Talking Point

The Dictator and why he doesn't care what you think

By Craig Regan

There’s a saying in PR that there’s no such thing as bad publicity and, putting it bluntly, most of the time it’s a crock. That came to mind today when the Wall Street Journal asked if promotion of Sacha Baron Cohen’s movie “The Dictator” is savvy or just plain annoying.

The fact that the WSJ ran a piece about it answers its own (rhetorical) question.

If you’re a fan of Baron Cohen’s work (Ali G, Borat, Bruno) you’re going to think the antics of his latest character, Admiral General Shabazz Aladeen, are the stuff of genius. If you’re not, odds are that you aren’t part of the target audience anyway and will stay at home.

PR, like humour, is in the eye of the beholder. In this instance, the campaign objectives are to raise the profile of the new movie, persuade fans it’s worth shelling out their hard-earned to see and convert those who might be wavering into bums on seats.

It’s those waverers – the equivalent of political swinging voters – who will make the difference between a reasonable box office return and a record-breaking cash harvest.

Most PR is about that sometimes intangible quality called “brand.”

The pre-release phase of the campaign hasn’t been about positive or negative media coverage. “The Dictator” isn’t Qantas, K-Mart or Harvey Norman in the conventional sense of branding.  Consider this extract from the WSJ piece:

Monday's news conference was just the latest in a series of in-character publicity stunts. As General Aladeen, the actor has referred to "Today" co-host Ann Curry as ‘Matt Lauer's cleaning lady’ and, on a morning show in Australia, remarked that Prime Minister Julia Gillard ‘should have a sex change and become a woman’. Her office declined to comment.

Clearly, the more offence Baron Cohen causes, the more people will take notice.

I’m a fan of Borat and Ali G but haven’t seen “The Dictator.” If the reviewers pan it, and those box office waverers stay away in droves, it will prove the original point: No matter what some claim, you can’t polish excrement and stunts will only get you so far.

As to the WSJ's question - I'm leaning towards savvy.

 

Break out the popcorn: Your movie choice (supposedly) reveals who you are

By Craig Regan

You are what you watch, apparently. The New York Times carries “news” (termed applied loosely) about market research claiming your choice of movie reveals your personality.

“Fans of ‘The Avengers,’ for instance, are 18 percent more likely than the general public to…try new experiences,” research company Meebo says.

Then again, they might be fans of Marvel Comics.

“People looking forward to…’The Amazing Spider-Man’ are 34 percent more likely to be optimistic than the general public.”

Who makes up the “general public” and why they’re so down on the world remains a mystery.  

Meebo has even compiled its research into a pretty picture (they are called Infograms these days and they’re the hot online PR trend in the US) to make it easy to digest.

A couple of things to note here: Meebo isn’t really a research company. It’s another social media platform that pulls together a number of channel feeds in one place.

Apart from some cursory media reportage, there’s scarcely any information available about how Meebo reached its conclusions other than it conducted a survey.

Going on these lines, fans of 'Titanic' probably have a liking for holidaying in West Africa (there's no ice there) and people queing for 'The Hunger Games' need to go on a diet. 

While all this makes a Today Tonight phone poll look like an admission exam for Mensa, you have to question how it's going to sell movie tickets - if that was ever the intention.

More likely, it's a stunt to get people talking about Meebo. Getting them to join the platform is goign to need a whole different script.

 

Newsjacking and why pimping someone else's ride isn't as easy as it seems

By Craig Regan

“Newsjacking” is a colourful American PR term that means hijacking a breaking news story and inserting your own angle. In the Australian context, many try and few succeed and here are the reasons:

Despite what they might tell you, most Australian PR consultancies aren’t very nimble or responsive. Awakening at dawn and diving into the media to find out what news is breaking isn’t second nature unless you’ve worked as a political press secretary or journalist.

Once a rival story is running in the mass media, it’s almost certainly too late to seize the moment unless you jump ahead of the agenda and define where the issue’s going.

