Backtracking: A PR Lesson From Airbnb

Have you been following the Airbnb PR disaster unfold? I first started following Airbnb last year when I discovered the site as I was looking for apartments to rent while travelling for business. Great idea, easy to use interface and an honest feel to the site – unlike the thoroughly dodgy HomeAway and other barely cobbled together vacation rental sites which have always left me feeling on my own.

Airbnb promised something different and judging from the investment community pumping in over $100 million and a crazy valuation of $1 billion-plus, others got that feeling too… until a few weeks ago, that is, when Airbnb tried to cover up some rather nasty news about a customer whose home had been violated and ransacked by renters.

Shit happens. A lot. But it’s how you deal with the crap that can turn those, er, negative moments into somewhat better ones. And it’s never a good idea to try covering up a mess – like we’ve seen with the News of the World phone-tapping scandals or when you have a very influential blogger on your tail, and especially if that blogger’s name is Michael Arrington.

Arrington, a man who’s known not to mince words, called Airbnb's response “tepid,” noting how supremely disturbed victim “EJ” was after finding her home ransacked and looted—so much so that she plans on moving. Arrington pointed out the how inadequate Airbnb's policy was, noting that, at the time of the incident, their only FAQ about theft stated: “Grand pianos weigh thousands of pounds and do not fit through doors.”

Things could have gone differently from there. Arrington's post detailing Airbnb PR issues could have been (and should have been) met by a thoughtful company response, updated policies, and detailed reparation information. Yes, Airbnb responded on TechCrunch, rather airily, but that response only materialized due to media pressure and public outcry. It was an attempt - a very late one - to make amends, and their efforts were almost immediately overshadowed by Y Combination founder and Airbnb investor Paul Graham. Graham called Arrington's report “bullshit” and insisted that Airbnb was doing all they could to help the victim—even though it was already weeks later. The name-calling, the hedging, the references to unverified information:this is exactly what taints even the most sincere of PR responses.

Arrington backed up his sources and soldiered on, proving that bloggers with conviction can get companies to change policies, make amends, and tighten up customer response practices. I’m glad to see some good come out of it for the sake of the victim – and future Airbnb customers. It’s still disappointing though that Airbnb never had a crisis management plan in place, particularly for a company whose business model relies on stranger-to-stranger interaction.

Airbnb says that it is “improving” security and service, and that's a no-brainer—they should have been improved before any of this happened. It's true that company missteps provide opportunities to learn, but Airbnb should have known that, statistically speaking, this was in the cards. (Actually, a similar situation had already occurred.)

What Airbnb should improve beyond all security measures next is how even their investors deal with the public. Here's hoping that they take every one of these suggestions seriously.

Oh, and thank you Michael Arrington for making companies like these accountable.

What Went Right for PR and Media Outreach in Norway's Aftermath

No matter how gut-wrenching or shocking the news, PR professionals will always look back and see who handled crises best. It's not just work-related curiosity. By knowing who had an admirable crisis plan in place (and who didn't) and how it worked, we can fine-tune our own. Over the past few weeks, Norway's tragedy has remained lodged in our minds (along with the debt ceiling crisis and News of The World scandals), and it stuck with the easily-distracted press, too. We watched reporters handle interviews admirably in the aftermath, but it feels like much of the media has taken a step back from delving too deeply into the 93 deaths (at last count). Invasive family interviews, harsh criticisms: they simply didn’t have a place here.

Take, for instance, Helen Pidd's piece in The Guardian. She's covered tragedy, heartbreak, and murder the world over, but while in Norway she had an overwhelming sense of guilt for simply being there at all. Pidd traveled to Bardu to speak with the survivors, but when she arrived and was told to keep her distance, that was it pretty much it.

“If I am specifically told to leave the families alone, I won't go near them,” Pidd said in How Should Journalists Talk to Survivors of the Attacks in Norway? “If the police liaison officer hasn't issued a warning, I will take a deep breath and knock on the parents' door once, telling myself that sometimes people want to talk about those they have lost. It doesn't feel good. If they say they don't want to talk, I won't return.”

Pidd saw one of the survivors, and she didn't approach her for an interview. A nurse in Bardu asked her not to attempt contact. Instead, Pidd drove towards the Ice Peak mountains, thinking about all the other times she had pursued survivors for the perfect interview. This time, however, she felt torn between going after her story and leaving the survivors alone – and ended up choosing the latter.

