Is bad PR the new advertising?

Advertising Age reported last week on the latest Burger King ad “gaffe” to get attention around the world: a print ad running in Spain which shows the Hindu goddess Lakshmi sitting astride a ham sandwich, with a caption saying “a snack that is sacred.” As writers Ken Wheaton and Emily Bryson York so aptly put it,

"You know, because nothing says "We respect your faith" like portraying a sacred figure of a mostly vegetarian religion sitting on top a quarter pound of charred flesh."

Followers of Burger King, of advertising, and of PR will likely remember other similar “oopsies” from Burger King in the relatively recent past. In April, the chain ran ads in Europe for a new “Texican” burger which featured a character wearing a Mexican flag as a cape (a serious no-no in Mexican culture).

And then there’s the “BK Seven Incher” print ad that suggested fellatio… and, as you might expect, got people talking (if you want to see it, Google it – my Dad reads this blog!).

The chain’s response to the ads that offended Hindus and Mexicans was to apologize, to say that no offense was intended, and to quickly pull the ads – which most would agree is the right thing to do, after your company has done the wrong thing to do.

But with a pattern of offend/apologize/get-lots-of-coverage emerging, industry observers are starting to call foul, suggesting Burger King is purposely running offensive ads for the benefit of the media coverage.

On his “Beyond Madison Avenue” blog, Dan Davis points out that

“Burger King reported a 1.6% increase in sales in May. So, despite the outlandish, offensive nature of the ad/apology campaign BK has run the past few months, its numbers are increasing. An established product, BK isn’t likely to attract copious amounts of new customers through trendiness. It can, however, absorb the consciousness of the consumer base and attract from there.”

So… is this really bad PR for Burger King? Or, by offending minority groups in the locations where it runs the objectionable ads, is the chain betting the majority will still act on a purchase impulse it hopes will come along with the free coverage?

We had a related debate in first-year PR last semester, around Billy Bob Thornton’s spoiled-brat performance on the CBC’s Q Show after host Jian Ghomeshi had the gall to mention that Thornton was a celebrated actor. (I haven’t seen any coverage impolite enough to suggest that had this band not included a movie star, it likely wouldn’t have gotten as much attention in the first place, but it certainly crossed my mind.)

For the first five minutes of the interview, Thornton pretended not to understand any of Ghomeshi’s questions (à la Joaquin Phoenix, who had recently earned headlines with a spaced-out interview on Letterman), and the next five, bickered with the host. The grand finale to this performance was to insult the Canadian audiences he was supposedly in the country to play for, complaining that we’re boring.

Thornton’s stunt outraged Canadian audiences. He and his band, The Boxmasters, were booed at their Massey Hall show in Toronto the following night – and the night after that, they cancelled the balance of their Canadian tour, citing illness in the band.

So… bad PR for Billy Bob Thornton and The Boxmasters? Only if you think the prize Thornton was eyeing was London, Ontario. The incident got wide coverage in the American media on outlets including CNN and Rolling Stone, likely leading many Americans to say “Hey, did you know Billy Bob Thornton has a band?” Thornton’s market is in the U.S., not here; acting out here offered a limited risk with the potential to deliver far greater audiences in the lucrative U.S. market.

So my question is: are Burger King and Billy Bob Thornton both exhibiting a new advertising strategy centered around carefully-calculated bad PR?
____________________________

Here’s the CBC interview, just so you can take your hat off to Jian Ghomeshi, whose professionalism somehow allowed him to resist telling Billy Bob Thornton in person what the rest of us were yelling at the screen.



Thanks PD for the heads-up!

Reading What Happened

I picked up What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception, by Scott McClellan (George W. Bush’s Press Secretary from 2003-2006), curiosity piqued by his widely-reported criticism of the Bush White House. To be honest, it sounded like good blood-sport with some potential for professional development built in: a PR geek’s summer reading dream!

In it, McClellan gives an interesting insider’s perspective on the events that marked his tenure in the White House press office. He is clear in his denial of having knowingly misled the American people about the Valerie Plame affair; he also discusses at length the “permanent campaign” culture in Washington, in which positions and decisions on both sides of the aisle are predicated on political strategy rather than what’s really right for the country.

