Taking the high road vs. giving in

As America gets ready to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the first airing of Sesame Street on Tuesday, a PR "issue" has erupted around a two-year-old episode of the show, a repeat of which was aired two weeks ago.

In the episode, which my three-year-old has given me occasion to enjoy many times, Oscar the Grouch is the anchor of GNN (Grouch News Network), in a parody of CNN. Anderson Cooper guest stars as a reporter for GNN, and does an interview with grouch muppets Dan Rather-Not and Walter Cranky.

Is this a thinly-veiled suggestion that CNN is too negative? Or an attack on the personalities of Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite? I don't think so (and neither, apparently, does Anderson Cooper). Rather (har har), I think they were chosen because their names provided an opportunity for a fun parody, which would entertain children while providing parents with something to keep them from going insane (a characteristic that keeps parents favouring Sesame Street over, say, the Teletubbies).

I put these parodies in the same category with other Sesame Street bits I've enjoyed: "Desperate Houseplants," "Meal or No Meal," "Law & Order: Special Letters Unit."

But one line uttered by a member of GNN's grouchy audience in the repeat episode has apparently gotten some Fox News fans up in arms.



According to an article on foxnews.com, both the Fox News and the PBS websites received emails from viewers who said they had heard the character say she was switching to "Fox News - now there's a trashy news show."

When I first saw the show, I heard "Pox News," and have heard "Pox News" every time since. When contacted by Fox News, according to the story on its website, "Sesame Workshop Vice President of Corporate Communications Ellen Lewis told FoxNews.com that the show was merely a parody and would never mention Fox News directly." A script from the show reportedly shows the line to be "Pox News," as does the closed-captioning.

Let's face it: in the 24-hour news business, there aren't that many well-known brands to work with. "CNN" easily becomes "GNN," "Fox" easily becomes "Pox;" but what could you do with "MSNBC" to make it grouchy-sounding?

I think Ms. Lewis' response was reasonable (and I would hope/assume it included an expression of regret that some viewers might have misheard the line and been offended).

The Ombudsman for PBS, however, took a different approach, saying in his statement on the matter that

"I don't know what was in the head of the producers, but my guess is that this was one of those parodies that was too good to resist. But it should have been resisted. Broadcasters can tell parents whatever they think of Fox or any other network, but you shouldn't do it through the kids."

I'm certain that the White House's recent skirmishes with Fox News have something to do with this sensitivity; but this show was produced a year before the current administration was even elected (though Fox News' coverage of the presidential election campaign may well have been a topic of interest at that time). I'm surprised that the PBS Ombudsman would have hung the Sesame Street producers out to dry like that - especially given that Sesame Street has been doing parodies of popular shows and famous people for four decades (remember Monsterpiece Theatre with Alistair Cookie?).

In the opening scene of "Desperate Houseplants" one potted plant mourns "I can't take it anymore! I've lost my bloom!" - and I don't remember any of the Desperate Housewives cast being offended by it.

Parents across the political spectrum seem to agree that Sesame Street provides a great example for our children to see and admire... but for some, that's only true for as long as it parodies everyone except Fox News.

There's taking the high road and apologizing for having offended someone; then, there's giving credibility to irrational claims. An organization should always apologize for having offended - even when the offense wasn't intentional - but I don't think it should give credence to a baseless charge.

While that approach may take care of the complaints in the short term, I'd expect the opposite to be true in the long term. Having essentially agreed that Sesame Street's producers were purposely trying to turn pre-schoolers against Fox News (?!), PBS' Ombudsman should now expect Sesame Street to be watched far more closely for perceived slights against the institutions and voices of the "Right."

Sesame Street opens its 40th season on Tuesday with a guest appearance from... uh oh... Michelle Obama.

MTV's event planners learn why the little details count

Last night in Berlin, U2 performed a 30-minute set at the Brandenburg Gate, to mark the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall; the performance was set up by MTV, as part of its MTV European Music Awards broadcast.

A reported 10,000 fans attended the short performance, which took place in a public outdoor space bordered by buildings on three sides, and a "temporary security fence" on the fourth.

A two-metre high, tarp-draped fence which, to fans on the other side, looked like... a wall.


Headlines, please!

