imPRessions « Crenshaw Communications

The Future of Celebrity Endorsement, Post-Tiger

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, and 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 breakout athlete in what’s largely 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.

Posted on:  March 5th, 2010
Written by:  Dorothy Crenshaw
Categories:  Crenshaw Communications, Media, advertising, brand marketing, branding, celebrity, communications, crisis management, digital media, endorsement, marketing, privacy, public relations, reality TV, reputation, social media
Tags:  Tags: Crenshaw Communications, crisis management, sports marketing, Tiger Woods; celebrity endorsements
Comments:  No Comments »

Share and Enjoy:

When Not To Hire A PR Firm

Like Tolstoy’s observation about unhappy families, relationships between clients and their PR firms go bad for different reasons. That’s why I can’t respond directly to a piece in today’s Huffington Post that questions the relevance of PR firms today. Grant Cardone’s “Do PR Firms Make Sense Anymore?” recounts his failed and apparently fruitless relationships with three different public relations firms. To make matters worse, in Cardone’s view, a friend with a vertical website was able to generate more attention for his online video than his PR team.

So, what went wrong? I don’t know, and I don’t blame Cardone for throwing in the towel. But I doubt that the real lesson here is that PR firms are no longer relevant. It’s more likely that he didn’t choose the right partners, or that the relationships lost momentum and direction after the honeymoon. Like the single serial dater who can’t seem to meet the right partner, he might need a little “relationship intervention.”

Here then, is my own list of “red flags” that could signal a bad match between a PR team and a client.

1. The chemistry’s great. Not that you shouldn’t get along with your agency team, but beware the too-dazzling first impression. I have a friend at an agency search firm who warns clients against the “chemistry test.” What she really means is, don’t be seduced by charm. Look for compatibility instead.

2. You’re from different worlds. Let’s say the agency team is ultra-hip, and your brand isn’t. Don’t count on becoming cool by association. It’s more likely that the union will end prematurely. This is where cultural compatibility (which is not to be confused with chemistry) comes in. A fast-moving, high-energy entrepreneur won’t be happy with a large, bureaucratic firm, and chances are, the reverse is true. Look for a cultural fit.

3. They don’t listen. As with a self-involved first date, it’s a bad sign if the team leaders spend the entire time talking about themselves. There’s a fine line between salesmanship and self-centeredness. Look for a team where each person asks thoughtful questions and actually listens to the answers.

4. You can’t commit. As in real life, don’t start something if you don’t have the financial and human resources to make it work. And, if your emotional investment comes with an expiration date, be honest and say so.

5. You don’t communicate. Instead of a dog-and-pony show, try to structure your first meetings as a discussion. The firm will respect you, and you’ll find out more about them than you might in a canned presentation.

6. You have baggage. Examine your own agency history, and your reputation, with a cold eye, and do the same with the firm you’re considering. Short relationships and high churn are almost always a red flag. If the problems are on your side, consider getting help from a recruitment professional. Like a good therapist, they may see what you can’t. If you want a reputable agency, your own reputation should be impeccable.

7. They have issues…but haven’t learned from mistakes. Don’t just get references from current, happy clients; ask for permission to speak with a client who fired them. You may learn something by how they respond.

8. You expect perfection. Expectations are the key to most relationships. If you don’t start with clear-cut goals, or if they’re wildly unrealistic, you need to let your agency adjust them. Make sure your team offers input and signs off on the goals, and listen to their counsel.

9. You’re a user. Some clients churn through agencies in a continual search for fresh ideas; others are serial daters because they think they’ll keep their team on their toes. If you only want a short-term relationship, say so, and come up with a compensation structure that works for both parties.

10. They’re virgins. Experience really, really counts in PR. Choose a firm with applicable expertise, where the experience resides with the team members, not in a distant office. Most importantly, make sure that one or more senior-level team members will be engaged in your program for the long term.

There. You’ve done all you can to ensure a mutually beneficial and lasting relationship. May your marriage be a long and happy one.

Posted on:  March 1st, 2010
Written by:  Dorothy Crenshaw
Categories:  Crenshaw Communications, communications, public relations, reputation
Tags:  Tags: Crenshaw Communications, PR firms, public relations
Comments:  1 Comment »

Share and Enjoy:

What PR Can Learn From “Undercover Boss”

When I was 23 years old I worked for a PR entrepreneur who insisted we accompany the sales reps of a large client company on their customer calls at retail. He said it was the only way to learn how the company’s products got to market and to gain a real-world perspective on our PR programs.