McClellan acknowledges that the effects of the “permanent campaign” mentality have broken public confidence in government, and makes an impassioned case for government to work more openly and transparently if that is ever to be repaired. And he’s right.

I did find, though, that McClellan’s attempts to position himself as the honest guy calling for change seemed a bit disingenuous. His own hands aren’t entirely clean; and while his motivations may not be directly tied to the “permanent campaign,” to me at least, the end result (i.e. damaged credibility) is the same.

Early on, he recounts hearing Bush say he “honestly” couldn’t remember whether he had used cocaine during the party days of his youth.

“I know Bush, and I know he genuinely believes what he says. He isn’t the kind of person to flat-out lie, particularly when speaking in private to a supporter or friend. So I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It’s the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true and that, deep down, he knew was not true. And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious: political convenience. ”

(49)

McClellan compares Bush’s selective memory to that of a courtroom witness who claims not to remember things to avoid implicating himself, and seems to accept it because he doesn’t think the issue (i.e. possibly having tried cocaine in his youth) is germane to Bush’s ability to govern in the present. While that may be valid, the problem for me is less the possibility of having tried cocaine once in his youth than the readiness to be dishonest about it now. As the logic goes, if you’re willing to be dishonest about issues that don’t matter, why should we think you’ll be honest about issues that do?

For me, McClellan shows the same willingness to be selective that he criticizes in Bush. McClellan suggests Bush doesn’t want to admit he took cocaine – I suspect McClellan doesn’t want to admit he chose to speak for someone he knew to be dishonest.

In PR, our reputations are our stock-in-trade; if people don’t think they can trust us, we’re no good to our clients. If you decide you can represent a client who isn’t going to be honest with you (and therefore, your audiences), you have to accept that your credibility may pay the price. And I don’t think you can consider yourself a victim of their dishonesty when it does, as McClellan seems to.

For me, the most valuable section of What Happened was the chapter on the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina. McClellan openly admits the government’s mishandling of the disaster – and the chapter gives an interesting insider’s account that shows how quickly public goodwill can be lost in a crisis. I felt for him as I read this chapter, as I always do for communicators dealing with really tough issues. We’ll be discussing that chapter in class this fall.

While I don’t think it achieved what McClellan was going for, What Happened was worth the read. If you’re looking for a behind-the-headlines perspective on some interesting PR case studies, you might want to check it out.

United Breaks Guitars

Halifax musician Dave Carroll's band Sons of Maxwell posted this video to YouTube two days go. So far, it's gotten more than 218,000 views there...



... and mainstream media coverage including Wolf Blitzer's CNN Situation Room tonight.



In the Creative Communications program at Red River College, we examine corporate mission statements and employee communications -- and our students learn how a customer's brand experience starts with his/her interactions with a company's employees. Brochures and websites and advertising and publicity activities are great, but if customers don't like the service they get from company employees -- especially in the YouTube era -- none of it will matter.

United's website provides a pleasant and customer-focused sounding "Customer Commitment" statement; United might take this opportunity to review that commitment with its employees all the way up the chain.



Thanks, Chris, for the heads-up!

“Wafergate”; or, The Importance of Briefing Executives on Religious Protocol

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has gotten himself into a bit of trouble with some Catholics this week, following his acceptance of a communion wafer at the funeral of former Governor General Roméo Leblanc in New Brunswick last Friday. Video of the funeral shows the Prime Minister taking the wafer in his hand, but doesn’t show him consuming it (though nor do I see Mr. Harper pocketing the host in this YouTube video, despite its poster’s claim).



Mr. Harper is not Catholic, but an article on the CBC website today describes him as a “devout Protestant.” Media coverage of this story provides opinions from Catholic priests on both sides of the debate as to whether a Protestant should be receiving communion in a Catholic church at all – but since there appears to be disagreement even among priests, I think Mr. Harper’s in the clear on that one.

