Archive for the ‘celebrity’ Category

The Steven Slater Effect: Has JetBlue Lost Its Cool?

Sunday, August 15th, 2010

Steven Slater’s slide to freedom took less than a day to establish him as a folk hero. The reasons are obvious. Who hasn’t wanted to make an, um, emergency exit from a miserable job with that kind of flourish?

It was just one employee who lost his cool, in a big way. But did his exit signal a downhill slide for JetBlue, once the coolest and most PR-savvy of carriers? Sure, he struck a blow for working people who are mad as hell. The drama drew a huge fan community on Facebook and a deluge of online anecdotes from people with similar tales. (My favorite was Gawker’s invitation for readers to share their most outrageous “I quit” moments.) Can a reality show be far off?

But, Slater is also a symbol of the sad and sorry state of the airline industry. In contrast to US Airways’ “Sully” Sullenberger,  Slater is the anti-Sully, an icon for an industry buffeted by a perfect storm of recession, consolidation, and commoditization. Though on the other side of the counter, Slater’s drama is similar to that of Dave Carroll, who became an Internet meme when he recorded the music video, “United Breaks Guitars.” Each tapped into something nearly everyone has experienced.

But the villain here is the workplace. What sent Slater over the top, and down the chute, was reportedly job stress. The problem is, this isn’t supposed to happen on JetBlue, the airline that promises a different, and better, flying experience. Its planes, seats, onboard experience, and – most importantly - its culture, was what set it apart from the pack. When the airline was launched, it recruited flight attendants from other industries in order to underscore that promise (and, presumably, to avoid a union.)

JetBlue had to know that Slater could have injured or even killed ground crew workers with his stunt. His actions made some passengers wonder if the next rogue incident could happen when the plane was actually in the air. Not so funny. And, since his meltdown, there’s been considerable doubt cast on Slater’s version of events. He’s not Howard Beale. Instead, he’s a real guy with real problems.

To its credit, JetBlue handled the meltdown, and reputation threat, with style. First, it quietly offered a $100 gift certificate to each of the flight’s passengers, to compensate them for the ”disruption.” Then, it acknowledged what the rest of the world was buzzing about..but briefly, and with a light touch. In a blog post titled “Some Times The Weird News Is About Us”, it poked gentle fun at all the attention the exit triggered, acknowledging that “it may feed your inner Office Space.” But most importantly, the company took advantage of the incident to offer public recognition to ”2,300 fantastic, awesome and professional Inflight Crew members for delivering the JetBlue Experience you’ve come to expect of us.”  (No word on whether Slater was among those 2,300.)

Talk about emergency management. Although JetBlue may have lost some of its brand luster during the economic headwinds of the past few years, its response was true to its personality, and helped protect it from the PR fallout. As for the impact on the industry’s reputation, I agree with Sara Keagle. A flight attendant and blogger, Keagle suggests in a Wall Street Journal post that the Slater effect will be a kind of wake-up call for the traveling public. Don’t disobey the airline’s rules and policies. And, don’t tick off the guy whose finger is on the emergency chute.

Genius PR Move of the Year – Conan on Twitter

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

Before late February, the closest Conan O’Brien came to social media was making lame jokes about tweeting celebrities on his show. So, when his updates came over my Twitter stream, I thought it was a clever way to stay relevant for a guy who’s barred from going on television for six more months.

@ConanOBrien’s bio seemed to say it all. “I had a show. Then I had a different show.  Now I have a Twitter account.” The tweets were wry, self-deprecating, and occasionally absurd – vintage Conan. Within a day, he had 300,000 followers. Today, the count is over twice that number, easily besting @JayLeno.

TeamConan then proceeded to set up spin-off Twitter streams for some of the, uh, characters in his own tweets – Squirrel, Sharpie, his freckles, even. The man’s beard is in a mock-competition with his freckles and has over 10,000 followers. I’m not kidding.

So, when news of Conan’s multi-market comedy tour hit a couple of weeks later, I realized the motive behind the Twitter madness. Promoted with only a handful of tweets, the “Legally Prohibited From Being Funny on Television Comedy Tour” was sold out within the day, at least in New York. Fully in character, O’Brien was quoted in the closest thing he made to a press statement, “It was either a massive 30-city tour or start helping out around the house.” Nice use of social media…and celebrity, of course.

