Waiting for Tiger

As a golf enthusiast and PR pro, I'm doubly eager to see how the Tiger Woods saga will unfold over the next few months. While the PGA Tour won't be the same without everyone gunning for arguably the greatest golfer to ever play the game, I'm more curious to see how the fallen hero will seek to repair his image off the golf course.

I applaud Tiger for making it his top priority to repair the damage in his family . . . if that's even possible. But his choice to go into hiding instead of confronting his situation in a more complete and forthright manner is troubling evidence of the "above-it-all" arrogance that helped land him in hot water in the first place.

My question is, why aren't Tiger's advisers providing him with more effective counsel during this tragic episode? His painstakingly crafted mea culpas, placed in the secure domain of his personal Website, fall far short of the honest acknowledgment his sponsors and supporters deserve.

Let's face it: Tiger's star power is such that he could command any public forum, under the most favorable terms, for his "come clean" interview. A guest spot on Oprah would go a long way toward restoring his integrity, with little threat of the kind of questioning a more cutthroat interviewer might employ.

Instead, Tiger continues to exhibit the stubborn behavior personified by Kevin Costner's Roy McAvoy in the movie "Tin Cup." Struggling on the fringes of golf for over a decade, McAvoy amazingly needs only to par the final hole to win the U.S. Open and the woman of his dreams. Instead of playing safe by laying up on the long par 5, he goes for the green in two, putting five shots in the water before miraculously holing out for a scorecard-bloating 12.

My advice to Tiger: put the 3 wood back in the bag, lay up, and get on with the business of winning golf tournaments.

Transparency (Finally) Comes to the Blogosphere

Kudos to the Federal Trade Commission for updating its guidelines on endorsements and testimonials in advertising for the first time since 1980. In a clear sign of the times, an FTC panel unanimously voted to require bloggers to clearly disclose any "material connection" to an advertiser, including payments for an endorsement or free product.

Rather than have a chilling effect on marketers seeking this type of third-party endorsement, I believe such visibility will now have increased credibility and value. In fact, I suspect communicators to become even more engaged with these "non-traditional media" as more mainstream outlets shut their doors. How ironic, then, that on the day the FTC announced its new guidelines, Conde Nast folded several of its top magazine titles.

Don't Pick Fights with Those Who Buy Ink by the Barrel

Here's an interesting crisis communications strategy you won't find in any textbook: file a lawsuit against the newspaper that shed light on your alleged misconduct.

That's exactly what generic drug maker Mylan Inc. did today, demanding the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette immediately return “internal confidential and proprietary documents” the company claims were “improperly obtained without Mylan’s knowledge or consent.”

In Mylan's defense, the FDA investigated the allegations of production irregularities at Mylan's Morgantown, W.Va., plant and found no problems. But Mylan's stock took a major hit as a result of the newspaper's coverage, so it's understandable the company would be upset.

The paper says it stands by its newsgathering and reporting. Of course, the Fourth Estate has Constitutional protections from surrendering sources, so unless it can be proven that the confidential information was obtained illegally -- which Mylan has not alleged -- I can't imagine the courts forcing them to return the material.

That said, the company is also seeking compensatory damages for the impact the paper's actions had on the company, which is a whole different ballgame. A court may well determine the paper acted improperly in printing the information, whether as a result of misinterpretation or sheer recklessness. It'll be interesting to see how this story plays out.

S.C. Press Secretary Gives Lesson in Integrity

As a former resident of the fine state of South Carolina, I've been more than a little embarrassed by the recent shenanigans of Gov. Mark Sanford. But I'm encouraged by the news that Sanford press secretary Joel Sawyer announced he's stepping down in a few weeks.

There can only be a handful of reasons for Sawyer to part ways with the governor he's served since his first term in office. He could be leaving for a better opportunity in the private sector or to spend more time with his family. But why now?