Berlin celebrates 20 years since Wall fell by erecting another for U2 (Times Online)

MTV Europe defends U2 Berlin 'wall' (UK Press Association)

Bono sparks row after building own Berlin Wall to block free gig from fans (Scotland's Daily Record)

New Berlin wall built for U2 gig to mark fall of old one (The Guardian)


MTV's response

MTV's statement on the matter refuted the notion that it had built a new Berlin wall, and emphasized the facts that the decision was made collaboratively with local event organizers and that its objective was the safety of all the fans in attendance.

"MTV wanted to ensure that the 10,000 music fans that attended tonight's MTV EMAs present U2 at the Brandenburg Gate enjoyed a safe and happy experience.

The safety and well-being of all attendees at any MTV produced event is of the highest priority. MTV worked closely with our local promoter DEAG, the Borough of Berlin and the Berlin Police department to create a comprehensive security
plan for the event. To that end, MTV placed a temporary security fence around the site perimeter.

Under no circumstances did MTV build a 'wall' of any kind in or around the U2 production site."

Dictionary, please!

My favourite dictionary, the Oxford Canadian Dictionary (Second Edition), defines a wall as "a continuous and usu. vertical structure of little thickness in proportion to its length and height, enclosing, protecting, or dividing a space or supporting a roof."

Hmm.


Sometimes, good intentions aren't enough.

I can completely appreciate the effort to control the crowd in an event like this one. Of the thousands of details planners of an event of this scale would have had to consider, this would be a significant one: no-one wants their event to become the site of a serious injury (or worse).

With that said, this particular crowd-control measure seems a bit tone-deaf. Given that everyone is there to celebrate the destruction of a wall, the erection of a new one (no matter how well-intentioned) would seem a natural target for ridicule.

The objective of staging a huge event like this one is to generate positive publicity for a brand. Unfortunately for MTV, a miscalculation in the optics of one detail among thousands coordinated by the event planners took the event coverage off course, and reduced the event's benefit to MTV's reputation.

Axe hoax: a strike against mainstream media, a PR victory for Unilever

Earlier this week, reports were circulating about an Indian man who was suing Unilever, the maker of Axe body spray (reportedly sold under the name "Lynx" in some markets), because despite his faithful use of the product over seven years, he hadn't been able to secure a date.

In an article in Scotland's Daily Record, the complainant, Vaibhav Bedi, was reported to have based his case on the fact that "The company cheated me because in its advertisements, it says women will be attracted to you if you use Axe. I used it for seven years but no girl came to me."

The story goes on to say that Unilever had refused to comment on the case.

As it turns out, the lawsuit story is a hoax. Reported to have been initiated by the Faking News website, the story spread across the Internet and, somewhere along the way, began to be reported as true. I heard it reported on Winnipeg radio Monday morning as a true story, and was ready to write a blog post about how being the target of a lawsuit can actually be good PR -- but when I began to research it, quickly found it to be false.

Quickly.

There's some work to be done on the fact-checking at some "news" outlets in the wake of this story.

In the meantime, Unilever and its Axe/Lynx brand is the big PR winner; I'd love to see the numbers on unpaid media and blog mentions over the life of this story.

And on a different note...

Another little gem I found while checking into this story was the YouTube video below, outing Unilever's arguably hypocritical position on the objectification of the female body in advertising. I hadn't realized that Unilever was behind both Axe, whose ads are rife with images of scantily-clad women throwing themselves at men, and Dove, which has run a very successful (both from the marketing and PR perspectives) campaign, called the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty, encouraging women's self-esteem. The video replaces the original media-images-which-cause-low-self-esteem-in-women-and-girls from the Dove campaign with images from Unilever's own Axe commercials.

Hasbro shows us how it's done

In PR, we use creative thinking to get people talking about our clients and their products. We employ a wide range of strategies, tools and tactics to try to make this happen – but we understand that nothing is more effective in getting people's attention than offering something of value to them. It's called the "identification principle" of persuasion, and it has helped to sell everything from political leaders to dog food.

