Creative Public Relations for a Digital World

Graduation season should be joyful, but in the past few years, the media coverage has been dominated by slim employment prospects, hefty college loans, and depressed salaries. Yet things are looking up; for one, the public relations industry is booming, and new grads know it.

As the resumes pour in, here’s my (updated) post with tips for finding a job in an agency or corporate PR department.

Work your contacts. Ask everyone you know for either one name or one piece of advice on landing a meeting. Don’t ask for a job, ask for insight about the industry. It’s much harder to turn that down, and your goal is to make connections that lead to more connections.

Work your interests. If you fall short on contacts, think about what you may have in common with hiring managers or agency executives. Social media is your friend here. If you share a school tie, hometown, or favorite TV series with a prospective employer, lead with that in your approach.

Be different. PR is often about helping clients to stand out, so be your own best PR person. Package yourself by focusing on what’s truly different and relevant about your background, education, drive, or real-world experience. Tell your story briefly in a cover letter. Be compelling, focusing on obstacles overcome, early learnings, or role models.

Don’t spam. It’s amazing how many emails we get with another agency’s name in the body, or with telltale font changes or other evidence of an e-blast. An obvious mass email tells a prospective employer that you’re not serious. Prospecting for a job is a lot like pitching media; the personal approach is time-consuming, but it’s well worth it.

Be social. As in following prospects on Twitter, engaging them on Facebook, and participating in industry or company LinkedIn groups. Consider Facebook ads, an introductory video of yourself, a career-themed Pinterest board. Show that you understand the medium and how to use it.

Offer independent thinking. When you do get an interview, be ready with your opinions. Read up on recent PR campaigns, hot-button industry issues like measurement or integrated communications. If an agency owner asks what you think of a website or a campaign, have a point of view.

Be a media junkie. Or be media. Start blogging. Drop names, visualize stories, show that you’ve not only done your homework, but that you consume a broad diet of traditional and social media on your personal time and take an interest in PR industry and business topics and developments. You are what you read.

Be curious. Always have questions. Even if you’re speaking with six executives in a row and have heard the corporate spiel from each of them, prepare a question. Even if you know the answer. Your job is to show engagement.

This week has brought a fresh wave of public mea culpas and backpedalings – plenty of fodder for self-anointed apology PR experts.

Most proactive is the ad campaign mounted by JC Penney after the failure of its everyday low price strategy and store makeovers of last year. The spot, which is narrated in a warm, intimate female voiceover, addresses shoppers directly, admitting in heartfelt tones that the company didn’t listen to its customers and pledging to restore the “old” Penney.  It also made savvy use of social media, spreading the message with #JCPlistens hashtag and rewarding customers who say they will come return to the brand. Will the campaign pay off? It’s too early to tell, but I think the call-to-action (“We heard you. Now we’d like to see you.”) is a winner.

Less effective, at least in the moment, was the statement from PepsiCo’s Mountain Dew brand when a desperately-trying-to-be-edgy video ad sent its viewers over the edge.  After the outpouring of criticism for the video’s perceived racist and misogynist content, the brand pulled it with the statement, “We’re sorry if anyone was offended.” No responsibility, no sincerity. The initial apology was, well, flat, and the entire episode tasteless.

To be fair, the explanation offered by the rap artist who produced the video, Tyler, the Creator (that’s with a capital “C”) gave important context for the ad, but his response, which was posted by his manager, was drowned out in the backlash. Mountain Dew seemed to realized that its own statement was just a drop in the apology bucket and that it needed to step up. It followed with a promoted tweet. “Hey, guys, we made a big mistake and have removed the offensive video,” even adding the hashtag #fail.

Both could take a tip from the most successful brand walkback to date. In February, after iconic bourbon Maker’s Mark announced it would manage scarce supply by reducing the alcohol content of its famous whiskey, fans and brand-watchers revolted. Pundits called it brand suicide. Maker’s Mark initially defended its decision, but it quickly reversed course. The result seems to have made drinkers appreciate their favorite whiskey even more. After a brief hoarding binge, Maker’s Mark loyalists have forgiven the label, and they’re back by the barrelful.