What an education. My field experience was a permanent lesson in how even the most strategic of PR programs can miss the mark if they’re developed in isolation.

That’s why I was interested in the CBS reality show “Undercover Boss.” You know the one, about disconnected CEOs who get down with the workforce on the front lines. It also made me think about our business. Getting your hands dirty is not only valuable, it’s more necessary than ever.

It’s not a new idea, actually. HBR reports that more than forty years ago, legendary Avis Rent-a-Car CEO Robert Townsend insisted that each senior executive spend time every month behind a rental counter. Last year, Jeff Bezos spent a week working in an Amazon distribution center in Kentucky. Some enlightened companies even make every employee spend a week per year inside that Siberia of business functions, customer service.

But, customer service means something different today. In a small way, we’ve learned just how different by creating and managing a Facebook community for a major technology brand. Most of the inquiries we field have nothing directly to do with PR. Many aren’t related to positioning or brand attributes, of course. Lots come from outside the U.S. – not our purview. None of this is really our job.

Except that it is. And, in dealing directly with consumers and working closely with our client’s customer service team, we’ve learned enormously about how consumers perceive product quality. And how the quality of even the smallest interaction with the brand has an impact on its reputation.

Many have written about the growing intersection of PR, brand reputation, and customer service. As more customers post, tweet, blog, and shout their dissatisfaction on the social Web, the risks to brand reputation grow. And, with the disintermediation of the traditional press, PR and communications has a new set of rules.

So, whatever you think about reality TV, the “undercover” concept has real relevance to what we do. The customer experience is out there. It’s public, it’s dynamic, and it’s a growing part of brand reputation. As formerly behind-the-scenes strategists and communicators, we can’t hide behind the media any longer. Our cover’s been blown. We’ve been outed, too, and, like the White Castle CEO, we’d better put on another hat and learn the ropes.

Posted on:  February 25th, 2010
Written by:  Dorothy Crenshaw
Categories:  Crenshaw Communications, Facebook, brand marketing, communications, customer service, marketing, public relations, reality TV, reputation, social media
Tags:  Tags: Crenshaw Communications, public relations, Undercover Boss
Comments:  No Comments »

Share and Enjoy:

Why PR Advice Is The Last Thing Tiger Woods Needs

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.”

Posted on:  February 21st, 2010
Written by:  Dorothy Crenshaw
Categories:  Crenshaw Communications, Media, celebrity, communications, crisis management, privacy, public relations, reputation, twitter
Tags:  Tags: apology communications, Crenshaw Communications, Tiger Woods. apology PR
Comments:  3 Comments »

Share and Enjoy:

Smith vs. Southwest: Who Wins The PR Skirmish?

It’s tough to build a good reputation as an airline these days. As musician Dave Carroll reminded us, you don’t even need to be 100% right to gain the upper hand to take on the guys who fly. Mostly, you need to be creative and funny, because airlines carry a lot of baggage when it comes to customer service and brand reputation. And it helps to have a big megaphone.

Well, the industry – symbolized by this month’s poster child, Southwest Airlines – may have met its match in Hollywood biggie Kevin Smith. Southwest hit some heavy PR weather when it took on Smith, who despite his indie creds, has a huge Twitter following and isn’t shy about throwing his weight around. His “tweak-out” was heard around the world. Some have called it “Fat-gate.”

Smith was asked to leave a Southwest flight after he was deemed too much of a, um, wide-body to fit into his seat. But, Smith, who tweeted his outrage in colorful language familiar to anyone who saw “Clerks” or “Chasing Amy,” insists he passed the “armrest test,” and wasn’t too fat to fly. Smith also lashed out at the airline for waiting until he was seated, with bags stowed, before he was bounced.

Being no social media novice, Southwest responded quickly to the gathering PR storm, contacting Smith on Twitter and eventually by telephone at his home. As the latest example of corporate apology communications, its handling of the incident showed social savvy, although it left some PR-watchers up in the air over mixed messages.

After the story blew up, Southwest at first stayed the course, politely but firmly citing its “passengers of size policy” and the comfort and safety of all who fly. Then, after speaking directly with Smith (and possibly also learning that he was invited onto the Larry King show to discuss the snafu), a Southwest rep offered a more heartfelt – if halfway – apology on its blog.

