An Internet Hot Spot’s Cold Response: When Calling Something an ‘Experiment’ is no Safeguard from Critics

In one of the early scenes from the dystopian 70s cult classic Soylent Green the camera shows a largely homeless and grotesquely overpopulated New York City street whose riotous masses are cleared with dump trucks – called scoops – treated more like rubbish than people. And in later scenes the audience learns not only is prostitution legal, but the women that come with the little remaining luxury property that’s left are called “furniture.” Nice.

If only treating people like objects was confined to Charlton Heston-starring science fiction.

Instead, the recent marketing misstep by BBH Labs, the innovation arm of the international marketing agency BBH, has brought us all a notch lower on the “soylent slide.” Earlier this week, at the annual tech-fest better known as the SXSW technology conference, BBH Labs hired 13 volunteer homeless people to stand in as human mobile hot spots. Carrying Wi-Fi devices and wearing t-shirts that read: “I’m [name] a 4G Hotspot,” the volunteers were enlisted to help prevent the overload of the existing mobile network, a common occurrence at tech-crowded events. It was also intended as a conversation starter – homeless workers would have an opportunity to speak with mobile users about their plight and discuss America’s homeless problem. And who knows, maybe a chance encounter would aid their employment and housing prospects?

In fact, Saneel Radia, the director of innovation at BBH Labs, who was quoted in a New York Times story about the Austin, Texas event, seemed utterly surprised by the public backlash.

“We saw it as a means to raise awareness by giving homeless people a way to engage with mainstream society and talk to people,” he said. “The hot spot is a way for them to tell their story.”

Somehow I think that positive outcome is unlikely, especially when you start with turning homeless people into an awkward marketing ploy while treating them like glorified telephone poles –albeit telephone poles with enough of a human voice to request that their 4G “customers” consider a donation to help them survive. While it’s true that these unlucky 13 did volunteer for their services and were paid for their efforts (more on that later), the program speaks to the worst kind of human exploitation. It’s one thing to know your actions are exploitative and nevertheless carry them out based on some flawed “greater good” logic, but it’s another level entirely when you’re oblivious to that cruelty.

The marketing carelessness also highlights another disturbing trend related to technology, a term that Chris Klauda, a vice president at D.K. Shifflet & Associates, a travel and hospitality market research company calls, “isolated togetherness” – people in close physical spaces, but remaining disconnected from the “real world” and are instead solely focused on the goings on in their virtual worlds via their smartphones, tablets, laptops, etc.

As the technology through which we all communicate continues to advance, becoming more immersive, digitally interactive, and mobile, it’s critical we – not as public relations professionals but as moral, caring, and empathetic members of the human race – remember that treating people with respect isn’t just about asking for someone’s assistance or paying them for their efforts in some endeavor. Nor does calling a marketing misfire a “charitable experiment,” excuse BBH Labs from their decision. That kind of qualified and dare I say bullsh*t language serves no one. In fact, it’s the kind of language PR professionals rely on so often that gives our industry a bad reputation and further fans the flames of the media mess at the heart of this blog post.

For their efforts the 13 volunteers, selected from the Front Steps homeless shelter, earned themselves free t-shirts, $20 a day (which based on an 8-hour work day amounts to $2.50 an hour or about the same legal minimum wage in 1976, and $4.75 below today’s legal minimum), and the opportunity to collect some extra donations.

But if you ask me, and the many others who were similarly disturbed by this story, I think they all got a lot less than they bargained for. Consider this “charitable experiment” a dismal failure, and hopefully one that will not be re-dressed and re-hashed for the next South by Southwest technology conference.

They may not have been called furniture as in Soylent Green, but these 13 volunteers definitely served as a 2012 appliance.

Shame on us all.

Why 'Good' Press Releases = 'Bad' Journalism

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 3/15/12.

When writing news stories, editors advise young reporters to do the following: stick to facts, don’t opine, place important/newest information high, answer the five Ws, have a solid lead and conclusion, spell names correctly, use conversational language, meet deadlines and hit the word count.