Hasbro campaign delivers a diversion, a source of pride, and a good laugh

Hasbro has been a leader in the board game market for as long as I can remember – and Trivial Pursuit (and all its subsequent editions tailored to players with interests in particular subject matter, eras, etc.) has been a mainstay of every home’s board game closet. So when the company went to launch its new Trivial Pursuit Team edition, it was challenged to find a “hook” that could create some new interest in an older product.



The “Trivial Pursuit Experiment” Hasbro launched last week, a global, online battle of the sexes based on the new Trivial Pursuit Team edition, does the trick. The integrated marketing campaign (click here to read the news release), using the tagline “Who’s smarter than who?” invites people the world over to go to www.trivialpursuitexperiment.com and defend their gender’s honour in a battle of the sexes.

Girls are smarter!

I entered my birth date, my name, and my gender, and got to choose from a number of trivia categories. Having answered my question correctly, I was treated to a YouTube video of a man unsuccessfully attempting a vault in a gym. I then “threw” one to see what would happen, and got a way more hilarious video of a woman accidentally dropping the live lobsters she was supposed to dump into a pot, and then freaking out as she tries to corral them.

It’s fun, it feeds that competitive nature we all have, and it’s entertaining. There's loads of "what's in it for me" in this campaign, making it an "identification principle" hall-of-famer.

When I published this post, the young site was showing more than 700,000 correct answers between the two teams; clearly, people are responding. It’s also gotten both mainstream media and bloggers talking (I heard about it on the Ace Burpee Show as I drove to work this morning). And it’s gotten people like me playing Trivial Pursuit again, 20 years later.

For other great examples of Hasbro’s news-making, just check out the news releases on its website. I'm thinking this is a fun place to work.

On a side note...

When I wrote this post, the women’s team was ahead by well over 30,000 correct answers. I’m just saying…

Those pesky ethics keep holding me back.

Flying under the radar (har har) of the balloon boy hoax of last week was a media hoax of a far different kind: the Yes Men's successful effort to dupe major U.S. media into relaying their messages on climate change.

The Yes Men are activists whose business, according to their website, is "Impersonating big-time criminals in order to publicly humiliate them. Targets are leaders and big corporations who put profits ahead of everything else."

On Monday, their target was the United States Chamber of Commerce. As the National Post reported earlier this week, the Yes Men booked the National Press Club in Washington late last week for a news conference, under the name "U.S. Council on Climate, which has the same acronym as the Chamber. On Monday morning, they called and changed the contact information for the event, and set up their press conference with U.S. Chamber of Commerce logos."

Staff at the National Press Club realized something was up, and alerted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that the fraudulent news conference was about to take place. The video below shows what happened when a legitimate representative of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce arrived on the scene.



While the news conference was only a few minutes old when it got broken up, a number of media outlets had already reported on the announcement. According to the National Post,

"Reuters had already filed a story based on a fake press release. The news appeared on several websites and was announced on live television; an anchor for the Fox Business Network retracted the news within seconds of reporting it. Reuters quickly issued a correction."

The situation was an embarrassment for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Press Club, as well as the media who reported the story before realizing it was a hoax. But the Yes Men certainly got what they wanted: national headlines and coverage of their messages on climate change.

Some may see publicity stunts like this one as victimless crimes; and in some cases, they might be (other than the damage done to the credibility of the PR and media industries). But in others, there can be real victims: as the National Post story recounted, in 1994 the same front man for the Yes Men
"tricked the BBC into thinking he worked for Dow Chemical. In an interview with the broadcaster, he said Dow would pay US$12-million to the victims of India's Bhopal gas disaster. By the time that stunt was exposed a few hours later, the company's stock had plunged by US$2-billion."

This story has highlighted the fundamental problem of a "tweet-first-ask-questions-later" approach to journalism today, driven by the need to stay ahead of social media in breaking news. Whereas reporters used to have time to do background research before filing stories, today they are pressured to get the news out, at least in some preliminary form, as soon as they receive it. As the media landscape evolves, journalists will need to find a way to ensure the accuracy of what they're reporting, if they want to remain a credible source for their audiences.

In first-year PR classes at Red River College this year, we have discussed professional codes of ethics, and why professional associations like the Canadian Public Relations Society and the International Association of Business Communicators would need to have them; this story provides us with a perfect illustration of why such ethics codes are needed.