I’d like to think that crisis management in Norway set the tone for coverage, beginning with PM Jens Stoltenberg’s response to the attacks. He showed emotion openly, and with obvious sadness, coupled with the skills of a true orator: “right words at the right time.”

Could it be the time of year, as we edge closer towards the tenth anniversary of 9/11, or the fact that Norway's reputation as peacekeeper and record-setting giver of foreign aid made the attacks even more shocking, pushing us towards a “softer” stance in media response? I think it may be so.

Murky Murdoch And The News Corp.

(This article originally appeared in MediaPost’s Marketing Daily, where I am a contributor)

A bit of distrust in the media is never a bad thing. It's good to keep people on their toes. For News Corp., however, a "little distrust" has turned into full-blown doubt and disgust for readers and viewers in the UK and just about everywhere else.

When a colleague asked recently what I would do if News Corp. were a client, I responded: "In the UK, I'd do nothing -- they made their bed a long time ago, and now they have to lie in it." And an imagined question directly to News Corp. executives: this wire-tapping has been tossed around for over four years; how could you allow it to crescendo into such a devastating crisis? You could have sought our counsel back in 2006.

Alas, we seldom have such an opportunity to get into the game prior to a crisis. But what actions, if any, could help resurrect News Corp.'s reputation in the UK, criminal proceedings notwithstanding? For a company facing this much fallout, it would take a massive overhaul of staff, a great deal of public groveling, and the creation of the strictest code of ethics one has ever seen in media. And even then, I'm not sure how much good it would do.

With zero credibility and so many changes needed, it's better to start afresh.

The U.S. News Corp. Problem

The problem at the WSJ irks me -- not at the publication itself, as I feel it is comprised of hard-working, ethical journalists, and editors -- but because of Murdoch's ill-fated decision of allowing longtime friend (and News Corp. veteran) Les Hinton to become CEO of Dow Jones in 2007. By letting Hinton cross the pond, Murdoch provided one (and as far as we know, the only substantial) link to the wiretapping scandal in Britain.

Until 2007, Hinton was executive chairman of News International, publisher of News of the World. After the 2006 wiretapping scandal involving Clive Goodman, royal editor of News of the World, Hinton told parliament there was no widespread involvement in wiretapping. Okay, fine: an illegal embarrassment under Hinton's watch dies down, Goodman is jailed, and the scandal is confined within the U.K. Now we come to my issue with Murdoch.

Why would anyone who just dodged a bullet -- or a rain of bullets, for that matter -- send a tainted newspaper publisher/CEO across the Atlantic to head an upstanding, nationally respected publishing company and its subsidiary newspapers? It doesn't matter whether Hinton had knowledge of the wiretapping in 2006 or not -- it happened while he was in control. It's unbelievable (not to mention foolhardy), and it's up to Dow Jones, the Wall Street Journal, and their public relations experts to do the damage control.

Let me be clear: I don't believe that there was any illegality involved here regarding Murdoch, Hinton, and The Wall Street Journal. It just wasn't a good idea in light of all the scandal that surrounded News International at the time.

The takeaway from all of this?

The business of public relations has as much to do about crisis prevention as it does about crisis management. Did Murdoch understand the potential jeopardy he was putting Dow Jones in? Did he ask anyone around him -- like, for example, the public relations team?

Click here to continue reading.

Holy Talking Vajayjays! Summer's Eve Scandal: Too Much, Not Enough, or Just Right?

Is it possible to go too far with damage control? Summer's Eve hit the news again last week when it pulled the "controversial" Hail to the V campaign promos after the ads were called racially insensitive. While talking-vagina hand puppets will certainly get tongues wagging on their own, it wasn't Summer Eve's creative representation of the “V” that led to a wave of criticism. As if a company still associated with woefully old-fashioned (if not dangerous) douching doesn't have enough PR hurdles to begin with.

For those of you unfamiliar with the "V" campaign, it consists, consisted of three videos with three apparent audiences – and those audiences appeared to be neatly divided by race and their stereotypical interests - the white girls are the gym bunnies; the Latina punctuates her rant with an “ay-yi-yi.” When Huffington Post polled their readers, 56.14% responded that the ads were “offensive!” 43.86% disagreed, choosing “nothing to see here.” Personally, I'm more offended by Fox's assault on my intelligence than these videos.

PR executive of Richards Group Stacie Barnett told Adweek that the ads were pulled because "Stereotyping or being offensive was not our intention in any way, shape, or form. The decision to take the videos down is about acknowledging that there's backlash here. We want to move beyond that and focus on the greater mission."