I'd like to believe it's because Sawyer was fed up with being lied to -- or, worse, being asked to lie for -- the man he so faithfully served. But we may never know, for Sawyer is taking the high road despite being put in a position no PR person ever wants to be in: telling falsehoods to the media.

PR Should Embrace Mommy Blogger Blackout

I know I should feel insulted by the call to arms on website MomDot for Mommy Bloggers to reject all overtures from PR people the week of Aug. 10-16.

Instead I'm actually thankful, because the move will call more attention to the unseemly practice of pay-for-play in blogs of all shapes and sizes. Nowhere is the practice more abused than with the mom blogs, whose authors are usually well-intentioned but typically unfamiliar with the principle of editorial objectivity.

I suspect an unintended consequence of this "Flak-out" will be a deeper appreciation among some bloggers of the value good PR people provide in helping them share useful information with their readers. We all have our roles to play, and recognizing that we can't do our jobs without each other is an important step toward a harmonious existence.

PRSA's "Pay for Play" Measures Not Good Enough

Kudos to the Public Relations Society of America for updating its Code of Ethics to require greater transparency with regard to "pay for play," the exchange of products, services or any inducement that encourages a journalist to provide editorial coverage.

Notably absent, though, in PRSA's new guidelines is any mention of the thousands upon thousands of quasi-journalists -- bloggers and other online influentials -- who hold sway over an increasing percentage of the opinion-seeking population.

The vast majority of bloggers have no Code of Ethics . . . they're just highly engaged, mostly well-intentioned individuals whose interest or passion for a particular subject has led them to a position of influence most never sought or envisioned. They don't know it's wrong to accept freebies, even if there's no quid pro quo requested or implied.

PR professionals should know better. In fact, most do. But to protect the profession from a handful of rotten apples, PRSA should put more teeth in its Code to address to address the potential abuse of the continually evolving digital landscape.

Who Do You Trust?

A recent Neilsen study shows user-generated content vaulted into second place behind recommendations from a friend in terms of trusted sources of consumer information. And brand websites, along with other forms of company-driven communication like TV ads and sponsorships, are making gains, suggesting a softening in overall consumer skepticism.

But the news isn't all positive. Newspapers were the only information source that saw a decline in trust, down 2% since 2007. And while they each saw modest increases the past two years, search result ads (41%), online banner ads (33%) and mobile text ads (24%) still languish well behind their traditional brethren.

The implications for PR pros? If you aren't already fully engaged in social media, this study illustrates the incredible power of online word-of-mouth. And don't overlook the good ol' company website as an opportunity to inform consumers seeking more detailed information.

Crisis Communications: If You Can't Beat 'Em, Mimic 'Em?

I was troubled but not surprised to learn that Chevron hired former CNN reporter Gene Randall to put together a story rebutting a "60 Minutes" piece on the $27 billion environmental lawsuit the company faces over alleged damage to the Amazon rainforest.

Telling your side of the story in the face of scathing news coverage is a tried and true PR tactic. But the piece is produced to appear like a purely journalistic exercise, with no attribution to Chevron. Randall is identified with an on-screen super that reads "Gene Randall Reporting," and he signs off the piece with the same language.

The 14-minute video is posted on YouTube and no doubt making the rounds of other social media channels, avoiding the scrutiny and editorial objectivity of mainstream news organizations. Regardless of the facts, I can't help but believe it's intent is not to inform, but to obfuscate. And how could a guy like Randall allow his name and reputation to be used in such a manner?

More troubling, and particularly surprising, are the number of seasoned PR pros who are defending the practice, suggesting the existence of social media channels makes such blatantly one-side, pseudo-journalism permissible. That's like saying it's OK to cheat on your taxes as long as you don't get caught.

There's an old saying in crisis PR that the court of public opinion can be more damaging than the court of law, so it's easy to understand Chevron's motivation in mounting this defense. But that's no excuse for tossing aside transparency, a crucial ingredient to earning trust and corporate reputation.