But, here’s the thing about the Smith snafu. In my view, everybody wins a little here. First, the dustup received an extraordinary amount of attention, without a single live interview with Smith himself. Maybe it was just the holiday weekend, typically a slow news time. But, it says something about the power and weight of social media, and its influence with mainstream press.

Though Southwest took some heat, its quick response, coupled with a witty blog post and subsequent apology, makes it look in touch and engaged, as well as caring about its passengers (at least, the bulk of them) and quick to address a plus-sized PR problem.

As for Smith, some have claimed the whole thing was a publicity stunt for his upcoming film. I doubt it, particularly when the “passenger of size” policy is so randomly enforced (which is one of the problems here.) But, I’d be surprised if it didn’t boost awareness of Smith’s next project. And, given Smith’s challenge that if Southwest flies its airline seat to New York, he’ll prove he’s fit to fly by sitting in it, live, on The Daily Show, he’s not done yet.

But, besides raising industry consciousness about sensitivity and consistency, the best thing about the Smith rampage – as expressed in 140-character updates – may be what it does for customer service. The convergence of customer service and brand public relations has real implications for both PR professionals and for how companies handle customer complaints. Any company who doesn’t realize this is risking its reputation.

The final benefit of the skirmish is its entertainment value. Most of his tweets can’t be repeated here, but, as some have claimed, they could be the best thing he’s written in years. After blasting the airline as “sizeist” and “rude” but finally landing, Smith tweeted,

“Hey @SouthwestAir! I’ve landed in Burbank. Don’t worry: wall of the plane was opened & I was airlifted out while Richard Simmons supervised.”

But, in the end, this particular Smith drama is also self-limiting in its power to inflict brand damage, for the same reason it’s interesting. I mean, who isn’t mad at the airlines? As one commenter put it,

“Kevin, you know who has an airline nightmare story? Everyone. Now shut up. “

Posted on:  February 17th, 2010
Written by:  Dorothy Crenshaw
Categories:  Crenshaw Communications, communications, digital media, public relations, reputation, social media, twitter
Tags:  Tags: apology communications, Crenshaw Communications, Fat-gate, Kevin Smith, Southwest Airlines
Comments:  1 Comment »

Share and Enjoy:

Will Journalists Make PR Better?

A few weeks into the great economic meltdown of 2008, I visited a friend and former client, an ex-journalist who had left the corporate world years earlier to establish a successful PR firm. My friend told me he was besieged with calls from laid-off journalists wanting tips on setting up a PR practice. “They want advice, yet they seem to think it’s easy, what we do.” He gazed at me soberly, then smirked. “Well, they’ll find out soon enough that it’s not.”

Public relations and journalism have been allied professions for a long time – despite our uneasy and sometimes unspoken symbiosis. Yet, do journalists really make good PR people? Will an influx of reporters into our business raise the bar for core skills and professional integrity? In The Great Journalism Exodus, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg predicts a bleak future in which ex-journos have no one to pitch but “undertrained and underpaid bloggers,” while damning reporters as PR practitioners. (His sources cite their lack of training as advocates and habit of working independently.)

For the record, my own experience with ex-media pros who come over to the dark side is fairly mixed. I’ve worked with those who simply couldn’t seem to make the transition, not for lack of skill, but maybe for lack of will. Others struggled with the business aspects of agency life, as well as the occasional need to deliver strategic advice to senior client executives with something less than.. um, blunt force.

And, even assuming media relations chops, there are other demands on a senior PR practitioner - strategic thinking, marketing knowledge, creative ideation, business development, staff management…and, oh, yes, client counsel. Many ex-journalists, particularly those who’ve held business-side media positions, already have some of those skills. Others need to develop them.

In the end, a successful transition from journalism to PR really comes down to the background, abilities and motivation of the individual. But, the impact of the journalistic migration on the business of PR is harder to gauge. The line between press and PR – already a little blurry – is bound to get fuzzier.

“Sponsored journalism,” like the L.A. Kings’ hiring of reporter Rich Hammond, seems to be on the rise. In the wake of the Bloomberg takeover, two former BusinessWeek editors, Steven Baker and Steve Wildstrom, departed the magazine for independent careers that now involve working for companies they recently covered as journalists.