The response, however, has me wondering if they should have handled the damage control without yanking the campaign offline. Taking them down was not only an acknowledgement of backlash but also guilt of racial stereotyping by poll, and failure by client pressure. The client saw the ads, everyone agreed they were edgy - so why take them down? Only the week before, The Richards Group defended their videos, doing a much better job of explaining their (albeit poor) campaign-planning process. Talk about flip-flopping.

Now I'm not saying the ads weren't questionable, but audiences were split on whether or not they were actually racist – while Summer's Eve vehemently stated that that they weren't. Pulling the ads prolonged coverage of an overall lackluster campaign whereas an explanation or simple mea culpa could have done a better job of righting wrongs than simply removing the campaign.

In fact, a recent study in 2011's Retail Consumer Report shows that companies willing to interact come out ahead – they don't necessarily need to pull products or ads. 61 percent of consumers in the study said they'd be “shocked” if a company responded to criticism online. Upon receiving a response, 33 percent of reviewers would go back and post a positive review, and 34 percent would delete their original negative review. If nothing else, it certainly makes a case for a well-worded apology.

Creative agencies should stand by their work, even if they need to apologize for it later. If not, they risk being relegated to order-takers and compromise-driven lackeys. I’d rather see work that is controversial and has people engaged in discourse rather than homogenized “creative” that appeases the masses and skirts around “private parts.”

Is Google+ Really Worth It?

Google+, a replacement for Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter? Stop right there. While Google+ is a major (and exciting) advancement on the social side of the web, no one can determine how fast and how far it will go just yet -- and how much it will offer marketers. So while it’s definitely worth exploring, corporate communicators shouldn’t be abandoning ship on existing social strategies just yet. Um, if they even have one….

Even though Google+ is touting itself as the be-all in social, we know that a single social media platform can’t offer everything we need for every client - especially considering the variety of niche social media news and bookmarking sites (hello Tip’d and DesignBump) adding value to companies and to their exposure built on search results. Even if a single social media platform did had everything we wanted in one place, we’d be asking where our existing competitors, partners, and supporters were, because we need to establish and maintain a presence in their corner of the web as well. With so many factors at play, it’s neither likely nor plausible that Google+ will whisk away the majority of users from large-scale social media platforms in the early stages.

There will, of course, be lovers and haters of Google+, if for more nothing more than it appearing to be an also-ran. And while Google+ might be a latecomer, it’s a latecomer that has had years to evaluate what makes social networking platforms fail and falter with users -- and what makes them win. From my initial research, privacy and integration are two major factors attracting Google+ users: they’ll be able to integrate their mail and applications with Google+, and G+’s limited-user test allows Google to address security issues before opening it up to a wider audience. It’s also the first social network that allows users to download captured data on them at any time. Nice one.

So what’s my advice to marketers exploring Google+? Understand how functionalities absent from other sites, like Circles, can help boost business. Google+ is the fastest-growing social net ever, and it’s not even open for business profile creation yet (although this is slated for fall 2011). Google+ can aid traffic development and content generation, and although preparing to expand with Google+ is a must, researching how it can specifically work for you is the very first step.

It isn’t social media’s panacea – but it could be a great start.

Say Goodbye To Soaps, Shampoos And The End Of An Era

The following article originally appeared in Luxury Daily, "Soaps, shampoos and the luxury hotel."

Traditionally, luxury has been marketed through exclusivity, status, quality and excess – the latter of which implies “more,” not “less.”

This is what ran through my mind recently as I read a Reuters article, “Greetings trump giveaways at luxury hotels,” about how luxury brand hotels are doing away with the fancy freebies – amenities such as shampoos, lotions, soaps – and replacing them with more “enhanced” service in the form of personalized greetings. Whatever that is, anyway…

In my mind, this is very misguided thinking on the part of luxury hotels.

Bar none
Speaking at the Reuters Global Luxury and Fashion Summit last month, Arne Sorenson, chief operating officer of Marriott, expressed the view that, as rates rise back to pre-recession levels, customers will expect more.

“I think, as rates begin to go back up, which they have been doing since roughly midyear last year, you start to see customers expect more … as they expect more, it will cause us, on balance, to increase service in most brands,” Mr. Sorenson said at the Reuters event.

So, tell me, if consumers are expecting more, why do the soaps have to go?

The disconnect here is that while hotels admit that customers are expecting more with increased rates, hotels are, in fact, giving them less by taking away amenities.

