Going For Backlash: Humane Society & PETA

As covered by The New York Times, The Humane Society and PETA have taken an interesting position on global warming: Hummers are good; hamburgers are bad.

"Environmentalists are still pointing their fingers at Hummers and S.U.V.’s when they should be pointing at the dinner plate,” said Matt A. Prescott, manager of vegan campaigns for PETA, who said PETA is outfitting a Hummer with a driver in a chicken suit and a vinyl banner proclaiming meat as the top cause of global warming.

While the Humane Society is placing its faith in a United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report that claimed the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined, we might point out one obvious flaw — it's not the eaten animals that are contributing to greenhouse gases.

There are others. Disrupting the habitats of animals to drill for oil might qualify as hypocrisy. Alienating increasingly environmentally-conscious consumers by stating they “cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist” seems counterproductive. And promoting the concept of choosing the lesser of two evils seems, well, off the ranch.

While the ad might work in achieving some media buzz for its B-grade shock value, it has no strategic merit. If anything, all it really does is reinforce what critics has been saying for years: they don't care about doing right as much as being right. (In the article, Prescott all but said they are counting on critics to make this ad an issue.)

And that's too bad. Given that 87 percent of those surveyed in one recent study said they are seriously concerned about the environment (though not necessarily ready to give up meat and SUVs), the timing couldn't be worse. Why? Because crackpot creative might get some publicity, but it's often at the expense of credibility.

Playing Politics: Everyone Under The Sun

While most political coverage has shifted to the bathroom habits and hypocrisy of Sen. Larry Craig (reality check: no amount of spin can save this), there is a largely unreported political story taking place that may be more concerning to some and much more far reaching in considering topics such as transparency.

In May, director Oliver Stone, filmmaker behind “JFK” and “Born on the Fourth of July” has produced a television spot ad for MoveOn.org, which featured Iraq war veteran John Bruhns calling on the government to bring U.S. troops home. You can see the spot, along with how the Democrats, Republicans, and Independents responded to the ad in real time at Slate.

ABC News reported on the advertisement throughout the production. It also covered a rebuttal advertisement produced by Freedom Watch. When you compare the two stories, the coverage seems as polar opposite as the advertisements.

Similar to the Stone-produced ads, Freedom Watch produced testimonials of Iraq war veteran John Kriesel, who lost both of his legs but still supports the actions abroad. You can view this advertisement here. CNBC and MSNBC have refused to air the ads outright, which seems contrary to their decision to run a poignant Associated Press story on the indifference to the First Amendment.

You know, there always seems to be ample pressure placed on social media and bloggers to practice full disclosure, but the reality is full disclosure is not a prerequisite to objectivity in the world in which we live. Perhaps Copyblogger is right (which is good, because I've said the same before). We don’t really want it and even if we had it, we most certainly wouldn’t like it. The best we can do is attempt to guide it from time to time.

So, when you look at advertisements like those produced by MoveOn and FreedomWatch, there are a few truths to be found: military personnel are as conflicted about Iraq as the country; the media is only obligated to run and protect the stories it wants to protect and run; tragedy and conflict sell better in the news than charity and camaraderie; and regardless of how we feel about Iraq, our troops deserve better than being paraded around for the purposes of political gain.

Every year, I tell public relations students the same thing: when it comes to existing in the public eye as an individual, as a company, or as a community, perception is reality. And while that might be, please try to remember that it isn’t.

Mining For Communication: Crandall Canyon Mine

It has been weeks. Six men remain missing, likely dead. Three rescue workers have lost their lives. Several have been seriously injured. Many more have suffered.

Yet, the media continues to report in microscopic detail. Everyone from the man on the street to Utah Gov. Jon M. Huntsman has offered opinion. And mine owner Robert Murray continues to miscommunicate at every turn, including his insistence that a seismic shock was responsible for the collapse despite evidence that suggests otherwise. The mine is unsafe.

"Not all seismic activity is what it looks like," said Jim Pechmann, who has been a seismologist for more than 20 years. "The reported activity was undoubtedly related to the mine collapse."

