My blogroll is on steroids.

This week my blogroll will swell to five times its original size, with the addition of almost 100 new blogs featuring the writings of this year's Creative Communications students.

The faculty of the Creative Communications program at Red River College met last spring, after the students had gone off for the summer, to incorporate more new media into our curriculum. One of the fruits of that planning session was the blog assignment, in which every first-year student must create a professional blog and maintain it throughout their time here in the program. [For more on what the assignment entails, please see my colleague Kenton Larsen's blog.] I've also added the assignment to the PR major program, and believe the Advertising majors will be blogging this year, as well.

Our objective is, at its most fundamental, three-fold: first, to give students a first-hand understanding of how new media work; secondly, to teach them how to write for and attract an online audience; and thirdly, to help them create a positive online "brand" and body of work for consideration by prospective employers.

"CreCommers" are renowned for their energy and creativity; I've no doubt there'll be some great reading on our student blogs. Check them out!

Winnipeg firefighters’ new public service: lessons in crisis management

A couple of weeks ago I blogged about the Winnipeg firefighters’ union president’s response to the salacious tale about a firefighter who had been caught “kissing” a young woman in a shed behind the Osborne Street fire hall. At the time, Alex Forrest's response seemed appropriate, given that one of his union members had clearly crossed the line and the union and management both appeared to be acknowledging it and taking action to address it.

It now appears that may not have been entirely true.

In Friday’s Winnipeg Free Press, the young woman involved in the shed incident came forward with her side of the story: she claimed to have been taken advantage of, she contradicted the Winnipeg Fire Paramedic Service (WFPS) firefighters’ union's public statements that nothing more than kissing had taken place during the encounter, and she recounted having been ignored when she came forward to complain to fire officials shortly after the incident.

Now, I’m in no position to decide who’s telling the truth in this case – I wasn’t there, and I don’t know any of the people involved. But the Free Press story contains some direct quotes from fire department officials which provide some insight.

Ken Sim, the deputy chief of operations for the WFPS, said Thursday the woman's claims are alarming and contrary to what the firefighter at the centre of the controversy claims happened.

"It certainly would shed some different light on this if in fact she was taken advantage of. If that's the case, I would certainly encourage her to get in touch with the Winnipeg Police Service," said Sim. "We dealt with the information the firefighter provided us at face value."

If, indeed, the woman's complaint had been swept under the rug and kept from WFPS brass, they would have had to base their decisions on how to discipline the offender, and to respond to media, on the information they had. The same goes for Forrest: in terms of the response to the initial “what happened” questions, if you believe he didn’t know the woman had ever come forward and had no way to find her, he had to base his response on what the involved firefighter told him. We can’t hold people responsible for things they couldn’t have known.

However. Making definitive-sounding statements about what happened in a controversial incident when you know you've only got one side of the story is asking for trouble.

Friday's Free Press story gave Alex Forrest the opportunity to revisit his earlier statements given the new allegations, which he called "troubling."

Forrest questioned her motives for only coming forward now, through the media, and whether her claims were accurate.

Logically, if the woman’s claim is true, then she isn’t only coming forward now – she came forward earlier, and was ignored. And how could using the media be somehow suspect, if she had tried to complain directly (and privately) to the WFPS and been sent away?

Again, we can't know who's telling the truth. But from a PR perspective, it doesn’t matter: the fire department now looks like it has engaged in a cover up. We have a brand new round of media stories; and what was initially one employee with bad judgment has grown into a potential conspiracy.

If we turned back the clock and looked at the media coverage from when the story first broke, do you think the stories would have been much worse for the WFPS had they reported sexual relations in the shed? I don’t, really. I heard a number of Winnipeggers react to Forrest’s suggestion that, at only 5-8 minutes, there wasn’t time for more than kissing, with “yeah, right!” It was inappropriate behaviour no matter how you slice it – kissing, sexual relations, whatever. It wasn’t what heroes do on the job – that’s why it was a story.

Now, however, because the allegedly silenced victim is here to share her side of the story, the WFPS and its hundreds of hard-working men and women get treated to another round of humiliating coverage.

It’s tough to say whether any of the spokespeople could have done anything differently when the charges first came out, other than to acknowledge they were going solely on the firefighter's word.

But this story does illustrate once again why good crisis communications follow three key rules:

- Tell the truth,
- Tell it first, and
- Tell it all.

Had the WFPS and/or the firefighters’ union had the whole story, and told it right off the hop, there wouldn't have been anything new for the media this week. They, and their employees, might have been able to continue the job of moving on from this embarrassing incident, rather than re-living it yet again.

At this point, the WFPS has a lot of work to do before it's done with this file. It needs to somehow get to the bottom of what really happened – both in the shed, and potentially in its offices when (and if) the young woman initially came forward. Now beyond a single "bad" employee issue, the WFPS has to address the appearance of a corporate culture of deception, in which firefighters are willing to cover up their buddies' bad behaviour at the expense of the public they're supposed to serve.

I sure hope that fellow enjoyed his 5-8 minutes.


Winnipeg's high-profile romantic getaway.

How not to not answer a question

Over the last day or so, the Winnipeg Blue Bombers have taken some heat over their response to reports they’re in talks with controversial NFL player Adam “Pacman” Jones. [Update Wednesday evening: the Bombers have reportedly decided against bringing Jones on board.]



The fact is, sometimes you can't confirm something for the media (even if it's true). It could be because the information is protected by privacy legislation, or because it's competitively sensitive, or because it's material to a company's stock price, or because there's a contractual agreement not to talk... there are a number of reasons. And the media generally understand that, if it's put to them that way in good faith: "I can't talk about that because..." It doesn't mean they'll stop asking (after all, that's their job), but they'll generally get it.

In this case, though, we have one official essentially saying "we can't talk about it, even hypothetically, because of CFL policy," followed by another who immediately engages the reporters’ questions and then tries to cover himself by saying he wasn’t talking about any player in particular.

In media interviews, there aren’t any “loopholes.” Perception is reality, and trying to be too clever can backfire on you.

There are times when you can talk about an issue in general terms, to give reporters enough information to write a balanced story without breaking any non-disclosure agreements. For example, if a company was accused of mishandling a customer's account and that particular case couldn't be publicly discussed, a spokesperson could help media paint a balanced picture by discussing, in general terms, what the company's policies are with respect to customer accounts. The discussion couldn't touch on the current allegations against the company, but it could help provide some background information. "While we can't discuss this case, this is how we generally handle things" can be far more constructive, from a PR perspective, than "no comment;" and it helps with your relationships with the media, too.

That isn't always possible, though, when your situation doesn't lend itself to discussion in generalities. In the Pacman Jones story, the reporters want to know whether or not the Bombers are negotiating with him. Period.

If there’s a legitimate reason you can’t comment, you can’t comment – fair enough. Don’t, and explain why. But you can't tease media with the whiff of a response, and then refuse legitimate follow-up questions on the basis that you’re not commenting – and maintain your credibility in the briefing room.

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.

Gene Simmons' uncharacteristic bungle

KISS legend Gene Simmons is – and has for decades been – a master of publicity. If you haven’t seen evidence of it yet, just watch a single episode of his A&E series, Gene Simmons Family Jewels, and you will.

Which is why today’s Canadian Press story, “Kiss frontman Gene Simmons blaming media for spoiling Oshawa surprise,” surprised me.

As the CP story reports, KISS invited fans earlier this year to go to its website and vote for their hometown to be included on the band’s upcoming “fan-routed” tour. Oshawa, Ontario beat out all other “hometowns” large and small, and came in at #1 on the list.

But when KISS published its tour schedule earlier this week, Oshawa wasn’t included – with no explanation as to why – and its devoted KISS fans and politicians were outraged.

The Sun Media story reporting Oshawa’s absence from the tour schedule provided KISS’s official response on the matter:

While the makeup wearing performer could not be reached for comment, a band spokesman said "a few situations" required locating shows in neighbouring market concert venues.

"This was necessary to make sure that all regional fans get a chance to see KISS with the band’s full stage production," said spokesman Erik Stein.

The band is however, planning "something special" for the city of Oshawa itself, although Stein wouldn't provide more details.

Fans and politicians in Oshawa were outraged that they were skipped over, and the backlash eventually forced the band to announce it would play a show in the city after all on Oct. 7.

Simmons was reportedly “pissed off at the media for creating this nonsense,” annoyed that coverage of the snub had fanned the flames of fan discontent. From his perspective, according to the CP story, fans “should have trusted the band wouldn't let them down.”

"Respectfully, the fans aren't qualified to understand how things are done ... (they) don't know how things work," he said. [A side note: when you hear "respectfully" or "with all due respect," get ready to be disrespected!] If the issue was who was right, and who knows best, Simmons might have the basis for a debate.

But the issue here is making customers happy. How did Simmons do on that front?

Now, spend any time following Gene Simmons and you’ll soon notice that he is incredibly confident. After decades of thrilling KISS fans with music, shows, and merchandise, he knows that he has a cult-like following.

But I think the problem he’s (maybe, maybe not) discovered here is that while his fans may adore him, people are unable to simply “trust” that a mega-star will “do the right thing” without some indication that he will. The hints the band gave when pressed about Oshawa were far too vague – they sounded less like “just hold on, wink wink, there’s something very special in the works for you” and more like “we’ll figure something out once we’ve got our real priorities dealt with.”

Simmons now says KISS had planned all along to have a show in Oshawa, where the band would launch its new album. If that was the case, all KISS had to do was include in the schedule announcement that Oshawa, the contest winner, was going to be the centre of something big, which would be announced in the coming weeks. Oshawa fans would've known they hadn't been forgotten or ignored, and the excitement and anticipation would likely have continued to build.

As for blaming “the media” for the debacle, Simmons is wrong (and uncharacteristically out of touch). First, Simmons ignores the impact of social media like Facebook, Twitter and blogs, which alone could have sustained the fan protest. Secondly, the media's job is to report on things that matter to their audiences; here, their audiences were insulted (and, some felt, cheated) by a rock legend.

That’s news, no matter how you slice it.

When employees work against you

The president of the Winnipeg firefighters’ union, Alex Forrest, has a big job. He’s the guy tasked with speaking on behalf of the city’s firefighters, working both with and against City management to protect what his members feel are their rights, and to fight for the tools they feel they need to do their job well.

To be effective in that role, Forrest has to be credible with the public at large; without that credibility, his union would have a steeper hill to climb come negotiation time. Especially since 9/11, firefighters are generally seen as heroes, as selfless saviours who put themselves in harm’s way to protect us. An image like that makes it tougher for any city to turn down requests for funding without public backlash; it's worth protecting.

But what if the image of the local firefighter was to become that of an adolescent lout, spending his on-the-clock time flirting and making out with a woman in a shed behind the firehouse?

It sure wouldn't make Forrest’s job any easier.

While firefighters do indeed put themselves in harm’s way to save people’s lives, pets and homes, they also spend quite a bit of time hanging out in the fire hall waiting for an emergency. Now, it’s not in the union’s best interests to talk about that side of it, but Forrest's members get to spend quite a bit of their time at work doing things like playing cards, sleeping, making dinners, playing music, etc. – things most people could never get away with doing at work. But it’s reasonable. We pay them to be there and at the ready in case of emergencies.

With that said, playing cards and making chili are not the same as making out in the shed.

This morning’s Winnipeg Free Press contains a story by Gabrielle Giroday called “Firefighter sorry for shed tryst,” with the sub-head “’Horrible indiscretion’ no danger to public, union boss says,” which outlines an incident that took place at the end of July. It recounts how a local firefighter met a woman near Station No. 4 on Osborne Street, “showed her a nearby shed,” and then “the two began kissing until an alarm came in” a few minutes later.

Must’ve been some shed.

The fact is, every organization has employees who are, let’s say, less than professional. Or even, short on personal integrity and judgment. But when your organization’s “brand” is anchored by notions of heroism, these employees are particularly problematic for your communicators (would this have been a media story had the employee caught kissing in the shed been sneaking out on his bartending job? Likely not.)

In talking to the media about this case, Alex Forrest had a number of audiences, and a communication objective for each.

1. Citizens of Winnipeg (and specifically those served by Station No.4): reassure them that public safety wasn't affected; that it was an isolated incident, which is not supported by the union or its members; and that the union is reasonable, and willing to accept punishment for a member if it’s warranted (this helps with future negotiations, when taxpayers remember the union’s reasonableness).

2. Union members: show on the one hand that the union will stand by them if they mess up, while simultaneously working to prevent them from having to “wear” a colleague’s indiscretion.

3. City management: show that the union is reasonable in its positions, and won’t stand in the way of appropriate handling of a personnel issue (again, this can serve as “currency” in future negotiations).

The reader comments at the bottom of the Free Press’ story online suggest that not everyone is buying Forrest’s (and the firefighter’s) position. But from my reading of the story, Forrest has done about as good a job of each of those objectives as he can, at least publicly.

The firefighter did what he did, and there's no excuse for it; so the best thing to do is to admit it, denounce the action, reassure the public the incident didn't interfere with public safety, and accept the punishment.

Making news: Archie comics

When you hear about comic books these days, the discussion is usually about plotlines darker and characters more complex than you find in Archie comics.

Archie Andrews and his buddies have been dealing with the same rivalries and petty jealousies for 67 years or so – and while the props in the stories have been updated over time (e.g., they now have cell phones and the Internet, not to mention their own Twitter profile and blogs), the main characters have remained relatively consistent. Archie loves Veronica, Archie loves Betty, Betty and Veronica both love Archie, and Reggie loves all the ladies (almost as much as he loves Reggie); assorted other characters associated with the high school and the Chocklit Shoppe have defined roles to play too.

To some Archie readers, I think this predictability is part of the appeal: I know at least one corporate executive who reads Archies at night, to turn off the brain with the reading equivalent of warm milk before sleep. But if you’re the people behind Archie Comics, how do you drum up interest in an aging brand?

Make news.



Earlier this summer, Archie Comics made an announcement: after 67 years of trying to decide between Betty and Veronica, Archie was going to propose to snooty rich girl Veronica, in an issue to hit newsstands next week.

From a publicity perspective, it was brilliant. Suddenly, people were talking (see the 250+ comments posted to the announcement alone) – and the reactions were, in many cases, emotional. How could Archie forsake Betty after all her years of loyalty? Was Archie just a gold digger? Hadn’t Archie ever noticed that Betty and Veronica looked identical, other than the colour of their hair? People who’d read Archie comics decades ago were weighing in, and getting involved in a conversation about a brand they’d long forgotten they cared about.

Coverage of the development in mainstream media and in the blogosphere was significant – even Macleans got in on the action. The story got an unexpected additional boost when an irate comic book collector (and seller) sold his first-edition Archie comic for almost $40,000 in “protest” of Archie’s decision to propose to Veronica – though he admitted, when asked, that the economic downturn had played a role in his decision to sell.

National Public Radio (NPR) asked syndicated advice columnist Amy Dickinson, in her “Ask Amy” column, to advise Betty on what to do now (see Betty’s letter to “Ask Amy” and Ms. Dickinson’s advice here). And as the days tick down to The Proposal’s “on the stands” date of September 1st, I’m sure we’ll hear more. As the Republic of Comics blog puts it, “…whatever people say about Archie and his girls, there’s no doubt that the proposal sparked newfound interest in the aging Archie comics series, which was losing its fan base to more sophisticated video games and darker comic books.”

A tip of my hat to Archie Comics for earning media coverage the old-fashioned way: by making news.

Click here for a preview (i.e. the first 5 pages) of the issue.