It’s a formula for success that reporters of all ages rely on. More than that, however, the tips speak to the professional evolution of storytelling found to be most effective at getting points across, with a 150+year history.

Seems like a simple formula, right?

Then why do so many press releases I read -- and some I am required to write -- fail to meet these standards? What’s changed in the communications industry that allows for the writing and distribution of such abysmal drivel? And why don’t the rules governing quality storytelling apply to many of today’s releases?

PR is NOT the Dark Side of Journalism - But Some Clients Might Work for the Death Star

Whoa. Three questions in one paragraph -- and a possible clichéd Star Wars reference subhead. That, too, may violate a writing essential -- that a story can be about one thing and should avoid clichés like the plague (cliché intended). Coming from a public relations angle, I can tell you that it’s not as simple as pitting agenda-pushing poor-writing PR professionals against reporters.

Too often the challenge lies with our clients and their expectations. Yes, as their communications team, it’s our job to direct conversation, to craft proper messages and distribute that message through the media in a concise, accurate and compelling manner. But like journalists, we too can’t always claim the moral high road. Clients pay our salaries, just as advertisers pay (or used to pay) journalists. Sometimes we just have to do what we’re told. Most times, we just have to “make it work.”

Press Release Dos and Don’ts

Of course, “making copy work” is not like making copy sing -- a nod to the lyrical and rhythmic flow of quality writing. An off pitch release (Not the PR pitch) “creates” news rather than telling something newsworthy. Ask yourself -- if you didn’t work for company X, would you read it? If the answer is ‘no,’ then you’re already in trouble. The solution: clients need to be honest about their announcements. Writing a release about something that may happen in six months is not newsworthy. That’s about as useful as someone planning to be rich by summer.

At most, that’s the kind of company “news” that meets Twitter post standards or a short email blast to client investors. It does not require an 800-word release that causes journalists’ eyeballs to glaze over or public relations professionals to struggle through 17 drafts of a document that has failed to capture the “essence of the company story.” Sometimes what clients say just isn’t that important. Clients need to have the humility and presence of mind to know when to shut up -- or at least respect when their PR staff tells them to.

Press releases also fail because of their language. If you’re writing a release in English, then write in English -- not gibberish. Is some jargon necessary? Yes. But too much and a press release can bury its own newsworthiness.

Print This: PR Professionals and Journalists Play the Same Game on Different Teams

How’s that for a newsworthy press release? But even if we play on different teams -- journalists dig for the news while PR professionals push what they’d like to be considered news -- the rules of the writing game should not change.

Modern journalistic writing evolved from the rigors of changing technology – the telegraph. At a penny a character, brevity was far more important than expressive prose. Combined with the fear of technology failure, reporters were taught to write and report news as if readers only read the headlines and first paragraph. (Sound familiar?)

Today’s hyperactive news cycle and extreme mobile connectivity is the outgrowth of these technological realities. PR professionals, emerging some 50 years after Samuel Morse’s invention, really do know what good writing and storytelling is about.

If only we can teach clients that same lesson, perhaps the PR vs. journalism professional stalemate will be broken –- and great press releases will equal great journalism.

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 3/15/12.

Say Goodbye to the Chance Encounter: Because Pretty Soon They’ll Be None Left

Ambient sound...ambient lighting…ambient social networking….ambient what?!?!?

Aaaannnd screech goes my mental brakes. As a PR professional and one who’s in the business of crafting quality wordplay, I’ve come across many expressions and turns of phrase (excluding the one I’ve just employed and the one I’m about to use) that cause me to do a double take. But here’s a few really obscure inside-industry ones, just for laughs: “Monetizing the purchase continuum,” (five points to anyone who knows what that means), “Technologizing,” – a term that Microsoft Word underscores in bright no-idea-what-that-is red, or does anyone know the “Importance of having enough bandwidth to update ones content management system?” I sure as hell don’t.

So with these beauties (unfortunately) already in my verbal toolbox, the term “ambient social networking” had me on one hand annoyed – here we go with an other pointless phrase, but on the other hand, more than mildly intrigued.