So, in place of this bundle of amenities – a staple of hotel luxury over the last few decades – hotels are expecting that “Hello, Mrs. Smith, welcome back!” is somehow going to excuse a lack of shampoo in the room?

How will hotels convey this message to Mrs. Smith, “Sorry, Ma’am, but instead of shampoo, we’ve memorized your dossier.”

It sounds silly, as it is meant to, but it highlights an important point: luxury hotel guests like amenities, will expect amenities, and given the absence of amenities, will ask for them.

Are hotels ready to explain to Mrs. Smith that it is due to cost cutting, when she is paying a higher rate?

Is the front desk ready to tell Mrs. Smith that her shampoo was replaced by a smile and greeting as she entered the lobby just a few moments ago?

Won’t wash
In working with travel brands and hotel companies, I understand the financial argument: replacing costly extras with enhanced personal service always looks better on the books.

However, luxury customers do not care much about the hotel’s books.

Such customers are willing to pay more, to get more, in both service and amenities. And if they do not get what they want – or expect – they will simple go elsewhere.

Both amenity products and enhanced personal services are part of the “experiential” nature of luxury goods – something that we are going to see a lot more of from travel and hotel brands.

When Mrs. Smith buys a service, she purchases a set of intangible activities carried out on her behalf.

But when she buys an experience, Mrs. Smith pays to spend time enjoying a series of memorable events that a company stages to engage her in a personal way.

It could be argued that when luxury guests check-in, they are buying into such an experience from the hotel.

Personalized greetings, enhanced services, and superior products – products that are different than what they normally use – all combine to form the entertainment and escapism necessary to provide luxury consumers the experience that they are expecting.

Additionally, in luxury marketing, enhanced and personalized services are seen as “a special touch,” or a unique way to make the customer feel even more exclusive.

Luxury consumers see such services as an added bonus – one that adds to the experience.

In no way are these services seen by the luxury guest as a replacement for a bundle of physical products that the he or she has received and enjoyed for many years.

Suds, not duds
The only time that luxury brands should even consider getting rid of amenities is in a recessionary, low-rate period, since the customer might excuse the loss of amenities at the lower rate.

To continue reading at luxurydaily.com, click here.

To Like, or Not to Like?

What does it mean to “like” something online? That designation was vague from the get-go, and with the power-punch of overzealous marketing and social media campaigning, we've become veritable liking machines. Every post has a heart, a thumbs-up, or a plus sign next to it, and after it gets published (whether it's a sentence or a full article), there's StumbleUpon, Tumblr reblogging, and Google +, in addition to standard Twitter retweeting and Facebook liking. My brain hurts already…

In reaction to our increasingly noncommittal “liking” trend, Neil Strauss of the Wall Street Journal mourns the loss of the real online opinion. Gone are the those pioneer days of internet nonconformity, which Strauss blames on a blend of general development and advertising, served with dashes of greed and the ever-present search for “opportunity.” Plus, the internet's gone the way of approval-seeking and of time-wasting, he adds. It isn't only the lack of comments and the bland “+1” labels that reek of herd mentality, but the time-suck of retweeting and view counting that could be funneled into worthwhile internet activity – say actually opining in the comment box.

Lest you write off this post as the ranting of a disillusioned blogger, remember last year's drama when Facebook changed its previously-titled “fan” system to the maligned “like.” Critics also rallied against the switch from “Old Facebook,” but this was something different. Instead of aesthetics, this was about definitions - and clever marketing tactics. In Facebook's case, studies showed that people were twice as likely to click “Like” rather than “Become a Fan,” and that's most likely because the word is nonthreatening, bland, and well, noncommittal. Is that the definition of engagement? Um, no.

Sarah Jacobsson, in a PCWorld article, expounded her issues with “liking” things on Facebook: “'Liking' something on Facebook is a quick, easy way to acknowledge something—give it props, say—without having to be involved at all. […] Facebook seems to think that it's the language that's stopping me -- and that I view 'liking' something as less involvement and therefore easier to click on than 'becoming a fan' of something. This, at least, is true -- I do view 'liking' something as less threatening than 'becoming a fan' of something. But that's because it is true.”So really, “liking” is a very lazy direction to take when it comes to online interaction.

Think about it from the other end: if you're publishing an article that took you hours, would you rather see 50 “like” clicks, or 50 comments on the content you've produced?

That question should be a no-brainer, much like the act of “liking” itself.