The 43-Year-Old Virgin

This is kind of embarrassing, so please be patient as I stammer out the words.

I've never Tweeted.

I know, it's 2009, and I'm Director of PR at an integrated marketing agency pushing to be at the forefront of all things digital. But for the life of me, I couldn't see the value of tapping into the stream of consciousness of the collective digerati. I mean, do I really care what some teenager in Spokane just ordered at Starbucks?

Then yesterday, I had an epiphany (note to self -- I need to have more epiphanies). I was in a cab headed to Midway with two MARC USA colleagues: Vivek Saran, who heads up account planning; and Adam Kmiec, our new wunderkind head of interactive. As Adam mindlessly tapped on his iPhone, Vivek asked him if he knew of an iPhone app that would allow him to work on Microsoft Office documents. "Nope," was all Adam said.

Then Adam tapped his phone and, I promise, not 30 seconds later chimed in with the answer. I don't even remember what it was . . . I was just struck by how quickly and easily he arrived at the solution by tweeting his fellow Twitterers.

You see, Twitter's not about indulgent self-expression. It's about connectivity, plain and simple. It's a pure expression of the power of the digital realm: by "crowdsourcing," Adam was able to tap a knowledge base broader than his own.

The implications for professional communicators are profound. The opportunities to tap this human network for delivering information are limitless. And I can't wait to start the journey with my first tweet.

Corporate Credibility in a 2.0 World

Seems you can't take anybody's word these days. First Motrin pulls its ad campaign after bloggers come to the defense of baby-toting moms. Then US Airways shelves it plan to charge passengers for soft drinks, followed by Tropicana scrapping its new packaging just weeks after unveiling the multi-million-dollar redesign. More recently, Skittles candy went from visionary to pariah when it yanked its Twitter-centric website in favor of Facebook a mere 24 hours after going live.

What's behind this corporate indeciveness? Looks to me like yet another example of The Law of Unintended Consequences.

For years communicators have been striving toward a paradigm in which they don't simply throw messages out to their targets audiences, instead engaging them in true conversation and dialog. Problem is, the response from some audiences isn't always what you hope it will be.

The digital world has made it incredibly easy for anybody -- from an ardent enthusiast to the most ax-grinding detractor -- to shape perceptions of companies or their products. While communicators grapple with these new realities, here are three basic tenets all companies should embrace:

1. Plan for the worst-case scenario. Back when companies had sole control over the flow of information, they could develop communication strategies on their terms. Now that control has shifted to the public, you've got to be ready to act when consumer activists, disgruntled employees or even your most loyal followers react in a manner contrary to your intentions.


2. Learn how to listen. These days, it's not good enough to have a customer service e-mail or toll-free number. You've got to be plugged into the blogosphere, chat rooms and other social media channels, because what people say about you is far more important than what they say to you. Ask the folks at Motrin, who returned to their offices Monday morning to be confronted with an avalanche of negative blog posts that materialized over the weekend.


3. Stick to your guns. For the life of me, I can't understand why Tropicana spent millions of dollars developing its new brand identity -- including, I'm sure, extensive focus group testing -- and then yanked the packaging after a handful of folks complained about not being able to find their favorite OJ at the grocery store. I'm not saying I love the new look. But if it was a good idea a few months ago, why is not a good idea now?

Bottom line is this: corporate communictons in the 21st century is not for the feint of heart. It takes foresight and confidence, which seem to be in short supply if the examples above are any indication.

As Trust in Banks Wanes, Whither PR?

Credit crisis? I think the current crisis of confidence facing the financial industry is far more dire, which is why it's so surprising how quiet banks, brokerages and other institutions have been the past few months.

Evn the most pessimistic economist will tell you that consumer sentiment --fueled, no doubt, by relentless media coverage of every layoff and stock-market hiccup -- is contributing heavily to the current climate. The question is, when the fundamentals of the economy are restored, how much will lingering fear keep the population from resuming their normal purchasing behavior?