Last week, CNN, in its article “The Scariest Tech Trend of 2012?,” chose “ambient social networking” as the scariest. For the uninformed, “ambient social networking” is the continuous broadcasting of an individual’s location via their smartphones. While older social media apps required you to “check in” in order to activate their location discovery function, a new breed of apps in 2012 will always be on in the background, hence the “ambient” terminology. Instead, you’ll have to remember they’re on in the first place in order to turn off or pause their friend-finding abilities. Some of the apps to look out for include: Sonar, Glancee, Ban.jo, and Highlig.ht, according to the article.

While technologies such as this raise important privacy issues, the development of ambient social networking shouldn’t come as too much a surprise either, and really might not be deserving of the “Scariest Tech Trend” title. Rather, for all the lip service given to concerns over privacy and hyper information sharing, a growing body of data suggests otherwise. Jeff Jarvis, author of Public Parts How Sharing in the Digital Age Improves the Way we Work and Live, rightly points out in his newest book that history is filled with examples of ground breaking communication advances –from Gutenberg’s press to the camera – that in their own time, in their own way, threatened to upset the prevailing social order, raising similar privacy fears in their wake.

What’s more, a recent study by McCann Truth Central, a subsidiary of McCann World Group, a global communications company, found that while 84% of people feel they have some or a total right to privacy, it also found that 71% are willing to share their shopping data online, 86% agree that there are major benefits in allowing that sharing, and less than half (49%), seek direct control of which parts of their personal data they share. In other words, in today’s internet-savvy world, privacy is no longer getting the top billing it once enjoyed.

So is ambient social networking likely to take over the world, turning us all into text-addicted and smartphone-suckered losers? I don’t think so. And maybe the chance encounter really will be in jeopardy before too long. But just think how many times a day, week, month, year etc. you find yourself saying something like, “I can’t imagine how people lived without a cell phone or the mobile internet.” Remember too, that for the bulk of the people making such exclamations, they’ve still spent the majority of their lives without that ability.

Isn’t it amazing how quickly we all adapt?

Seen in this light, the scariest tech trend of 2012 – and the years that follow – would be if something like ambient social networking didn’t come to pass. Neat communications expressions aside, we’ll have to see what other “scary” tech trends CNN comes up with next. As for me, I’ll be technologizing my bandwidth for future developments.

Groupon’s Dodgy Deal: Can a PR Blitz and Site Overhaul Save the Company From Itself?

When it comes to Groupon, the daily deals digital Mecca, my, my, how the dot com angels have fallen.

Even as a public relations professional who’s seen and navigated her fair share of client missteps, I’m a bit gobsmacked by how a company that less than two years ago snagged the front cover of Forbes magazine with the eye-catching title “Meet The Fastest Growing Company Ever,” has managed to have its PR rug so skillfully pulled out from under them. What’s especially noteworthy is that Groupon’s recent rotten deal has been entirely self-made.

For readers who aren’t up on the latest Groupon happenings, the company has for the past several months, endured a barrage of PR setbacks, helping re-write the company’s until-now spotless public narrative. Here’s the errrr…..deal: In 2011 the Chicago-based company was roundly sacked following a Super Bowl XLV (45) ad that appeared to mock the decades’ long Tibet-China conflict. A few months later, and just ahead of Groupon’s November initial public offering (IPO), the company that had since its founding been branded based on its hyperactive growth, had to slice its reported revenue in half due to questionable accounting practices. Tsk tsk tsk.

Even the company’s opening stock price, fittingly perhaps, came in at a bargain $20 compared to an earlier valuation that said the couponing site was worth $30 billion. Re-tweaked fuzzy math brought that value down to $12 billion.

And while the company’s NASDAQ stock as of this writing is hovering near its opening price, only down .2 percent, and they’ve managed to start the new year with no additional public relations faux pas – that is if you exclude their announcement last week of a 2011 fourth quarter loss of $9.8 million – a sense of Wild West mentality combined with deck-of-cards-like fragility (some would say Ponzi scheme) continues to deal the company a PR blow.