Some have speculated that the whole thing was a PR ploy. Whatever the case, Maker’s Mark recent earnings were anything but watered down. The brand reported its best quarter ever, just in time for the bourbon-soaked Kentucky Derby weekend.

Sometimes you just have to show that you’re listening. There’s the proof.

Hindsight – ahem – is always 20/20, particularly when it comes to reputation management. Yet, textbook crisis successes (and failures) aren’t always what they seem. Here’s my take on some recent examples of crisis handling by top brands.

The Lululemon Yoga Pants Recall. For sheer, on-the-spot crisis management skill, Lululemon wins, hands down. PR experts saw the voluntary recall of its (unintentionally) see-through yoga pants as a “lemons to lemonade” case. And it’s true that the brand’s agile moves gave new meaning to the word “transparency.”

Yes, Lululemon did seem to bend over backwards to be proactive and minimize the inconvenience to customers. It communicated the recall, its rationale, and the timeline of events proactively to press, analysts, and its customer base. It promised refunds or exchanges for defective pants bought after March 1 and pledged to improve quality by dedicating employees to work with vendors, tightening production specs, and posting its own staff at partner factories.

But a closer look shows the seams. Lululemon’s key supplier publicly denied that anyone from the company had even been in touch.  (Were supply chain communications aligned?) Worse, product loyalists saw CEO Christine Day‘s explanation of the fabric issue as…well, a stretch.  Hardcore lulu-lovers have complained of quality problems for months. Negative comments on fan sites are packed in tighter than a Sunday bikram class, signaling deeper problems for a brand whose health depends on its cult-like community of users.

“Pants-gate” was costly for Lululemon’s stock price and for its former product chief, who resigned as a result. The verdict? Sound strategy and good journalist relations are one thing, but Lululemon has more work to do to get back in shape.

Carnival Cruise Lines.  “Is Carnival haunted?” asks one PR community commenter.  It’s a fair question.

First there was the Costa Concordia disaster. Thirty-two passengers perished, the captain abandoned ship against orders, and the company’s reputation—and stock price—hit choppy waters. And there’s been a flood of incidents since.  In February, Carnival experienced another PR shipwreck when a fire disabled the Triumph, stranding travelers amidst food shortages and overflowing toilets for five long days. That’s years in crisis management time. The company’s billionaire owner, Mickey Arison, was photographed courtside at a Miami Heat game as #cruisefromhell was trending on Twitter and vacationers were posting images of the nasty shipboard spectacle.

Bad optics for sure. But this time, Carnival did try to steer its reputation back to normal. It was proactive with communications, issuing consistent updates on the shipboard situation through a specially created web page and its social media channels. It promptly made amends to passengers, issuing full credits and offering $500 towards a future voyage.

What many didn’t realize is that a sea evacuation of passengers would have been impractical and dangerous—something Carnival did manage to communicate in the press. And though I question the decision to drop-ship the CEO onboard because it didn’t calm passengers and only exposed him to their ire, it was at least well intended.

Some would say its reputation is sunk, but for me, that ship hasn’t sailed. Carnival is a huge family of brands and it has learned from past mistakes. But it needs to do all it can to ensure a steady course for the coming high season.

Rutgers University. The Rutgers basketball crisis is only just beginning, but, so far, the university’s handling has been a losing proposition. Yet as the scandal widens into an FBI investigation, one relevant issue for communicators goes back to Rutgers’ own internal review into the behavior of former basketball coach Mike Rice and the decisions made as a result.

Allegations by a whistle-blower that Rice kicked, shoved, and verbally abused players triggered the inquiry which was conducted by key legal players late last year. But the investigation focused almost wholly on whether Rice’s conduct constituted a “hostile work environment.”  The conclusion?  It did not.  So, Rutgers followed its lawyers’ counsel and dealt with Rice’s behavior with suspension and anger management classes. Apparently it didn’t consult with PR or reputation specialists. Rutgers Athletic Director and its HR head completely missed the ramifications beyond the basketball court and the legal courtroom.

Five months later, all hell broke loose when the video exploded in the court of public opinion. In hindsight, it looks like a rookie reputation management error and a very costly failure to anticipate two things:  the inevitability of the video’s release, and its powerful influence in today’s digital environment.

