Literal Mayhem » Media

Goldman Sachs About to Ditch its Golden Flack… for a bad PR strategy?

letterhead — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 02:51:48 +0000

No one seems to be dancing to Goldman's tune these days. No matter how hard they crank the 'ole gramophone. But they are trying a new approach, actually publishing dance steps to Goldman's Bonus Hustle… a 14-page presentation on why they make so much damned money.

First though… who's getting the blame for Goldman's missteps? According to Charlie Gasparino it's the highest paid PR guy in the business: Goldman PR chief Lucas Van Praag. (Well… it's hard to say in fact he is the highest paid. Maybe George Sard makes more. But $1 million + probably puts Van Praag close to the top.)

According to the Charlie:

"a much-needed shift in public-relations strategy is in the works, sources close to the firm say"

Hmmm… interesting that this news appeared on the same day that Bulldog Reporter's newsletter (The Daily Dog) reported that Goldman has put out a 14-page slide presentation explaining why its executives deserve to make so much money. And boy is it a dooozy!

DO THE HUSTLE!… THE NEW GOLDMAN DANCE CHART

If this represents the company's "much-needed shift" in PR strategy then it is in big trouble.

The charts and graphs are pretty, if entirely abstruse. Its main point seems to be that Goldman does much better than its peers, which is why its execs get paid more. What it doesn't address are all the issues that people actually have a problem with… like:

– Why does the entire sector suffer from bloated salaries and bonuses?

– Why is your bonus pool so stupendously huge… less than a year after you nearly went bankrupt?

– How did you TRIPLE firm revenues in just three years (2004 – 2007) after five years of relatively flat earnings?

– Could it possibly be that you attached a Hoover to the mortgage and derivatives markets — sucking out tens of billions in earnings and leaving the nation's pockets empty?

THE ZERO-SUM END-GAME

When this game of musical chairs is over, Mr. Van Praag may be without a seat at the Goldman buffet, but my guess would be that Goldman's C-Suite is so hidebound and tin-eared when it comes to reputation risk, that no one could talk sense to them. Even if one dared.

But it does show to go ya, you can bite your tongue in the presence of sr. execs and execute on all their bad ideas to save your job and not rock the boat. But bad ideas are bad ideas and they never work. And the one who ends up executed is you.

The short-term incentive is to shut up and salute. In the long-term it gets you the same place you would have if you'd spoken up and challenged them in the first place.

Kinda makes you think…maybe speaking up and challenging the powerful is worth the risk.

Who knows, you might succeed. At least you can say you tried. And you won't end up the scapegoat for all their bad ideas.

Palin & Stalin: What Do We Believe? That PR… Thou Art a Shameful Fraud

letterhead — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:04:25 +0000

It's tough to pinpoint when the PR profession "jumped the shark." But it has, and in spectacular fashion.

Outsiders are seldom privy to the inner workings of the global spin machine. But every once in a while someone leaves the door ajar and you can peer in to see just how twisted are its guts.

Such is the case with newly released documents in the ever-widening Sarah Palin ethics quagmire. Seems that Andree McLeod just won't give up, even if it is all the result of a "falafel fight." Well, 'tis her right. And accrues to our benefit.

Take the recent emails she unearthed. (Posted by Sam Stein on HuffPo)

Get the Pepto-Bismol ready and then read the following. It's from an internal email, from one of Palin's communications staffers, asking the campaign for clarification about what the candidate believes:

"On abortion, she is pro-life, but does she oppose exceptions for rape and incest? On sex education, does she favor an abstinence-only approach or does she allow for contraceptives?"

Here is one ~~PR staffer~~ flack asking another ~~PR staffer~~ flack to tell him exactly what Palin is supposed to believe. At least, in public.

This is how the game works folks. In black and white. Couldn't be any clearer. Many of Sarah's supposedly deeply held ideas about the moral issues of the day are a confection.

In reality, most public "messages" and images are manufactured to achieve a specific goal, and very rarely are: 1) the messages true to the speaker, and 2) the stated goal of the speaker and her true goal one and the same.

All the feigned certitude by politicians and business scions is just that, feigned with an institutional purpose. All thanks to the "conscience" of the world: its highly paid flack army.

CANONIZING SAINT STALIN, FOR A HEFTY RETAINER FEE

Jack O'Dwyer's Newsletter recently reported that Russia hired a PR firm to rehabilitate the reputation of one Josef Stalin. Yes, that one: he of the ruthless, repressive, dictatorial 30-year reign. He of the Great Purge, and Gulags, and secret Pogroms. 20 million dead. Maybe more… who knows.

According to Eurobserver.com, the program is being run by the state-owned Russian news agency in partnership with a private outfit called RJI Companies… which offers no definition of itself on its website, only that it provides "strategic communications" according to the following ideal:

"In the international game of strategy, winning is the result of global intelligence, expertise, and bold vision. Today, the stakes are higher, the strategies more subtle. With RJI on your team, you bring unparalleled experience, subtlety and integrity to the table."

Interesting that the word "subtle" is the only word (other than "the" and "and") used twice in this short primer. In other words: secret, hush-hush, under-the-radar propaganda. Visit the website and see if its clandestine look and feel doesn't give you the shivers.

Eurobserver reports that RJI has tried to recruit heavy-weight PR firms to the cause:

"A senior executive at the PR firm in question recalled one particular exchange with the RJI Companies envoy: 'I asked him "Do you want us to say that Stalin was not such a bad guy?" And he said "Well, I know it will be difficult." I said So, you want history to be rewritten? And he said "Yes, in a way."'

"'Expect to see more articles in European newspapers saying that Stalin had his good points as well,' the PR executive said."