To be sure, Andrew Mason, Groupon’s 31-year-old CEO, isn’t going down without a fight. In the effort to build back its image as a leader in the online deal-a-day world where coupons attract customers to once-hidden brick and mortar establishments and where everyone wins, the company announced this week major revisions to its website. Among the changes includes adding “thumbs up” and “thumbs down” capabilities so that Groupon users can help the site be more selective when doling out its latest offerings. And in another striking move, Groupon announced the hiring of public relations veteran Paul Taaffe to better manage the company’s image. His arrival comes after only a two-month stewardship by Brad Williams, formerly of EBay Inc.

Whether or not Taaffe, 50, paired with Mason,31, is the right combination of relative youth and relative years remains to be seen. But the fact that his arrival comes after his predecessor barely had time to break in his desk chair’s seat cushion, more than even erroneous math or disgruntled business owners crying foul over the supposed Groupon “deal,” is the best indication yet, that Groupon might be sick. Very sick.

As PR professionals we are tasked with helping keep our client’s message on track, being consistent and accurate with the media, and when calamity strikes, honest and up front about our mistakes. But that hard work should always be predicated on a company that gets its facts and its story straight –before it goes public. To do anything less is like having one hand tied behind your back during a boxing match. Or if you’re a lawyer, having your client reveal a critical detail that could alter a defense only moments before opening arguments. That type of handicap serves no one.

There’s no denying Groupon’s had a tough year. And while it may be easy to say “what’s 365 days in the course of a life?” Groupon, much like its leader, is still very young, having just celebrated its third birthday. But if you’re three years old and already a third of your life has been troubled with a mixed marketing message, what does that suggest going forward?

Taaffe’s got a rocky road ahead of him, for sure.

Good press or bad press aside, Groupon and its thousands of employees and millions of dedicated users aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. But taming the daily deal beast just doesn’t seem like a job anyone should embrace and revamping a website is just not enough. Public Relations leaders can only craft a message so far. Too much spin and a message – and a company – can spin out of control.

Let’s see what happens next.

An Organization With Terminal Cancer

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 2/10/12.

Here’s something that almost anyone from any side of the political spectrum can agree upon: the past week has been heinous for Susan G. Komen. And it has shown that the organization most known for its staunch (some, like me, would say steamrolling) support for finding a cure and raising awareness for a single type of cancer -- breast cancer -- above any other has a cancer all its own. It’s a cancer common to any group that has become bloated with a false sense of self-righteousness and one whose arrogance and hubris causes it to stray from its stated (if overzealous) mission and become embroiled in a politicized mess.

What I'm talking about, of course, is this week's announcement that Karen Handel, Susan G. Komen’s vice president of public policy, jumped before she was pushed. A speedy resignation with no severance package, Handel excised herself from the organization before mounting pressure within the group would have forced her imminent departure.

Her resignation caps a week of intense public backlash over Susan G. Komen's decision to first cut and then hurriedly restore about $680,000 in funding to Planned Parenthood, a provider of reproductive health services, including contraception and abortions.

In her resignation letter, which has been posted on Forbes, Handel goes to great lengths to explain how the situation got so out of control. Her defense? Komen is in the business of saving lives. Anything that distracts from that goal is a disservice -- thus the decision to pull funding and divorce itself from a controversial organization that might be spending money illegally, like funding abortions.

In October 2011, during Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I wrote about how the "pinking" of America was diluting the message of curing cancer and replacing it with corporate capitalism and too much consumption. I also took issue with Susan G.’s near-bullying tactics as they related to how the fundraising and marketing gargantuan has left smaller cancer-fighting organizations to fend for themselves, and how they aggressively muscle out any group that seeks to challenge breast cancer as the only cancer worth raising money for.

This latest misstep only adds to my great concern that Susan G. Komen, for all the good it has admittedly done for breast cancer awareness, has become a monopolistic and politically compromised organization. If she were alive today, I wonder what Susan Goodman Komen -- whom the organization gets its name from -- would think. After what must have been a grueling fight for her life, finding a cure and staying true to the organization's mission and goals would be more important to her then whether or not grant money was going to another group similarly charged with helping save the lives of young, often poor women -- an organization that happens to provide abortions.