But what really got to me was Conan’s inspired choice to anoint someone at random as his sole, um, followee. Sarah Killen, an unassuming 19-year-old student from Michigan and Twitter novice, garnered thousands of followers after being selected as the one and only person that @ConanOBrien follows. Since then, @LovelyButton has received ”a lot of stuff”,  including a custom-designed gown for her upcoming wedding, and the kind of notoriety usually reserved for reality-show fameballs. Which she is most definitely not.

Which is why the Twitter stunt worked so well. Conan fans are relishing his apparent outfoxing of the NBC brass and Jay Leno, whom no one would accuse of being a social media hipster. Yet, in bestowing Internet celebrity on the normal-to-the-point-of-boring Killen, Conan seems to be one-upping the master of the genre, David Letterman. It’s like Letterman plucking intern Stephanie Birkitt out of nowhere and making her a TV star – without the “creepy” soap opera that followed. And for social media marketers, he’s actually showing us how it’s done.



The Future of Celebrity Endorsement, Post-Tiger

Friday, March 5th, 2010

Last night I had the pleasure of speaking at a symposium sponsored by The Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal. The topic was “The Tiger Woods Effect” on celebrity endorsement, contract negotiation, morals clauses, and a host of other legal, marketing and PR issues. Here’s my take on the discussion, from a strictly brand marketing perspective.

Brands will still get in bed with celebrities. So to speak. Yes, some point to a decline in athletic endorsements, and they blame the Tiger Woods effect. But my feeling is that the economy’s had a great deal more impact on sports deals than the scandal. Happily, the recent McDonald’s signing of LeBron James is an indicator that athletes are still very much in the endorsement game.

But, brand endorsements will be more limited. Though celebrity deals will remain valuable and attractive for marketers, it’ll be a long while before we see another Accenture-style campaign in which a non-sports company bases its entire brand positioning on a single personality, no matter how iconic. A year ago it seemed smart and even strategic to tie your brand to a breakout athlete in a metaphor for consistently high performance. Today, not so much. Look for companies to fall back on the ”Taste great, less filling”-style product endorsement. It’s more cost-effective and far less risky.

For celebrities, privacy is over. If you’re pulling down millions in endorsements based on your professional performance and public image, you simply can’t have secrets. The 24/7  nature of media, ubiquity of social platforms, and tabloid culture make it impossible.  

Contracts will be shorter and more flexible, with clear exit strategies. A ten-year deal suddenly looks a lot less attractive than a three-year one. Terminations and how they may be communicated will be carefully negotiated to protect the reputations of both parties.   

Morals clauses will be tighter. An interesting aspect of last night’s discussion was the mention of “reverse morals clauses” for endorsers. So, presumably, if a top athlete or celebrity signs with…oh, I don’t know, let’s say a Japanese automotive company, he might negotiate for compensation in the event of reputation damage resulting from something like a massive product recall. Sports law expert Michael McCann says “it’s bound to happen.”

Deals will be formed with full-blown risk and crisis management plans. Marketers have given lip service to preparedness in the past, but as IEG’s Jim Andrews points out in a recent AdAge piece, sponsors need to have a plan for quickly changing creative materials and be ready to communicate its position effectively in the event of negative fallout.   

Social media is a flashpoint. Lawyers hate Twitter, because they feel it’s particularly risky for those celebrities who are already prone to entitled and outrageous behavior – top athletes, hip-hop artists, and even reality TV stars. Though my feeling is that the problem lies with the endorser, not the media platform, it’s very possible that social media behavior could be restricted or prohibited in endorsement agreements. You can thank Gilbert Arenas for that one.

Top celebrity agents will be humbler and nicer. Actually that’s a joke. I’ll save that one for my “cold day in hell” blog post.

Why PR Advice Is The Last Thing Tiger Woods Needs

Sunday, February 21st, 2010


The Tiger Woods soap opera isn’t just a gift to the tabloid press. It’s been a championship season for PR and crisis management advice. Even before the latest statement hit the Web, communications experts were scrambling to rehash the criticisms of last November and offer another round of self-serving counsel about what Woods should do to get his reputation out of the rough. Another day, another lesson in “apology PR.”