Inside Russia, such efforts are apparently "well underway," including the rewriting of high-school history books. Outside Russia, it's all a lie or course, according to a flack for the Russian news agency. She told Eurobserver that no such PR contracts exist. Whom do you believe?

(And for the record, Russia's PR firm in the U.S. is Ketchum.)

ENOUGH ABOUT "CONSCIENCE" ALREADY

We need to stop lionizing the PR profession as some sort of "conscience." It's self delusion that only masks PR's terminal disorders and prevents effective treatment.

We've talked about how PRSA chairman Cherenson loves that sort of baseless happy talk. But even the admirable gadfly Wendell Potter still encourages PR professionals to consider themselves the "'conscience' of their employers," according to the Nov 18 issue of O'Dwyer's. Apparently Potter and Arianna Huffington were on a panel together at a PRSA event in San Diego and were of the same mind.

Sadly, as LiteralMayhem has chronicled, when a corporation (or any center of power) is pressed to the wall by outside forces, PR pros have little to no influence in how the powerful respond. Rarely does conscience enter into C-Suite or political decision making.

And all too often PR pros are eager to do any bidding, no matter how foul; say anything any create any image, no matter how stilted; and devise any talking point no matter how obfuscatory; in short, do anything necessary to serve the client/boss… and secure a fat retainer/pay check.

As a result of PR's Machiavellian misadventure, the public is all the poorer… Public discourse corrupted for a pfennig, a corner office, and a lucite memento of the deal. It's a shame really because there is such potential for good.

But maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill. Perhaps it's just human nature. After all, manufacturing a vice presidential candidate or rehabilitating a vicious dictator is small potatoes compared to American conservatives' efforts to rewrite the Bible.

BS of the Month Award: Why I’m Not Fit For GoldmanFlacks

letterhead — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:33:51 +0000

Calling the Goldman Sachs $500 million small business initiative "philanthropy" or "lending" is like saying that frosted Pop Tarts are made with "real fruit filling."

Thankfully most media types called it for what it was: BS, BS, and more BS. But it got me thinking about my career in PR… I know two people who work at Goldman in PR. Both of whom are very smart and talented. One of whom actually has a conscience.

After my last in-house gig, I just couldn't take working in financial PR anymore and opted for a poorer but more low-key life of writing. ("Scrivnering" for those who insist on verbifying everything.) And as I was walking home from work one sunny, breezy day in San Francisco, I was cursing my decision.

A place like Goldman was the next step for me. I had even interviewed with the hedge fund arm of Citigroup in its heyday and walked away before the talking really started. (It would have been great money, even if it was a soul killer.)

On that sunny, breezy walk home I imagined that my life would have been much much easier (financially) had I just stepped up that one last rung on the ladder. The people I know at Goldman are probably making $400K a year, maybe even $500K or more. Cushy perks. Great benies. What a life.

But the PR debacle of the "loan" initiative, made me realize that I'm just not cut out for it. And all you PR students and wannabes listen up, because that initiative on its own should capsize any illusions you have about being "the conscience of the corporation" as PRSA ~~blowhard~~ chairman Cherenson put it.

IMAGINE… ALL THE MEETINGS, CLOGGING UP YOUR WORLD…

I imagined sitting in a meeting with senior Goldman executives trying to explain why the $500 million boondoggle wouldn't fool anyone and was just a total waste of 1/8 of the CEO's bonus money…

"We're going to give a million dollars to charity," says one.

"Brilliant idea," says another. "But better make it $5 million. Sounds more generous."

"I have it!" shouts another. "$500 million!! It will knock their socks off. Take all the heat off us. Make us look like we care. We've got to give til it hurts to show them that we're serious. We need to make it serious money!"

Eyes are popping. Hands are shaking. Smiles are beaming all around the room. I'd probably be sitting there with my head in my hands.

"Gentlemen, let me play devil's advocate here for a minute. $500 million isn't squat. From a PR perspective, it's dangerous. It's cynical. It looks like a payoff on the cheap. Especially since after the tax benefit it will only cost us $150 million. You might as well hunker down and keep all the bonus money because that piddling amount will NOT get you the absolution you're looking for. It will just engender more resentment."

Angry glares.

"Well, snot nose… how much should we give?"

I'd say: "All of it."

"ALL OF IT!?!?!?!"

"Yes all of it… The whole $20 billion… At the very least… half of it."

"HALF OF IT!?!?!?!! But that's OUR money!"

"Again… I say this as a devil's advocate gentlemen… not at all as a Goldman communications officer (though some might say they are the same thing)…

"Aren't you people rich enough already? Can't you forgo your bonus for ONE year??? Especially as MILLIONS of people and businesses are on the brink of financial extinction? Can't your… excuse me… OUR… exorbitant base-pay suffice for just ONE year? Just ONE year. That's all I am suggesting.

"Next year we can all go back to business as usual making (and keeping) trillions of dollars and say we've done our part. And the money will buy you, literally, DECADES of goodwill, not to mention the Secretary of the Treasury slot for all of eternity."

Imagine all the open-mouth stares.

"Gentlemen… seriously. This is a bad idea. If a wholesale change in perception is what you're looking for, it will only come from a wholesale departure from business as usual. This is not change. If anything it reinforces the perception of Goldman a bunch of greedy, manipulative shysters.

"Plus, you are ensuring that the next Secretary of the Treasury will come from… … a community bank… or worse… … ACADEMIA!"

AND THE AWARD GOES TO…

I wouldn't last 5 minutes at Goldman Sachs. I barely lasted the 20 years I did spend in PR, and I have very little of my tongue left… from biting on it all the time.

