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.)