Turning A Bad Habit Into A Big Weapon

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 10/19/12.

Two debates down, one to go. And one final opportunity for President Barack Obama to prove he can turn a bad habit into a big re-election weapon.

What habit is this? Considering that my PR hat is never fully removed, even when I'm not in the office, Obama's schizophrenic two debates -- one a massacre and the other a rock-solid performance -- got me thinking about three terms (and not presidential ones): over-promising, over-servicing and over-delivering, and how they relate to the PR profession as well as the POTUS.

Watching the first of three debates, while extinguishing my own professional firestorms, I found myself agitated over what many called Obama's weakest showing. According to CNN, 67% of viewers thought Mitt Romney “nailed it,” versus 25% for Obama. It was as if our eloquent president failed to show up for work, treating supporters to a stunt double -- someone who looks like Obama, but is rightly given no dialogue. Unfortunately, this “stunt double” spoke: Too much professorial style, too much equivocation on what Romney called his over-promised record, and when he did answer back, too many over-serviced responses.

With the Romney rematch, Americans were treated to a different Chief Executive. If anything, this Obama over-delivered. There were times during heated exchanges -- women in the workforce, the Libyan terrorist attack -- that I thought the President would leap from his lionesque stance and pounce on his challenger.

But even an Obama triumph has left some miffed. If on one debate Obama can over-service and another he can over-deliver, what does that say about the President’s true character? And which character will show up on November 6?

Switching over to public relations, over-promising is often the first step on that slippery client-agency slope where saying “Yes” too often cements an expectation that there will never be a “No.” And once you have over-promised, it becomes second nature to over-service, delivering more than what budget lines called for, and more than what can be accomplished in a reasonable timeline.

Agencies that find themselves on this path toward self-destruction, like Obama did in debate one, become their own worst enemies. In a recent article on the subject, Wallop! On Demand, CEO Kristin Jones rightly calls this cycle a “plague” -- and I’m sure many in the PR profession will agree with us both.

Jones offers some straightforward advice for combating the over-servicing affliction that many agencies suffer. Like an insurance claim, documentation is critical -- making sure deliverables are clearly spelled out. That way, when something “extra” is asked from the client, there is data to support your agency’s contention that it wasn't part of the original planning and will cost more.

Tracking goals versus actual results is also vital, as it serves as a check on PR executives’ natural tendency toward being “Yes” people (guilty as charged). You know who you are. You find excitement and exhilaration in the challenge of rising to seemingly impossible heights -- like, say, career-defining political debates.

But in all fairness to this over-servicing malaise, casually dismissing these terms as 100% negative requires a debate-style rebuttal. 

Used in limited proportions, periodic over-reaching is good for the mind, body and soul of an organization. Think of how many people became world leaders (or even CEOs) by just doing what they were told, towing the line, or completing their list of daily tasks and calling it quits? Not many -- and a recipe for mediocrity. Andrew Carnegie, who was known for his strong opinions on hard work and going beyond the call of duty, captured that in his quote: “Do your duty and a little more and the future will take care of itself.”

Translation for PR execs: if you over-promise and over-service, you had better over-deliver. If used in the right amounts, over-servicing can be a helpful weapon in allowing your agency to stand above the crowded rest -- no matter what the short-term balance books say -- instead of a bad habit.

As for this article’s own internal debate, charting the right communications course between Carnegie’s and Jones’ opinions requires careful sounding. Four years ago, President Obama revved up crowds with his campaign slogan, “Yes we can!” And perhaps in three weeks time he will convince enough voters that “yes we still can!” equally applies.

Today, whether you’re the president of the United States, the president of your own company or chief visibility officer of a global PR firm, “No, we can’t” is all right too -- provided you have not over-promised or over-serviced what you can deliver and it isn’t your company’s 24/7 knee-jerk response.

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 10/19/12.

Brand Backlash: When Product Pitchpeople Endorse Politicians

Most Americans will recognize Mike Rowe as the genial, joke-cracking host of the Discovery Channel’s hit show Dirty Jobs, where he’s shown joining blue-collar workers doing the kinds of gag-inducing tasks that, as he puts it, “make life possible for the rest of us.”