The Goldman initiative is pure, unadulterated bullshit. But what's most galling about it is that they really thought (or why else would they have done it), that it would buy them some goodwill. And my smart, talented friend in Goldman's PR department (the one with a conscience), probably just sat there… with a bleeding tongue. The one without a conscience probably thought it would be a good career move to champion the idea, no matter how bad it was, because the senior executives wanted it.

And you know what… in reality, championing a rotten idea because the C-Suite wants it is often the best career move in PR. Sad but true.

But it still doesn't make a rotten idea into a good one.

And so Goldman Sachs… for your corporate arrogance, your cynicism, your anachronistic faith in propaganda, and your outright shamelessness, we grant you the BS of the Month Award, for November 2009.

Use it liberally. Use it often. But just remember that it won't fool anybody, because it still…

The White House News War: Forget Glenn Beck. Barack Obama is “Howard Beale.”

letterhead — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 03:00:34 +0000

Teeth are being gnashed. Gauntlets is gettin' thrown down like warm beers at a tea party. Over what? Beck, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh? Seriously?

Nobody saw this coming? Not since 1976 when the satire "Network" hit movie screens and won four Academy Awards?

More than 3o years ago, the fictional network boss Frank Hackett (Robert Duvall) cringed at the idea of putting a screaming, delusional nut-bag on TV. He said to Diana Christiensen (Faye Dunaway), head of the network's "Entertainment Division":

"For God's sake Diana we're talking about putting a manifestly irresponsible man on national television!"

Diana just smiles a creepy, glassy-eyed smile and nods gleefully… as if to say "Um… hell yeah. Isn't it GREAT!"

The movie is worth watching just for that one scene alone. It is the tipping point at which the network descends into "shrieking nothingness" and hysteria, all in pursuit of ratings.

The relevance to Obama is: just a year ago HE was the "anger candidate." He got elected because he channeled people's ANGER.

Whether he wants to admit it or not, it wasn't hope that got him elected. He harnessed the public's anger and discontent, essentially saying:

"Throw the bums out and make room for new people like you who understand your needs… and maybe you won't have to be so scared and angry anymore."

He promised to take it to "the man"… so to speak. And millions of American's of all stripes cheered him on his crusade. But once in office he forsook that anger in favor of pragmatism, and he left a huge swath of the "anger contingent" (which includes millions of independents) unrepresented and ripe for FOX to pick it off and gin it up.

"THIS VIOLATES EVERY CANNON OF RESPECTABLE BROADCASTING"

For those who have never seen Network: The nightly news anchor Howard Beale (Peter Finch) gets fired for lousy ratings and completely loses it on the air. He says: "Tune in next week for my last show when I will blow my brains out on national TV."

The man has clearly cracked up, but manages to convince his producer to let him say a brief farewell on the air the next day. He apologizes to viewers for saying he'd blow his brains, but he'd "just run out of bullshit."

He hits nerve of popular outrage and the ratings go through the roof. It was, after all, a post-war, post-oil-embargo, post-Watergate world of grinding economic distress.

Hackett, once he starts seeing dollar signs, lets Christiensen put Beale back on the air every night, frothing torment and all. And to whip up the public even more, she lards up the evening "news" with a Soothsayer (Tune in tomorrow to see if she was right!) and a viewer sounding board called Vox Populi (a foreshadowing of CNN's live audience-reaction graphs).

In short, Christiensen turns the "news" into a viewer-driven three-ring circus. The network's head honchos revolt against Hackett, lamenting:

"You're seriously considering putting on a pornographic news show… This violates every cannon of respectable broadcasting."

A LUNATIC ON THE AIR YELLING "BULLSHIT"

Wolf Blitzer may not be yelling "Bullshit" on the air, but his program might be better if he did. After all, the CNN Situation Room and all those shows like it are fast approaching the dazzling user-driven carnival show of the fictional Evening News with Howard Beale.

CNN's army of talking-head spokesbots are entirely predictable, rarely saying anything surprising, and usually just spar and whine and accuse each other of not fighting fair. All for the sake of ~~news~~ ~~entertainment~~ ratings.

The network might as well go whole hog and just put "a lunatic on the air yelling bullshit." (As Hackett says of Beale.)

As for the one-man/woman lunatic sideshows (Beck, Limbaugh, Malkin, et al.) and all the other mouthy anger-merchants, Christiensen nails it when she says:

"The audience out there obviously wants a prophet, even a manufactured one, even if he's mad as Moses."

Cue Laura Ingram and Ann Coulter.

THE AMERICAN PUBLIC: SULLEN, LIMP, AND ANGRY

Dunaway gives the following speech that could easily come from a FOX news programming meeting (or CNN, or CNBC, or MSNBC for that matter):

"The American people are turning sullen. They've been clobbered on all sides by Vietnam, Watergate, inflation, the depression… they've turned off, shot up, and fucked themselves limp and nothing helps.

"So this concept analysis concludes that the American people want someone to articulate their rage for them.

"I've been telling you that I want ANGRY shows! I want counter-culture! I want anti-establishment!"

Replace "Vietnam" with Iraq (now Afganistan). Replace "Watergate" with illegal domestic surveillance and Justice Department scandals and a host of other ills. Replace "inflation" and "depression" with foreclosures, bank bailouts, unemployment… you get the idea.

These shows are playing to an audience. A rabid and hungry one. Even among independents.

MEDDLING WITH THE PRIMAL FORCES OF NATURE

In the end, Beale turns his anger on the very network that made him a star, and the CEO of the network holding company turns on Beale:

"You have meddled with the primal forces of nature Mr. Beale… and I-WILL-NOT-HAVE-IT!!!"

