Fracturing Brands: State Assemblywoman Cracks

Nevada Assemblywoman Francis Allen might consider stepping under a doorjamb or ducking for cover under a sturdy desk. That’s all there is left to do during a credibility earthquake.

After several years of brand erosion that prompted a case study into her recent local campaign gone wrong, the ground has given way.

It now seems one of the newest campaign mailers sent by Allen claims a police endorsement that she does not have. Given that she was arrested just a few weeks ago, it's no wonder the faux endorsement sparked the following lead line in a Las Vegas Review-Journal story written by reporter Molly Ball:

Assemblywoman Francis Allen can say she's been arrested by members of the Metropolitan Police Department, but she can't say she's been endorsed by them in the current election.

Allen claims it was a mistake. But it’s not the first time. She mislead voters by claiming to have the endorsement of the Nevada Republican Party in a heated primary two years ago. Not only did she did not have that endorsement, but the Nevada Republican Party sent a scathing letter to area residents reprimanding her.

There will be no scathing letter this time. David Kallas, director of government affairs for the Las Vegas Police Protective Association Metro (LVPPAM) said he is inclined to consider it a mistake. Apparently, Kallas sees how Allen might have mistaken fancy bracelets and a free photo shoot as a show of support.

The logic here is almost as silly as Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's office sending out a release to say that "Detroit's government will continue to operate as usual" after the mayor was sentenced to jail.

Why am I not convinced it was a mistake? A few weeks ago, Allen took down hundreds of signs that one resident dubbed ”Mustache Francis.” "Mustache Francis" signs carried the police endorsement. Her new signs, dubbed ”Photoshop Francis,” do not have a police endorsement.

Hmmm … I work on select campaigns. You never reprint hundreds and hundreds of signs unless you have to reprint them.

In fact, reprinting and replacing hundreds of signs that are already up would make about as much sense as claiming your opponents are exploiting your marriage difficulties in a campaign mailer that exploits your marriage difficulties and announces your pending divorce.

Whoa … Did you feel that? It must have been an aftershock.

Fighting B2B Blog Boredom: Ragan

Christine Kent at Ragan.com recently revived a June Forrester Research report that suggested the number of business-to-business (B2B) firms that started blogging in 2007 was down compared with 2006.

According to the report, corporate bloggers ran into roadblocks stemming from a misalignment between invested effort and expected returns. The report included a survey that demonstrated 20 percent of marketers and communicators say they’re still not doing corporate blogs because they don’t see the need or the value.

Of course they did. Of course they don’t.

When the International Association of Business Communicators and Benchmark Ltd. surveyed more than 1,000 communicators in 25 countries last year, they found that only 70 percent of those surveyed measure the effectiveness of what they do. Only 61 percent said they considered measurement an integral part of the public relations process. Why?

We don't have the money. We don't have the time.

If a company doesn’t see the value of measuring communication, it seems pretty likely that they won’t see any value in blogging or social media. After all, chances are that they don’t see any real value in most of their tactics.

But even if they did, would it really make a difference? Given how misaligned some communication tactics are to the company’s business objectives, probably not. There are ample examples of communication tactics that measure public relations by the column inch and advertising campaigns by how much someone’s wife might like it.

While Ragan offers quick tips, it’s really much simpler.

If your company is considering any communication tactic, whether it’s a blog or brochure, why not start by asking the right questions like “what do we hope to accomplish?” And I don’t just mean social media. I mean everything.

Objectives tend to make all communication more cost effective, less time consuming, and — most importantly — measurable. Otherwise, it’s all too easy to find yourself running around crazy on a tactical treadmill, hoping that lightning will strike twice because the media ran a similar story last month or because the competitor seems to have a successful blog.

For example, while Kent mentions that executive bloggers should not expect massive participation with every post, one might also wonder if participation is always a prerequisite for a successful blog. Perhaps, but only if participation was one of the objectives, and someone has the foresight to define who they want to participate, and maybe why they want them to participate, and what constitutes participation, and possibly how this participation might further the company’s underlining strategic goals.

Simple. Unless you ask the right questions and provide some objective answers, there is no value in social media or any other communication for that matter.

Knowing The Opponent: Paris Hilton

There is plenty of commentary out there about Paris Hilton responding to a John McCain advertisement that called Barack Obama "the biggest celebrity in the world" over Hilton and Britney Spears.

In fact, there is enough buzz that some people are wondering if anything might be gleaned from the original ill-advised commercial that takes a cola vs. cola contrast and turns itself into a cola vs. soda pop uncertainty.

The initial ad and post communication fall flat.

Sure, the McCain advertisement only flashed Spears and Hilton in the opening shots. But considering Kathy Hilton was a McCain campaign contributor, his continued references to the Hilton daughter were bound to backfire.

"It is a complete waste of the money John McCain's contributors have donated to his campaign. It is a complete waste of the country's time and attention at the very moment when millions of people are losing their homes and their jobs. And it is a completely frivolous way to choose the next President of the United States." — Kathy Hilton

Initially, McCain aides said there was no sinister intent. But then campaign manager Rick Davis gave reporters a sound bite that demonstrates the opposite.

