Creative Public Relations for a Digital World

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 intense pressure from influential advocates, 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 started to suffer from “mission drift.” Its aggressive defense of its trademark 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 its vast pink army of activists for granted.

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. 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 you’re own people, it’s nearly impossible.

Speak from the heart. Though CEO Nancy 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 formidable pink juggernaut that awakened so much loyalty seemed sadly alone as it faced the rising 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, though sincere, 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.

Who would have thought it? Newt Gingrich, the temperamental former House Speaker with a checkered personal history, has made a comeback. Again.

Of course, political advantage is notoriously short-lived during primary season, particularly the debate-larded GOP one we’ve seen so far. And the Gingrich rise may say as much about the shallowness of Romney’s support, and his campaign’s missteps, than it does about the former Speaker. But there are some lessons here. The Gingrich campaign has shown real PR smarts in recent weeks, including mastery of the following communications and messaging principles.

Own the story. As a reputed “idea guy,” Gingrich is well schooled in floating new, or newly packaged, concepts that are often colorful and provocative. He’s skilled at elevating the narrative beyond his own issues (e.g. personal baggage) and generating buzz about the future. The latest – space travel and the promise of a moon colony -  is a stretch, but it takes some of the pressure off other, more complicated issues.

Get in front of the bad stuff. Gingrich made a smart move just hours before the CNN debate in South Carolina last week by releasing his tax returns. Though his consulting work for Freddie Mac and his relatively high income are potential liabilities, the timing was brilliant. (And his tax rate is far higher than Romney’s.) The move turned up the heat on Romney to release his own returns, distracting from the news itself and dwarfing the size of the Gingrich assets and income in a flash.

Identify a “safe” enemy. As the world knows, Gingrich’s finest PR moment came just after what could have been a fatal disclosure for his campaign, – the allegation by ex-wife Marianne that he asked her for an “open marriage.” But when CNN’s John King threw out the question for the Speaker’s comment like a slow pitch at the start of a baseball game, Gingrich knocked it out of the park. His tactic was to turn the question into an attack on the media, a favorite whipping boy of the campaign and the party base.

Turn your liabilities into assets. He’s been called thin-skinned, mercurial and grandiose. But last week, Gingrich’s passion, indignation, and outrage really sold his message. When it was focused on the “elite” media, it gave the Speaker a bit of sympathy, and even moral authority. Demonizing the media was far more effective than criticizing his fellow GOP-ers, since it was a uniting force and spoke directly to the voters.

Master your flaws. Where properly focused, as noted, Gingrich’s outrage was very effective. But a little goes a long way, particularly given his reputation for anger. So, he dialed the temperature way down in the subsequent debate this week in Florida. While it made for a far duller session, the “presidential” demeanor thwarted critics hoping for another blow-up, tempering his feisty image.

Where Gingrich has erred, in my opinion, is in sharpening his attacks on Romney after pledging not to go negative. The campaign has already backed down from a nasty anti-Romney ad in Florida, and it will be interesting to see how it walks the line as things heat up down South.

As the queen of “comfort cuisine,” Paula Deen has been a favorite among many members of my family, all of whom live in Georgia or the Carolinas. I’ve admired Paula for her unapologetic taste for indulgence, and for her Southern fried authenticity and down home charm. I’ve never even watched her show, yet I feel I’ve known her for years. I even took her side in her food fight with Anthony Bourdain, though Bourdain was largely in the right.

But Paula’s recent revelation that she was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes has left a bad taste. And from a PR perspective, I’m not convinced that it’s been well handled.

When I caught her “Today” show interview, I felt a little queasy, and since then I’ve been trying to sort out why. Here’s what it boils down to:

Timing – Paula admits that she was diagnosed three years ago. She says waited until now to reveal her illness, which has been rumored since 2010, because she wanted to “bring something to the table.” I want to believe her, but three years is an awfully long time. For someone who’s hallmark is authenticity, it’s hard to swallow. It doesn’t take a business genius to conclude that Paula and her management were worried about the impact of her illness on her show and brand.