We also know the former opera singer (who knew?) as a pitchman for Ford Motor Company’s F-Series of pickup trucks, and the star of a series of spots that capitalize on his image as a champion of blue-collar workers to sell trucks often used by those very workers.

And now we know Mike Rowe as a supporter of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. At least that is what it looks like to a lot of fans – who may now be former fans.

Rowe recently took to the stage with Romney during a campaign event in Bedford Heights, Ohio, speaking about the importance of supporting the kinds of workers – you know, the workers who clean toilets, who mine coal, who pump out septic tanks – whose occupations frequently feature on Dirty Jobs. According to a spokesperson, Rowe was not politically endorsing Romney – who has made his contempt for those of us who don’t inhabit his privileged circle quite clear – and that his contract with Ford doesn’t allow for endorsing candidates.

But that’s a technicality lost on many of us who saw Rowe onstage with Romney at a campaign event and, naturally, assumed it was a political endorsement for a candidate with, ironically, well-known anti-labor views. Many of them took to Dirty Jobs’ Facebook page to vent their anger and here’s one of many such comments:

“Republican, eh?? Bummer. You lose, Ford loses and your stupid dirty job, pig show is banned in my home. Bad move.”

I’m sure that’s the kind of “support” that neither the Discovery Channel or Ford are looking for.  A similar situation played out in mid-September when news outlets reported that, while the Most Interesting Man in the World may not always host political fundraisers, when he does, they’re for President Obama.

Jonathan Goldsmith, the actor who plays the distinguished gentleman in a series of ads for Dos Equis beer, endorsed Obama as a private citizen. But his association with the Dos Equis brand brought many Republican fans of the beer to Facebook to say they’d never buy it again:

“He's not a TRUE Patriot. No more beer for you, and I won't buy any Heineken products or allow them in my house after seeing the endorsement of Obama. BOYCOTT.”

Heineken USA, which imports Dos Equis, quickly distanced itself from Goldsmith’s actions, telling Advertising Age: "Mr. Goldsmith's opinions and views are strictly his own, and do not represent those of Dos Equis."

It’s clear that this type of personal endorsement of political figures is a very sticky wicket for brands and their ad campaigns. What comes first, their responsibility to the brands they pitch or their right to their personal political views? Wearing my marketing hat, I would say that it’s the former.

If you are paid by a brand to promote its products, it’s highly irresponsible to alienate the brands’ customers by publicly endorsing, or even appearing to endorse, political candidates. And particularly during such a highly-polarized election cycle. Pitchpeople, who have freely chosen to be products’ public faces, still have the right to quietly support candidates through donations and, of course, through their votes.

So why bite the hand that signs your paycheck? That’s something I’ll never quite understand.

Ralph Lauren’s Olympic Uniform Controversy: The Right Way to Handle a PR Foul-Up

Ever since the media flap that erupted when ABC News reported on Ralph Lauren outfitting the US Olympic team with uniforms made in China, I’ve been scrutinizing everything in our office to see where it’s been made.

The keyboard I’m typing on and the mouse I’m using? Made in China. The mousepad? China. The phone on my desk, the chair I’m sitting on and much of the stuff in our office-supply closet: China. China. And, yes, you guessed it, China.

According to Mark Arena of PR Verdict, Ralph Lauren, the go-to designer for US Olympic uniforms since the 2008 Summer Games in Beijing, has been outsourcing these functions to China all along – in fact, most of the objects that surround us every day are made there – but no one really bothers about it.

So why now? Politics.

It’s a presidential election year, and President Obama’s re-election campaign has been relentlessly hammering the presumptive Republican nominee, one-percenter and car-elevator owner Mitt Romney, over his record of outsourcing jobs to other countries while at the helm of private equity firm Bain Capital and as Massachusetts’ governor. All of a sudden, the heated debate over outsourcing of American jobs has created a PR landmine for Ralph Lauren.

Would people have cared if it wasn’t for the Olympics? Probably not. Or if they did, it wouldn’t have landed as lead story on network news.