Beale is charged with telling his audience the truth about corporate control of their lives — that they can't escape it. Not a happy message. And one that kills his ratings.

In response, Christiensen uses the cast of her terrorist reality show (The Mao Tse-tung Hour) to assassinate Beale in their season opener.

So in the end, what have we?

- A network that cares not a whit for anything other than its own corporate agenda

- An irascible public on a hair-trigger

- Young, conniving, bloodless whores who will put anything on the air as long as it will make a buck

- A powerless old-guard with no spine and even less influence

- A growing appetite for violence as a way of expressing political and economic discontent

And the Obama White House has waded into this firestorm carrying a #2 pencil and a legal pad, attempting to school the nation in "respectable broadcasting." Yeah… OK… Obama is right about FOX ~~News~~ Noise. (Good summary here.) So what?????

FOX has successfully co-opted people's anger in part because the Administration handed it over to them. The Administration pandered to big money in Finance and Healthcare and Big Business and many people — who once saw Obama as an ally — now see him as the enemy. Those who saw him as simply the enemy now see him as the anti-Christ.

"Americans are fed up," says Real Clear Politics. Independents are bolting the Obama big-tent faster than you can say Wall Street Bonus. "What does all this portend? Very possibly a Ross Perot moment — the emergence of someone with serious charts and serious language that angry Americans will see as more authentic than 'hope and change.'"

IS OBAMA HOWARD BEALE?

In a credible alternate reading of the Howard Beale story, Glenn Beck isn't Beale. O'Reilly isn't Beale. Limbaugh isn't Beale.

BARACK OBAMA IS HOWARD BEALE. (Of course, minus the ranting and frothing and mental instability.)

Obama ran for president crisscrossing the USA yelling "BULLSHIT!" He did it an an ever-so-gentlemanly way, of course. But that was essentially his message. Enough of the bullshit. Enough of the scamming. Enough of the taking advantage of the little guy. You're mad as hell and if you elect me you won't have to take it any more. "Yes we can!" was as much a metaphorical pitchfork and battle cry as anything else.

But Obama was meddling with the primal forces of nature. And America's corporate overlords quickly put the kibosh on it. Now Obama seems to preach an immutable corporate cosmology. Like he's placating the forces of corporate control… ceding to them control of government and the national commonweal. The audience hates it. And like Beale, the president's ratings are dropping.

If he continues down this path, his show will get resoundingly canceled in 2012.

I pray not. (And I especially pray not violently.) I campaigned and voted for the guy and want him to succeed. But entertainment is an unforgiving business. While America loved the pilot, it is showing little patience for the well-worn lines that the White House is trying to pass off as something genuinely new. And it's not just the FOX tea-party anti-government types who are seething. Even dyed-in-the-wool capitalists (e.g., Dylan Ratigan) are coughing up hairballs every night on cable "news."

Obama used to understand and channel the public's anger quite well. He re-directed it from cynicism into hope. "Yes we can." It's OK to be angry; but you don't have to resort to complete cynicism because you CAN do something about it.

But for some unknown reason, the president has given up trying to channel people's anger. Where is the champion? Where is the righteous outrage? Where is the "take it to them" spirit?

People are in pain, and feel like they really are just cogs in a corporate wheel. Contrary to the "Yes we can" mantra, it's looking more like, in fact, we probably can't. And that is even more cause for cynicism.

Criticizing FOX for giving voice to the very anger he used to champion, but now seems to ignore, only makes Obama seem more out of touch, and more of a sell-out.

Turns out the whole "green shoots" mentality and turn-toward-the-positive message program of the White House may have been a mistake. He should have stayed on the anger train for a while longer.

But he got off too soon and gave away that platform. That's the real danger here. And the White House seems deaf to it.

Brain-Dead PWC… Maybe I'm Not Cynical Enough

letterhead — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:13:12 +0000

After my last post on the total impotence of PR, I felt a twinge of guilt. “Am I just too cynical? Too bitter? Surely there are flacks with integrity out there. Surely someone somewhere in the dark corners of the profession cares about it. Somewhere, surely, some company takes it seriously.”

Then I did some reading up on the recent PriceWaterhousCoopers (PWC) debacle — i.e., the AHIP study. What a mess… and so instructive as to the points made in my last several posts, which spanked the PR profession for being so constantly impotent and wrong.

For those living under a rock, the issue is that PWC authored a report for the health insurance industry lobby (AHIP) — released on the eve of an important vote in the Senate — that claimed insurance costs would rise under the proposed legislation. (WaPo story here)

Since the report was released, it has backfired on AHIP and PWC. The report has become a rallying point for the bill’s proponents who decry the report as a biased hatchet job. (It was… CNBC story by way of Motley Fool here.)

And PWC is now backing away from the report, saying that — AT THE REQUEST OF AHIP — PWC only analyzed a small slice of the bill’s measures to come up with its conclusions. Politico has a good brief on PWC’s backtracking, but the ever humorous Donkelphant says it better than LiteralMayhem even could:

Allow me to translate, “AHIP asked us [PWC] to conduct an intellectually dishonest study and we did it because they paid handsomely. But we didn’t realize they were going to act as if this was iron clad evidence that premiums would skyrocket. That’s why we’re stepping in and calling BS on them so they don’t destroy our credibility.”

A SEEMING NO-BRAINER… EXCEPT FOR THE BRAIN DEAD

Imagine, as a PR pro, a business team lead at your firm comes to you — in the middle of the most bitter, vituperative, mud-slinging fight over government policy since Medicare — and says that he wants you write a press release touting the firm’s work on a report (sponsored by health insurers) that could scuttle the entire legislative process. You say:

a) “Why sure. Let me just get my handy guide to superlatives so I know how to make it sound really super-important.”

b) “No problem. I don’t care about having a job, or a career.”

c) “Alrighty then. Is this report accurate? Has this been vetted by legal, regulatory affairs, and compliance?”

d) “You’re a moron get the fuck out of my office.”

