Talking Point

Three watershed moments for Julia Gillard's leadership

By Craig Regan

Are you sick of the Prime Ministerial soap opera? Take a holiday overseas or become a hermit. The Press Gallery loves a good leadership stoush - so prepare to hear much, much more.

The most likely scenario is that one of the warring parties will bring on a spill in a week and the loser - most likely Rudd, but a lot can happen in a few days - will zip off to the backbenches to plot some more.

If Gillard goes down, you can bet the media will look for turning points in her leadership. They’ve already being edited into neat TV packages that can be rolled out at a moment’s notice. So what will become these so-called watershed moments?

Putting aside the PM’s pre-election promise about “no carbon tax under a government that I lead” and the stumble over sending asylum seekers to East Timor, these are the contemporary events that stand out:

1. That speech to the ALP National Convention, wiping Rudd’s term as PM from the history books: It looked churlish, not Prime Ministerial, and fed into the image of disunity.
2. The Australia Day melee at The Lobby Restaurant in Canberra: That image of the PM being dragged into a waiting Comcar made her look helpless. That her office had a hand in stirring up an incident that led to pictures going worldwide posed serious questions about who was in charge.
3. The Four Corners interview: If you’re going to do an interview, have a game plan. Why not forcefully make it clear that leadership rumblings were underway before the Rudd coup but the decision to stand was taken at the last minute?

 

 

Laotian tourism deaths an exercise in poor issues management

By Stephanie Furler

There has been a torrent of media articles following the recent deaths of Australians in Laos and the near death of another. Much of this negative publicity calls for fresh regulations in the local tourism industry and prosecutions of people breaking the already existing (and fairly lenient) rules.

In case you missed it, the deaths have stemmed from “tubing”. This involves sitting in tyre tubes while floating down the Mekong River and stopping along the way to drink (excessively) at makeshift bars.

It all sounds fine - until ridiculously cheap and sometimes free home-brewed whisky is mixed into the equation. 

It’s then that backpackers start jumping from rickety two-storey towers and swinging from ropes into shallow, rocky water below.

   

So what can we take from these deaths from a PR perspective?

Tourism is Laos’ fastest-growing industry but there has been no public comment from the Lao National Tourism Administration, addressing the fatalities or the international backlash. 

Granted, it is a very strict Communist country and its values and way of life are different, but if this situation was applied to a business or government organisation in the Western World, the time to go public would have been a month ago. 

In some situations a “no-comment” policy works – but this isn’t one of them.

Businesses need to constantly assess their position when an issue becomes a public concern. Timely and appropriate comments can reassure the public and ensure that someone else doesn’t fill a news vacuum.

It is unlikely that any of the regulations being called for in Laos will be implemented, so it’s important for the Tourism Administration to work with international government agencies and media to educate tourists about the dangers of tubing.

The need for personal responsibility is a something that many journalists fail to mention in their stories and is a key message that the Tourism Administration should be pushing.

The only information on the Administration’s site that remotely resembles a warning about excessive behaviour (after much searching) is in comic form.

No mention of tubing. 

It is important that organisations tailor messages to their key audiences and clearly in this case, the message needs to be louder, broader and maybe delivered with less levity.

A carefree, unregulated holiday destination is an appealing prospect for many Australians, but if the negative publicity continues, tourists may be deterred from visiting Laos.

Stronger messages, better issues management and awareness campaigns are essential to keep this industry thriving.  

 

Whitney funeral will be media- managed to keep the peace

 

By Craig Regan

 

The news that Whitney Houston’s publicist has arranged footage of the late singer’s funeral service to be distributed throws a spotlight on a lesser-known media management practice called “pooling.”

Pooling is where one media outlet is chosen to film an event and shares the footage with competitors. It’s commonly used to limit media attendance where space is at a premium or their presence might be upsetting.

Witht he Houston story, squeezing a herd of American TV crews into a small Newark church wouldn’t have made much sense.

Barring attendance point-blank would have encouraged ultra-competitive reporters to push the envelope and sneak in a camera. The footage will be made available to TV news and sent all over the Internet.

Pooling is usually a good compromise even if it goes against the grain for many reporters.

Back when I was working as a go-between in media-police relations, pooling was sometimes used at funerals or at open-air crime scenes where evidence had to be preserved.

It’s a little-known fact that police find it useful to have access to TV crews’ unedited footage at events like homicide victims’ funerals . The rationale is that killers are often known to their victims - their behaviour might provide evidence to build a case – so cops often do some kind of deal with the media to maintain their distance.

A pool camera closer to the action can quietly provide the better footage that TV needs.

I went to biker funerals where allowing TV crew access would have been like throwing petrol onto a smouldering fire. If access for one crew (on the condition that they shared their footage) kept the peace, that was a good outcome.