On the issue of what he did with the wafer after receiving it, though, not so much. One of the things that differentiates Catholics from other Christians is their belief in the transubstantiation – that is, that the bread and wine used in the celebration of communion actually become the body and blood of Christ. Accordingly, Catholics treat the communion wafer reverently. They practice how best to receive it (to avoid dropping it) when preparing for their First Communion, and consume it immediately upon receiving it from their priest.

So when Mr. Harper was shown receiving the communion wafer and not consuming it, people (including, according to Macleans.ca, Monsignor Brian Henneberry, Vicar General and Chancellor in the Diocese of Saint John) were upset. Dimitri Soudas, the Prime Minister’s Press Secretary, today called some critics’ charges that Harper had pocketed the wafer “absurd”, telling CanWest "The priest offered the host to the prime minister, the prime minister accepted the host and he consumed it." Noel Kinsella, Speaker of the Senate, reportedly confirms that account, saying he was seated close by and saw the Prime Minister consume the wafer. Unfortunately for Mr. Harper, he didn’t do it immediately – which would have been in line with Catholic custom, and would have been caught on camera, to boot.

I’m certain Mr. Harper meant no harm or insult or disrespect in all this – he likely just didn’t realize the implications of waiting momentarily before consuming the host. But as the outrage and media coverage show us time and time again, that doesn’t always matter in the court of public opinion.

Before attending a state funeral in a church of an unfamiliar faith, Mr. Harper should have had a full briefing as to expected protocol. He then would have known how he should receive the wafer – and that he should consume it immediately.

Also, if the PMO was asking my PR advice (which it hasn't!), I would recommend against addressing an inadvertent insult (i.e. the wafer issue) with an intentional one (i.e. 'your impression/recollection is "absurd"'). I'm just saying.

On a related note, Mr. Harper is now in Italy, and has an audience with the Pope scheduled for later this week.

Cheers to the event planner

Today’s Michael Jackson memorial extravaganza at the Staples Center in Los Angeles was watched by millions around the globe, effectively taking over television and the Internet. Interest in the event was so high and so pervasive that The Wall Street Journal was liveblogging the livebloggers covering it.

In the PR major at Red River College we do a unit on special event planning, one of the many skills of the PR pro. As any event planner knows, the key to a successful event (after a solid concept and event strategy) is a detailed critical path, which sets out every little detail that needs to be handled – plus who will handle it, and when. The event planner is the quarterback, and calls the plays based on that critical path: every detail needs to be considered, documented, and handled, on time and on budget.

Michael Jackson’s memorial was produced by Ken Ehrlich, the event planner behind the Grammys. Just imagine the details he and his team would have had to anticipate and handle within a very short period of time to put on today’s global spectacle.

First, of course, they would have needed to brainstorm the concept, the elements that would comprise the stage “show” (likely in consultation with a mourning Jackson family and potentially others close to them), and then create a full event plan. The critical path flowing out of that event plan would have had to include, among many, many other things:

- Media relations (publicity for the event + encouraging Angelenos without tickets to stay home, in an attempt to reduce gridlock in downtown LA)
- Ticket production, lottery & distribution
- Dealing with Staples Center to secure use, arrange setup & logistics
- Dealing with the Ringling Bros. circus, who have shows in the Staples Center tomorrow
- Dealing with the city government – extra police, blocking off streets, motorcade routes, parking, paramedics, not to mention budget…
- Event security staff, usher briefings
- Motorcade vehicles & staff
- Staging: all equipment, lighting, sound, giant screens (need to accommodate different musical acts), draping
- Screen show (titles, photos, accompanying music), coordination with pastor
- Flowers
- Memorial programme – content, writing, design, production, distribution
- Transportation for casket, family, special guests, celebrities
- Coordinating with celebrities & their handlers
- Coordinating special messages to be read from celebrities who can’t attend
- Signage, posters
- Rehearsals

This show, put together in a matter of days, had to give the world an outlet for its grief over the loss of Michael Jackson, while celebrating his life and achievements – and somehow avoiding the sticky topics that garnered the majority of the media interest in his later years.