WHAT COULD THEY POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN THINKING?

The PWC affair illustrates a crucial point about the limitations of PR as it is currently practiced: business people don’t care about it and don’t even think about it until it’s too late.

One has to wonder what the fuck the “executives” at PWC were thinking. What could the head of PWC’s healthcare practice have been thinking… to take on an assignment like this in the first place?

The assignment… to assess the cost impact of an isolated number of provisions in an enormous and complex piece of legislation… is by definition biased.

Presumably a person with decades of experience in healthcare should have a teensy weensy inkling that such a report would be not just be explosive in its implications, but create a political firestorm with PWC right in the center. And where were PWC’s armies of legal experts, regulatory experts, communications people (internal and external), marketing gurus?

Anyone with three functioning neurons could see that AHIP was looking for third-party corroboration of it’s own selective calculations. Yet, not one of PWC’s in-house geniuses had the foresight to see this freight train coming from miles away?

Were the PR people at PWC involved in any of the deliberations about the release of this material? Did they see the report before AHIP released it? Were they involved in the decision to take on this assignment in the first place?

Here’s a thought… by way of analogy… before putting your foot on a landmine, call in a landmine expert to tell you if it’s armed.

The brain trust at PWC makes their living instructing people on how to run their businesses. They presumably OUGHT TO KNOW HOW TO RUN ONE THEMSELVES! What they have clearly showed here is monumental incompetence.

At the very least they have demonstrated a tin ear to the issues of reputational risk, and how to “integrate risk mitigation seamlessly into the business process”… to put in consultant-speak that even PWC can understand.

PR IS THE FOOTMAIDEN TO PROFIT

We see it time and time again. We’ve written about it time and time again. Honestly it gets exhausting.

Businesses are about business. They don’t give a flying fig about anything except business until the consequences hit them in the wallet. One would think with the demise of Arthur Anderson still visible in the rear view mirror, PWC would have been a bit more cautious. But no, sadly and predictably, they weren’t. The client got what the client wanted.

PWC signed on to disastrous piece of business, let it wend it’s way through weeks (if not months) of research and writing, editing and approvals, and not one person in authority had the sense to kill it before it saw the light of day.

And what of PWC’s handling of the mess? If you do a search for “AHIP” on the PWC website you get… nothing! If you search “America’s Health Insurance Plans” you get nothing more recent than July 2008. If you go to the “Press Room” there is no mention of the study or the statement that was issued on Oct 13. So much for transparency and values in PR.

Thank goodness for the bloggers in pajamas who keep track of such things. You can see the PWC statement at Firedog lake here.

All of this makes PWC’s corporate responsibility statements (here and here) sound like baloney, especially the statement onPWC’s global site:

Today, many people believe that business has a positive responsibility to operate in ways that benefit society and foster its well-being on a sustained—and sustainable—basis.

DEJAVU ALL OVER….

PWC, like so many companies before them, will likely have to spend millions more on repairing their reputation than they earned on one stupid project in the first place.

It will cost them gobs of time, money, energy and indigestion to overcome a perception that every piece of PWC business advice now comes with an automatic disclaimer: “We’re greedy idiots.”

So much for the value of PR as a corporate conscience…

I Fixed My Heart and Moved to San Francisco; Then Larry King Broke it All Over Again

letterhead — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:57:17 +0000

To the 3 -4 people who once read this blog with regularity… I apologize for going AWOL. It was a pretty tough year, including minor heart surgery… if such a thing could be said to exist.

It also entailed a cross-country move. After 20 years in NYC I’d had enough and needed a rebooot. Just felt like it was time to hit ctrl+alt+del and start fresh.

So here I am out in SF… land of super crunch. In truth I’m finding it a nice change. Not that I don’t have my withdrawal symptoms. But I don’t miss NYC. (I do however miss NY’ers.)

The view from my living room window (below) is unlike anything I’d ever get in NYC no matter how much the cost.

I hope to be back blogging again soon… within the next week or so. But in the meantime… did anyone catch Larry King’s interview with Levi Johnston? He of the famed Palin-daughter-pregnancy-shotgun-engagement-that-wasn’t-scandal?

Well… in the midst of his interview with the intrepid Mr. Johnston, Larry King dropped the following bombshell. Oh, and this one was a PR doozie for all time. I was not sure whether to laugh or cry…

We told the Palin camp that Levi Johnston would be our guest tonight and asked for a comment. We got this response today from Megan Stapleton, the Palin family spokesperson: “Bristol is focused on going to college, raising Tripp and advocating abstinence.“

YOU CAN ALMOST HEAR LARRY: “Say WHAT?? She’s promoting what?? Holy guacamole batman they left a big ‘ole pit in that one. I think I broke a tooth!”

Abstinence. My goodness gracious how convenient… I mean, appropriate.. aw heck you know what I mean.

Just shows to go ya that no matter how long you break from our wonderful business of PR, there’s always some crackerjack spokesperson saying something completely idiotic to give you a nice warm welcome home!

Orwellian Olympiad (II): Ministry of Truth Revises Gymnast’s Past and Gets Caught… THIS TIME

letterhead — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:16:05 +0000

Following up on last week’s post on George Orwell’s 1984…

The latest Olympic development is not just that the Chinese government falsified a gymnast’s birth date on her passport, but that they went back and altered PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED NEWSPAPER REPORTS about her age!!