Even at the breaking stage, your story has to be more than good to change the news agenda. It must be newer, more unusual or a bigger game-changer than what’s already out there. That’s a judgement call based on experience and some gut feel.

If a client thinks their angle is the greatest story since 9-11 and it’s not, you need to have an honest relationship that lets you tell them it’s not. The same applies if buying into an issue isn’t a good idea.

Your PR company needs to know its way around the media. It’s no good firing out an email to an over-crowded or unattended in-box. Talking to someone senior on the newsdesk is imperative.

Newsrooms are chaotic places. A phone will ring out or be answered by a reporter’s neighbour who has no idea where their colleague is. That’s no time to be passive – it’s time to go up the line or find a roundsperson on their mobile.

Social media can be a useful tool here but it's no good tweeting if no-one's following. 

Lastly, the client needs to be prepared. Can they talk to the angle if journalists pick up on the angle and come calling? If they’re part of a large local company or multinational do they have authority to act without sign-off from someone else? Pre-agreed messages make all the difference.

It’s not as easy as inventing a colourful term.

Picture credit: Beyond PR blog

Why Puerto Rico's good news idea is doomed

By Craig Regan

In a variation on the “build it and they will come” theme, a radio station in Puerto Rico wants to turn around the island’s rampant murder rate by not reporting bad news.

Starting next Tuesday, the program "Noticias OK," will only report good news as a way to minimise violence on the streets.

The program’s host says "the distribution of news with a positive focus will be a balm that will improve the quality of life on the island".

The one-hour show will include segments called "Aplausos,” which will recognise people helping their communities, and "Musica OK," which will only play songs with positive messages. That rules out playing Led Zeppelin records backwards to reveal all those subliminal Satanic blatherings.

“Noticas OK” is basing its plan on market research with just 100 people in low-income communities.

Plenty of people have tried to launch good news media outlets in the past and have failed miserably. News, by definition, is something that changes the status quo.

The old saying in journalism: “If it bleeds, it leads” means the most dramatic news is what’s most prominently reported.

Puerto Rico recorded a record 1,136 homicides in 2011. Between 1980 and 2005 the average annual homicide rate was 19 per 100,000 people.

Love me, love my vending machine

By Craig Regan

In advertising they’re called Lovemarks and they’re defined as brands that consumers adore “beyond reason”. The theory is based on twin drivers of love and respect and goes like this…

Products don’t command love or respect. Fads attract love, but without respect they’re just a passing infatuation. Brands attract respect. On the other hand, Lovemarks command both respect and love.

Lovemarks are based on a holy trinity of mystery, sensuality, and intimacy. I’ll stop there before I’m driven to put on a sack cloth, hold hands with colleagues and sing kum-ba-ya.

Facebook is an iconic brand. Apple’s another obvious lovemark. In the USA, so is big retailer JC Penney. All these brands have their detractors but they also command vast amounts of love and respect among millions of people.

Coke’s been right up there as an iconic name for a very long time so it’s fascinating to see the brand-consumer relationship being played out in public on the University of Singapore campus this week.

Coke installed a vending machine emblazoned with the slogan “Hug Me”. If you do, you’re rewarded with a free can of the sickly soft drink. It's all in the video below with some footage tacked on of a cool interactive customer interface.

 

You can’t help but feel that a tactic like this might be the Next Big Thing for Australia’s politicians to restore their flagging relationship with voters. “Hi, I’m Julia or Tony – hug me,” has a certain ring to it.

Why the Olympic social media police won't come knocking

By Craig Regan

Lawmakers often overlook the unintended consequences of their actions. Take the London Olympics for example, where the self-declared “first social media Games” could turn decidedly anti-social.

The Brits have pushed an Act through Parliament to ensure the intellectual property rights of the London Olympics are protected.

Nothing unusual about that – it happened in Australia long before Cathy Freeman went anywhere near a naked flame. It’s just part of the price countries pay to hand over a city for a fortnight to the private company called the International Olympics Committee.

The Guardian newspaper reports that the British legislation goes much further than existing copyright protection. Legal opinion is that someone in the London crowd uploading a photo or footage to Facebook could be prosecuted for breaching criminal law.