A few weeks ago, someone had asked that perhaps the Crandall Canyon Mine would make for a case study so public relations students might learn how to better plan for and handle crisis communication; perhaps after our hearts have healed.

With as many communication mistakes as have been made during this tragedy, I’m unconvinced our hearts will ever heal. So, my comment today is with the hope that those involved might handle the conclusion better than they have the last few weeks.

First and foremost, while some principles remain true, crisis communication and disaster response or emergency communication are not the same. Had Murray been advised of this, perhaps some of the communication would have played out differently. You see, in the midst of a disaster, there is no room for speculation, presumption, guesswork, media conference teases, and emotional rally cries that more cause pain and suffering beyond the tragedy.

Without question, an entire book could be written on the many missteps of the Crandall Canyon Mine communication. For us, the best that can offered up are a few tenets in a series of well-spaced apart posts, starting with a few basic principles that were missed during this disaster (and why some communicators will still get it wrong next time).

Situation Analysis. While some public relations practitioners suggest rapid-fire response and up-to-the-minute detail, nothing outweighs accuracy. All too often throughout this crisis, the pressure to educate not only overshadowed proper fact-gathering, but also infused itself into the decision-making process that quite possibly led to increasing the risk to rescue workers. There seems to have been little regard for assessment, which has frequently led to the release of erroneous information and overreaching conclusions.

Identify Crisis Team. Many public relations practitioners conclude that a principal such as Murray should be made spokesman. This is not true. With exception to the biggest news breaks in the story, Murray was not a suitable spokesperson and would have been better served focusing all of his attention on the rescue efforts. A different spokesperson could have kept reporters up to date and stories focused on facts with occasional input from reputable specialists as needed.

Prioritize Publics. In this case, the first people to receive any updates should have always been the families of those affected. Affected families should never have to learn new or conflicting information from the news. The second priority are other team members: rescue workers, and response partners (including medical personnel), ensuring that if they do answer media inquiries, miscommunication is minimized. The third priority is government officials; people to whom the media are likely to turn for additional comment. And then, and only then, can the media receive updates that are centered on major news items and not miniscule detail.

Narrow The Message. In today’s world, communication happens at the speed of light. All publics receive it quickly and react very differently. While all information will eventually be released (it pays to be truthful), a spokesperson must keep the issues manageable and the focus narrow. Wild claims without evidence are fraught with peril: it is always best to remain hopeful for the best outcome, but prepare people for the worst.

Accept Responsibility. Murray’s inconsistent and often emotionally charged communication over the last three weeks has demonstrated one simple truth: all mishandled communication happens from the inside out. Even if Murray was right, that an earthquake caused the collapse, there was never time to angrily defend his company's safety record and its efforts to reach the trapped miners. Doing so only demonstrated a lack of empathy to the families, eroded reputation, and worse, positioned Murray as someone who cared more about his company than the men who lost their lives.

Although most people can understand the pressure Murray must feel, someone needs to tell him that it doesn’t matter who or what is to blame. Sometimes, no matter what the cause, you have to accept responsibility (if not accountability) all the same.

Our hearts and prayers go out to the families. If you would like to lend assistance, read today’s story in The Salt Lake Tribune that includes a variety of funds that have been established. If there is anything good to be found in this story, it is in the generosity and sympathy extended by people from across the country. Well done.

Answering Dumb Questions: Miss South Carolina

Almost anyone can sympathize with the notion that even the most polished presenters can experience stage fright at the worst possible time. Without question, that seems to be what happened to Miss South Carolina during Miss Teen USA.

When asked why she thinks “one-fifth of Americans cannot find the United States on a map, “ Miss South Carolina offered up one of the most perplexing answers and solutions in the history of all pageants.

“I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don’t have maps.” — Lauren Caitlin Upton

Upton then went on to offer a solution that included, um, better education in third world countries. Despite the flub, she still finished third, which further demonstrates just how important the question and answer segment was to the pageant.

To redeem herself, Upton agreed to appear as a guest on NBC’s “Today” show where she was given a do-over. “I believe that there should be more emphasis on geography in our education so people will learn how to read maps better. Yay!”

Hmmm… I don’t know if that is any better given the do-over drove 1.5 million more people to see the original flub on YouTube (4.5 million and counting). Maybe someone should have advised Upton to say something completely different.

