Will Washington’s Sequestration Sequester Our PR Budgets?

It’s time to add “sequester” to the list of words we could do without. In case you don’t already know, dictionary.com defines it as “to remove or withdraw into solitude or retirement; seclude?” You know, terms like, “fiscal cliff,” “kick the can down the road,” “move the needle,” and my election-year favorite, “47%.” I’m starting to think so.

Maybe it was because the mainstream media already began referring to Wednesday’s Mid-Atlantic snowstorm, which was supposed to “retire” DC for a day, as “Snowquester.” Then again, maybe I’m just wondering what communications wiz chose “sequester” as the clunky, if euphemistic, word describing $85 billion in mandatory government spending cuts that went into March 1.

Whether Uncle Sam calls it sequestration or the “Sh*% Hits the Fan Act,” make no mistake, these cuts, if implemented fully, are predicted to have far-ranging negative consequences. They range from an estimated 1%-1.5% drop in GDP, (resulting in nearly zero annual US economic growth) to reduced satellite coverage and lower resolution (read: accuracy) predicting the weather.

But a recent AdAge article brings up another good point that hits very close to our PR home. Government ad spending is one of the first expenses on the sequestering chopping block. The army, for instance, spent $47 million in the US in advertising in 2011. And government PR is essentially a DC cottage industry, ripe for additional reductions.

Sequestration sucks for PR in other ways too. As a profession that cares deeply about the implied messages of things, draconian communications spending cuts by Washington might send a powerful signal to private industry that they too, can do without in-house or outsourced public relations. The sequester might sequester spirits as much as it does budgets.

It’s what’s known as the proverbial “chilling effect.”

I truly hope this will not be the case. Yet with congressional gridlock at historic highs and approval ratings hovering near an all-time low of 15%, there’s growing fear that the full weight of the spending cuts will take hold across the entire advertising, PR and marketing sectors.

After that, the chilling effect gets downright cold. If government stumbles under its own bloated fiscal weight, you can be sure the private sector will follow as the two are inexorably linked. The fact that the Dow Jones achieved two days of record closes and February’s jobs report (which comes out Friday) is predicted to add a respectable 175,000 jobs might not be enough to offset DC’s disarray.

The irony is that, were such a scenario to unfold, each political party would be working overtime to spin the causes of these problems as the other party’s fault, requiring some fancy communication skills in the process. Our services would again be deemed “needed.” Unlike the sequester, now is not the time for the PR industry to “withdraw into solitude.”

Effective communications is essential in good times and bad. So what can we do as an industry to lobby Washington in reconsidering its actions? I guarantee 100% of Americans are in favor of that (not 47%) with no needle moving or can kicking required.

Obama's Second Act: PR Lessons Learned

This article, by Vanessa Horwell Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared in Marketing Daily on 11/14/12.

I wasn’t expecting to wake up on the morning after Election Day feeling refreshed and ready to face the day. Like many nail-biting Americans, I too had consumed “pundit porridge” and was fully prepared, stiff drink in hand, set for a long night of dimpled chads, hanging chads, pregnant chads, stuck levers, recounts, court battles, and computer voting systems that did not compute.

Does anyone remember The Simpsons spoof when Homer tried to vote in 2008, or his latest battle with the booth? Yet none of that came to pass and surprisingly, a valuable PR lesson emerged.

On Election Eve, Wolf Blitzer of CNN delivered another “major projection” -- that President Obama would win re-election as battleground Ohio went from yellow (unknown data) to Democratic blue on the large touchscreen Electoral College map. In the end, after being behind or tied (depending on which poll you read) with Governor Romney in all eight of the toss-up states, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin, Obama swept the board. CNN called Obama’s election at almost the same time in 2008.

But it wasn’t exactly déjà vu.

As many political observers noted -- albeit with greater fanfare after the fact -- President Obama’s 2012 re-election efforts bore little resemblance to his 2008 campaign. It was an entirely different game plan. Gone was much of the soaring rhetoric -- the emotional appeal to “Change we can believe in.” Many felt the campaign was missing something. As in the first presidential debate in October (which I had plenty to say about in anearlier article) had Obama shown up for work?

The answer, we now know, is a resounding yes. In the days since President Obama’s victory speech, David Axelrod, a senior advisor to the president’s re-election campaign, has emerged almost hero-like, the engineer of his boss’s return to the Oval Office. Axelrod, along with the President’s Chicago campaign staff, basically rewrote their 2008 election rule book and went for an entirely different approach, painting Romney as an out-of-touch business elite, while quietly and effectively working “on the ground” to drum up base support and drive home the get out the vote message. The famed Ronald Reagan-asked political question “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” quickly became the political statement “Think how much better off you will be with Obama at the helm four years from now.” Implicit in the craftily reworked question: think how far we’ve already come, and are you ready to turn the clock back now?

Whether you’re the future president of the United States, an executive in a communications company, or a client seeking public relations counsel, candidate Obama’s 180-degree turnaround tactics serve as a vital PR lesson for us all. Just because a particular strategy or communications channel is working at one point in time doesn’t mean it will work for the same client going forward -- or even other clients in related industries. Each client campaign, like a presidential campaign, is radically different from the next. Technology changes (remember, we don’t call out Obama’s BlackBerry anymore) and data, stats -- and yes, colorful infographics too -- update almost as fast as people tweet.

Often I fear that companies fail to appreciate this simple lesson. Like a presidential cabinet filled with “yes men” and “yes women,” they have grown isolated in their own insular and endlessly praising micro universe. If left unchecked, they begin speaking their own jargon-laden language, touting internal developments that wouldn’t fill up a press release and certainly wouldn’t inspire a journalist to open the email pitch.

This may not be the most profound conclusion. But when a profound person like President Obama demonstrates the flexibility and honesty to radically alter his approach, recognizing the shortcomings of the old, that too is a sign of leadership in and of itself. And perhaps it’s the first indication that Americans of both Red and Blue leanings will see a different kind of leader emerge from the White House in this second act.

If presidents can change, so too can PR firms and the companies they serve. And that’s not a CNN “major projection.” It’s a prediction that I fully vote for and endorse. Anyone care to join me?

This article, by Vanessa Horwell Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared in Marketing Daily on 11/14/12.

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.