A version of this post originally appeared on MENGBlend.

Tiger Woods’ fall from grace, and his long climb back, was the gift that kept on giving for PR and reputation experts. But it also teed up a round of fresh concern about getting in bed with celebrities.

Since then, there have been other reputation crises (Lance Armstrong) as well as more minor gaffes from boldfaced names like Justin Bieber and Reese Witherspoon. Today’s climate is all the more challenging because social media amplifies the tiniest misstep and the news cycle is relentless in its speed and appetite for scandal.

No one is immune.  Unlike her (relatively unknown) husband, Witherspoon wasn’t guilty of drunk driving; she was caught in a more serious infraction – arrogance while under the influence!

So, are marketers still attracted to celebrities? The answer is yes. But there’s been an impact on contract negotiations, morals clauses, and other legal, marketing and PR issues. Here are some considerations for those looking at a celebrity endorsement campaign.

Brand endorsements will be more limited.  A while back, it was considered strategic to tie your brand to a breakout athlete in a metaphor for high performance, like Accenture did with Tiger Woods. 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 have traded away your privacy.  Social media is a powerful tool for any kind of brand, from a product to a personality, and it should be subject to limits and restrictions as part of the deal.

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, and possibly reciprocal. Sports law expert Michael McCann predicts that savvy personalities will ask for reciprocity here, in the event of reputation damage resulting from something like a massive product recall or personal injury situation.

Celebrity marketing programs must include risk and crisis management plans. Marketers know they must move beyond lip service here. Even something as socially accepted as pregnancy can quash the brand plan, as in the case of Jessica Simpson, who was announced to be with child on the heels of her Weight Watchers deal. A contingency plan is a must.

A big, moving story covered live with unplanned, unscripted coverage: that is when you see who has the talent in TV news. And who does not.

— Jay Rosen(@jayrosen_nyu) April 16, 2013

Covering a breaking news story may be the toughest media job there is. But as Jay Rosen points out, it’s also an opportunity for highly trained, seasoned journos to do what they should do best – report the facts and capture the experience of those present. Sadly, many fail the test.

The Boston Marathon bombing was one such example. I’m sure there were examples of fine reporting yesterday;  I just didn’t see them. I did see the 10-minute press conference with Mass General’s trauma surgeon Peter Fagenholz. It was nearly unwatchable, and not just because of the tragic circumstances.

The media scrum outside the hospital was like an aggressive White House press gaggle, with reporters shouting questions seemingly without any forethought. To his credit, Dr. Fagenholz handled it like a champ, but even his calm refusal to stray from the facts didn’t alter the mood, which one media observer called “bloodlust.” To me, it was more like amateur hour.

The questions ranged from redundant and silly to downright embarrassing. One reporter asked Fagenholz if the eight patients classified as critical cases “would be okay,” forcing the good doctor to explain the meaning of the word “critical.” He also had to respond drily that, no, he was not trained by the Israeli army, in answer to a shouted media question that was faintly tinged with hysteria.

Dr. Fagenholz was respectful throughout the press onslaught but had a trace of scorn in his voice when, after being asked for the fourth time if all victims had been identified and responding that he did not know, he said he had interrupted his surgeries to “come out and talk to you” and would have to get back to work. (Dr. F. is my new hero.)

Earlier, I caught a local New York reporter taping a standup near Copley. While cautioning that “no one wants to compare the bombing with 9/11,” he reminded us darkly that “in fact, one of the American Airlines flights that crashed into the towers started in Boston.” Huh?

As with the tragedy in Newtown, many published facts were simply not true, and some were dangerously misleading. Boston authorities never asked cell phone carriers to shut down service, as was widely reported.

Most egregiously, The New York Post headline blaring, “12 Dead, At Least 50 Injured” wasn’t retracted even hours after it ran. Finally, the headline was changed, but the inaccurate death toll was still in the story late Monday night.

It’s bad enough that, just hours after the tragedy, conspiracy crackpots were trying to claim it was a “false flag” attack, or government plot. But “real” journalists should be able to cover even the most challenging breaking news story with greater professionalism. Is it getting worse, or am I just getting old?