Columnist/Blogger David Flumenbaum has posted copies of an article from the China Daily that was altered (after publication) to reflect Chinese officials’ version of the facts.

I reproduce them here, but for David’s analysis and more documentation please read his post.

The newspaper article as it originally appeared…

And now… as it’s currently seen online….

In Orwell’s 1984, in the bowels of the enormous Ministry of Truth…

What happened in that unseen labyrinth to which the pneumatic tubes led, he did not know in detail, but he did know in general terms.

As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular [issue] of the Times had been assembled and collated, that [issue] would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files instead.

This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound tracks, cartoons, photographs — to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance.

Day by day and almost minute by minute, the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction of the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct…

All history was palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary.

Wet Noodle: IOC’s Rogge Sells Us Down the (Yellow) River

The Chinese government got caught because they did not track down and alter other official documents (posted by Dave) that contradict the falsified news reports. But you can bet it wasn’t for lack of trying.

And now that they know where their vulnerabilities are, how much you wanna bet that next time they’ll be a lot more thorough?

And what’s the likelihood that internet companies — even Western ones — will be subject to even stricter oversight and control over what’s chached and how those files are managed?

And just how cooperative do you think those revenue hungry Western companies will be?

If the IOC is any indication we might as well kiss it all goodbye. Here is what IOC president Rogge said to the Associated Press:

“The IOC relies on the international federations, who are exclusively responsible for the eligibility of athletes. It’s not the task of the IOC to check every one of the 10,000 athletes.” (story)

Gucci Blinders and an Hermes Gag

The interesting thing about self-interest, which free-marketeers tout all the time as the all-powerful saviour of humanity, is that it leads people to do dastardly things. And it leads other people, on the fringes, who benefit, to turn a blind eye.

Where is the IOC’s outrage? Where is the promise of an investigation? Where is the slap at the Chinese regime for its asaault on the integrity of the Olympics?

And where oh where is the thinking person’s absolute shock that they tried to get away with rewriting the past???

Rogge clearly sees no/hears no/speaks no evil… no matter what.

Down the Memory Hole

We are fast approaching a level of technological capability and proficiency that’ll enable the implementation, on a global scale, of exactly the kind of information and reality controls Orwell described nearly 60 years ago.

And we have seen quite clearly that:

a) there is no shortage of deft spin-masters who have no patience for facts or independent reality… (e.g., Karl Rove’s assertion that… “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors.. and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”)

b) there is no shortage of self-interested lackey’s who will stand idly by, or even enable powerful people to re-make reality wholesale to suit their interests.

To quote Orwell…

“Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy… The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

When you look at some of the BS perpetrated by high-profile PR pros these days, Orwell doesn’t sound very far off the mark, particularly in the political realm. Could it escalate to the kind of continuous rewriting of the facts that Orwell describes?

Who knows. Who ever seriously thought it could go THIS far?

Fox Business Proves Street Cred and Hypocrisy: White Cody Willard a Gang Member?

letterhead — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:05:41 +0000

At a recent media party hosted by the UK’s heavyweight newspaper The Financial Times, Fox Business host (and Financial Times columnist and successful capital markets investor) Cody Willard flashed a gang sign for the cameras.

Willard is described by Huffington Post columnist Rachel Sklar as friendly, chatty, affable, jocular, and a good sport… all in the short space of three paragraphs.

Fox, it seems, has hit on a way to charm the knickers off the nuns of the left. But Willard, the affable jocular charmer, it seems is a bit of dense dunce — an uber-privileged white guy trying to feign hipness with a flash of street cred.

While you’re at it, why not pull your pants down and wear them around your ass Cody?

And while you’re posing, why not let’s ask Chris Wallace and Papa Bill O’Reilly what they think. I am sure that they will come to your defense, as fellow Foxes can be expected to do. It was all just in fun. Pretend. Make believe. We know he’s not black. He certainly doesn’t look scary.

But let’s get serious here for a minute. In reality, gangs are scary. And white guys co-opting black street culture is so… stupid. (They killed it with backwards baseball caps.)

Most of all, it’s insulting for a national “news” professional to be making light of the violence (nay, “terror”) that plagues so many urban neighborhoods where people of color have to live. Especially the same “news” network that uses “terror” as a club to beat the drum of war in Iraq. The same “news” network that pigpiles on the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright every day for being an angry black man.

Exploitation and hypocrisy are ugly when you see them up close.

Hey Cody… you know what… next time maybe you could just cover them up… with a bit of black face.

Passive Voices, Passive Minds, PR Failures, and the Teacher Who’s Actually Taking Credit for “Heidi Cee”

letterhead — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:44:53 +0000

Wandering the blog-o-sphere, you find so much bad sh…shtuff, sometimes it’s hard to hold down your lunch. But there’s a ton of good shtuff too.

I found a delicious post at the Sandwich Chronicles that sparked a few thoughts about PR and the “Heidi Cee” fiasco. So as suggested by Bill Sledzik over at Tough Sledding (GO there too!), I’m sharing the wealth and linking to it, together with another relevant post.

After all, Web 2.0 is about making connections. As it says on the bottle of sunscreen: “Apply liberally for best results.”

Hi Ho! Hi Ho!

Off we go… first to this tasty little post on writing in the passive voice. To the proprietor of Sandwich Chronicles: Your bacon breath is a waft of fresh air.

The whole post is worth a read, but the highlight is his take-down of the passive voice as a form of deliberate evasion:

…there are times you want the soft, evasive language [of the passive voice]. But when you’re talking about students in a composition or writing class, they are most often not using passive voice in a deliberate manner to put a buffer between subject, action, and object.