On the flip side, corporate communicators are increasingly pumping out high-quality content, creating their own multimedia platforms platforms and channels, and producing video for mass consumption. And, the broadcast networks have never been shy about hiring non-journalists. They’ve given us the entire punditsphere, including (former PR chief) Karl Rove, and most recently, Sarah Palin.

I think the cross-pollination probably will raise skills standards, at least on the PR side. That’s a good thing, but skills don’t necessarily translate into quality. And the standards are unclear, and maybe even unrealistic. In the case of Rich Hammond, he apparently has complete editorial control. But, that’s not true for other “sponsored journalists,” and it’s hard to imagine total editorial independence from the people who sign your paycheck.

Clearly, the game is changing and the rules with it. As it stirs debate among people like me, I sure hope it draws scrutiny for the same reasons. Sometimes, when I stare at my screen or scan the paper, I’m not sure exactly what I”m taking in – a product of journalism, a PR placement, or something in between.

Posted on:  February 10th, 2010
Written by:  Dorothy Crenshaw
Categories:  Crenshaw Communications, communications, jobs, journalism, newspapers, public relations
Tags:  Tags: Crenshaw Communications, public relations, sponsored journalism
Comments:  1 Comment »

Share and Enjoy:

Super Bowl Advertisers Score PR Points By Getting "Banned"

Someone blogged recently that the Super Bowl’s like “American Idol” for advertisers…with a little football thrown in.

They called it right. And this year, with social media kicking in like never before, the Super Bowl is still a winning PR strategy for the brands that pay to play. Most are looking to extend their investment through the social Web. In fact, there are so many ads previewed before the Bowl that the event itself might be an anti-climax.

But, with so much noise out there, how do smaller brands get attention? Some are trying to pull an end-run before game day. If you’re not Pepsi, which scored PR points by sitting out the Super Bowl, or Focus on the Family, which will air the much-discussed-but-as-yet-unseen pro-life ad with college football player Tim Tebow, your best Super Bowl strategy may be to get thrown out of the game.

That’s what happened to gay dating site ManCrunch when it submitted its Super Bowl spot. CBS rejected the ManCrunch overture, questioned its creditworthiness, and basically called its ad a cheap PR ploy. Now, I’ve no idea if ManCrunch is actually good for the $2-3 million that it costs for 30 seconds on the Super Bowl. But, whatever its intentions, the controversy lit up the blogosphere, and the ManCrunch spot has racked up nearly half a million views on YouTube. Cost to ManCrunch? Zero.

But, most benched spots are from actual Super Bowl advertisers. GoDaddy, the grandfather of game-day ad controversy, is again out-of-bounds with one of its commercials. The spot, “Lola,” about a lingerie-designing football player, was deemed “inappropriate” for the telecast. Naturally, GoDaddy has put the ad on YouTube and is inviting viewers to catch it on its website.

But my favorite “banned” spot this year was created by kgb, a company that answers trivia questions by text message. It features two women whose golfer husbands are discussing global warming and don’t know what they’re talking about. The wives complain that the men have their heads up their…um, backsides, and that’s exactly what they look like. kgb’s Bruce Stewart claims they had no idea that the ad, which naturally is posted on YouTube, would be tossed.

Some say that, given the network’s extra-stringent decency standards for the Super Bowl, the kgb marketing people are probably talking out of their – well, you know. And, they’ll be running other commercials that have been deemed more acceptable – although having viewed the “banned” spots, I find the standards pretty mystifying.

Critics complain that the ejected spots don’t exactly raise the bar for creativity and originality, and it’s true that they’re less than, um, sophisticated. But, you can’t blame the advertisers for wanting a pre-Bowl PR warm-up, and I think the kgb spot is hilarious. The faux controversy is stretching those multimillion-dollar budgets and generating some buzz around both rookie and veteran brands. The ads may not be televised, but they will be in the game.

Posted on:  February 3rd, 2010
Written by:  Dorothy Crenshaw
Categories:  Crenshaw Communications, advertising, brand marketing, communications, marketing, public relations, social media
Tags:  Tags: Crenshaw Communications, Go Daddy, kgb, ManCrunch, Pepsi, Super Bowl, Tim Tebow
Comments:  3 Comments »

Share and Enjoy:

What Goldman Can Learn From Toyota: Apology Communications

Lately, the public apology has been cheapened to the point of commodity. Hardly a month passes without a tearful, televised mea culpa from a politician or athlete. On the corporate front, the typical PR offering is more along the lines of “mistakes were made” – a masterful mouthful of nothingspeak. The banking industry’s contrition is epitomized by Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein’s stilted apology last November, followed by an orchestrated move to throw money at the problem. But, like the actions of a guilty husband trying to gift his way out of the doghouse, it smacks of insincerity.

