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.

 

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.

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/

 

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. 

 

Fishy tales of looking a gift horse in the mouth

 

By Craig Regan

Not all gift giving is good PR. I’ve never sent a present to a head-hunter – it seems too “try hard.” Americans do most things differently and it seems they’re not shy about sending recruiters a post-meeting gratuity.

This blog outlines 33 of the weirdest gifts sent by job candidates. The list includes a GI Joe doll, breast-shaped cupcakes, a stapled teabag and a bag of mixed nuts. 

Not all the presents went down well.

Of of them pale compared to the South Australian Government-funded marketing firm that sent industry influencers dead goldfish to spruik the state’s business relocation claims.

 

 

 

Cold snap or brain snap? Someone had their head in the clouds

 

By Craig Regan

 

It probably doesn’t rate as highly on the PR failure scale as an Italian cruise ship captain claiming he’d fallen into a departing lifeboat, but it’s a clear case of not looking before you leap.

The BBC reports that an advertising agency for car maker BMW last week took up the naming rights for a weather system on their client’s behalf.

The idea was that everybody talks about the weather so they’d mention a cold front called “Cooper”- and give the BMW-manufactured car model some profile.

Berlin’s Free University uses the “Adopt a Vortex” sponsorships to fund its meteorological service.

Their outlook probably didn’t foresee the severity of Cooper contributing to more than 100 local deaths.

BMW was forced into a defensive apology and is probably still counting the negative PR cost of their $250 outlay.

That damage won’t be lasting but you have to ask why an ad agency would recommend a sponsorship where the outcome was uncertain and any brand association upside negligible.

A bit of risk analysis never goes astray. Closer to home, if you plan on placing ads on an edgy FM radio breakfast show or sponsoring an accident-prone NRL or AFL team you might want to call us.