They are doing it because they hear it all the time in the news, in political speeches, in history textbooks, in scientific reports, where the authors and speakers use it because it absolves blame.

“Climate is changing.” Not, “We are causing global warming.” “Hundreds were killed in Kosovo.” But we don’t say who was killed, or who did the killing, or why. No one is responsible, no one is to blame, these things don’t happen, they just are.

Language is important. It frames the way we think. The reason your professors cover your papers in red ink and tell you not to write in the passive voice is because it is the language of doublespeak, the language of failure to consider accountability and outcomes, the soft, important-sounding language of lies. You are supposed to go to school to learn, above all other things, how to think for yourself.

[emphasis added]

Speaking of Thinking… They Weren’t

Think of some recent high-profile PR disasters: Coach/Heidi Cee, Edelman/Walmart, Target, and FEMA. Weren’t these a failure of critical thinking? The failure of senior professionals to critique their own ideas and hear the ethical alarm bells?

Passive voices failed to speak up, and passive minds deliberately ignored accountability. The Coach case includes:

The president of Hunter, who deliberately hand-picked an unqualified teacher, presumably because he wouldn’t know just how unethical his course work was.

The teacher, who actually DID know, but just rolled over when his objections were quashed, and then took credit for the course material and fundraising on his resume. [this was not entirely correct; see comments below]

The flacks at Coach who avoid all discussion of ethical issues and make excuses, seemingly to justify their involvement.

There has been no acknowledgement from anyone – not even in the politically expedient passive voice – that “mistakes were made.” FlackLife, which reported in-depth on the story, posed some very critical and challenging questions to the PR people at Coach.

In response, what they got from Coach were deflections and dismissals. The gist of Coach’s response: it was somebody else running the initiative, and besides, other companies participated, too. Coach “merely” sponsored the course.

“They did it. We merely sponsored it.” Take that FlackLife! There’s a considered detailed response to your considered detailed questions!

Now, be gone before I drop a “$428 Coach Heritage Stripe Multi-Function Tote” on you too!

Students Learn to “Bucky” the System

The co-professor who taught the “Heidi Cee” course was one Benjamin Weisman (aka “buckyben”/buckyben.com), who earned an MFA in Integrated Media Arts from Hunter in 2006. The resume on his website takes credit for the Coach/IACC project, specifically:

Develop a syllabus & class structure for New Media studies at Hunter College

Work to create a corporate sponsorship with Coach & the IACC to bring a budget to an Integrated Campaign Class structure

He looks to be a very skilled Web designer and artist. But he has zero background in PR communications disciplines. And the kids are most definitely learning what he’s teaching.

In one blog post, a student in the class asked for advice on how to handle a reporter from the school publication (Hunter Envoy) who called him for comment about “Heidi Cee.” The student said he planned to continue the ongoing deceit, until letting the reporter in on the real story, at the last minute:

“[it] will throw him for a loop and create an awsome [sic] story”

For his gotcha moment with the reporter, the student wanted to use the catchphrase, “You got Faked!” to drive home his point and link it back to the PR campaign.

Yeah, right before his deception BECAME the story, which he did not anticipate… and neither did Bucky the professor. Mr. Weisman replied in the post’s comments section:

“Def share Heidi’s story and the concept or promoting an anticounterfieting [sic] eventy [sic] with a counterfiet [sic] person, etc.. perhaps think about an analogy? And how we used integrated concepts and media to promote the event and idea at large-”

Yikes! It’s terrifying to think that this kid might someday be at the helm of a corporate PR department, using this kind of nitwittery to guide his program development. Awsome! It’s even more appalling that an institution like Hunter is passing this stuff off as college-level PR education.

What Happened To Our “Shock-Proof Shit Detector?”

Given that our PR bread and butter is dealing with words, message, and narrative, it’s appropriate here to quote Hemmingway:

“The most essential gift for a good writer is a built-in, shock-proof shit detector. This is the writer’s radar, and all great writers have it.”

Those are fancy words for “skepticism,” which is essential to our profession.

At a fundamental level, our work is based on the comparative analysis and prioritization of messages, and on anticipating audience reaction/reception to those messages. Our success often depends on both anticipating and neutralizing counter-arguments. And it is our unique responsibility to think through every facet of a given communications and/or business strategy – every potential internal/external response and outcome.

Critical thinking, and healthy skepticism, are the lifeblood of what PR people do. I’d go so far as to argue that we cannot do what we do – even badly – without it. If anything, crafting a PR campaign is an exercise in DELIBERATE thinking.

Which begs the question, Where were their “shock-proof shit detectors” when all of this sh… shtuff was going down? Shut off, no doubt. Or the volume was turned all the way down.

There’s no way to credibly argue that such bungles were mere accidents. In crafting all these programs — from FEMA to Walmart to Coach, and others — high-level PR pros made informed and deliberate choices, despite all the alarm bells warning them not to.

Chain, chain, chaaaaaain…. chain of….

The biggest problem with PR these days is that this bus ain’t got no brakes. As these PR fiascos show, we’re careening headlong over speed bumps, hedges, mailboxes, fruit carts, and baby carriages.

In each of these disasters, all along the decision chain: mistakes were made, truths were not disclosed, plans went afoul, ethical standards were flouted, accountability was passed, and responsibility was denied. And in the aftermath, folks just moved on as quickly as possible. (Because that’s a PR tactic – get it behind you as quickly as possible. See, we PR people are good at PR!)

But it’s looking at this point like we have NO standards, and the “professor’s” words are ones we may someday hang by: “how we used integrated concepts and media to promote the event and idea at large.”