“The question took me aback because I personally don’t believe that one-fifth of Americans cannot find the United States on a map. I’d like to see the methodology of that study because I doubt its objectivity.” Or maybe …

“What kind of propaganda is Miss Teen USA trying to spread about our country anyway? That’s what I’d like to know.” Or maybe …

“Hey, what difference does it make? I was the third runner-up. Yay!”

Instead, Upton has become the pageant’s patsy despite her third runner-up position, which may or may not have softened the blow, and the Miss Teen USA pageant has succeeded in deflecting all accountability in asking a question that would have made most people ask: “What the heck are you talking about?”

Worse, as many excuses as she gave for not being able to answer the question (including one that was coached to her by a sympathetic host), one wonders if Upton’s appearance helped at all. Here is the do-over, courtesy of the Gawker, who preferred the first answer.

Granted, Upton had to answer the question because it was part of a pageant. However, we can’t help but to provide some hard-learned lessons for up-and-coming semi-public and public figures: don’t answer dumb questions because it will increase your propensity to provide a dumb answer; if you do answer, make sure you prepare one solid response that addresses the mistake before going on the “Today” show; and, most importantly, never take the “do-over” because while it’s cute for the show, it doesn’t do anything for you.

Driving Ads: FreeCar Media

FreeCar Media, which is a nontraditional marketing company with offices in Los Angeles and New York, seems to have stumbled upon the right guerilla marketing mix by leveraging prime advertising real estate — consumer-owned vehicles.

According to a recent The New York Times story, thousands of motorists are already signing up to have their cars and trucks wrapped in advertisements. While the story said the mentions a stipend of up to $800 a month, FreeCar Media only includes for up to $400 per month on its Web site, which covers some car payments.

In some cases however, drivers may not have to think about payments at all. Some receive a new car to use for about two years in lieu of a cash stipend (insurance and gas is still the responsibility of the driver). As an interesting side note, applicants seem strongly encouraged to consider changing their policy to Progressive, creating a guerilla marketing campaign of sorts within a guerilla marketing campaign.

This might trump the old saying “never look a gift horse in the mouth,” but perhaps just a bit. Pause long enough to know what you are filling out as wrapping the vehicle might not be the only criteria. Those chosen are also asked to refrain from smoking, littering, or swearing in their vehicle (easy); attend a monthly “influencer event” where they hand out samples or coupons (moderate); and send reports and frequency updates that include photos of where the cars have been (hard).

Applicants are not always selected because it is the advertisers who choose the drivers they want. This decision, according to the company, is largely based on how much information the applicant is willing to provide. However, whether the company uses this information for other marketing purposes is also not clear.

What is clear is that it has worked for some products and companies: Pringles, HBO, International House of Pancakes, and Tang are all among them. In the Pringles case study from 2001, a fleet of 25 consumer-owned vehicles were wrapped in Atlanta.

At the inception of that campaign, all 25 vehicles lined up in front of Turner Stadium for a Braves vs. Mets game. All the drivers and their families (which consisted primarily of soccer moms/dads), sat in the back of their vehicles passing out free Pringles samples to 52,000 baseball fans. It was not clear whether the families received additional compensation for their time at the game or if the wraps were removed at the end of the 3-month campaign.

What is starting to interest me is how far consumers will allow advertising to permeate their lives and what are the long-term consequences to the dilution of the message. Already, some studies suggest it takes well over 200 impressions to have the same impact 80 impressions did just a few years ago. (And this doesn’t include any opt-in mobile phone advertising programs that are likely to be introduced in the future.)

Still, mobile billboards (if not consumer cars) does make sense for some advertisers. Although FreeCar Media estimates almost 70,000 other motorists and pedestrians will see the advertisement daily, most mobile billboards offer better reach along planned routes (and use much more conservative numbers). We’ve arranged some in the past; they are exceptionally well suited to targeted location/route advertising.

So how do you top this? If you want some ideas, visit Las Vegas where advertising wraps have reached new heights. EliteMedia, which specializes in outdoor advertising, has placed huge advertisements on several iconic hotels, including Mandalay Bay and the Luxor. You can see some of the recent wraps on their blog.