Juggling all of those details, the planning team would have to have been careful not to let the event appear:
- Too over the top
- Too commercial
- Too opportunistic

But would have had to ensure it was appropriately:
- Admiring
- Respectful
- Mournful
- Celebratory

… and ensure that in the end, the service addressed all the major facets of Jackson’s contribution to his generation. Not easy things to do, much less simultaneously. All in all, this event was a tall order – and from the commentary I saw, it seems to have mostly hit the right notes for Jackson’s mourners around the world.

I’m sure Ehrlich and his team haven’t had much rest in the last week – I hope they put their feet up tonight.

Social media can help build businesses – and pro athletes’ fan bases

Yesterday’s men’s Wimbledon final was a great, emotional, frustrating, roller-coaster of a match to watch. After five grueling sets, Roger Federer won his record-breaking 15th Grand Slam tournament, having beaten Andy Roddick in the longest final in Wimbledon history.

But this blog isn’t about tennis, it’s about PR.

I’ve been a fan of both Federer and Roddick for years now, so have always had an emotional investment in seeing them win. While they are both brilliant tennis players, I like them for completely different (and contradictory) reasons: Federer for his on-court class and grace, and Roddick for his brash, no-holds-barred approach to… well… everything. But more on that later.

Professional athletes’ personalities are part of what makes us want to root for them and follow their careers (and, in so doing, to be exposed to their sponsors’ logos). And while mainstream media coverage of sports has traditionally given us brief glimpses into athletes’ lives and personalities (allowing us to build the affinities that make us attractive to sports advertisers), many pro athletes are now using Web 2.0 tools to share more of their thoughts and lives with fans – building stronger personal bonds that lead to heightened “brand” loyalty.

Roger Federer

Roger Federer has a website with more than 250,000 registered users, and Facebook fan page that currently has more than two-and-a-quarter million fans.

The website offers everything you’d expect, from media releases and a tour schedule to information about his charitable foundation and, of course, an online store. But it also builds community with his fans through user-generated content (UGC) features including a “Fan Zone” with a fan-submitted photo gallery, discussion forums, and an “Ask Roger” feature that invites questions from ordinary people without ESPN press passes – and provides (some) answers. (A read-through of the posted questions reminds us why we also want to hear interviews conducted by journalists with ESPN press passes: for example, “Do you like tennis, or do you love tennis?” Ugh.) The UGC features appear to be popular with Federer’s fans; his stock rises a bit with each time a member of his fan base participates in the online conversation.

Federer also makes good use of his Facebook fan page. Whereas some celebrities use their pages simply to “have a presence” on the site, he posts short videos in which he speaks directly into the camera about what he’s up to, how he’s feeling about the tournament he’s playing, etc. Each time, the video is posted to his millions of Facebook fans’ walls – a proactive message from Roger Federer, making each of them feel (just a little) like they’re behind the scenes with him. Just before Wimbledon started, he sent his fans a picture of himself on Centre Court under the new roof – something tennis fans everywhere would be interested in – and a sneak preview of his much-discussed Wimbledon court attire. Just as he does on his website, Federer takes fan questions on his Facebook page. Oh, and he shares his newest commercials for a fleet of advertisers...

As a whole, Federer’s Web 2.0 presence is well in line with his overall brand: he appears classy, friendly, and accessible despite being, many feel, the greatest tennis player of all time. Whereas most fans could only know greats like Rod Laver and Arthur Ashe to the extent they received coverage in the mainstream media, Federer’s fans feel like they really know him, and like he takes the time to engage them. As a result, I’d wager their emotional buy-in is that much greater every time he steps on court.

Andy Roddick

Andy Roddick is the kind of guy you feel you know a bit just from listening to his post-match news conferences.



While most players on the pro tennis tour come into news conference after news conference with the same platitudes about sportsmanship and compliments for their opponents, Andy Roddick has always, refreshingly, called it like he saw it. (I can’t imagine Roger Federer responding to how a loss felt with “it sucked” – but I appreciate Andy Roddick for saying it.)