But the recent foray into the Woods bothered me, and not just for the typical reasons. It wasn’t the awkward, makeshift setup of his statement.  Or the image of his mother in the front row, though that was strange, and, in my opinion, unnecessary. Or, even the fact that, at times, his delivery reminded me of a hostage video.

Actually, I think it’s apology fatigue. And maybe distaste for the advice industry that’s so eager to milk the situation. In the month of February alone, we’ve dissected the contrition of Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda, singer John Mayer, and, now, again, Tiger Woods. And, it’s not just professionals who take shots. It’s everybody. Everyone’s a PR expert, and, by now, a cynic. CNN reported an analysis of Twitter updates before the briefing that showed 20% of tweets dismissing it as “all PR” while 18% called it “overhyped.” If those numbers seem low, it’s only because the rest were slamming Woods with harsher phrases.

But, no matter how you feel about Tiger Woods, it seems that, even if heartfelt or skillfully delivered, apologies are now seen as pro forma PR. As the pundits would have it, there’s a standard rulebook and a checklist, and once you’re done, you can work your way back into the public’s good graces. It’s just business, right?

Wrong. Rebuilding a reputation is more complicated than going through the media motions. It’s not about a template, or a checklist, or a one-size-fits-all approach. And, it goes beyond public relations.

In fact, the last thing Tiger Woods needs right now is great PR. The masterfully crafted image of him as a model of personal discipline and dedicated family man is part of what got him into this mess in the first place. It backfired when the perception clashed so utterly with reality.

So, I’m going to hold back on more advice for Woods. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t admire how his situation has been handled. But, at this point, I agree with what a colleague expressed about Woods last December.  ”I used to think he had a PR problem,” he said. “Now, I think he has a life problem.”

Lady Gaga and Polaroid: Beautiful Music or Bad Romance?

Saturday, January 9th, 2010

 

Picture this. When Polaroid announced its new relationship with pop diva Lady Gaga, it rocked the CES haus and nearly brought down Twitter. The former Stefani Germanotta, looking wonderfully preposterous in a hat made of her own hair, was shakin’ it as the brand’s Creative Director. She even showed off her new business card

Okay, the pairing might be a stretch. At least on its face. What’s a nostalgia-inducing instant camera brand got to do with a bi-friendly, 23-year-old pop star known for bizarre costumes, explicit lyrics, and over-the-top theatrics? And, the reaction among media and bloggers has been mixed. But who cares? When’s the last time you thought about Polaroid? Exactly. The brand has nailed the first rule of relevance in our celebrity-saturated, paparazzi-loving, “instant” culture. It has everyone talking. 

Polaroid has struggled through two bankruptcies and changed ownership twice over the last seven years, so it’s exciting to see it take center stage. And, it pulled off the PR announcement with real flair, creating a reasonable context for the Gaga relationship, leveraging CES to the hilt, and virtually stealing the show. It’s a far cry from James Garner and Mariette Hartley.

But, techies wonder, why not just invest in R&D instead of renting a celebrity? In my view, that’s missing the point. The Gaga hook-up is about positioning the Polaroid brand for the younger crowd, the digital natives, the fashion-forward. For me, it’s also about aligning it with creativity and pure fun. And the 2010 new product lineup seems to be right in the same frame. 

Personally, I think Gaga’s an inspired choice. She’s a very visual entertainer who’s all about image, but with real talent under her eccentric get-ups. And, her sexualized, androgynous, no-holds-barred style puts it all out there, so there’s little risk of a nasty surprise, a la Tiger Woods. The only bombshell here is Gaga herself.

But by giving her a lofty title and taking pains to describe the relationship as a true partnership, Polaroid is pushing limits, including those of credibility. It begs the question of what, exactly, her role will be. It would no doubt have been easier – and maybe more authentic – to announce a conventional brand-sponsor endorsement deal. Polaroid would still have the benefit of Gaga’s creativity, fashion iconography, and monster fan base, but without straining plausibility.

But, I’m willing to wait and see. The bigger picture won’t be clear until we see the kinds of specialty products designed under the Gaga imprimatur, and whether the Polaroid gig is actually integrated into her music, fashion, and artistry. It’s a bold move, but at the very least, one thing is certain. We’ll all be watching to see what develops.

The Tabloid Carnival: Celebrities As Entertainment

Monday, December 14th, 2009

One of the more troubling aspects of the Tiger Woods scandal is what a political consultant famously referred to as “bimbo eruptions.” That devastating (and devastatingly accurate) description of then-president  Bill Clinton’s extramarital history, and his PR problems, feels pretty familiar right now. Especially as more women come out of the woodwork to grab their tawdry piece of the action.    

Which is why, when I heard that the New York Post’s newest advice columnist is Ashley Dupre, it seemed like a sign of the apocalypse. The call girl implicated in the 2008 Eliot Spitzer scandal is now a member of the press. As a struggling freelance reporter posted in her Twitter update this morning, “I’ve been going about this writer thing all wrong.”

There are so many things wrong with this that I don’t know where to start. The desperation of the mainstream media to stay relevant and profitable. Our reality-show-obsessed, celebrity-saturated culture. The glorification of (for lack of a better term) bad behavior. Our anything-for-a-buck national mentality. The inane and growing list of people who are famous for…being famous. In short, the tabloid-ing of America.

Then I saw Neal Gabler’s excellent Newsweek piece about modern celebrity. Drawing on the work of Daniel Boorstin, he argues that the narrative, not the individual, is what is truly celebrated in today’s culture of fame. Which is why Joey Buttafuco or Tila Tequila might actually trump Queen Elizabeth. Gabler posits that celebrity has become our new art form, edging out the more traditional forms of entertainment like movies and novels. What’s more, celebrity-worship (or excoriation) might actually brings us together at a time when everything else (politics, values, and common experience) divides us.

After reading Gabler’s article, I now feel educated, whereas before I just felt dirty. See, to me, it still seems more about schadenfreude, a way of feeling better about ourselves. We can be morally superior to the cocktail waitress who sells her story, and at the same time, we wouldn’t want to be in Tiger’s shoes.

Yet, after reading Dupre’s debut column, I was mildly surprised. Her “advice” is pretty far from her Girls Gone Wild history. It’s solid, commonsense, and self-referential only where it needs to be. Coming from someone else it would be boring. But, as advice from somebody with her, um, narrative, it has more weight.

So, as our tabloid values take over not just the national consciousness, but the national media, “like cultural kudzu,” I’ve decided to give my indignation a rest and enjoy the entertainment factor. On his Twitter feed, actor James Urbiank offers, “Rachel Uchitel in talks to be new NY Post ombudsman.” That’s a joke. At least, I think it is.

Will Tiger Woods Sink Celebrity Endorsement?

Friday, December 11th, 2009

rihanna

The seemingly endless Tiger Woods scandal, and the well-worn implications for PR and crisis management, have me thinking instead about another aspect of our business – the celebrity endorsement. In this case, the negative fallout is so dramatic – and so unanticipated – that I have to wonder. Could brands become wary of getting into bed with celebrities?

Timing is everything, of course. GM was chagrined to announce the end of its long-running deal with Woods after its business drove into the rough a year ago. How do you think they feel now? And, Cover Girl couldn’t have been too happy about its campaign featuring Rihanna earlier this year, even though Rihanna wasn’t accused of any wrongdoing. Should marketers go back to invented personalities, like Betty Crocker or the Maytag repairman?

Not really. I researched a few of the major celebrity scandals of recent years. In virtually every case, the brands involved were only temporarily in the news, and they came away unscathed. In fact, if you run down a short list of major personalities caught up in negative publicity, nearly all have made a comeback….or are on the way there.

Take Kobe Bryant, for example. Many have compared Tiger’s troubles to his arrest and trial for sexual assault in 2003, and the subsequent loss of major sponsors like McDonald’s and Coca-Cola. But, after Bryant was cleared, he came back. So did advertisers. 

A tougher comparison might be Michael Vick, who served jail time after pleading guilty to disgusting crimes involving dogfighting. Though the marketing jury’s still out on Vick’s brand reputation, his image rehab is underway. Nike, Vick’s major brand sponsor, took a hit after his conviction. It was reportedly stuck with $1.5 million worth of shoe inventory that couldn’t be sold. But, it’s hard to argue any brand damage, given that Vick is once again a Nike endorser.   

For me, the Woods fiasco is a little like Martha Stewart’s fall from grace, only because it was so unexpected. Her 2005 arrest for insider trading was most definitely not a good thing for retail partner KMart. Some would say the scandal helped push KMart into bankruptcy, although I think it’s arguable. Though Stewart was forced to resign her MSLO Board seat and position as Chief Creative Officer, and the company stock price is still in the basement, brand Martha is very much among the living. 

Then there’s Kate Moss, who blew lucrative deals with H&M, Chanel, and Burberry after she was photographed snorting cocaine. The sponsors staved off collateral damage by dropping her, and today, Moss has a chic new collection of brands on her roster, including Dior, Calvin Klein, and Louis Vuitton.

Even Chris Brown has a good shot at redemption. In fact, there’s only one major former celebrity endorser on my list that I’d say has no chance of image rehab, and that’s O.J. Simpson. Murder chargers, not to mention jail, tend to have a chilling effect on marketability. 

As for the rest, it looks like the long and lucrative marriage between marketers and celebrities is still intact. I wish I could say the same for the Woods’ union. Time will tell.

Has Reality TV Gone Too Far?

Saturday, November 28th, 2009

salahis

The furor over the Virginia couple who evaded security and gained entry into the recent White House state dinner has many calling for a review of Secret Service procedures. When photos showed that the couple actually got close enough to the president to shake his hand, the concern, and the coverage, of “gatecrasher-gate” naturally escalated.

But, there’s a twist, of course. It turns out that the couple, Tareq and Michaele Salahi, are being considered by Bravo for a new edition of its successful “Real Housewives” franchise, this one to be set in Washington, D.C. A camera crew was actually videotaping them as they drove to the White House. (Sounds like more than an audition to me.) 

The sturm and drang over their gate-crashing plays out a little like Balloon Boy redux, and it raises similar questions. To what lengths will people go for a chance at fame, however dubious? Is reality-TV “stardom” the new American dream? Shouldn’t we stop rewarding people for bad, outrageous, or even illegal behavior? 

Most galling is the response from the couple – or, rather, their publicist. Her email to CNN sounds as if she’s repping Angelina Jolie. It reads, “We will begin doing press and media next week providing exclusive interviews and press junkets. If you would like to be considered in our media circuit we request that you hold your proposed published profile until then.”

Holy media tour. Mrs. Salahi is already booked on Larry King next week. I realize that reality TV attracts the publicity-hungry and the narcissistic, and the Salahis are clearly fame-seekers of a high order. In fact, there’s probably more than just a shot at a “Housewives” gig to the story, as some bloggers have suggested. But, from Omarosa to Octomom, it seems like the only thing that matters is to stand out. As reality producer Michael Hirschorn said, aspirants have become much more clever at “self-producing.”

So, where do you draw the line? And, at what point do the production company, the network, and even the viewers, share responsbility for these kinds of antics?

I’m a fan of many reality TV shows, and the “Housewives” are kind of a guilty pleasure for me. But, unless there’s another side to the story, I hope these guys are dealt with harshly by the law, if only to set an example. They’ve already enjoyed far more than their 15 minutes… and, honestly, if there’s a book contract in their future, I’ll organize a boycott or something. As James Poniewozik wrote his excellent piece on the Heene family, “Only in the reality TV era is unstable behavior a valid career choice.”

I think it’s time for all of us to get a life.

Oprah's Departure: Doomsday For Broadcast TV?

Friday, November 20th, 2009

oprah

If I hadn’t known about Oprah’s announcement before waking up to a WNYC Radio listener roundup of “what Oprah has meant to me,” – honestly, I would’ve thought she died. Of course, the impetus for the wave of coverage was not a tragic event, but merely her tearful disclosure that she will end her daily talk show within two years, in September 2011.

But for CBS, which syndicates the show, and ABC, whose stations carry it, Oprah’s move actually is a bit like a death in the family. In fact, it’s an overall blow for broadcast television and its ad-supported business model. CBS’s statement, which affirmed that it’s looking forward to the next several years, “and hopefully afterwards,” read like a plea for her to change her mind, and who can blame them? Oprah’s reason for turning out the lights after 25 extraordinary years is to concentrate more fully on her next big venture – the Oprah Winfrey cable network, or OWN.

(I can’t help but wonder about the much-publicized ancient Mayan calendar predictions that the world will end by 2012. Is Oprah preparing for the end? Or, is life without a daily dose of Oprah the apocalypse itself?)

There’s no doubt that Oprah’s departure is another sign of the growing dominance of cable television. But, to date, the plans for OWN are murky. It was originally announced in 2007 and was meant to debut last year, but it was stalled amidst executive turnover and lack of focus. Even now it’s not clear what Oprah’s role in front of the camera will be, if any. She’s told staffers that she will not simply move the show to cable, but rather will produce programming that might involve occasional appearances.

So, there’s another side to Oprah’s decision.What will happen to her influence once she’s no longer a weekday presence in our lives? Naturally, her media empire is far larger than her talk show, and her brand larger still. Yet, the show has been a powerful platform. It may be a relief for some PR people (see previous post), but the ramifications of a (broadcast) world without Oprah are as huge as her impact…including for her.

I can’t help but wonder if her diminished TV presence could also dim the influence of the woman who persuaded so many about so much – from trying Twitter to picking our president.

Is David Letterman A PR Genius?

Monday, October 5th, 2009

 

PR pundits are saying that Letterman’s handling of last week’s bizarre extortion plot against him was a public relations masterstroke. As the world knows, Letterman chose to recount his experience last Thursday in a ten-minute monologue – but not his usual kind. Somewhere in those ten minutes, the late-night host admitted to sexual relationships with women at his company, and recounted the clumsy but scary shakedown attempt that could have threatened his career. 

So, how did he do, by the crisis PR playbook?

Timing – Although it’s obvious Letterman spoke about the experience only because of the extortion attempt, he went out early to get in front of the story, which is hugely important. If he had waited even a day – until after news of Robert Halderman’s arrest broke – it would have weakened his leverage as someone who was victimized. Moreover, he would have had far less control over the initial phase of the story. His quick decision to break the story meant he was able to frame it on his terms, in his own words and in his own way. That’s half the battle. 

Message – The speech was overlong, but he shared the right amount of information.(It’s not comparable, but John Edwards’ soul-baring confession of infidelity comes to mind as a classic case of TMI.) In this case, Letterman admitted to the workplace relationships, citing no names and few details, and added that he’d basically have nothing more to say about it. A good move, but predicated on nothing coming out that will contradict his message. 

Tone – Here’s where I differ with others. Though Letterman lacked defensiveness (a good thing), his tone was, at times, downright odd. On tape, he at first seems to be playing the story for laughs.Then, it turns more serious, and he uses words like “terrible” and “creepy” to describe his own actions I would have cut the story in half and signaled the audience from the start that it was serious. And, though it’s in keeping with his self-deprecating brand of humor, calling his relationships “creepy” implies all kinds of things that you really don’t want to suggest.

Fallout –  The public reaction has come pretty much as expected. Longtime fans have shrugged off the incident, while the anti-Dave contingent has a fresh reason to criticize. Overall, his treatment by the press – save for a few irresistible Worldwide Pants puns – has been pretty fair, if you discount former CBS personality Don Imus’ tirade (which smacks of publicity-baiting, if you ask me.) Even his fellow comedians have been gentle, and most have kept their own lips zipped about the incident.

Most importantly, his camp has so far stayed firmly on message – and out of the press - as fresh news has broken, including items about his former assistant and her relationship with the would-be extortionist, and ominous-but-empty words from Halderman’s lawyer. Meanwhile, CBS is busy trying to scrub the Internet of Letterman’s now-classic video “confession,” which is unnecessary. 

Letterman isn’t the first celebrity to go public to head off an alleged exportion plot (The actor Rob Lowe employed similar tactics when threatened by a former babysitter in 2008.) In this case, he was lucky, in that the perpetrator behaved stupidly (what self-respecting extortionist accepts personal checks, anyway?)

If nothing further comes out to contradict his statement or indicate that his relationships were not consensual, Letterman’s over the worst. But, I’m holding my breath before making his bizarre experience – and admittedly skillful handling of it – the next crisis case in my playbook.