this might get at least a yellow card, maybe a red card.

Where are the sports agents and managers who work so hard to get the big contracts? The sports world believes in extensive practice to develop skills for maximum performance in a game. Why wouldn't athletes think and reflect for a second before tweeting.

There's more and more instant replay and review of sports - football, baseball, hockey, tennis, horse racing - all have ways to review a call and get it right.

Maybe athletes and celebrities should take a page from their own practice books and think before tweeting.

The Three Apology W's: Wilson,Williams, & West

2009-09-16T17:28:00.002-04:00

Separating the CEO from the Brand - Better Luck Separating the Wet from the Water

2009-08-20T09:56:00.006-04:00

Whole Foods tries to manage potential fallout from CEO John Mackey's Wall Street Journal OpEd on ObamaCare.

Last week, the often outspoken John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, wrote an OpEd piece in the Wall St. Journalopinion criticizing the President's public health initiative. He went as far as to declare that healthcare is not a right any more than food and shelter are rights for Americans.

This week, spokesperson Libba Letton, said the company was responding to emails about Mackey's article. "We're trying to explain that it was intended to be a personal opinion and not on behalf of the company."

Good luck!

The CEO of a company is always inextricably linked to the brand. What ties Mackey even closer (if that's even possible) are two factors: First, he is known for speaking frankly and "from the hip." Second - and specifically in this instance - Mackey sites several Whole Foods examples to prove his points on healthcare reform.

It may be too early to tell the extent of the fallout. Several groups have tried to organize consumer boycotts of the company.Those who follow the company and industry closely also expect these efforts to have some impact. Robert Passikoff, branding expert and founder of Brand Keys Consulting said: "Whole Foods has a particularly large segment of consumers who have a politically liberal tendency. That group looks at Whole Foods as a liberal brand. For them, this is now an issue of brand dissonance."

Michelle Chang, an analyst with investment research firm Morningstar boldly states: "Any concern about its image would damage sales heavily."

The general public may either strongly disagree with or align themselves tightly to Mackey's opinion. Marketing, branding and communications professionals may offer conflicting advice. And some industry analysts may predict deep loss where others say it'll barely impact the company at all. But one thing all will agree on is that what a CEO says reflects directly on his/her company.

We wonder if Mackey will ever learn - or wants to. It is nearly two years now since Mackey was "outed" for anonymously posting disparaging blog and Yahoo bulletin board entries about his competitors, namely, Wild Oats. His own communications team was forced to admit that was a blunder, banned such postings and revised policy. What will they do now?

What is your opinion? Do you believe there is any way for the CEO's opinion to be separated from the brand? What advice would you give Mr. Mackey and what precedents would you site?
______________________
Check out: CNNMoney.com's article: Whole Foods sweats CEO's health care manifesto at: http://tinyurl.com/kpqlv8