Letters of resignation aside, let's not forget that Karen Handel is a former Georgia Republican gubernatorial candidate, whose campaign promises included cutting funding for Planned Parenthood, and was Georgia's 26th Secretary of the State.

On Sunday, the Huffington Post reported that it had obtained an email exchange between Komen leadership confirming that Handel had the sole authority in crafting and implementing the Planned Parenthood policy.

Does this not have all the makings of a woman hell-bent on achieving a personal goal and using a behemoth organization which itself had become too politically connected, as cover to achieve her aims?

Yes -- the organization did reverse course in barely 72 hours, and restored the funds. It also made changes to its grant awarding guidelines that say only organizations under criminal investigation would be denied funding. But like a true cancer, this organizational one has already done much damage -- to those who truly believed in the structure of non-profits being “doers of good,” to those who held Komen as saviors of women, and to the brands who’ve invested heavily to be part of Komen’s shiny pink halo.

The upside to all this? Susan G. Komen’s misdeeds have opened up an enormous pathway for all the non-profits around the country, breast-cancer-related or not -- to start reclaiming their place in consumers’ hearts, minds and wallets.

And as for the PR advice, first administered by Ari Fleisher and now Ogilvy, all I can say is that it will take a lot more than some clever PR tactics and new positioning to rebuild this country’s trust in the Susan G. Komen brand and its “values.”

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 2/10/12.

When a Sinking Ship Gives that Sinking Feeling: Costa Concordia and Its PR Disaster

Where do I begin with this one? How about the basics?

Why is it that big names seem to go with big doings? And I’m not talking about positive “big doings,” I’m talking about the ironic, disastrous kind. Perhaps if we didn’t christen giant cruise ships with bloated titles like Titanic, whose name means enormous size, strength or power and Costa Concordia, meaning harmony in Latin, these types of human and public relations tragedies wouldn’t happen?

Somehow, though, with 320+ days left to go in 2012, I’m sure this won’t be the last global PR nightmare, nor do I believe a simple name change could inspire a change of outcome. Maybe we even need these types of ironic names to help jolt us out of our collective lunacy and help avoid making repeat mistakes. At least the Costa Concordia, the Carnival Corp.-owned luxury cruise liner that ran aground off the Italian coast earlier in late January, didn’t ram an iceberg, or fail to have enough lifeboats on board. Oh hang on a sec, it didn’t.

But if that’s the best we can say about the tragic maritime crisis, we’re not doing very well. And as public relations professionals, charged with handling, directing and shaping a client’s message, somewhere, somehow, someone, could have, should have done better.

While media attention was first focused on the negligible and cowardly actions of Captain Francesco Schettino, who abandoned ship by accidentally falling into a lifeboat, then refusing coast guard orders to “do your duty” and return to ship, there’s been increasing anger and outright disbelief thrown at Carnival, the parent company of Costa Cruises, which ran and built the ship.

Good question. Where was he indeed?And rightly so. Carnival and Costa are responsible for ensuring the safety of their passengers and translates into having the right equipment and people. The Wall Street Journal’s recent article “Carnival CEO Lies Low After Wreck,” was as blunt as the company should have been at the start of the crisis. “Where is Micky Arison?” was the article’s four-word sentence opener.

The golden rule in any public relations disaster is to get ahead of the story and go into immediate damage control. From the moment the scope of the disaster was learned, Carnival and Costa should have been unwavering in their public openness. Instead what we got was a delayed, reactionary-type response that paints Arison as “a delegator” and one who is working tirelessly from afar at Carnival’s Miami headquarters. While that may be all well and good, once again, it’s important to remember that very often it’s not reality that matters so much as the perception of reality.

Reality vs. Perceived Reality

Take for example last winter when after repeated snowstorms, Newark, New Jersey Mayor, Cory Booker, after hearing complaints from city residents over unplowed streets, began tweeting his whereabouts as he physically joined the city’s snow removal crews. Residents tweeted their street and roadway conditions and Booker responded in live time when a plow would get through.

