Tiger and the White House Party Crashers

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).

Carrie Prejean - not a good moment for Media Training

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?

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

Video Blog: The Right Way to Conduct Media Training

Geithner on Meet the Press - Style and Substance

The Obama administration has been making a concerted effort to shore up the image and credibility of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. I won't attempt to analyze the details of the Administration's plan in this space, but I can shed light on the style and substance of his appearance on "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

Style: Improving, but still needs work. The transcript of the program will be very positive, but in watching the program I noticed that more than half the time he leaned away from David Gregory when first responding to questions. Unless there is a Botox solution (bad move for a Cabinet Secretary) Geithner knits his brow when speaking which makes him seem worried. The voice at time is a little tremulous - a few exercises can cure that. And for some reason, the position of the chair made him look like he was peering down and a little dour. This doesn't make sense since David Gregory is easily 6'4" or more and the chair position should have enabled him to look directly across or even look up.

On the positive side, Geithner communications style has a number of strong elements that others can emulate. He did not succumb to the temptation of answering every question as asked. At least twice (not overdone), he didn't answer the "cross-examination" question right away and said, "Let me step back..." This phrase allowed him to frame the answer in an appropriate context. On another exchange, Geithner added a phrase "Just one more thing..." before responding to Gregory’s next question. It's perfectly acceptable in an interview to finish your thoughts on a subject before moving on to the next question from reporter.

Geithner and his staff did a good job of anticipating the questions. He knew he was going to be asked about the slow pace in getting senior officials appointed and confirmed at Treasury. Geithner was on the targe when he first framed the question in terms of the actions taken by the Department (despite the lack of senior posts filled). He also praised the people (career and appointed) who were working to produce actions.

Geithner was also ready with a good metaphor. He compared credit to oxygen in the blood stream; necessary for the body (or the economy) to live and flourish. He also communicated the oxygen metaphor at least twice. Other phrases repeated at least twice were: he notion that the plans for the Administration are for "going forward" and that the inherited economic conditions from the Bush Administration limited the "choices."

Now if Secretary Geithner could just do something about that baby face...

How Often Do We Get "Do-Overs?"

The travails of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler before Congress in Washington last week present painful lessons for anyone with a critical presentation.

How often do we get a chance for a "do-over" or make good on a critical business plan or presentation? Pretty rare. Only in extraordinary circumstances such as the possible implosion of the US automakers would the companies get a second chance. In essence, the school teacher (Congress) said that: "You students haven't done a very good job on your term paper. We'll give you one more chance. Otherwise, you'll probably flunk the course."

In CommCore's Presentation and Media Training seminars, we would never suggest cutting the preparation this close. What we saw was failure to analyze the audience and know what was expected, lack of preparation of a real plan and no one looking at the optics (flying in on three separate private jets).

Only the current economic situation, especially the unemployment figures, is aiding the auto companies request for financial aid. Very few of us will get such do-overs if we're not prepared.

What lessons are you learning from the auto companies request for aid?

Shouting Fire in a Crowded Theater

As all parties try to find responsiblity for the current economic mess, we are bound to see a great deal of finger pointing - some in the right direction, some misguided.

TV financial host Jim Cramer went far off the deep end regarding AIG when he implored his viewers: "We should hound them in the supermarket, we should hound them in the ball park, we should hound them everywhere they are. We should make fun of them and we should point fingers at them and we should tell them that you have no shame."

Rather rapidly, new AIG CEO Edward Libby responded on a Wall St. Journal blog.

"Those comments are outrageous. I demand they be retracted and that you apologize to AIG's employees. It is one thing to criticize the executive leadership of AIG - that's fair commentary. But it is way out of bounds to incite people to confront and harass other AIG employees - hard-working, dedicated people who are running good businesses and are committed to our success.
The employees of AIG did not cause this mess, but they are paying for it - in diminished 401K savings and in some job losses as we sell companies to repay the Federal loan. The irony is that AIG employees did not cause the problem, but they will solve it. For that they deserve our praise and our gratitude."

While we do not know enough about what really happened at AIG, or what continues to occur as the firm rapidly draws on the Federal loans, Libby acted quickly and appropriately for his employees and shareholders.

Cramer makes his living by pushing the envelope and going for the outrageous. Like many others in the media space, there is a very strong temptation to say anything without thinking or fact checking. We encourage clients and citizens to utilize the current tools-whether it is a blog, web posting, posting on the site, or even appearing on the Cramer show-to counter what is not supported by facts.

If Cramer had just made his comments about AIG management, he might have been on safe ground. But verbally indicting all of the individuals in a company is not justified.

Temperament and Body Language

Not since Nixon v Kennedy have we seen so much discussion about body language and temperament as in the Obama v McCain contest.

The recent Time Magazine cover on temperment in President and candidates reinforces the points. Is it a smile or a condescending grim? Is it anger or righteous indignation. Many of our friends and acquaintances have talked about who seems more "presidential" than policy differences.

What have you been picking up? Is it the American flag lapel pin? Is it the age v. youth? Before we shift the discussion to what the next President must do in the first 90 days, tell us what you make of the "temperament" issue.