The Yes Men's stunt may have earned headlines, but it did nothing to build relationships. Ethical public relations does not employ dishonesty, arguing that the means justifies the ends; rather, ethical public relations involves open, honest communications between a client and its audiences, in the interests of fostering better understanding and, hopefully, earning trust and support.

It's important for ethical public relations practitioners to denounce actions like those of the Yes Men, because in some circles, their tactics are understood, incorrectly, to be the tactics of PR.

They aren't.

A head-scratcher

I followed a Twitter link this evening to the Ragan Communications website, where I found what Ragan billed as "The Worst Example of Media Relations EVER."

While I don't know that to be true, the report, which the Ragan site says was filed in 2002 by reporter Elliot Davis for KTVI television in St. Louis, Missouri, certainly raises a few questions.



1) Could a "County Executive" really think this tactic would produce a positive story?

2) Could a reporter really get an interview like this one and then play it straight? Neither the reporter nor his colleague in the studio makes any comment on the... let's say... unusual nature of the County Executive's response.

3) Does this interview remind anyone other than me of Stephen Colbert's "Better Know a District" bits (except this time, it's the interviewer getting punked)?

I've never had reason to doubt anything I've seen or read on a Ragan site before. But this? I just can't imagine it's real. Let me know what you think!

Imperial Tobacco’s smokescreen

A Canadian Medical Association Journal article published yesterday by Dr. David Hammond and a team of researchers at The University of Waterloo has unleashed a bad PR story that’s been decades in the making: Imperial Tobacco Canada’s alleged destruction of millions of pages of scientific studies, conducted between 1967 and 1984, which concluded that smoking is detrimental to our health.

According to the Globe and Mail,

"The tobacco industry did not make the findings public, instead denying for decades the effects of smoking. As the review notes, Jean-Louis Mercier, the chairman of Imperial Tobacco Canada, testified at a House of Commons legislative committee in 1987: "It is not the position of the industry that tobacco causes any disease. ... The role, if any, that tobacco or smoking plays in the initiation and the development of these diseases is still very uncertain.""

The Canadian Press reports that the files on the 60 studies were destroyed in Canada in 1992, on the direction of Imperial Tobacco’s head office in the U.K. – but that the information remained on file in the corporate headquarters. The CP also points out that the internal code-name for the buried research projects was “Janus” – a reference to the two-faced god of Roman mythology.

The tobacco industry has long had a tough row to hoe, PR-wise. While its product is legal, it’s known to be dangerous to tobacco customers – and to those who share the air they breathe (not to mention everyone else who pays for and relies on an overtaxed medical system). Collectively, the industry spends billions on lobbyists who work to keep government regulation as friendly to their business as possible (as do many other industries), and on initiatives that position the tobacco companies as good corporate citizens.

I attended a presentation on stakeholder engagement by John Clayton, Vice-President of Corporate Affairs at Imperial Tobacco Canada, at the CPRS National Conference in Halifax last year. Clayton spoke earnestly about the challenges of communicating on behalf of a tobacco company, and deftly managed emotional opposition from some members of the conference crowd – leaving his audience with the overall impression that, while Imperial acknowledges that there are health risks associated with smoking, the company is committed to helping minimize those risks, while continuing to provide its customers with the legal product they want.

As much as I hated to admit it, the argument was reasonable; as long as the government allows the sale of a product, why shouldn’t someone sell it?

Now, however, Imperial may be running out of arguments. We can't hold a company accountable for decisions it makes (and products it sells) in good faith. But if this week’s reports are true, this is a textbook example of bad faith: the company not only sells a dangerous product, but it knowingly hid evidence that proved it and willingly misled its publics for decades, putting profit before people's lives.

If any of Imperial's goodwill relied on its ability to convince its publics that it’s open about the health effects of smoking and committed to looking out for its customers’ interests, it may now be heading back to the drawing board. The Globe and Mail story indicated that an Imperial spokesperson didn't return calls for the story; I'll be interested to see how the company positions itself.

Regardless, though, Imperial and its peers are lucky that their product has its own built-in relationship-builder – more effective than any stakeholder engagement strategy – that will keep customers coming back, and pressuring their governments to keep it legal. Nicotine.