The Guardian says using “2012” in connection with terms like “London”, “medals”, “sponsors”, “summer”, “gold”, “silver” or “bronze” is another likely breach. An event called the "Great Exhibition 2012" was threatened with legal action over its use of "2012" but it was later withdrawn.

With ambush marketing in mind, Twitter has agreed to work with the London organisers to ban non-sponsors from buying promoted ads with hashtags like #London2012

Back in the years BS (Before Social), the Australian Government was so sensitive to its own legislation that it referred to the 2000 event as “the Sydney Games” and avoided using The O Word in official communications.

Owners of the Olympic Hotel in Sydney’s Moore Park, located a short stumble across the road from a Games venue, were threatened with prosecution unless they changed its name, despite having long known by the O name.

Common sense prevailed and the dogs were called off.

Much of the same will probably apply in London, even if the draconian law looks, sounds and smells like an ass.

It might say on your ticket that you agree not to “license, broadcast or publish video and/or sound recordings, including on social networking websites and the internet".

But does anyone think the Olympic Police are going to knock on the door after you go home and confiscate your smartphone?

Unless you’re working for a non-Olympic sponsor, the PR consequences would be dire.

More on the games and social media here if you're interested (and that's where we borrowed the image.) 

Tatts not such great research

By Craig Regan

PR people and journalists love research and polls. From France comes this academic study that finds people with tattoos and piercings drink more alcohol than most.

Researchers breathalysed 2,000 people as they left bars in the province of Brittany. Patrons with body art and adornments returned higher alcohol readings than those without.

These differences in readings between the inked people and the cleanskins suggested that tatts may be a “marker” for alcoholism, according to scientists.

I suppose that's why they call boozing "getting on the ink".

Previous research had shown that people with tattoos and piercings were more likely to engage in unsafe sex, fighting and heavy drinking, the rationale being they are risk takers.  

People do like a drink in Brittany. An expat Australian mate owned a bar in a place called Morlaix (population 15,000) and when I visited a few years ago, his venue was in the top ten of French sales of Jack Daniels.

He was the only person in town who liked bourbon whiskey, so there was a message right there.

So is this (more) flawed research posing as news on a slow media day? Lighthouse’s preferred research partner Neil Stollznow of StollzNow Research:

"The problem is that it’s not a good sample. It is a big sample, but only of those who go out drinking. There could be a large number of people with tattoos and piercings who are at home watching the television.

"To make the conclusion they do you would have to randomly sample the population and then track them to see whether they go out, drink or get into trouble.

"The best you can say is that of the population who go out at night to bars those with tattoos and piercings are more likely to drink more – and although the differences in alcohol levels are statistically significant, they’re under the recommended level for confidence."

The bottom line is that there’s a strong case for research of almost any kind coming with an explanatory label.

Photo credit: Inkarttattoos

Online sole mates in six-inch stilettos

By Craig Regan

Working in PR throws up some interesting facts. One is that Malaysia is officially where retailing, social media and online lonely-hearts meet.

The New York Daily News reports that Kuala Lumpur retailer “Shoes Shoes Shoes” is offering customers a free date with every footwear purchase.

Women who buy a pair of shoes and leave their details are matched with potential partners by an online dating site. These men are selected from the agency’s database after nominating a pair of shoes that they like.

From there, it’s like an episode of Perfect Match, Malaysia-style, as the store’s Facebook site explains:

“Buy a pair of shoes from a gorgeous selection in the store and dating consultants will pair you with an eligible bachelor who likes the same shoe design as you and arrange for the two of you to meet. The end? Of course not. To prove that chivalry is still very much alive, a gift in the form of a shoe discount voucher awaits you on your first date, courtesy of Prince Charming. Sounds like a fairy tale? Well, who says life can't be one for real. So get to it girl! Let the shoes decide your destiny.”

At least there’ll be an icebreaker if both dating parties turn up in Prada pink and purple sling-backs.