He even helped shovel snow and directed the plows to the most congested areas.

Whether it’s a snowstorm or a near-sinking luxury liner, that’s the kind of honesty, transparency and take-no-bullsh*t response that speaks volumes to people everywhere, whether they’re snowed in on Broad Street, Newark, or capsized off the island of Giglio in the Tyrrhenian Sea.

For a golden rule, it’s rather incredible just how often this golden standing gets tarnished. Besides, when it comes to gold, Carnival seems more interested in counting its post-sinking pennies than doing what is right. The Wall Street Journal also reported that the company expects the wreck will lower the company’s net income by $155 million, but that according to a company statement, “the incident will not have a significant long-term impact on our business.”

But isn’t that the very point? The “incident” – that lovely euphemism that translates to mean “an occurrence of seemingly minor importance,” should have a significant long-term impact on the Carnival brand and its business. It certainly has on the passengers onboard the vessel, and the on the families of those who died.

With uninspiring statements like that coming from a company with the PR-prowess of Carnival you can be sure that 2012’s harmony will be upset by further titanic missteps.

At least big doings will continue to be big fodder for my future blog posts, like Susan G. Komen and Goldman Sachs.

Out From the Digital Stone Age: Tablet PCs Emerge Along with a Lesson

Perhaps one of the hardest tasks to man-up – or woman-up to in my case, whether in PR circles or just around the evening dinner table, is to admit when you’re wrong. Of course, this is mammoth amounts of scholarly work written on why that is the case, but I’ll spare you the details, provide the obligatory link to a book about “cognitive dissonance,” and get to the point of this blog post.

Recently I’ve blogged about two issues: the trouble with statistics, that approximately 47 percent of people like to make them up and the remaining 53 percent fail to interpret them correctly, (yes, that adds up to 100) and that tablet PCs and e-readers, while no doubt part of the mobile digital mix, are not likely to explode in popularity — at least until they are more completely untethered from Wifi-only Internet access.

Well, at least when it comes to the tablet computer portion of the above paragraph….(here goes) I may have been wrong. That wasn’t too hard.

An article in the technology section of CNN.com yesterday reported that adult tablet ownership roughly doubled during the holiday season jumping from 10 percent in mid December to 19 percent ownership in early January, only a few weeks later, and women were the biggest new converts. The Pew research behind the article attributed the surge to continuing price falls (some tablets are selling for as little as $99) and the aggressive marketing efforts of competitors like the Kindle Fire and Barns and Noble’s Nook as they continue nudging their way into what’s predominantly been an iPad 1 and iPad 2 domain.

What’s more, investment bank Morgan Keegan reduced its estimate of iPad shipments in December from 16 million to 13 million, a drop of 19 percent, while estimating that the Kindle Fire sold between 4 million and 5 million units, according to the article. An industry analyst cutting back on its predicted iPad sales is further evidence that the tablet market might be getting more complex –even if the Wifi umbilical cord hasn’t been fully cut.

While a doubling of anything is relatively easy when you start with low figures, (having $2 in your wallet when you started with $1 is a 100 percent increase) it’s quite possible this article and the Pew research are the first indications that tablet computers are finally coming into their own. Think about it, tablets were “born” right around and just after the momentary Netbook craze from roughly 2007, Kindle’s launch year, and 2010, the iPad 1 début. As “second borns” you’d think they’d be more refined products, flying off shelves. Well, it may have taken some warm up time, but apparently, they’re beginning to do just that.

With that coveted laptop-sized screen, who knows, 2012 could really be the “year of the tablet” never mind the smartphone. As communication professionals, it might be time to start thinking and re-thinking both for ourselves and for our clients ways in which tablet PCs can better disseminate a marketing message or push a product.

We already know they’re great for downloading books, have a knack for beating the statistical odds, and have proven this PR professional mistaken. (At least for the moment)

Now let’s see what else they can do.