Toyota’s recent response to its accelerating business and PR crisis reminded us that apology communications is in part shaped by culture. The “apology gap” between the U.S. and Japan is profiled in an entertaining New York Times column by Alina Tugend. Most telling, however, are the photos. (I couldn’t find the exact images online, but it’s worth looking at the hard copy of the paper if you have it.) The image of three U.S. bank CEOs – looking frustrated and combative at a government inquiry - is juxtaposed with a shot of Japan Airlines executives in a deep bow of contrition after filing for bankruptcy. The contrast couldn’t be more striking.

The piece echoes the observations of Bob Pickard, recently named CEO of Burson Marsteller’s Asia Pacific region. Pickard blogs that, after relocating to Asia from North America, “I increasingly found my own culture’s approach to apology callous and calculating; a tactic of last resort.” In Asia, perhaps, former Time Warner chief Gerald Levin’s mea culpa for “the worst deal of the century,” and his call for CEOs to take responsibility for poor decisions, wouldn’t have been quite so startling.

Yet, it’s not just culture. Most PR pros agree with me that it’s our legal system that gets in the way. In our litigious society, it’s hard to accept responsibility and pledge to change when it can be used against you in a class-action suit.

So, does Toyota have a strategic advantage over a typical U.S. company? In theory, yes. Its president took the first step by communicating regret over the massive product recall caused by a gas pedal problem. A U.S. spokesman went further by making it clear that Toyota takes responsibility for the problem rather than blaming it on a supplier.

Yet, the Toyota case also reveals when saying “I’m sorry” isn’t enough. When a risk to public health, safety or security has occurred, the infringing company must not only show contrition and accept responsibility. It must spell out how it will make things right, and convince stakeholders that it has done everything possible to eliminate the risk for the future.

Toyota will get there. The repair of its brand reputation will pick up speed when it announces its remedial plan with a full-court PR and advertising campaign, probably next week. That’s where Lloyd Blankfein and his colleagues might want to listen up. Until they’ve convinced us that the problem can’t happen again, their apology will be a little like a penny stock – cheap, not very credible, and lacking value over the long term.

Posted on:  January 30th, 2010
Written by:  Dorothy Crenshaw
Categories:  Crenshaw Communications, communications, crisis management, public relations, reputation
Tags:  Tags: Crenshaw Communications, Goldman Sachs, Toyota
Comments:  6 Comments »

Share and Enjoy:

Does Apple Have A "Female Problem"?

No other company could have raised the anticipation bar as high and managed the PR tsunami as deftly as Apple did in the months leading up to the unveiling of the new iPad tablet.

But contrary to the stratospheric expectations, the iPad didn’t self-levitate, dispense cash, or heal the sick. Apple-watchers had their criticisms. Many called it nothing more than a “giant iPod Touch.” Personally, I was a little glad to read mixed reviews, given charges by some that major media – who might have much to gain by the iPad’s success – are incapable of covering it objectively.

Still, there’s no fan base as evangelical as Apple’s. Some began posting “I want it!” minutes after the most live-blogged product unveiling in history got underway. (Personally, I don’t agree with many of the objections. My disappointment was that AT&T is the sole data service provider. Not good.)

But, the masters of technology, design, and marketing may have stumbled a bit with the branding of the iPad. The most unexpectedly entertaining part of the announcement was the response to the name. While my first thought when I heard it was the potential for confusion with “iPod” (particularly for Bostonians), to many people it connoted a kind of high-tech feminine hygiene product.

As Twitter users and message-board commenters piled on in the minutes and hours after the announcement, the one-liners were, um, flowing. Within moments, “iTampon” was a Twitter trending topic. By day’s end, bloggers posted an oddly prescient 2007 skit from Mad TV in which two female office mates share a confidential chat about a feminine protection product called – yep, the iPad. Blogs like adrants began to post the best jokes about the iPad branding.

So, does the iPad naming show that Apple has a…”female problem”? Many women bloggers questioned the decision, and some claim it shows a dearth of estrogen in Cupertino, at least where the marketing and branding decisions are made. “Do any women work at Apple?” was the theme of most posts.