An All-American identity is the keystone in RL’s branding arch, so to speak. Its main emblem, apart from the horse-and-rider Polo logo, is the American flag. It is Americana at the very core. On the flagship website, you see the waving Stars and Stripes in the words RALPH LAUREN, just above a photo of the much-discussed uniforms, which the company says it is proud to create. Ralph Lauren went wrong because it forgot that when you’re in the business of selling Americana, it helps to be perceived as 100% red-white-and blue. (Still) Red China garments just don’t feel right. And in an election year, politics, like the Olympics, is a game that attracts many spectators. This time Ralph Lauren got mixed up in a pre-game tussle that didn’t need to happen.

That said, if you build up your brand as a paragon of American-ness while outsourcing the making of Team USA uniforms to China during an election year - where outsourcing is a major issue - your PR team shouldn’t be shocked when the proverbial **** hits the fan.

I half-agree with Mark Arena’s verdict that RL handled this well. Yes, it didn’t ignore the issue. It acknowledged the problem and promised to rectify it in time for 2014’s Winter Olympics.

But the damage has been done. “Sorry” doesn’t cut it. And let’s face it, in our mile-a-minute, tweet-a-micro-second culture, is anyone going to remember this little PR snag – or its lesson – on Friday February 7, 2014, at the opening of the next Winter Olympics, a whopping 817,000+ minutes away? My Magic 8 Ball says ‘no.’ More than likely it will leave another company open to similar slipups. Even so, companies need to remember that nothing they do happens in a vacuum and often products and promotions that bear no obvious linkage to other events, be it politics or world news, somehow becomes relevant. It also doesn’t hurt to remember election year rally-around-the-flag sensationalism.

As for our office? At least our desks and chairs come from Sweden-based Ikea. Even here, some 22% of the brand’s inventory is made in China. But unlike RL and petty politicians, I doubt any of our clients will mind which nations constructed our furniture – Olympic and election year or not. 

Checking Their Guns (And Their Brains) At The Door: The Secret Services

Talk about public relations disasters in degrees. When Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney criticizes a Pittsburgh cookie it’s one thing.  But when half a dozen secret service agents and 11 military personnel lose their jobs after seeking the “secret services” of women who could have gone by the street name “Cookie” it’s an entirely different matter and enough to make me lose my dessert. 

In short: this is not good at all.

If anything, the unfolding Secret Service and military personnel prostitute scandal is a glaring example that sometimes no matter how much spin is added to the curve ball of professional news speak and public relations, you can still strike out. The exploits of these men are indefensible which has left the political punditsphere returning to humor. One of my favorites comes from Steven Cody, the Managing Partner and Co-Founder of Peppercorn, a public relations firm. His idea, expressed in his most recent post: “Let’s re-brand it the not-so Secret Service.”

And while crass humor may serve as a temporary public antidote for the serious standards and security breach that was uncovered in Colombia, it will do nothing in the longer term court of public opinion.

To a large extent, Lawrence Berger, the lawyer for two Secret Service supervisors who lost their jobs was right. The actions of these individuals did not compromise the security of the President. But if that’s the best defense that can be mustered, I think one would be hard pressed to call that a stunning PR reversal.

The President may not have been harmed physically, but his image certainly was, giving political red meat to the likes of Sarah Palin who commented on Fox news recently, "It's like, who's minding the store around here?" 

The Secret Service, founded in 1865, and charged with presidential protection since 1901, has a long and largely successful history. While there’s no denying this public relations disaster is a big one, it’s also likely that an agency that presumably takes its mission and duty so seriously will work exceedingly hard at doing their jobs that much better so that time really will smooth out this unfortunate – kink. (Yes, pun intended)

“Waiting it out” is usually a PR professional’s least favorite advice to a client. But in this case it may be the only way the embattled agency can regain its stripes. “I’m sorrys” have been made. Jobs have been lost.

It’s quite possible the less they say going forward might be the most prudent course of action.  Until, of course, one of them releases a kiss and tell all tome, which will be only a matter of time.