“Look, it is the most entertaining thing I have seen on TV in a while … I don't know Paris Hilton and Britney Spears but they are international celebrities, so, you know, apples to apples."

Exactly. The campaign was attempting to draw a parallel between Hilton, Spears, and Obama while demonstrating that the McCain campaign is up to speed on celebrity pop culture. We got it.

Except, they aren’t up to speed. Until the McCain comments, Spears and Hilton were still recovering from some self-inflicted brand damage. Now, it seems the advertisement gave at least one of them a lift.

Hilton’s best branding message has always been that she can handily dismiss most critics. She does exactly that in her rebuttal, and then goes a bit further by demonstrating that she can sound just as serious about energy as any presidential contender. So what can the McCain team say now? Nothing.

Keep the focus on one choice and steer clear of other sodas.

Maybe someone needs to remind the McCain campaign team that Paris Hilton is not the opponent. So as good as the comparison could have been for an in-house chuckle, the execution came across like a gym room joke gone wrong. Yep. Sometimes campaign team muses are better left behind closed doors.

What is even more surprising to me is how often it comes up. Last year, Hillary Clinton tried to take a shot a Gen. David Petraeus and it backfired. John Edwards’ campaign was slowed when his opponents became staff members. And Mitt Romney, whom I liked, lost some momentum after taking on an Associated Press reporter.

Locally, it’s the same story. Assemblywoman Francis Allen, who told the press that she would not comment on her most recent scandal, is now attempting to discredit her husband with voters. She sent residents a note that states ...

“I have decided to file for divorce because of my husband’s recent unstable, even volatile, behavior.”

Attempting to target her husband, who recanted his police report after learning Allen would be arrested, certainly wasn’t the answer. If anything, Allen’s risking a libel suit while reinforcing some heavy spin on a story that not all residents knew nor really cared about. With three other challengers poised to unseat her, it doesn’t make sense.

Hmmm … maybe that’s why when Coke and Pepsi were heavily engaged in brand wars, they tended to pair themselves up against each other and not every other soda pop on the planet. Right on. One cola was enough. It's the same in politics: know your opponent.

Pulling Under Pressure: Mars Inc., Nike, Heinz, Verizon

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which is a gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, has convinced Mars Inc. to pull an advertisement running in the United Kingdom.

According to the HRC, the ad featured a man whose appearance and actions – speed walking in an exaggerated manner – conjured up stereotypes of gay men. Worse, they say, that the advertisement portrays homosexuals as second-class citizens and that violence against GLBT people is not only acceptable, but humorous.

Although the HRC praised Mars Inc. for the decision, it seems getting the advertisement pulled was not enough. They lamblaste Mars Inc. for another Snickers advertisement that ran in 2007. Ironically, that advertisement seemed to poke more fun at men who were more homophobic than homosexual.

The Guardian, which posted the commercial, has a different opinion. It called the HRC claim — that the speed walker in the spot is homosexual — preposterous. The article suggests that Mars Inc. might listen to Mr. T rather than coddling what seems to be sensationalized oversensitivity. Apparently, Mars Inc. is not the only company.

Nike also pulled advertisements, which can be seen at the Gawker, because it was claimed they carried an anti-gay message despite the context. Verizon also pulled an advertisement under pressure from another activist group.

Meanwhile, Michael Wilke, executive director of Commercial Closet Association, which advocates and honors advertisements that feature gender identity/expression and sexual orientation issues, laughed about the advertisements being pulled.

Bill O’Reilly commented as well. He reminded viewers of a Heinz Company advertisement that was pulled for the opposite reason. It featured two guys kissing. Heinz caved, he said.

All of this sounds familiar to me for some reason. Oh, right.

“… minorities, each ripping a page or paragraph from a book, until one day the books were empty and the minds were shut and libraries were closed.” — Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

Ho hum. I’m starting to wonder if I have to write another post about the difference between a writer implying context and a reader inferring context.

You know, based on the release from the HRC, I’m not so sure that Mars Inc. communicated sensitivity to the issue as much as it simply demonstrated its willingness to be browbeaten. And maybe the same can be said for Nike and Heinz and Verizon.

In fact, I’m not even so sure the activists communicated sensitivity to their own issues. It seems to me they all promoted the adoption of inferred stereotypes as identification. And that’s bad for everybody, equally.

Spinning Yarns: Assemblywoman Francis Allen

You can always tell when early voting is in full swing by the amount of political mail stuffed inside the mailbox. My mailbox is no exception. It’s stuffed.

Every few days, I receive one or two campaign mailers from Assemblywoman Francis Allen, who I mentioned on Monday. Allen’s campaign is struggling this election cycle after six years of credibility erosion.

While I supported Allen during her initial run years ago, I am supporting one of her primary challengers this year. The campaign mailer I received yesterday reinforced this decision. The piece lacked credibility.

Political lie detector or poorly disguised mud slinger?

The mailer, entitled “Political Lie Detector,” is meant to resemble a rebuttal piece, which would normally point to errors contained in an opponent’s piece.

Generally speaking, a truthful rebuttal is smart when time and money allow. However, when rebuttals strain to spin the story, it doesn’t work very well.