Seeing an ad cover an entire building seems fun, or in some cases, um, interesting. It also makes you wonder. If your niche blog doesn’t excite people, maybe you can consider how much the average residential garage door might be worth, a yard sign during peak political season, or perhaps spiffy ad wraps for frequent fliers.

Paint By Numbers: Network Ratings

It’s odd to read Susan Whiting, president and CEO of Nielsen Media Research, write about “Anytime Anywhere Media Measurement,” and not just because it closely mirrors the “Anytime, anywhere, from any device” positioning statement that we developed for the National Emergency Number Association’s Next Generation 911 System several years ago.

No, it’s mostly odd because the new Nielsen “everyone counts” concept doesn’t resonate with people who will watch Jericho Season 2, who once watched The Black Donnellys, or who once watched a half dozen other programs that have since been slashed for poor ratings.

“We’re not on the same channel. Isn’t that great! Well, maybe, if you’re particularly fond of revolutions. Remember when were all over the “dial?” Well, there is no dial. Digital took care of that. So we’re surfing with the remote. Not always. Sometimes we timeshift by watching what we want when we want.” — Susan Whiting

Sound familiar? The language reads like the scores of testimonials from Jericho fans ever since we noted Nielsen was feeling some fallout months ago (except the fans wrote better). Back then, it was these fans who learned for the first time that their show was going to be cancelled because the Nielsen system fails the most important criteria of a sample: it is not random in the statistical sense.

Simply put, the ratings game is a crapshoot. The sliver of a difference between keeping a show on the air today or not is so statically insignificant, sliced all the more thinly by targeting select demographics, and completely negating any audience that might watch shows in a group setting (bars, college dorms, etc.). And yet, the rating system is why we watch the Super Bowl in February (during sweeps, when the most viewers are surveyed), dictates advertising rates, and is the fuel for most entertainment columns.

Not to worry, Nielsen says, it’ll have a whole new system by 2011. How well that will work is anybody’s guess. Sure, Nielsen has some good ideas, including its social network buzz network monitoring device “Hey! Nielsen,” which is currently being beta tested by employees.

But at some point, somebody still has to ask what do these numbers mean anyway? Some might live by them, but others are becoming less certain. For a long time, HBO completely ignored the numbers and produced award-winning heavily watched shows, and its message “It’s not TV, it’s HBO” really stuck.

Nowadays, it doesn't seem that way, which is why HBO might find its roots again. Increasingly, HBO is measuring its success both by how many viewers a show accumulates over multiple plays and by how well a show performs with its on-demand service, where viewers order specific episodes. We hope others follow suit with new measure methods, because while we maintain Nielsen does have some relevance, shifting the decision-making process might save us from more paint-by-number programming and nuttier Nielsen concepts.

For example, Nielsen recently released that local people readers (non-sweeps tracking) were employed in the top 10 television markets, which supposedly accounts for 30 percent of all television households. (What’s missed is the tiny number of households tracked in those markets). In other words, Atlanta,
Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Washington D.C. have a little more weight than the rest of the country.

This is especially significant to Jericho fans because looking back over our own analytics during the peak of the cancellation protest, Jericho fans seem grossly underrepresented in these markets when compared to the greater United States (to say nothing of Canada and other countries). When you think about the show, it almost makes sense. It doesn’t seem like an urban powerhouse as much as it captures the rest of the nation’s imagination.

But what does that mean? It means what it has always meant. Attempting to paint by numbers to give shows a leg up in the ratings (or even critical review) is fraught with peril. In the months and years ahead, especially as broadcast-Internet convergence moves forward, networks will be better served by creating and marketing the content that they believe in, which is how some cable players like HBO and even some network shows have succeeded.

If you create a great show and support it, the numbers will follow — with viewers, DVD sales, and Internet engagement. Anything else is just guesswork. Just to illustrate the point, someone looking at Southwest Airlines on Alexa might notice it is down 11 percent in reach over the last three months. Do those numbers mean anything? Not if I count $150 million in ticket sales attributed to the widget that is part of its social media marketing program. Go figure.