But Roddick is making great use of the web to make stronger connections with his fans, too. His website isn’t as slick as Federer’s (it isn’t updated as frequently, for one thing), but it does allow fans to feel more like “insiders” by providing information about his activities and news. It also has its own UGC features that allow fans to interact with Roddick and each other – for example, an “I Was There” section in which fans tell their stories (and share their photos) of having met Roddick in places across the globe, as well as fan contests and a “Fan of the Month” profile (though there isn’t one listed every month).

Roddick also has a Facebook profile, but it seems his Web 2.0 tool of choice is Twitter (username @andyroddick). With more than 68,000 followers, Roddick updates his Twitter profile regularly (during tournaments, often multiple times a day), with tweets that tell us a little more about how he sees his own game, his opponents, and the tennis world in general… as well as tidbits about his taste in pop culture and other assorted details of his life. Like Federer, Roddick’s online personality is consistent with what we know of him from mainstream media: he is funny, and unafraid to say what’s on his mind. He also sends messages of support to his friends on the tour, and comments on how pro tennis works behind the scenes… again, letting his fans in on the conversation and making them feel like insiders in his world.

Does it matter?

I think so. Using social media tools to give their fans better access and the ability to interact with them, both players are letting tennis fans get to know them better. While it may not be a genuine “relationship,” the fan certainly feels like the icon on the court is more a human being than a two-dimensional character – and is far more likely to “buy in”.

As a longtime devotee of both pro tennis and PR – and a relatively more recent fan of Federer, Roddick, Facebook and Twitter – I like it.

Timing is everything

So I unplug for a sunny long weekend with my family and come back to learn that... Sarah Palin has resigned as Governor of Alaska?

Interesting, in many, many ways. In case you missed it, here is her rather lengthy and rambling speech.



There’s lots to be said about Palin’s approach and messaging in this speech, and about her overarching political strategy in general – but I’ll leave that to the pundits. What interests me here is her timing.

Governor Palin made this announcement in a “hastily-called news conference on Friday” according to a Canadian Press story outlining some of the speculation around the reasons for her resignation: is she just tired of being a media scapegoat? Is there some further ethics scandal about to break? Is she gearing up for a run for President in 2012?

Or, as she puts it, is she just planning to do more for Alaska from outside government – whatever that means?

In PR, if you want your announcement to be seen by the largest possible percentage of your audience, and if you have any control over the timing, you choose your announcement time based on:

1) When the most media are likely to be able to cover it (i.e. not really early in the morning, or too late in the day, or on holidays or weekends, when newsrooms are on skeleton staff)

2) When your audience is most likely to be watching/reading the news (i.e. weekdays more than weekends... and not on holiday long weekends)

You’ll notice that not a whole lot of substantive announcements come out the week of Christmas – people are spending time with their families, and are far less likely to be reading the paper or watching the news than they would be on, say, a Wednesday in mid-January.

So why did Sarah Palin choose to “hastily” call a news conference on the Friday before the Fourth of July weekend to make her big announcement? Some possibilities:

• She was expecting a lot of conjecture about potential new ethics investigations and unflattering reviews of her track record in Alaska, particularly in the time since her brief run for the Vice-Presidency in 2008 – and wanted all that chatter to happen when most Americans were outside in the sunshine, eating potato salad and enjoying fireworks with their families; or

• There really is something coming down the pike (and I’m not necessarily suggesting wrongdoing – it could be something personal, or family-related, or health-related) which she’d rather not deal with as Governor; or

• She didn’t give the timing any thought; or

• Some other rationale that she and her advisors (and maybe observers more sophisticated than I) understand.

From where I stand, this looks like an announcement intended to be made when as few Americans as possible would be listening – and, I have to add, that might indeed have been the smartest PR strategy. But then again, if there’s anyone on the U.S. national stage whose PR decisions have consistently surprised me, it’s been Sarah Palin.

I’ll be interested to keep watching, despite myself.


On a related note, my advice to Letterman for tomorrow night’s show: just say “Sarah Palin” and wait for your audience to roar.

UPDATE - Monday, July 6:

On Anderson Cooper 360 tonight, I heard a Palin supporter explain that she'd made her announcement on the Friday before the Fourth of July weekend as her way to "declare her independence from politics as usual." Amazingly, I don't think he was kidding.