How we used the media… [all media]

“Use” them as if they lack any inherent ethical character or agenda of their own – only the manipulative one we set for them. And this stilted, self-centered way of practicing PR is being put to use in every kind of half-baked, deceptive spin-job imaginable – for anyone who can afford the hourly rate. “Critical thinking” is MIA and the “shock-proof shit detector” has been buried with Hemmingway.

Why?

I came across another tasty post on critical thinking, this one on Global Debate Blog. The choice bit was:

I wonder if we don’t actually prefer not to think critically, because the conclusions of critical thinking connote an unbearable responsibility. I notice styles and patterns of leadership — educational, religious, political, familial — that appear to seduce, enchant and bewitch. Turn our brains to oatmeal. Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Wish I could remember who said this, but I can’t say it any better: “There have always been men of arrested development who, dreading reality, found psychological protection in the art of incapacitating the minds of others.”

Ah… “patterns of leadership that seduce, enchant and bewitch.” A lovely way of capturing how so many PR people behave these days.

It’s a great quote. I have no idea if it’s real, or who said it. But in the wake of the “Heidi Cee” fiasco, I’d paraphrase it as a challenge to our profession:

“There will always be men [and wymyn] of narrow interest who, dreading reality, gain economic and political protection by incapacitating the minds of others.”

Do we really want to be counted among such people?

PR Council’s Weekly BuzzKill: Lame 2.0 Strategy, a Page Out of PRSA’s Non-News Playbook?

letterhead — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:26:19 +0000

For non-PR people, this story offers an example of how NOT to do PR, and why our profession is in the trouble it’s in….

The Council of PR Firms recently announced that they are bankrolling a new electronic newsletter with Bulldog Reporter, called The Weekly Buzz.

The goal is to “create visibility for the Council,” but also in true “thought leadership” fashion to “give voice to how PR firms are providing ever-more value to clients, particularly in this complex communications environment” – this according to a statement emailed to Jack O’Dwyer’s Newsletter (JOD) from a Council VP. According to Council president, Kathy Cripps, the newsletter is a way to “communicate more deeply with member firms.”

Huh? “Communicate more deeply?” What does that mean, exactly? Cue swelling violins, wind machines, and a misty look in the actors’ eyes?

“Ever-more value?” Does it inflate forever? Or at some point does it pop?

This announcement echoes the recent nonsensical and stupendously bad release from PRSA, which was well and truly skewered by Bill Sledzik over at Tough Sledding.

(As an aside, I would link you to the press release on the Council’s website, but this organization — which claims enough 2.0 savvy to publish a white paper on social media — has not updated its own website with a 2008 section for press releases, or a 2008 section for news. Was there even a release? The last “announcement” listed on the Home Page is from Oct 2007.)

With regard to this BuzzKill announcement, the kicker is that Council Chair (and Ketchum CEO) Ray Kotcher would not even comment on The Weekly Buzz! Yes that’s right, they launched a website dedicated to “buzz” and the Chair would not comment on it. (Seriously folks, you can’t make this stuff up.) When O’Dwyer called for comment, Kotcher’s assistant gave the lame excuse that Ray “does not accept unscheduled calls.” All JOD manged to get out of the Council, it appears, is the email response quoted above.

Won’t comment on your own news? How’s that for a buzz kill!

And what about the line “Doesn’t take unscheduled calls?” Not from clients? How about his mother? That one has to go down in the record books for the lamest way to duck a press call – ever. Maybe Ray does not consider JOD to be real “press?” (FYI… He had plenty of time to do an “interview” with BuzzKill co-sponsor Bulldog Reporter.)

In the lede of the JOD story, however, there was this telling line: “revenue” from the site will be split 50/50. Oh, so they will be selling ad space to PR firms. Is this a thought leadership initiative, or just another revenue center the Bulldog?

Then way down in the JOD story there’s a mention that “an editorial oversight committee is expected to be formed.” Read: this newsletter thing is not fully cooked.

And the site launch is expected for “January or February.” Huh? Not even a firm launch date?

Wait a minute… is this an episode of Punk’d?? Are you, like, about to tell me none of this is real and I’m going to look, like, totally stupid for believing you?

But then we get to the real raw meat: the newsletter will “serve as a promotional tool for the Council.” It will publish “thought leadership pieces,” but it looks like they will only be from member firms. And it will promote the Council’s “‘benefits’ to members.”

So there you have it, in a nutshell, the whole ugly, saucy enchilada:

A website dedicated to creating “buzz,” but a PR launch team that will only talk to media outlets on the payroll, and nobody else.

A website launch that isn’t a launch – with no firm date, no specific content, no details on staff… bla bla bla. The worst kind of buzz-free, non news.

An “empty suit” of a site: launching what looks to be a purely promotional, profit-oriented, circle-jerk of a website and trying to spin it as “thought leadership.”

An organization claiming it knows how to be relevant in a wired world, but in realty acting clueless… being a one-way conduit for promotion in a world where relevance is determined by linkages, dialogue, and substance.

The value of the Web, if anything, is its ability to scrape off the gloss and get to the heart of the matter: “authenticity” as the PR 2.0 gurus like to say. But there is no “authenticity” in this announcement except for the half-baked spin job you get from reading between the lines. And that is exactly the kind of PR misstep that we should be getting our clients to avoid, instead of committing it ourselves. It seems that in eating our profession, Strumpette’s 10-Headed Hydra has also eaten all of our national professional organizations — those that are supposed a last bulwark of common sense, realism, and high standards.

Brad Delong has a favorite saying: “Why oh why can’t we have better press corps?” I’m going to steal it and ask: “Why oh why can’t we have better PR leadership?”

If this represents the state of the profession, then it truly is a buzz kill.