As a communicator -- and a consumer -- I see a tremendous void in useful information about what's happening in the economy and what we should do about it. I'm not talking about sugarcoating the situation. I'm talking about informing and educating the public, a role for which PR is ideally suited.

Yet the financial services industry is eerily silent. Maybe they're afraid of getting caught with their pants down, like the Big 3 auto execs flying on private jets to court Congress for billions in bailout money. One PR consultant told me her mortgage lender client absolutely forbid any proactive media outreach until the storm passes.

PR pros may be staring at the proverbial once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. By reassuring the public during these turbulent times, they can restore confidence in the financial services sector and demonstrate the tangible value of thoughtful, purposeful public relations.

Integration Starts with Shared Goals

It seems so obvious, yet for some reason so elusive. Decades after the phrase "integrated communications" was first coined, most brands and organizations are no closer to realizing its potential despite a communications landscape that increasingly demands such a comprehensive approach.

While countless companies and agencies explore methods to coordinate their various communications activities, I believe integration is more a question of philosophy than process. And it starts with one pivotal question: are your communications efforts oriented around a shared set of goals?

Imagine a football team without a common purpose. Wouldn't the offense go for it every time on fourth down regardless of field position, putting their defensive teammates in a hole if they're unsuccessful? Understanding the bigger picture -- in this case, the importance of field position -- allows for decision-making that supports the overarching goal of winning the game.

More than any other communications discipline, public relations encompasses an organization's relationships with the full range of its stakeholder groups -- customers, employees, investors, government and likely many others. That's why I believe PR pros are uniquely qualified to drive integrated thinking, because of our uniquely comprehensive perspective.

"Say It Ain't So, Mike"

It'll be interesting to see what kind of fallout results from the picture of Michael Phelps smoking pot that ran in a British tabloid.

Still basking in the adulation earned through his herculean feats at the Beijing Olympics, Phelps proved he was human after all -- not because he smoked marijuana, but by being foolish enough to do so in the presence of strangers. To his credit, he issued a prompt, sincere and painfully scripted statement admitting his poor judgment.


Phelps caught a lucky break by having the news break on the day of Super Bowl XLIII. I suspect he'll catch another break from sponsors who won't toss him overboard -- unlike, say, Michael Vick -- because marijuana use is considered a pretty minor indiscretion these days.


Good crisis management? Unfortunately, probably just a sign of our times.

P.E.T.A. Pros at Drawing Attention . . . But Does Anyone Care?

Love 'em or hate 'em, you've got to give the folks at P.E.T.A. credit for drumming up boatloads of publicity.


Their latest coup was in getting NBC to reject a racy ad advocating vegetarianism -- an ad almost certainly never intended to see the light of day. In fact, it's a ploy P.E.T.A. has used successfully in the past, yet the media keeps taking the bait.


A few weeks earlier, P.E.T.A. earned another round of free airtime by calling for psychological testing on Michael Vick -- after first duping the disgraced QB into considering appearing in a P.E.T.A. PSA to restore his tarnished image.

While you've got to tip your hat to them, you've also got to wonder whether the PR avalanche is doing anything to change public attitudes and behavior. Isn't that supposed to be the ultimate goal of any PR effort?

A few years ago, a friend of mine told me about a PR stunt she participated in as a member of P.E.T.A. They dressed someone in a chicken suit and, armed with a sign decrying the inhumanity of the chicken processing industry, headed to Atlanta's Georgia World Congress Center for the annual meeting of the Georgia Poultry Federation. But the chicken farmers didn't get it . . . they thought the costumed character was their own mascot, and mugged for photos to the dismay of the P.E.T.A. posse.

Like the boy who cried wolf, at some point the media and the public will tire of P.E.T.A.'s self-indulgent PR efforts. Until then, though, it's sort of fun imaging what outlandish stunt they may try to pull off next.