Changing of the guard: Cooked to perfection

 

By Marcela Balart

You don’t need to look far to see how Apple has changed the way we live and shaped our future. The humble fruit symbol and white earphones, are now synonymous with the most valuable company on the planet today.

The world waited with baited breath for the moment when Steve Jobs would announce his successor.

And he chose wisely - if the media’s response and company’s continued growth is anything to go by. The spotlight has been on Tim Cook’s every move since he was announced as CEO in August 2011.

Filling Steve Jobs’ shoes was never going to be an easy task. Being the public face of an entity like Apple is not for the faint-hearted. Indeed, bumpy changes of leadership are not uncommon in Australia.

Only last week the CEO of wealth management company Perpetual, Chris Ryan, was sacked after less than a year in the position. Perpetual will continue with Ryan’s cost savings plans so was he doing such a bad job? The mixed messages have done little to raise confidence in the organisation.

One thing is certain; leadership is paramount during times of change.

In Cook’s case, his team has handled the change well. Since taking on the role, Apple's market share has risen to 23.8 percent (from 15.8 percent from the previous year.) The company sold 37 million iPhones over the past quarter, breaking its own record, and its share price topped $US500 this week for the first time.

After six months as CEO, Cook is coming into his own and setting himself apart from his late predecessor.

His most recent appearance at the Goldman Sachs Technology Conference in San Francisco has been reported as a success. The New York Times went as far as to call Cook Apple’s next big product in an appearance that showed more of his “personality” than previous addresses.

Cook touched on a variety of topics from investor relations, workplace issues, product plans and even the culture of the multi-billion company since Jobs’ passing.

The success was largely because Cook ticked the boxes needed to build trust with stakeholders. Here’s how he did it:

1. Tell the truth. Be honest, keep your messages simple and avoid jargon. Cook was prompted to discuss the future of Apple TV. While he was reluctant to discuss details Cook was upfront and admitted there were some barriers in the television market and that Apple would need a product that “could go more main market” in order to compete in that space.
2. Nip issues in the bud. Address issues immediately before they turn into a crisis. Following a recent investigative article in The New York Times about the workplace conditions among Apple’s overseas suppliers, Cook stated at the Conference that Apple had no tolerance for suppliers that violate its labor and human rights standards. 
3. Be accountable. Tell your stakeholders what you intend to do, and stick to it. To this end, Cook said the complete elimination of these violations was a “top priority” for the company. He announced Apple would publish monthly reports about factory working hours on its website, in addition to providing this information in its annual report.
4. Demonstrate commitment to your stakeholders. Be relevant to any party with an interest in a business, whether they are customers, clients, suppliers or the media. Cook acknowledged that Apple has a responsibility to live up to the high expectations held by the company and its customers, and reaffirmed that it would continue to do so. Later, Cook treats investors to talk about the potentials for Apple’s $US98 odd billion in investments – something Jobs rarely discussed, and if anything, loathed to do.  
5. Keep stakeholders informed. Maintain contact with stakeholders with up-to-date information. Cook discusses the next opportunities for Apple. He talks about emerging markets, the future of tablets and PCs and how Siri and iCloud fit into Apple’s strategy.
6. Reinforce the key message. Any opportunity to bring in mission or purpose is a way to affirm a company’s position. Cook shows his commitment to the Apple culture that underpins the brand, instilled by Steve Jobs. “The company should revolve around great products. We should stay extremely focused on a few things, rather than try to do so many that we did nothing well. We should only go into markets where we can make a significant contribution to society....We’re always focused on the future.” 

PM shows she's not listening or atrociously advised

By Peter Laidlaw

Roll-up, roll-up, roll-up - The great Australian Labor Party circus has hit town and you are sure to be entertained by a wonderful team of entertainers - including a few clowns, a number of knife-throwers, invisible men and tightrope walkers, led by not one but two ring masters who can't tame the lions behind them.

Yes for at least the sixth week in a row (though I must admit I have stopped counting), the "phantom" challenge by the former PM, one K.Rudd, to topple the current PM continues to dominate newspapers and the airwaves.

We have seen media reports about who is backing whom.

We have heard party colleagues claim that it was not possible for Rudd to return as a leader having previously led and failed (despite those same colleagues being around when Kim Beazley was returned as the ALP leader in 2005 after having held the throne four years earlier).

We have listened to carefully crafted words from Rudd and Gillard and their supporters to dismiss the challenge as simply being a media speculation ....and wondered if Mark Latham would introduce his Conga Line of Suckholes descriptor to the current situation.

And then we read that the riot act had been read to the party – Stop Talking - it's only giving oxygen to the story!