Maybe it’s that the technology industry – with its CES booth babes and Silicon Valley geekpreneurs – is still a male-dominated one, both in numbers and in character. The typical early adopter is a man, and the way tech products are sold at retail reminds some women of the automotive industry. The tech-toy race is a stereotypically male preoccupation, and, despite women’s appreciation for technology, our default mindset is more practical than status-conscious.

Personally, though I might have favored “iTab” for a name, I think the period humor is way overblown. After all, the iPad comforms to the Apple product nomenclature. And the word “pad” is used in scores of ways, including “notepad,” “mouse pad,” and “touch pad.”

The naming critics will lighten up, and the iPad will succeed or fail on its own merits. But, the iPad example shows that being gender-blind isn’t always a good thing. And, I’m willing to bet that, for the next big product branding, there’ll be plenty of women in the room.

Posted on:  January 27th, 2010
Written by:  Dorothy Crenshaw
Categories:  Crenshaw Communications, brand marketing, branding, communications, twitter, women
Tags:  Tags: Apple, Crenshaw Communications, iPad
Comments:  5 Comments »

Share and Enjoy:

Royal Caribbean In Haiti: A Tough PR Call

When I first read about the Royal Caribbean Line ship that docked at Haiti’s Labadee beach shortly after the earthquake that devastated Port-au-Prince, I was taken aback. To say it created a royal PR problem for the cruise line was an understatement.

The storm of criticism was so fierce that it was hard to glean the facts. After a story ran in the UK Guardian, the floodgates were opened to media and bloggers who excoriated the cruise line. Under a headline screaming ”Ship of Ghouls,” the New York Post , in true tabloid form, reported that passengers frolicked “60 miles away from rotting bodies.” In an AdAge story this week, the PR community weighed in, proclaiming that Royal Caribbean’s corporate reputation was all but sunk.

From a public relations standpoint, the cruise ship dilemma is a classic no-win situation, and it has most commenters sharply divided. While I understand those who recoil at the “bad optics” of the move, i.e. the visual of beachgoers sunning behind a security gate within days of the quake, I think what Royal Caribbean did was right.

And it moved quickly to communicate just that. Both RCCL Chairman & CEO Richard Fain and International President & CEO Adam Goldstein jumped into the breach in what was clearly an all-hands-on-deck corporate response to the crisis. In a blog post, Goldstein explained that a decision to bypass Labadee would mean deserting Haitian employees and market vendors and depriving them of critical income.

Both execs were widely interviewed by broadcast media, with video footage of relief efforts available on YouTube. Photos of pallets of supplies being shipped to the disaster zone were posted on the Royal Caribbean blog to visually document its actions. The company then announced a $1 million donation to Haitian earthquake relief. Importantly, its communications emphasized the long-term nature of the process. There’s no quick passage to recovery.

In hindsight, I might have waited a week to resume leisure port calls at Labadee, out of respect for the victims of the quake. A pause could also have served as a practical way to regroup and expedite communications to passengers, stakeholders, and press, while ramping up the aid to the earthquake zone.

But, in my mind, the most important way of keeping communications on an even keel – by involving Haitians affected by the devastation – was probably impossible. Comments from Royal Caribbean’s own head of operations there, and an appeal for a quick resumption of port calls by Haitian development officials, might have averted the media shipwreck. But, I imagine those steps were unfeasible amidst the chaos and confusion following the quake and its aftershocks.

There’s no American analogy to the death and devastation that is Port-au-Prince today. But, like most New Yorkers after 9/11, I was grateful for the convention and tourism groups that planned visits and meetings to the downtown area in the months and years that followed the attack. I applauded those business associations who changed their plans to host meetings in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. There can be no renewal without an economic recovery.

Maybe that’s why what feels right to me, from both a humanitarian and a public relations standpoint, is the commitment to stay in Haiti and use both philanthropic and commercial levers to drive the rebuilding and recovery. Cruise lines like Royal Caribbean are in a rare position to fulfill that commitment, and I’m betting that, over the long haul, they will do exactly that.

Posted on:  January 22nd, 2010
Written by:  Dorothy Crenshaw
Categories:  Crenshaw Communications, communications, crisis management, public relations, reputation
Tags:  Tags: Crenshaw Communications, Haiti; earthquake; disaster recovery, Royal Caribbean Cruise Line
Comments:  1 Comment »

Share and Enjoy: