The On-Line E-Newsletter: You Can’t Live Without It

A respected non-profit recently sent out an RFP for a firm to create a newsletter for the organization. Although we rarely respond to RFPs at New Harbor Group, we strongly believe that having a newsletter is a good thing. Every organization should have some way to tell its story and update its key audience on a regular basis.

But here’s the problem: This particular group asked for proposals for putting together a print newsletter. Bad idea. If you don’t have a newsletter, and you’re thinking about starting one, here’s why an on-line edition is absolutely the only way to go:

• Why pay for printing and postage? Who does that anymore? It’s simply a waste of money.
• Keep it fresh. The on-line version won’t get stale waiting for that “one last story” to be submitted, then getting printed and then sitting around in the bulk mail trays at the post office.
• Get (really valuable) information. An on-line version will give you data about your audiences – who opened the e-mail announcing the latest edition, and who hit “delete”; what stories are popular, and which ones aren’t. With a print newsletter, recipients may read it, or they may toss it – you’ll never know.
• And speaking of data, your advertisers will be thrilled to know how many people visited their website – and perhaps even hired them or bought their product because someone clicked on their ad in your e-newsletter.
• Keep the conversation going with social media. With your on-line newsletter you can actually engage with your audiences, either in the comment section, or even better – with social media. Your on-line e-newsletter is a great way to drive your readers to your social media pages (and your website itself), communicating with your audiences and finding out what they’re really thinking about you.
• Also - it’s “green”.

Amazingly, the main objection to an on-line newsletter is usually this: Somewhere out there exists a mythical, 90-year old person who doesn’t have e-mail or use the Internet. Needless to say, I’m dubious.  After all, we live in a world where 84% of Baby Boomers – who are now well into their 60s – say that the Internet is an essential, like bread and milk in a Rhode Island snowstorm. I’ve never met this person who isn’t on-line, or learned their name, but this person is the reason why people tell me they can’t possibly put their newsletter on-line.

Nevertheless, if you’re in print and thinking about the transition to an on-line e-news, I have a solution for the “90-Year-Old Person Who Doesn’t Use the Internet” problem which works like a charm. I’d be glad to share it.

Our client the Rhode Island Society of CPAs has a very successful on-line newsletter called “What Counts.”  Not only does the Society enjoy all the benefits of an on-line newsletter I described above, they also defray nearly the complete cost of the publication with advertising, which you can see at the bottom of this – and every - page when you click here.

And yes, we are prepared for that “person who is not on-line.”  If that person calls the Society they will print this version, and mail it to him or her. First class.

If you have an existing print newsletter, you need to be thinking about how to transition to an on-line edition as soon as possible. If you don’t already have a newsletter, and are preparing to start one, the only place you should be publishing is on-line.

If today’s media covered the Gettysburg Address…

President Lincoln’s Remarks at Cemetery Dedication Disappointing

---

President’s address, only 3 Minutes Long, Lacked Substance

It was the greatest battle ever fought to date on the continent - over 50,000 casualties were suffered.  So many of those in attendance at the dedication of the Gettysburg Nations Cemetery yesterday were somewhat taken aback by President Lincoln’s address to the crowd in this small southern Pennsylvania town.

In a three minute speech that contained only ten sentences, Lincoln offered nothing new in the way of strategy or a plan for winning the war, now approaching its fourth year.

‘There was no plan offered here today,” said one pundit. “It was just another speech from another politician.”

“Somehow, I expected more from him,” he added.

The President’s uninspired performance was judged by some to be a reflection of the Union effort in the battle at Gettysburg earlier this summer, and the Northern campaign as a whole.  Despite a major loss of life suffered by Union forces, the battle did not end in a decisive Federal victory.  In fact, many experts have severely criticized the Union Commander, Gen. George Meade, for his decision allowing Gen. Robert E. Lee’s crippled Army of Northern Virginia to escape across the Potomac River in the two week period following the battle. Lincoln did not address this issue in his speech.

The battle, culminating the second major Confederate invasion of Northern territory in as many years, was within minutes of becoming a catastrophic Federal defeat at several points.

Some military consultants say Lee’s defeat was due only to the absence of Gen. Thomas E. “Stonewall” Jackson, who died two months before Gettysburg at the Battle of Chancellorsville. 

The irony of the circumstances surrounding Jackson’s death was not lost on one expert at yesterday’s ceremony.

“It wasn’t even Union troops who killed Jackson,” chuckled the observer. “He was accidentally killed by his own men.”

This fact only reinforces the widespread belief that Northern forces, who have consistently outnumbered Confederate units throughout the war, can only win when Southern troops present them with a “can’t miss” opportunity to do so.

“Even then, it’s an iffy proposition,” the consultant added.

With Election Day less than a year away, most political experts saw today’s speech as a way for Lincoln, who only received 39% of the vote in 1860, to galvanize support. Most polls show the President trailing badly, and many Northerners have grown weary of the fight, as this summer’s draft riots in New York City showed.

“Lincoln’s political prospects are dim, and his lackluster performance today didn’t help him any,” said one Washington-based consultant. “He missed a golden opportunity to crystallize the case for the Union, outline a strategic plan for victory and help his re-election bid.”

Observers noted yesterday that even after the Federal victory at Vicksburg, touted by Lincoln as “cutting the Confederacy in two,” the South fights on ably and effectively.

Instead, the President offered a speech laden with platitudes about the battle and its fallen heroes. Short on facts and substance, Lincoln made no reference even to the number of Union dead felled at the battle. His awkward gimmick of “four score and seven years ago,” a device he used to note the 87 years which have passed since the signing of the Declaration of Independence, fell flat.

“The world will little note nor long remember what we say here,” Lincoln said. From the reaction to his speech, the President was right on both counts.

Nov. 20, 1863

The Patriots Were Ready in a Crisis

Loyalty is a two way street.  For instance, when a football team signs a player to a 7-year, $40 million contract, with $26.5 million of that guaranteed to the player, the team has a reasonable expectation that the player will not be indicted for first degree murder.

Aaron Hernandez didn’t keep up his end of the bargain this summer. As a result, the Patriots moved quickly and effectively to sever their relationship with him. Here’s how they got it right:

They Were Decisive

It’s rare for pro athletes to pay a price on the field, and in their wallets, for brushes with the law – particularly in the NFL.  What usually transpires is an elaborate rationalization of “errors in judgment” “regret", faux-“responsibility”, “let the process play itself out” - or just plain gibberish. 

The Patriots did none of that (although there was an initial stumble by owner Bob Kraft.)  Certainly the severity of the charge against Hernandez helped clarify their thinking, but the team didn’t indulge in the usual language of equivocation. They just cut him.

What makes this even more impressive is that according to media reports, had Hernandez been under contract and unable to play because he was in jail or suspended by the league, the Patriots might have been able to save up to $37 million.

They Understood that a Crisis is not the Right Time to Save Money

The Patriots calculated that the damage to the team’s brand was greater than the millions of dollars that it would cost them to cut Hernandez, plus the cost of some free uniform jerseys (see below).  Similar to US Airways brilliant handling of its passengers after one of their planes landed in the Hudson a few years ago, the Pats understood the costs and made the (correct) decision to pay them. 

They Were Prepared

The biggest enemy of preparedness is indecision.  Since the Patriots had taken the time to think things through and arrive at a decision, they were ready to act without delay when Hernandez was arrested.

It’s a Rule: The Media Needs Someone to “Take Responsibility”

The Patriots realized that, and Bill Belichick got the job.  "I'm primarily responsible for the people that we bring into the football operation.” Belichick had characteristically left you wondering about the depth of his sincerity, but he had checked the “responsibility” box, and defused the line of questioning.  (Conversation for another day:  You have to wonder how effective this would be if the Coach didn’t have three Super Bowl rings and a .729 winning percentage in New England.)

They Didn’t Add Fuel to the Fire

In this case, the Patriots got a “Twofer”, because nobody can remove fuel from a fire like Bill Belichick (see above).  Belichick’s unique ability to stick to his message worked well here.

Nobody Said “No Comment”

No comment – the worst possible thing you can say, at least explicitly.  In this case, particularly in the immediate aftermath, Belichick effectively delivered the “no comment” message, but in the most effective way –

• “I think we already addressed that.”
• “I don’t have anything further on that.”  
• “I’m not going to dwell on that.”  
• “I’ve got to focus on winning for our football team.”
• Etc.

The media knew they weren’t going to get anything more out of him, so they stopped asking.  And the fire goes out.

They Got a Little Lucky

Fortune favors the prepared they say, and in this case, the Patriots preparation yielded a little bit of luck: on the same day Hernandez was arrested and the Patriots cut him, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long awaited ruling regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  This helped reduce the intensity of the media spotlight on Hernandez, at least for that crucial day. If the Patriots had been indecisive and not prepared to act in the immediate aftermath of Hernadez’ arrest they would not have benefited from the dilution of the media attention created by the DOMA ruling.

They Thought of Practically Everything

Giving yourself enough time to think clearly in a crisis can pay enormous dividends.  In this case, the Hernandez arrest was actually more about the Patriot’s brand than anything else – including winning on the field.  The Patriots realized quickly that in a region where almost everyone owns a player game jersey it would be damaging to have thousands of people walking around wearing the team jersey of an accused murderer who was no longer on the team.

They acted quickly to get the Hernandez jerseys off the street by offering a free replacement at the Gillette Stadium gift shop.  (At the same time they also no doubt collected an enormous amount of very valuable consumer data about fans passionate enough about the team to drive to Foxboro to get new jerseys.)

“We know that children love wearing their Patriots jerseys, but may not understand why parents don’t want them wearing their Hernandez jerseys anymore,” Patriots spokesperson Stacey James told the media. “We hope this opportunity to exchange those jerseys at the Patriots ProShop for another player’s jersey will be well-received by parents.”

Post Game

In the aftermath of the team’s success in countering the crisis communications challenges raised by the Hernandez case, Coach Belichick would be justified in offering his standard analysis after a Pats win:  “I think we executed some things well today.  Anything else?  Thank you.”

What Does That Poll Really Mean?

Now’s the season for political “polls,” but what do they really mean – if anything?

There are two reasons to conduct a poll:
1. To find out information that you need to know.
2. To get some degree of validation for information that you want others to know.

Reason #1 is the political equivalent of market research. Some may find this idea unsavory because of worries that it could lead to pandering by candidates. Well, maybe. Certainly poll-driven candidates are out there, but I give voters more credit for seeing through them. In reality, it’s crucial for candidates to have good information about what voters care about in order to stay in touch with the electorate’s top priorities. If a candidate wants to talk about apples, but the electorate wants to know about oranges, the campaign’s in trouble. A poll can help a candidate know what voters want to know about – and address those concerns.

Unfortunately, polls with reliable numbers are hard to find and expensive. What makes it hard – and expensive - to conduct a good poll?
• You need good callers who understand the questions and ask them the right way;
• You need callers who can be trained to pronounce candidate names and place names correctly;
• Informative polls are long, and it’s difficult to get people to stay on the line all the way through to the end;
• It’s harder to find voters in the era of the cell phone, which are off-limits to pollsters by law;
• It takes time and a real expertise to draft a sound, useful questionnaire;
• It takes time and expertise to interpret the data, weighing it properly so it’s reflective of area demographics.

In short, the kind of good data you need for the first kind of poll is expensive and difficult to come by – and becoming even more so.

Which brings us to the second kind of poll. These tend to be notoriously unscientific and rigged to score points for whoever is releasing it. Your radar should really go up if poll numbers are released by a political party, an organization affiliated with one or a special interest group.

In reality, all public polls should be greeted with healthy skepticism. Media outlets used to do them with the necessary rigor, but few can afford it anymore, with some national exceptions (NY Times, CBS, etc.). Local media outlets are, for the most part, unwilling to spend the money it takes to get really good data. They usually settle for on-line polls or automated telephone polls. (I think my dog Buster responded to one of those the other day.) What you end up with is very cheap data that barely passes the accuracy laugh test – but is reported by the media with a straight face. The best information is usually found in the hands of well-funded candidates, and jealously guarded like the precious commodity that it is.

If you want to know who’s really up and who’s down, the best indicators are not public polls but the activities of the candidates. If they’re spending precious time and resources campaigning in neighborhoods, towns, counties or states they are expected to win, they’re in trouble. If they’re launching a desperate attack on an opponent, they’re in trouble. But if they’ve kept a consistent message, are counter-attacking from the high ground, and campaigning in areas that are considered a toss-up, they’re looking at good numbers.

What Could Schilling Have Done?

Below is an e-mail interview I recently did regarding the travails of Curt Schilling and his company, 38 Studios.  I’d be interested in your comments on my responses.
-  DP


From: Jeff Derderian [mailto:jeffderderian@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:43 AM
To: dpreston@nharbor.com
Subject: Schilling Piece-GoLocalProv.Com

Hey David--

I hope this note finds you well.

I write a weekly media piece for GoLocalProv these days and I am doing a piece on Schilling and his lack of media response.  We'll look at from PR perspective---what Schilling could have done differently to handle this better. 

I'm wondering if you might be able to answer a few questions for my piece---which will run Tuesday.  I'll put it together over the weekend if you have time to get back to me on it.

Thanks, David.

Jeff

Jeff Derderian
Media Writer
-----

From: David Preston [mailto:dpreston@nharbor.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 12:16 PM
To: 'Jeff Derderian'
Subject: RE: Schilling Piece-GoLocalProv.Com

Hi Jeff – Good to hear from you. 

These are hard questions to answer since I’m missing some key information: 

• What is this the financial condition of 38 Studios? (Other than “bad”).  
• What were/are Schilling’s business goals for 38? 
• Does he know of, or suspect, that there has been any malfeasance involved?  (I am an attorney, but before answering this last question, he would probably want to hire our firm as a sub-contractor to his law firm in order to preserve attorney-client privilege.  This is something we do quite often in a crisis communications situation.)

I should also note that I’m approaching your inquiry as if Schilling, personally, were the client.  If my client was an agency of Rhode Island state government, an individual in government, or the theoretical “Citizens of Rhode Island”, my answers to these questions would be very different.

Communications is not an end in itself -  all communication, crisis or not, should support the goals of an organization, and be designed to create a climate where those goals can be achieved.  38 Studios disintegrated so rapidly that there may not have been anything Schilling could have done business-wise.  If so, all that is left is to try and protect his reputation.

If, as it appears, this is a case of protecting his reputation, I’d advise him to be candid and forthright about how things happened, thank and praise his employees, express regret and accept responsibility for his role.  Above all, he should avoid bitterness or finger-pointing at all costs.

The only possible business scenario that works here would have been that some type of private investment was imminent, and 38 Studios just needed a bridge – money, time or both – to realize the new capital.  In that scenario, I would advise him to make the case that 38 was on the verge of new capital, and that the state would be positioned to preserve and reap the benefit of their entire investment with just a little more time and/or money.

The bridge scenario is unlikely, so it’s probably now strictly about his reputation.  The bottom line with Schilling’s silence so far is that what Rhode Islanders think about Curt Schilling may not be a priority for him.  He also knows that outside of Rhode Island very few people that matter to him will be concerned about this.  If this happened in Massachusetts, New York or California he would have to respond much differently.

Here's a list of questions--and feel free to add any perspective I may be leaving out. 

Q:  What should have Schilling done immediately---press release?  Sit down with all three TV’s? One on one interviews?  If so, why?  What would that have done? 
A:  In the scenario where funding was imminent, I would recommend that he define his position very quickly with a clear, direct written statement.  I would let that stand for about a day, and see what kind of reaction it gets, particularly from decision-makers in government, and in the private capital markets.  From there, I would follow up with a day or two of one-on-one interviews - Rhode Island, Boston and nationally - to further press the case for a bridge.  Stringing these out over a couple of days would allow him to calibrate his message in response to developments, and allow him to define the conversation by constantly creating “news.”  One-on-ones are more conducive to the appearance of a conversation.  They also convey a sense that regardless of what is going on around him, Curt Schilling is calm, rational, thoughtful and accessible, i.e., direct and has nothing to hide.

Q:  Allow workers to talk (about) how they tried to make it work, etc.?
A:  It’s very rare to see the kind of media discipline among employees that seemed to be almost unanimous at Studio 38.  (I would caution him, however, against overtly trying to manufacture expressions of support.)  At this point, with it likely that only Schilling’s reputation is at stake, the employees could be helpful in defining Schilling as someone who had built a strong, team-oriented culture.  Last Friday’s “We Love Curt” sign in the window, regardless of who posted it, reinforces the impression that Schilling is well-regarded by his ex-employees and that he had earned their loyalty.

Q:  Is too late for him to get in front of this?  Why – why not?
A:  From a business perspective, it’s probably over.  From the standpoint of preserving his reputation, I’d advise him to do a couple interviews with friendly reporters (probably in Boston or a couple national sports reporters).  He should be candid and forthright, thank and praise his employees, express regret and accept responsibility for his role. 

Q:  What would you advise him NOT to do?
A:  No finger-pointing or bitterness.  This is unlikely to damage him outside Rhode Island, unless he brings it on himself by appearing to be a self-absorbed, entitled jock who blames everyone but himself, tells lies or denies incontrovertible evidence (see: Roger Clemens, Pete Rose)

Q:  Does this hurt his baseball great image?
A:  This is an interesting question, because the consensus seems to be that he is “on the bubble” for the Hall of Fame, something that would matter very much to a guy like him. Fortunately for him, most – if not all – of the people who elect players to the Hall are from outside Rhode Island.  In order to make sure this doesn’t damage him with Hall voters, the interview regimen I outlined above becomes even more important.  If the interviewer is also a Hall of Fame voter, so much the better.

If he executes the interviews well, they should be enough to prevent this episode from damaging his Hall of Fame prospects - and there are scenarios where it might even help.

However, his career as a political activist may not be as robust as it once was, and the days of delivering his stump speech about how government should stay out of the private sector are probably over.

Q:  When advising crisis clients who don’t want to talk — what do you tell them and why?
A:  It is exceedingly rare for silence to be a good option.  In almost every instance I tell clients that they have to fill the vacuum and define their position on their own terms, even if it is only with a written statement.  Keeping silent is a dangerous choice – it lets other people define you on their terms, which is almost without exception a bad idea.  In this case, however, silence doesn’t seem to have done Schilling any meaningful harm – yet.  As facts become known, however, silence will become an increasingly risky choice for him.

Q:  If Schilling were to call you—what is the one thing you would tell him?
A:  I’d ask him how he viewed the viability of the business.  If, as I suspect, he told me it was over, I would suggest that he take steps to protect his reputation.  The lawyer in me would recommend that his attorneys hire our firm as a subcontractor.  We’d set up a couple interviews and we’d put him through some intense media training.

New Name, New Look

When you've been in business for more than 100 years, like the Visiting Nurse Service of Greater Rhode Island, changing your name and look is a very big decision. You have to get it just right, making certain that the change reflects your brand, your mission and - in this case - a long tradition of caring. Getting it right requires thoughtful research, constructive brainstorming, and strategic planning.

Yesterday afternoon, in the State House rotunda, the result was unveiled, when the non-profit, home health care provider announced it was formally changing its name to Visiting Nurse Home Care.

The process began last summer, as we helped their team navigate the complex process of the name change and rebranding. We helped outline the challenges inherent in their previous name and zeroed in on what the new name could say to better represent their services. They also wanted to reflect the unique human caring that every member of the VNHC team brings to what can be a challenging task. When it was over, we were confident that the new logo's look and feel was a perfect match for the new name and the 103-year old organization.

We want to congratulate Visiting Nurse Home Care on this major milestone, and we look forward to working with them in the months ahead to let people know about their new identity.

Famous for Being Famous

Somewhere along the way in our cynical universe the phrase, “Any publicity is good publicity” became the mantra in some quarters. In fact, it’s not true, and self-evidently so. Just ask BP, Goldman Sachs or Toyota if they’re pleased with the publicity they’ve received over the past year, and whether that publicity has made the company more profitable. Clearly, the answer is no.

But while “bad” publicity is rarely a good thing, there are a small handful of circus acts out there where Barnum’s old adage, "I don't care what you say about me, just spell my name right" still does apply. Primarily, this is reserved for those who are famous for being famous. Then, almost any publicity is a good thing.

For instance, Paris Hilton. Most of my clients (all, in fact – at least so far) would view getting busted for cocaine possession as a bad thing. But for Paris, it’s all in a day’s work. She gets coverage for the arrest; then she gets coverage for tweeting about the arrest; then she gets banned from a Las Vegas casino; then there’s the court appearance; then she gets publicity for the time honored Mick Jagger/Paul McCartney Denied Entry to Japan stratagem. It’s practically endless, but all feeds into her unending quest to be famous and talked-about (er, tweeted about).

For Paris, the “bad” publicity actually pays off, in a diversified, far-flung business empire which includes nightclubs, cosmetics, a clothing line, an energy drink (at least at one time), a best-selling autobiography published when she was 24 and, last, but certainly not least - herself! Paris reportedly gets hundreds of thousands of dollars just to show up at parties.

“If it's in Japan, I get more,” she once said. Great work.

So, yes, there are rare instances where any publicity is good publicity. But not many, and not if you take yourself seriously. Because unless you’re Paris Hilton, a rapper/gang-banger, Mike Tyson or PT Barnum, there are a lot of ways to get publicity that isn’t good, and is actually harmful. I wouldn’t recommend any of them.


Posted by David Preston

Lessons from Tuesday's Elections

Every election teaches lessons, and last Tuesday’s primary elections in Rhode Island were no exception. Here’s a brief summary of lessons learned:

1. An absence of polling data introduces an element of old-school uncertainty to campaigns that is actually kind of exciting – at least for the voters and observers. Independent polls aren’t in the budget for media outlets anymore, so we’re pretty much flying blind. Polls are also difficult to conduct in an era with fewer land lines and people who have less time to answer 15-20 minute questionnaires. For instance, on Tuesday morning it was anyone’s guess who would win races for Mayor of Providence and Attorney General – something that would have been unthinkable ten years ago.
   
   
2. The fragmented nature of TV advertising has made it too expensive for “down-ballot” candidates (i.e., everyone in Rhode Island except candidates for Governor or federal offices) to afford making a meaningful impression. There are some exceptions, i.e., Gina Raimondo, the Democratic candidate for General Treasurer -- a fundraising powerhouse. But newcomers without personal resources and some name recognition are at marked disadvantage.
   
   
3. With TV less of an option, radio, the web and an effective ground game that gets out the vote take on even more significance. David Segal, an underfunded candidate for Congress, got 20% of the vote in a four-way race with an impressive web presence, effective ground game, enthusiastic, committed supporters and an overall smart campaign.
   
   
4. The U.S. Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision has cleared the way for “independent expenditures” - constitutional expressions of free speech by companies and organizations for and against candidates in campaigns which had previously been illegal. But no longer. Nationally, corporations and billionaires are pumping millions into Congressional races, but here in Rhode Island it was organized labor that made the most prominent use of independent expenditures. Watch for much, much more of this as time goes on, until legislatures act to regulate the practice.
   
   
5. Because the participants can be mediocre, and the results are often mediocre – or less -- successful businesspeople sometimes think they can parachute into a campaign and win. They would be wrong. In this election cycle there have been a few examples in Rhode Island where success in business has not translated into success in politics. Here’s my advice for political newcomers: Get the most experienced, savviest help you can find with an up-to-date understanding of what it takes to win in 2010 (or whatever election year you happen to be in), be prepared to spend a great deal of your own money, and absolutely be ready for Prime Time when the curtain goes up. Why? Because politics is a whole different ball game (or plumbing job.)
   
   

Posted by David Preston

“How Did Tiger Do?”

Many people have asked me, "How do you think Tiger Woods did?"

My initial response was that it depends on the answer to a central question I pose whenever considering a communications strategy: What were Tiger’s goals?

Was his goal to get the issue behind him so that it’s not a distraction when he returns to golf? This is the most readily achievable objective. For some, it is a goal that he may have already accomplished with his public apology.

Was his goal to make himself more marketable as a pitchman for potential sponsors? If so, he’s got a long way to go before winning back that kind of corporate trust.

Was his goal to redeem his reputation and stop being the nation’s favorite punch line? This may happen as the initial shock fades, but not any time soon. And like Bill Clinton, Tiger’s going to have to live with the fact that this unflattering episode is destined to appear near the top of his obituary.

Was his goal to save his marriage? Some of Tiger’s remarks seemed to be aimed at accomplishing that important goal more than any other, but we’ll have to see what happens there.

Overall, Tiger’s performance last Friday was a good one. He did all the right things. He did not try to pass the responsibility for his behavior onto anybody else. He did not make excuses, and he didn’t whine. Tiger accepted full responsibility for his behavior in a complete and unequivocal way something that is very unusual for these kinds of celebrity apologies, particularly for athletes.

One notable comment in Tiger’s speech, which struck me as a parent, was that he specifically expressed regret that children who held him up as a role model had been let down and disappointed. He made a point of apologizing to both children and their parents. That’s in marked contrast to most other athlete apologies, where the fallen star says, "It’s not my fault or responsibility that your kid looked up to me as a role model, and if your kid was let down, that’s your problem, not mine." This was not your standard apology of the Roger Clemens/Barry Bonds/Kobe Bryant variety: "If you were offended, I’m sorry that you were offended, but I’m not sorry for anything that I did because it’s somebody else’s fault." In his almost 14-minute apology, Tiger used no weasel words.

So Tiger’s performance was good, as far as it went. But in order to complete the process, and achieve at least some of his goals, Tiger will have to sit down sooner or later and answer questions in a formal interview. There’s simply no other way to put this thing behind him.

Here’s how that interview will probably play out: Tiger’s advisors will reach out to a friendly interviewer and set very strict parameters for what can and can’t be asked. Ten years ago this interview would have gone to Barbara Walters. Today, however, my money’s on Oprah Winfrey, since Diane Sawyer and Katie Couric, as "hard" news anchors, won’t credibly be able to agree to the ground rules that Tiger’s people will require. Oprah will ask some tough – but not too tough – questions based on the parameters that will be established ahead of time. (If she’s really lucky, it will be in September, during the final week of her show – I know, I’m a cynic.)

And with that piece of business complete, Tiger will be able to approach the next step of the plan – starting to win golf tournaments again.

One final note: The biggest single element of Tiger’s attempt at redemption will be whether in fact he does save his marriage. If that were to happen, people would be in a position to say, "Well, if she can get by it, I guess I can, too." If the marriage is not saved, it will be a loose end that will make tying up the rest of it very difficult.

So the short answer is: Tiger did what he had to do last Friday, and he did it well. But there’s a long way to go before it’s over for him – if the exposure of multiple extra-marital affairs can ever really be over.

Posted by David Preston

New York Comedian Proves Universal Desire to Lend a Hand

This video stirred my nostalgia for New York. I lived in the city for almost three years, working as a reporter for the Associated Press and enjoying some great adventures from my closet of an apartment in the heart of Hell’s Kitchen. It’s the free-spirited sense of spontaneity among its residents that I miss most, and that is demonstrated in this short, offbeat film. Spontaneity exists elsewhere, too, but nowhere else will you find quite the kind of unlikely interactions among strangers that you see in New York.

In the clip, comedian Mark Malkoff sets out to be transported from the southernmost end of Manhattan to the northernmost end, only by having people carry him. They can give him a piggy back, hold him like a baby, hoist him over their shoulders or share his weight with a group – whatever it takes to help Malkoff make his destination without having to move himself.

His success depends on the kindness and open-mindedness of complete strangers in a city often characterized as unfriendly. But those of us who have actually lived there know otherwise. Sure, folks might be too busy or focused to nod and smile to every passerby. They might be abrasive in a crowd or push past you on the subway. But when it comes to doing something outlandish for a complete stranger’s pet project? Many of them espouse a healthy “why not?” attitude – they’re up for it “just because.”

“I am proving to the world that New York is a nice place,” Malkoff says at the beginning of the video. He then proceeds to ask random people on the street to carry him a few feet, a few blocks, whatever they can manage.

During the course of his quest, not only do more than 150 people offer to assist him up the island, but many of them open up and tell him about their families, relationships or what they’re cooking for dinner. He receives cooperation from a diverse array of pedestrians – men, women, young, old, individuals, couples and large groups, and a cross-section of races and ethnicities. He even takes advantage of the virtual community, sending out Tweets when his luck runs thin on the street. People on Twitter see his cries for help and come to his aid.

All in all, it’s a good lesson in assuming the best of people and managing to rally them toward a common cause in which they have very little personal investment.

On a far more serious note, we have been seeing a lot of this public spirit during the last few weeks in the wake of the earthquake in Haiti. The amount of money that has poured into the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations since the devastation hit has been amazing.

How does this translate to good PR? Good PR depends on knowing your public. Good customer service, good marketing, good advertising, successful media campaigns all have one thing in common: They know their audience and treat them with respect.

Assume the best of people, and in many cases they’ll rise to the occasion. Just who is your audience? It could be the next person who shells out a generous donation for victims of a natural disaster in a foreign country, or the next person who offers to carry a complete stranger on his back for no good reason.

Malkoff dared to assume that New Yorkers – so often mislabeled as mean and uncaring – were actually nice and supportive. As a result, he got carried all the way to 140^th Street. Imagine what might happen if you or your company did likewise, and assumed the best of people?

Posted by Hillary Rhodes

Learn from Those Who Chase the Spotlight

It’s our job to help people and companies monitor media attention or manage potentially harmful coverage, so when somebody seems to crave the public eye for all the wrong reasons, it piques our interest.

The latest dubious episode of shamelessly courting the spotlight is the couple now known as the White House party crashers. Tareq and Michaele Salahi claim they were invited guests to the exclusive state dinner. The White House says otherwise.

In recent months, it seems self-imposed public embarrassment has reached new extremes. First there was Jon and Kate, willing to expose their questionable parenting and marital skills to a national audience. Then there was the infamous “balloon boy” saga, which brought bad parenting for the sake of fame to new heights. And now, there are the White House “Don’t Call Us Party Crashers” party crashers.

As the e-mails between a White House representative and the Salahis come to light, it is still uncertain how an uninvited couple could arrive and be admitted to a high-security, invite-only event. The lines of truth are blurry. Could they have been confused about being welcomed at the event? Is this just a reality television stunt for Bravo’s show “Real Housewives of D.C.”?

What these people, so eager for attention, seem to overlook is how uncomfortable and potentially incriminating it is to find oneself caught in a lie. It’s not very becoming – or legal, for that matter – to come uninvited to a White House dinner or to make your child lie to officials after pretending all day that he was stuck in a balloon when you knew perfectly well he was safe at home.

We think of these episodes as good teaching moments for our clients and blog readers. Not that we expect anybody we know to pretend that his kid is in a balloon 7,000 feet in the air or sneak into President Obama’s parties. But on a smaller level, these fiascos are still relevant. Remember that video, images and audio recordings can all be transmitted much more easily these days than they used to be. If you think you’re leaving a private voicemail to a colleague or friend’s phone, think again. It can always be made public with the click of a button. The line between public and private grows blurrier by the day. Something you might want your friends only to know about (say, a slightly embarrassing photograph of you on Facebook), could easily slip out of your control and end up in the public sphere. Just ask Tiger Woods.


Posted by Hillary Rhodes

Even the Anti-Social Need to Pay Attention to Social Media

Blogging, twittering, facebooking, it can be a bit overwhelming.

But every day we’re reminded how these new communication tools are taking a leadership role in driving dialogue, nationally and locally. Not just dialogue about movie stars, fashion or special sales - but also about important issues like healthcare, the war in Afghanistan and our economy.
For corporations and individuals who carefully guard their reputations, ignoring the “social” media can be devastating.

Take the Friday after Thanksgiving Day blog post about the reputed “black screen of death.” It accused Microsoft of releasing a faulty security program with its new Windows 7 that caused computers to go black and crash.

Posted on Friday November 27 by an obscure computer security company, and allowed to flourish unanswered, the “black screen of death” claim spread with alarming speed.

By Monday morning the blog post had morphed into a news story picked up by wires, PC World, ComputerWorld, CNN and MSNBC. With each repetition the story gained credibility. And with each hour the story was repeated by dozens of additional publications each quoting the other. Mind you, there was still no substantiated connection between Microsoft and the “black screen of death”.

Finally, ZDNet’s Ed Bott tracked down the destructive roots of the story, the sloppy journalism and sluggish public relations that allowed it to flourish.

By Monday afternoon- as a few good journalists got around to asking Microsoft for comment- the headlines turned... but only slightly. As Bott notes the new headlines didn’t help much:

“Microsoft is investigating… Microsoft is probing… Microsoft is looking into the problem… And then, finally, on Tuesday afternoon: Microsoft denies blame for ‘black screens of death’. Oh, really? By the time your name appears in “So-and-so denies…” headlines, you are toast. Ask Tiger Woods.”

Used to be you’d have more time before turning into toast- at least a couple of news cycles. Now it happens in a matter of hours, or even minutes, at the speed of one quick key stroke.

For those who have yet to dive into the “social” media- the “anti-social” among us- there are quick and easy ways to get started. Our basic advice as you put your toe in the water: get an interactive website, set up a blog, sign up for Twitter and establish an e-newsletter. This is your basic communication network, which will allow you to quickly reach your key audiences with accurate, up to the minute information. It doesn’t have to be time consuming, but it can be reputation saving.

Oh and about the black screen of death? Debatable on whether it even exists. But a couple of things do exist- a new “safety patch” sold by the obscure company that posted the first blog and of course out there in cyberspace- just waiting for a Google search- the hundreds of headlines, news stories and posts on the topic that sprouted up and left unchecked, ran rampant.


Posted by Dyana Koelsch

PR Ideas Are All Around

A good PR firm looks for inspiration everywhere. The best communication or marketing concepts can come from any place, and often from people who are not primarily focused on promoting a client. I like to look at the greater creative world for ideas that might be repurposed for the people who hire us. When I stumbled on this (http://niemann.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/bio-diversity/?hp), I immediately asked myself why I liked it so much, and what it can teach us about PR.

Here’s what I like about it:

• It incorporates out-of-the-box thinking. We all know the directive to “think out of the box,” but that’s easier said than done. It takes real thought and mind-bending to come up with something truly creative. Christoph Niemann, the Berlin-based artist of this piece, clearly had a million original thoughts when he conceptualized this project. Not only did he imagine simple leaves into new shapes, but he played with the words (“Birch and Ernie,” “Poplar and Un-Poplar”), and used inventive pairings of subjects.
  
  
• It’s playful, poignant and full of personality. Oftentimes, our clients need advice about very serious issues. In those cases, of course, it’s not effective or appropriate to be playful. But part of good PR is recognizing when to bite your tongue and when to put it in your cheek. Many companies have turned to humorous viral videos to promote a new product or get the word out about their services. Humor is a universal language, and if you know when and how to use it effectively, it can do wonders for getting yourself noticed. If not humor, why not tell a poignant story, or otherwise lend original personality to your message?
  
  
• It’s simple and aesthetically pleasing. Cleverness aside, Niemann clearly has an understanding for what draws the eye. This can be easily overlooked by a company eager to produce a message full of information. But sometimes simplicity says it best, and sometimes keeping the images and concepts clean will create a more compelling final product.
  
  
• It’s not what you think. Personally, I don’t like to be tricked. But I do like to be pleasantly surprised. Here, you expect to see pretty leaves, and upon closer inspection you see they have been altered. That is a fun revelation, and whets our appetite for more. Just as Niemann viewed an everyday object through the lens of an artist exploring all its possibilities, a company wanting original PR can think about how to reinvent everyday concepts for its own purposes. What will make your constituents, clients or customers chuckle? What will make them think in new, inspiring ways? What will make them remember you and want more of what you have to offer?
  
  

Posted by Hillary Rhodes

It's never too early for PR

It’s never too early to start incorporating public relations into your business plan…as illustrated recently by the high stakes race between paint retailers Sherwin Williams and Benjamin Moore to attract new customers.

Both companies released slick i-Phone applications this summer that allow users to snap a picture- whether it be of a flower, an upholstered chair or seashell - and instantly match it to one of the thousands of hues in the paint companies’ system, while at the same time harmonizing and coordinating palettes. The apps even provided directions to the nearest store.

Actually Sherwin Williams was first out of the box with the new application. But that turned out to be largely irrelevant, because Benjamin Moore was first with its public relations campaign. In fact, Benjamin Moore’s PR campaign was in full swing months before its “ben Color Capture” application was even available to the general public. That meant Benjamin Moore scooped the free publicity and was featured in blogs and lifestyle stories in numerous media outlets including the New York Times.

The Benjamin Moore media blitz left Sherwin Williams in the unenviable position of having to pitch reporters and bloggers with an “us-too” story line. But once the story is done - it’s done. By the time Sherwin Williams launched its PR campaign, the cool “new” i-Phone paint app was simply old news.

Benjamin Moore’s product development director Carl Minchew, speaking at the Ad Age/ Appilicious Apps Brand Conference, said the application has received over 50,000 downloads and generated a surge in businesses that is still accelerating. “We got a lot of media coverage. We were seen as being first, much to the chagrin of our larger competitor. We beat them to the punch on getting the word out about our application and that seems to be more important thing than being first,” said Minchew

Getting their public relations underway early in the research and development phases gave Benjamin Moore a focused, multi-tiered campaign implemented for maximum effectiveness. Did it matter that Benjamin Moore wasn’t first with the new product launch? Clearly not. What mattered was the ability to get out early (first) with a coordinated PR campaign that defined the company as the industry leader.


Posted by Dyana Koelsch

Don't Try This at Home II

A while back we posted some thoughts about the dangers of going "off the record". Recently, President Obama ran into trouble wading through this uncharted territory, which is defined by the question: what, exactly, does "off-the-record" mean. This episode highlights a new question: does technology change those meanings?

The issue came up when the President called hip hop artist Kanye West a "jack-ass," in what Obama thought was an off-the-record conversation. (West, you may recall, stormed the stage and gave a foolish, self-centered speech in his native gibberish at this year’s VMAs, upstaging another artist who had actually won an award.) But the reporter in the interview from ABC Twittered it, and so it got "out there", much to the chagrin of the White House.

(This raises another question: Maybe I’m old school, but who, exactly, sits in the Oval Office fiddling with their Blackberry while conducting an interview with the President of the United States?)

The good news for the president? Well, his language wasn’t "too" salty, and he said something that most folks who cared actually agreed with.

Some of the discussion about "off-the-record" seemed to center around whether or not Twitter is a media outlet that would be covered by an off-the-record agreement. This strikes me as being besides the point, and ABC apparently agreed, apologizing for breaking their agreement with the President. But the real issue is the degree to which technology moved so fast that ABC’s editorial process couldn’t keep up. One more thing for reporters, Presidents and the rest of us in the business to be mindful of.

Also of note: if you listen to the recording, you can hear the President say, "Cut the President some slack," after his comments about West. This sheds light on my view that your ability to enforce an off-the-record agreement often depends, in part, on how much leverage you have. Sometimes you don’t have any leverage. If you’re the president, you would think that you and your press office have a great deal of leverage with covering media. Nevertheless, the president was out there; technology had let the cat was out of the bag and no amount of presidential leverage could get the cat back in. I just wouldn’t want to be that reporter going forward as I tried to cover the White House. ("Excuse me, Mr. Emmanuel would like a word with you.")

This episode highlights how dangerous the "off-the-record" waters can be, and offers an interesting window into how the speed of the new media can nullify old ways of managing the relationship between covering and covered.

Nevertheless, my advice to clients remains the same: be very, very careful out there.

Posted by David Preston

Make a Good First Impression

A likable, well-regarded professional I know left her old firm and started a new one, with her name on the door. They got off to a good PR start by sending out a press release and getting some ink. But when I tried to send a congratulatory note, things got tough. A quick search didn’t turn her up on LinkedIn, or any other social networking site, and a Google search directed me (and any new business that might be out there) to the old firm. Directory listings sent me to the same place.

OK, here we go – the website address! Oops, I need a username and password to get in? That’s probably where the phone number is, too.

Hmm. Give me a call if you’re trying something new – I’ll make sure this doesn’t happen to you.


Posted by David Preston

Coverage of Coverage

We’ve always said that landing good stories on behalf of our clients is just the beginning of good PR. Once the piece appears, we immediately seek an even wider audience by creating “ripples in the pond.” One way to do that is to push for “coverage of coverage.”

You may remember Juliet Vongphoumy, who calls our client, the Button Hole golf center, her “home club.” Last summer, the (then) high school freshman beat all the boys to win the state high school golf championship. We pitched Juliet’s story to Sports Illustrated, and she was recently highlighted in SI’s kids edition. Good coverage.

Then we let the Providence Journal know that Juliet had been in SI Kids, and there it is – coverage of coverage.

You might even say that with this blog, we’ve created coverage of coverage of coverage. And that’s the whole idea –to initiate not just a story, but a conversation.

If a good news item about you, your company or your organization is published, here are some easy ways to create ripples on your own:

• Post it on your website.
• Link to it (either the original source or its mention on your website) from your social networking sites.
• Create an e-mail vehicle to friends, clients and prospects with the link included.

Then get the conversation going.


Posted by David Preston

Advice for Captain Sully

“Sully” is now a household name, but what about the man behind the moniker?

The pilot who so gracefully brought down an engineless plane into the Hudson River on a frigid January afternoon without a single passenger casualty now has to grapple with an avalanche of book offers, interview requests, media pitches and fan mail. The hardest part (safely crashing a plane onto the river) might be over, but surviving all the attention will be its own type of challenge.

We’re not too worried about whether the oh-so-calm Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger can maintain his cool in the spotlight, but we do have some advice. (While we wouldn’t know the first thing about safely evacuating a waterlogged plane, dealing with public attention is what we do.)

America’s favorite pilot should take some time to think about his own personal and career goals, and take advantage of this newfound opportunity to pursue them. Is he thinking about retirement? A book deal could be a good money-making project to keep him busy after a lifetime of flying. Sully is a brand now, a brand that represents integrity and heroism. He can use that to pursue his goals, whether that means writing a book, growing his consulting company or holding himself out as a public speaker. Maybe he wants to raise money for a favorite charity, in which case the now-trusted Sully face could certainly go far.

Whatever he puts his mind to, we would strongly recommend that he maintain that apparently well-developed sense of dignity and humility above all else. That’s what’s appealed to folks so far, after all, and nobody likes to see a nice guy get full of himself once the cameras roll. In a country dealing with an epic financial crisis, eight years of diminished stature on the world stage, Bernie Madoff and a heaping daily dose of lurid celebrity news, people are thirsting for somebody they can trust. Even Obama can’t claim that he’s saved 155 lives.

Unlike many celebs or CEOs who make headlines, Sully actually has a pretty darn good approval rating in the public’s eye, so he can use that to his advantage. A true “Captain of the Ship,” he walked the aisle twice as the plane was taking in water and everybody else was out on the wings, just to make sure nobody got left behind. The Sully brand epitomizes a cool professionalism, modesty, ethics and class. The most important thing now is to guard that brand at all costs. Think carefully about who you give interviews to, Cap’n. Don’t let your story get over-hyped or slide out of your control. And don’t worry about saying enough is enough to the media after giving a few interviews. Leave them wanting more.

That way they’ll go out to buy the book or hear you speak or sign up for your consulting services or come to your fundraiser.

Posted by Hillary Rhodes

What’s it worth to you?

After a rough ride on the fast ferry from Quonset Point, RI to Martha’s Vineyard, an unhappy customer took the plane to Providence and a cab back to Quonset to get his car. Once there, he asked the ferry owner for his money back. The ferry owner told him to, basically, pound sand.

From there, the one-way passenger wrote a letter to the Providence Journal. So now, everyone can Google ‘Vineyard Fast Ferry from Quonset Point’ and get all the gory details in the letter which comes up fourth, before you even have to scroll down.

So what do you do? In the old days, “pound sand” was probably a safe answer. Now, the business owner may be better off very quietly refunding the handful of complaints along these lines (and they probably are very few). Refunding a dozen tickets a year is less harmful to the bottom line than having this type of letter on the web. However, once the refund number gets too high, you’d have to rethink things.

Of course, in a world where no good deed goes unpunished (and unpublished), the now happy ex-customer would probably reward your generosity by writing a letter to the paper praising you for graciously refunding their money - unleashing a deluge of similar requests.

PR Opportunities in Disguise

Opportunities for great PR are everywhere. Take the local business weekly’s annual “40 Under 40” feature where – you probably already guessed it - they honor 40 local leaders who are under 40. Each of the honorees is interviewed, resulting in 40 nice, glowing profile stories in a special section of the paper.

Here’s what I tell my friends who usually make up about half the honorees every year (everybody knows everybody in Providence): What the paper is really doing is giving you an opportunity to help them write a great marketing piece about yourself. After it’s published, the opportunities are endless - post it on your website (company and personal), post it where you use social media, e-mail the link to friends, clients, prospects, etc.

A chance like this makes taking a few minutes to prepare for the interview a good idea. Think of the message you want to relay, then use your answers to reinforce your theme(s).

And one last thing – take a minute to go back and see what the reporter has done in the past. It can’t hurt to mention the “good job” they did on a recent story, or see what questions they’re inclined to ask. (BTW - The ‘Favorite Movie’ question is a perennial for 40 Under 40, so don’t kill the gravitas by blurting out “Talladega Nights!”)