Generation gap?

My three-year-old looks for her

"Elmo's Monster Maker" app.

If you want to feel old and soon-to-be-obsolete, watch a three-year-old use an iPhone or navigate YouTube.

Kids are sponges for information. We don't have to show them how to fasten a button or choose the right puzzle piece. And that's by necessity: because just about everything in their world is new, they are masters of "figure it out." They observe, reason, and replicate behaviours, learning by trial and error what works. That, combined with their total lack of concern about potential embarrassment or failure, among other things, makes them far more efficient learners of languages than adults.

It also makes them perfect little candidates for social media.

A couple of weeks ago, Fisher-Price launched three new iPhone apps targeted at two-year-olds, prompting Mashable to ask, "How many 2-year-olds do you know with an iPhone? Fisher Price seems to think there’s a fair few out there..." Kidding aside, Mashable's Amy-Mae Elliott recognizes the market for these apps is really parents who may want something to occupy a busy toddler for a few minutes in a grocery store line. And while the prospect of a toddler with her own iPhone sounds nuts, the fact is, today's toddlers are so surrounded by technology that they adapt to it naturally.

ABC-123-0011000111010

Today's kids live in a digital world: there's no arguing it. They help their grandmothers with the TV remote; they understand touch-screen, finger-pinch technology (or, at least, how to use it). They "get" website navigation and how to use a mouse; for a great example of online content aimed at toddlers, check out Sesame Street's website. They instinctively know that swiping the screen of a handheld device will advance the pictures. That touching an icon in a menu will open a game. That if you click on the triangle inside the circle, you'll get video; and if you click on the little square at the bottom right, the video will fill the whole screen.

They live in a world where special YouTube channels and blogs built just for them are a quick destination for entertaining, safe content... even if you're not old enough to spell out a URL on a keyboard.

So, what does this have to do with PR?

Today, maybe not that much, unless our clients are in the youth or education markets.

But as babies like my daughter grow into tweens (God help me, a mere decade from now!), teens and young adults, their habits, tastes, and expectations will increasingly form critical mass -- and will drive how we communicate.

So. If you're hesitating to "go 2.0" and join the online conversation, now's the time to get going. Because if you think online communication is growing rapidly today, just wait till these kids are old enough to become consumers. There'll be no turning back.

"P" is for Public Relations

In honour of a brilliant television program whose very first episode aired 40 years ago today, here are five things I learned about PR from Sesame Street.

1- Know your audience. Season after season, Sesame Street produces bits that entertain kids AND their parents.



2- It's important to ask the right questions.



3- Cooperating and pooling resources can create wonderful results.



4- There is no such thing as "off the record."



5- For long-term success, be flexible and evolve with the times. (Case in point: the video below, from Sesame Street's first season. Begin at the 1:15 mark and see if you can spot anything that might trouble today's protective parents...)



And while we're at it, a lesson for journalists:

Don't get personally involved in the story.



Thank you, Sesame Street, for 40 years of education and entertainment.

Today's blog post was brought to you by the letter S and the number 40.

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.

Spreading good habits

For a great example of how Web 2.0 can give a government department’s communications an enormous boost, check out the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHHS) PR strategy around containing the flu.

The objective is huge: to give Americans as much information as possible to help them avoid contracting and spreading the flu… without causing widespread panic.

Complementing the DHHS’s traditional communications campaign, the initiative includes a highly informative and well-organized website, www.flu.gov, which provides a tremendous amount of information about the flu, how to avoid it, and how to treat it. It also offers topical webcasts, frequently asked question (FAQ) documents on a variety of flu-related subjects, and e-cards, allowing people to send personalized messages to family and friends with advice on how to avoid contracting and spreading the flu.

They’ve even taken user-generated content a step further, with an online public service announcement (PSA) contest around preventing the spread of the flu. It’s a proven strategy we’re seeing increasingly often: get your audience to do your communicating for you. And it works.

It’s also worth noting how well DHHS is segmenting its audiences – online, and in its communications as a whole. The government wants to reach every person, in every demographic, in the country; if a certain group is left out, that group could be the centre of the next plague. PR people the world over struggle with the challenge of making scientific information understandable to the average person; but in this case, the cost of failure could be staggering.

DHHS needs to get everyone’s attention without being too scary, and then provide enough information to effectively change (or reinforce helpful) behaviours.

Communicating with the adult, literate, English-speaking population: a big job, but not so tough.

With foreign-language speakers: tougher.

With people who don’t consume mass media and don’t use the Internet: tougher again.

With children: potentially toughest. How on Earth does a government bureaucracy impress on children the importance of handwashing and coughing into the bend of the elbow? You can provide information packages to parents and to teachers; you can make posters and PSAs.

Or, you can do all that and more… and cue Elmo (on YouTube, of course).



Smart.