Facebook comments have ranged from “brilliant” to “supremely creepy.” The media coverage is going gang-busters with 60-plus online news articles and counting.

Apart from consenting podiatrists engaging in mutual foot massages, does taste in shoes really make for compatibility? If there’s probably a scientific study that says so, you can bet the evidence will be as credible as last week’s horoscope.

Leaving aside puns about these shoe-focussed couples being toey or turning out to be heels, the reality is that shifts in match-making are as seismic as those in media. For example, a 2009 study found that nine percent of married Australian couples met online. 

While the date-and-dine thing looks more a quick grab for publicity than a way to put couples on the path to life-partner bliss, if the boot was on the other foot and you wanted to make a mark in retail, you might wish you’d thought of it first.

Photo credit: http://www.nextnature.net/2008/12/high-heels/

 

Brisbane floods teach a PR lesson

So the final report of the Queensland Floods Commission is out and recommends that three engineers working in the city's dam system be referred to the state’s Crime and Misconduct Commission. The story’s likely to dominate Queensland news for the next week, especially since there’s a State election in eight days time.

Putting the politics to one side and not inferring blame, there’s a lesson here for PR professionals – especially those working in crisis management. It runs along the lines of: No matter how prepared an organisation is for a crisis, a plan is only as good as the people charged with implementing it.

Most large organisations have crisis plans. Few bother to regularly test them. Many have a plan only because it required by their parent company or taxpayers.

The Lighthouse Communications crew has collectively worked on hundreds of those documents. We all agree that it’s one thing to have a plan but it’s another to invest in training the people who have to use it.

Working for one of our clients, I visited the Brisbane flood scene shortly after the waters subsided. The sight of people picking through stinking messes that were once backyards or scraping mud from the floors and inside walls of homes was devastating. It reinforced that the victims of a crisis - and those charged with managing it – are people and a natural disaster can take a heavy toll.

I recall working with another external PR consultant on a plan for a health technology company. Most of the plan was “his” intellectual property. It was actually off-the-shelf and wasn’t anything new. The colour-coded flow charts were very pretty, though, and the document looked great when it was printed and bound.

Crisis plans are not “size fits all”. They’re a prescriptive guide to what you might do when something hits the fan and people need to know how to use them.

Questioning Kony doesn't make you a baby killer

By Craig Regan

Unless you’ve been living under Uluru you’d know that a relatively low-profile, not-for-profit called Invisible Children is running a campaign to lift awareness of a murderous Ugandan warlord using YouTube as its main vehicle.

Now, this blog was going to be a Kony Free Zone but it’s an important public affairs and communications issue, so resistance seems futile.

The YouTube figures alone are amazing - 72 million “viewings” of the documentary in six days. It’s a long video by online standards which makes you wonder how many of those hits were for the full 30 minutes.

Facebook “likes” have rained down like Sydney’s dysfunctional wet weather. Links to the video, news articles and blogs have been passed around faster than a ticking package in a Middle Eastern market.

In communications terms, you can track the life cycle of almost every public affairs issue.

Given the right elements, media seize on a cause and drive its profile before a backlash sets in and its legitimacy is questioned.

For social media, simply increase the speed of the process many times over.

Weekend commentary expressed amazement that after initially embracing the Stop Kony campaign, so many people were questioning it.

To which you have to say: it’s the Internet, stupid.

Why not question something that rose from obscurity and seek evidence?  If you do, it doesn’t automatically follow that you support evil tribal gangsters.   

Invisible Children haveachieved one of their objectives of building broad awareness of their cause, even if most people are still light-on for detail. They've harnessed emotion and they've made millions of people feel empowered.

In public affairs, however, you need to go beyond bald metrics and look for results.

If the end game is stopping Kony by any means possible, the neutral but mildly supportive reaction from the US Government suggests a solution like that is already in the works.  

The question will be that if Kony is terminated “with extreme prejudice” will it be because millions of people clicked on a link on the Internet or because US covert operatives have been on the ground in Uganda for a long time?

If and when it happens, the scramble for the moral high ground will be frantic.