Where does Francis Allen’s last minute rebuttal mailer go wrong?

Missed Opportunity
Allen says her opponent lied about her being charged with battery domestic violence because the case was dismissed. However, she was charged, the prosecutors are reportedly not letting it go, and her challenger never attacked her on that point. The missed opportunity? The rebuttal doesn’t claim innocence nor did Allen the last time she was asked.

Record Misrepresentation
Allen said her opponent lied about her position on taxes, citing a newspaper editorial that says Allen was a reliable vote against taxes years ago. However, Allen has voted on bills that have allowed for tax and fee increases.

Games With Numbers
Allen said her opponent lied about the number of bills she sponsored. It seems her challenger did not count resolutions, revisions, and bills that didn't represent her district. You can find them here.

Factual Misrepresentation
Allen said her challenger lied about the cost of a bill she sponsored. She said it cost taxpayers nothing. But what many legislators fail to tell voters is that every bill they sponsor costs time and money.

Demonstrative Ignorance
Allen said her challenger lied about her sponsorship of a controversial homeowner’s association bill that would have allowed HOAs to raise fees every year without a vote by those paying HOA dues. But she did. Fortunately, the bill was vetoed.

Overreaching Stories
Allen then overreaches, claiming her opponents placed trashy literature on parishioners’ cars at her church. It seems unlikely to me that any of the opponents she is facing would do that. The risk vs. reward just isn’t there.

In the very next sentence, she reinforces her pledge to run a clean campaign. However, the reality is that Allen has never been known to run a clean race.

Most politicians ask voters to verify facts and Allen is no exception.

So why would someone like Allen put out a piece that misses on every point? Although I do work on select political campaigns from time to time, this is one area of politics that never really sat well with me. But it is what it is.

It seems that Allen is banking on two assumptions: that her challengers have not raised enough funds to correct these errors and that voters will not check the facts.

Whether she is right on either point, I have no idea. We’ll know on August 12.

Eroding Brands: Credibility Gaps

Erosion can be caused by many factors, including manmade. Trampling, for example, can reduce vegetation until the topsoil is removed. Then, as the underlining rock bed is exposed, pathways turn into gullies until they become impassable.

Credibility behaves much the same way. Once admired brands can become unsightly, devalued, and destroyed over time.

A few months ago, we began tracking how the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada mishandled its crisis communication plan shortly after it became responsible for the largest hepatitis C scare in the history of the country.

There is no more Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada.

Instead, a quick search on the Internet will redirect you to a special section of the Southern Nevada Health District’s site, which provides some details about the ongoing
hepatitis C investigation and recommends that former patients receive testing for hepatitis C as well as hepatitis B and HIV.

It didn't happen overnight. As bad as the initial crisis was, it was an ongoing communication lapse that widened the gap. And as the path between the initial story was tread upon over and over again — the initial denial, the lack of empathy in a newspaper ad, the refusal to comment on evidence, and the alleged plans of the primary owner to leave the country — the center's credibility eroded until there was nothing left to believe.

The latest damage? One of the patients was proven to be a known carrier of hepatitis C. That means both the health care provider and the patient knew the virus was in the patient's bloodstream and yet, the flawed and unsafe procedures at the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada were allowed to continue, which is why the infection was spread to others.

The gap — an "isolated incident" as originally suggested by the practice and knowingly following unsafe procedures even while treating a carrier of hepatitis C — is now impassable.

There is little chance Francis Allen will be re-elected.

While unrelated, there is another story in southern Nevada that continues to leave some people treading the same ground. A few weeks ago, Nevada State Assemblywoman Francis Allen was arrested and charged with felony domestic violence after her husband had filed a police report stating that she stabbed him with a steak knife.

He quickly recanted the report after learning Allen would be charged with a felony. While the case was dismissed, prosecutors are reportedly seeking a grand jury indictment.

A few of my neighbors asked why the alleged, now recanted, story had convinced so many insiders that Allen cannot be re-elected. Easy.

The stabbing isn't the first phase of erosion. It's one of the last phases. The odd stabbing story might have garnered sympathy on its own, but not when paired with a questionable voting record, numerous ethics complaints filed against her since 2002, and campaign messages that don't match her actions while in office. Even her Photoshopped campaign photo bears little resemble to her likeness or mug shot for that matter.

So the problem isn't the stabbing story as much as it is that voters are tired of treading the same ground over and over again. It's virtually impassible anymore, except to new residents who might believe the myth contained in her campaign literature.

Only the first few stages of erosion seem convenient.

It’s something to keep in mind when it comes to crisis communication, even in social media. There is seldom a single catastrophe or issue or disagreement that will create a credibility gap (even though some people act like it). It's all those future issues that tend to pile up.

Ask President Bill Clinton. Hot button topics like Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky seem easy to escape. Some people even said it made him more human. The constant critiques about him during his wife's campaign proved much more problematic.

One CNN poll suggested his approval rating among Democrats had dropped 9 percent from 60 percent in the short course of one year. It's the price he paid for being too political while on the campaign trail, some say. It's the widening of a credibility gap, I might say.