Commerce – Paula also announced that she has signed a spokesperson contract with Novo Nordisk, a producer of the diabetes drug she now takes. There’s nothing wrong with being a paid endorser, but it leaves her open to charges of opportunism. Was she waiting for a fat opportunity to monetize her condition?

Paula and her sons, who are also Novo Nordisk spokespersons, followed Monday’s disclosure with a hasty and vaguely worded announcement that they would donate an unspecified portion of their earnings to the American Diabetes Association. When contacted for comment, the association had no knowledge of the plan. The whole thing looked like an afterthought, because it was. More poor strategy and lack of planning. A donation as a centerpiece of her education program would have softened the blatant commercialsim of her deal and sweetened the message.

Clarity – But, what is the message? That medication lets you ignore diet and exercise guidelines? That you can cut back and still enjoy life? Beyond her headline talking point, “Diabetes is not a death sentence,” there’s no call-to-action. With respect, it seems half-baked.

Commitment – Paula’s been opaque about any personal diet and lifestyle changes since the diagnosis. Perhaps she doesn’t want to offend food industry advertisers, but her reticence is confusing. I don’t think she can be a credible role model if she doesn’t talk about adapting to her illness beyond “moderation.” She’s a tremendous brand with the power to inspire millions, but that equity may be at risk, or at least underleveraged.

Brand identity – Brand experts have weighed in on any conversion to lighter fare, calling it risky. I think the risk can be managed, especially since any change is driven by an authentic, real-life event, – her health condition. There’s plenty of opportunity to adapt. (How about a side-by-side comparison, full-fat vs. substitutions?) The plan is to anoint son Bobby as the healthy-eating advocate of the family, but it remains to be seen if he can ride Mama’s apron strings to success.

Paula says her show’s focus won’t change, and beyond giving up sweet tea, she’s vague about personal lifestyle changes. Problem is, she isn’t serving up enough to be as credible and convincing as she needs to be. She seems to want to have her cake, and eat it, too. But as we’ve seen, that can only go on for so long without consequences.

Mark Cuban’s “12 Rules for Start-Ups” has the PR industry in a lather. In addition to offering tips like never buy branded polo shirts (#10), and know how your business will make money (#4), Cuban has a strong opinion about PR. Rule #11 on his list states, “Never hire a PR firm.” He goes on to describe PR professionals in unflattering terms.

Cuban has since clarified his position on using PR consultants after much online commentary. But basically, his premise seems to be that journalists and bloggers would much rather hear from a company founder directly, rather than through an intermediary.

Fair enough. But calling Mark Cuban a spokesman for start-ups is a bit like describing Kim Kardashian as Kris Humphries’ ex-wife. It may be beside the point at this stage in his life and career.

But Cuban is right about at least one thing, which is that a PR program for a start-up is often very different from one on behalf of a legacy business. There are different rules. Here’s my take on the most effective way to approach PR strategy and media relations for an emerging business.

Prioritize your needs. If fundraising is the overriding goal, your startup may be better off dedicating the first year to networking in venture circles, with more highly specialized help.

Bulletproof your business. Sure, many early-stage companies will grow and evolve, but your business offering needs to be as complete as as possible, and the messaging must be fully coherent before you approach media.

Focus. Similarly, spend your time on the media and influencers who can support business goals. Many startups hire a PR firm or consultant to expand product distribution, for example, which may necessitate a laserlike concentration of trade or niche media and blogs.

Assess the founder’s strengths. Be ruthless. Mark Cuban may be a magnificent communicator, but that’s not true of all founders. Media training can only go so far. Some of the most passionate entrepreneurs I’ve known have been mediocre, or worse, when it comes to evangelizing with journalists. And, remember, the founder is not the brand.

Look at the ROI for time spent. One of the most brilliant CEOs I ever worked with told me that he could do a better job on industry PR than anyone on his staff or at my firm. And he may have been right; he had grown up in the business, knew all the key players and was a true visionary. But, apart from a few carefully cultivated media and analyst relationships, he never did wade very deeply into the PR program. Why? Because he had another job, of course. And a little of a charismatic CEO can go a long way.

Be realistic. PR is best looked at at a long-term tool for building a business or a brand. For every “snowball effect” publicity hit, there are a hundred slow-and-steady programs that create visibility and reputation over time.