Creative Public Relations for a Digital World

Defining PR has always been a challenge, even to those of us who work in it. Just ask the Public Relations Society of America, which is concluding a lengthy search for the perfect “modern definition” of what we do.

Like many professions, it’s changed, grown, and become far more specialized in recent years. But myths and false stereotypes abound. I’ve written about the most persistent ones here, like the confusion between PR and publicity, or the suggestion that PR is advertising “lite.” But, there’s more! Here’s a short list of my current favorites.

Any press is good press. In the age of reality TV, this is one myth that’s less ridiculous than it used to be. It may even hold true if you’re Snooki or Kim Kardashian. But probably not. Risky stunts or tasteless tweets can be costly. More to the point, negative publicity is much more challenging to manage today. The Web is forever, so that unguarded quote or nasty headline can do lasting reputation damage.

PR is all about contacts. Not really. Contacts are overrated. They can help you gain a hearing, and generate valuable feedback on a story idea or pitch, but contacts alone won’t get you very far unless the idea’s a good one.

Startups shouldn’t hire PR consultants. This is a topic of raging controversy in PR-land. Some larger-than-life entrepreneurs have gone on the record against the use of professional PR by start-ups. Most recently, Mark Cuban explained that reporters just want to talk to a business owner, without interference from PR types. And in Cuban’s case, that’s probably true. Problem is, most new entrepreneurs aren’t Mark Cuban.

Journalists hate PR. The reality here is, well, complicated. Suffice to say that the PR-journalism relationship is a symbiotic, cooperative, and often collegial one, but there can be tensions. At present, many journos are trying to get jobs in PR, which may have calmed the waters, just as it’s reinforced another stereotype. (see below)

The best PR people are ex-journalists. This one’s open to debate. In my view the best PR people are strategic thinkers and excellent communicators who understand business, but who are plugged into trends, culture, and media. So, many journalists may qualify. Yet the difference between running down stories in a newsroom and counseling a corporate client are vast.

A good story will sell itself. Sure, that can happen. And sometimes the perfect resume crosses my desk at the very moment I have the right job opening. But not very often.  Packaging, access, and – maybe most importantly, timing – can make the critical difference between publicity success and failure.

PR is about controlling the message. The spin thing is hugely overblown, and PR people do ourselves a disservice when we perpetuate it. Often a PR pro will try to influence a story on behalf of a client, and the process can be like a negotiation, but the outcome is a trade-off. We give up control for credibility. And that credibility is the real magic of publicity.

The Human Rights Campaign’s push for marriage equality follows the PR-savvy methods of similar campaigns, like the It Gets Better project. Boldfaced names from politics, sports, and entertainment star in video testimonials to express support for the right to marry, regardless of gender. The latest videos feature Anna Wintour, the Reverend Al Sharpton, and Lloyd Blankfein.

That’s right, Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs CEO and Chairman, has publicly embraced a hot-button social issue that, on the surface, has little to do with Goldman’s business. He is, in fact, the first national corporate spokesperson for marriage equality.

It’s an unusual position, particularly for a financial executive. For every Howard Schultz, there are probably a thousand public-company CEOs who shun controversy at all costs. Particularly in today’s polarized political climate, keeping your head down is good risk management.

Or is it? Many have speculated that Blankfein’s position is a PR strategy. But what’s the goal? To humanize the great and terrible “vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity”? Maybe he was advised to embrace marriage equality because it’s a safe bet, being practically a fait accompli. Or, as Matt Taibbi, the guy who birthed the “vampire squid” meme, writes, perhaps it’s Goldman’s plan to seduce liberals by embracing a socially progressive cause that is risk-free and ”utterly inexpensive.” Could it also be the equivalent of Newt Gingrich’s moon colony — a clever distraction from darker and more complicated issues?

All are possible, of course. But if it’s a PR ploy, it’s an odd choice of issue. And according to news reports, Blankfein is a longtime supporter of gay rights who agreed to the HRC gig after being approached by a Goldman employee who’s engaged in the issue.

I’m as cynical as the next person, but, to me, the whole thing has the earmarks of personal conviction. Not because Blankfein is a good guy or a social progressive (though he may or may not be either), but because he’s a shrewd judge of talent and also serves as Goldman’s Recruiter-in-Chief.  Blankfein is a businessman above all, and what he and his company value over all things is the storied, performance-driven Goldman culture. So, for my money, it’s not really a PR play, but a move that coincides with Goldman’s own interests, and that probably has the additional benefit of being authentic. Imagine that.

Maybe, just maybe, Blankfein wants to send a message that performance is sex-blind, and that non-discrimination is simply good business.

If agency searches are a lot like dating, then long-term client relationships can be a little like marriage. The best are based on mutual trust and transparency, with some occasional renegotiation along the way.

But what if the relationship has gotten a little… humdrum? Worse, you’re taking each other for granted (which may be fine for the client, but it obviously spells danger for any agency or consultant.)

In honor of Valentine’s Day, here are some practical ways to refresh your mutual attraction and spice up the client relationship.

Shake things up. Continuity is a beautiful thing, but don’t get into a rut. Consider swapping out a staff member, or just inviting fresh eyes onto your latest program or idea. New blood can serve two goals; it injects new thinking into your programs and offers new opportunities to staff.

Listen. Like a longstanding couple, we can sometimes stop hearing what a client’s really saying…or, in some cases, what they aren’t communicating. Internal pressures, corporate shifts, personal issues – all can influence an ongoing partnership. If you sense a change in the relationship, schedule a check-in meeting.

Start over. Just for a day. One of my favorite strategies is to throw everything out (mentally) and pretend to be pitching the business for the first time. Invite the client to participate. Sometimes it helps to forget what you think you know.

Embrace planned spontaneity. Set a goal of delivering a new idea or suggestion every two weeks, for example. Let different team members be the messengers. Make things seem spontaneous, but write it into your plans so it happens regularly, without fail.

Mix it up. Do you always email a memo attachment with thoughts and ideas? Pick up the phone instead. (I remember a client praising a young PR rockstar’s habit of calling her with new ideas, as if she just couldn’t stop thinking about their business.) Or pitch your idea over a breakfast meeting, or invite the team over for a whiteboard session. Small changes can have a ripple effect.

Be there. Invite yourself to the client’s office if possible and wander the halls. You always learn something.

Spend time together. Yes, there’s that quality time thing. Go to lunch, dinner, or drinks. Attend a conference together. Go hear an inspirational speaker or just see a show. It does double duty by enabling easy interaction while also giving you a shared experience or stimulating new thoughts.

Susan G. Komen For the Cure, the force behind the ubiquitous pink breast-cancer ribbon, had a lot of people seeing red this week. After withering social criticism and fierce pressure from influentials, Komen reversed its controversial decision to defund Planned Parenthood. But a formidable symbol of grassroots activism built over 30 years has taken a beating. What happened? Can Komen recover?

Maybe because it comes on the heels of the SOPA defeat, PR and crisis experts are calling the Komen-Planned Parenthood bloodbath a victory for the social Web. I don’t think so. Sure, Facebook and Twitter helped accelerate the outrage cycle on both sides. But, this crisis isn’t fundamentally about social media. It’s not even about politics, though our polarized culture has seeped into the public dialogue.

It’s about complacency. Mission drift. And poor communications, of course. The upshot of all the sound and fury is a breach of trust by an extraordinarily powerful brand.

As the largest network of breast cancer survivors and activists, the Komen organization has been the 800-pound gorilla of social marketing and a fundraising powerhouse. Its mission – a world without breast cancer – and the personal story behind it, is brilliant in its simplicity and fervor.

But somewhere along the line, Komen lost sight of the finish line. Its trademarking of the word “cure” and large spend on marketing and promotion (as opposed to research), raised questions about priorities. It tried to keep other anti-cancer groups from using the color pink. It became a bit of a bully. And, who can forget Buckets for the Cure?

But with its recent self-inflicted troubles, it seems that Komen took the vast pink army it mobilized for granted. Now, that army has turned on it.

And in PR terms, Komen erred in several very basic ways. Its apology is likely to infuriate pro-life advocates who welcomed the Planned Parenthood defunding, while not fully convincing original advocates that it’s sincere. It’s a lose-lose.

To recover its own brand health, it needs to return to its roots, and to recommit to the fundamentals of public and constituent communications, as follows.

The mission is the message. No organization that relies on individual and corporate donations can afford to politicize a fundamentally non-political, non-partisan mission. Whatever its true reason for changing funding guidelines (and it now seems clear it saw Planned Parenthood as a drag on fundraising), it had to know that it was a risky move.

Transparency is critical. Komen’s fundamental strategic error was compounded by a lack of planning and poor communications. First, it tied the funding change to a new policy to withhold grants to organizations “under investigation.” When that triggered indignant questions about a double standard, the story shifted to one about direct support for screening clinics rather than referrers. Nothing kills credibility like a changing narrative.

Stand together. Preferably, armed with the truth. CEO Nancy Brinker was swiftly contradicted by a Board member who publicly linked the change to a plan to drop Planned Parenthood. The resignation of a senior Komen executive was seen as protest, and no one was prepared to challenge, or even respond, to the stories. It’s hard enough to fight antagonists. But when you’re fighting your own people, it’s nearly impossible.

Speak from the heart. Though Brinker tried to focus her talking points on tighter standards for outcomes, she was clearly unprepared for the cynical reaction to the move. Breast cancer, women’s health, income inequality, reproductive rights, – all are highly charged issues, yet Brinker’s video response came off a bit as defensive policy-speak that sidestepped the questions about motives.

Rally your advocates. The juggernaut that inspired so much loyalty seemed sadly alone as it faced the swirl of questions around its decision. The low point was Brinker’s interview with a clearly infuriated Andrea Mitchell, herself a cancer survivor and one-time Komen supporter.

Where does Komen go from here? Though its apology was welcomed by many who had angrily protested the change, Komen’s carefully worded statement isn’t strong enough to restore the trust of its supporters. The reversal is an obvious response to public pressure, and it’s hard to tell if Komen will truly restore the previous Planned Parenthood relationship.

To recover, Komen needs to refocus on its real enemy – cancer. It has confused fundraising prowess with success. It doesn’t need to be the biggest, the strongest, or even the pinkest. It simply needs to recommit to its original goal of protecting women’s health, while restoring confidence among corporate sponsors that their brands are once again safe with the pink ribbon.

The run-up to Super Bowl XLVI has definitely begun. And every year the pre-game show ( the ad-fest that leads up to Sunday) seems to get longer.

Now, the Super Bowl has never been known for cutting-edge advertising creative. The challenge is to go big, go broad, and generate chatter. And it’s the early buzz that helps justify the jaw-dropping $3.5 million per spot. Here’s a hint about 2012: cars and dogs are still big.

But the loudest noise seems to be around the commercials designed to evoke fond memories of years gone by. Call it the Nostalgia Bowl. Downy fabric softener, of all brands, is reprising the Mean Joe Greene ad that Coke made famous in 1979, with a twist. (Ordinarily this would be shameless plagiarism, but the aged Joe and the incomparable Amy Sedaris make it surprisingly fresh.)

Then there’s Seinfeld and Jay Leno fighting over an Acura, complete with the Soup Nazi thrown into the sentimental stew. Not bad, actually.

But the PR winner has to be Ferris Bueller. When Honda released a preview version of its “Matthew’s Day Off,” the ad featuring Matthew Broderick playing hooky to ride in a CR-V, Twitter went crazy. The tweets were so fast and furious that they sparked a little backlash.

And there’s plenty to pick on here. A minivan isn’t the sexiest car, and some have accused Broderick of selling out his character in doing something they insist the youthful Ferris would never do.

So it may not be a perfect marketing vehicle. But the spot has racked up four million free views on one YouTube channel alone. It’s the clear front-runner five full days before kickoff, and the dozen or so “Easter eggs” – hidden references to the iconic 1980s film – probably guarantee further mileage for Honda.

What’s even more refreshing is that Bueller and other entertaining spots have crowded out the GoDaddy girls and the “banned ad” also-rans, for once. The tired PR gimmick of claiming an ad has been banned or rejected by the network and posting it online is still in evidence this year, most notably in a spot put out by dating site TheBigandThe Beautiful. It claims the sexy commercial it submitted was rejected by NBC due to bias against women of size.

But so far the hijackers have had slim pickings. Honda’s Bueller isn’t a Ferrari (either literally or creatively) but it is a crowd-pleaser. Which for Super Bowl Sunday, may be just what the doctor ordered.