With that, I was not holding out much hope for any explosive revelations coming from Four Corners story on the only battle taking place in federal politics - Rudd vs Gillard (Tony who?).

But being a political junkie, I removed myself from the family room - having just lost a debate with one of the kids over whether Kev vs Julz's would be more entertaining than the new Channel 7 US import Revenge - and flicked on the box in the bedroom to hear the old familiar Four Corners theme and Kerry introducing "The Comeback Kid?".

I was interested but not surprised when a line-up - including a former Rudd staffer (who got some good PR for his new book), a right wing union bod, two former ministers (now lobbyists) and another political staffer-turned-lobbyist - gave their views on Rudd and what happened.

In reality it was a bit ho-hum and in my view would not really give much fuel to the leadership fire. Any newsroom would be scratching hard to get much out of the story to give the "challenge" more life.

But then came the PM!

And to much celebration within newsrooms around the country came a very poor response to the question of whether her office had prepared her speech accepting the role two weeks prior to Kevin being shafted. If this was the case and she knew about this, there would be a huge question mark over the credibility, already tainted by her "no carbon tax" pledge and commitments to independent Andrew Wilkie regarding pokies.

The PM had repeatedly stated that she was not behind a planned campaign to dispose of her old boss and that she only made the decision to challenge for the leadership the day before.

After several unsuccessful attempts to get a straight answer to the questions, we heard "I have just given the best answer I can." If that was the best answer that could be given by her, one has to ask the question: Why on earth did Gillard grant the interview in the first place?

As I have long believed and advocated with clients - you don't always have to say yes to a media request. If Julia had taken such a position, we may have been saved at least a day of leadership talk in media and Julia may well have saved some face before the public.

Let's drink to scientific research

 

By Craig Regan

Academic research in the name of advancing science is a wonderful thing - but there’s a lot of it going around. 

In the last 24 hours, reportage of studies has told us:

• American primary school children eat lots of junk food
• Alzheimers Disease is hard to diagnose 
• Men who smoke contract dementia quicker
• Facebook takes a toll on the mental health of males with few “friends” and low self-esteem
• Black and white patterned rugs can make you feel sick

In the last day you might have learned that red wine may cure dementia and diabetes - although last month an analysis of 20 years worth of studies found there’s not really any health gain to be had by drinking the stuff.   

In fact, one of the researchers who found red wine was good for you in the first place has been painted as gilding the lily. 

It’s confusing enough to drive a man to drink.

Having worked in healthcare, I can tell you that most people would struggle to make head or tails of a scientific paper. That’s why they rely on media to tell them which end is up.

Sometimes, scientists do tell porkies. I once sat down with one of Australia’s most well-known public health advocates to nut out a PR plan. He wanted to push a conclusion from polling of Joe Public that didn’t exist.

There are some interesting dynamics at work where science and media intersect. Research is more popular than ever as grist for the media mill. The media’s voracious need for content has grown exponentially with their move online, while the attention span of consumers has shortened.

On the other hand, academic institutions are locked in a wrestling match to extract funds from (mostly) the private sector to pay the costs of doing research. Scientists need to pay their own wages. Companies providing funding almost always need commercial outcomes.

It can all become a little self-perpetuating. The vast majority of scientific research really is about incremental outcomes – and that doesn't win big capital injections or make great headlines.

A healthy dose of cynicism doesn't go astray when your read about the next cure for cancer.

 

US scores lopsided win but sharks lose PR brand war

By Craig Regan

The news that recorded shark attacks have hit a global 10-year high has me thinking that these much-maligned animals really need some good PR. 

I’m not talking about the National Rugby League side that goes by the same name. They’re notionally the team I support, but while my base points the opposite direction from my apex I know, deep down, that they’ll never win a premiership.

Shark is a brand. It evokes images of the gnashing of razor-sharp, multi-rowed teeth, plumes of blood in the water and movies like “Jaws”, where the central character was almost more animated than Richard Dreyfuss.

Drop the word "shark" in a game of word association and you'll come up with "nature's finest killing machine".

Australian sharks have a particularly poor reputation overseas. They’re probably number-three or four on most tourists’ bucket lists of thing not to see when Down Under, just behind Mark Latham.

According to Live Science, of the 79 unprovoked attacks around the world, 32 occurred in US waters and only 14 off Australia. They’ve clearly outnumbered tourists on Australian beaches this summer – which admittedly wouldn’t be hard.

While there have only been a handful of recent Australian attacks, that probably stems from the strength of the Aussie dollar sending all but the incapacitated or the truly lounge-addicted overseas for their holidays, and the surf being deserted.

A serious point can be made here about the frequency and volume of an event featuring in the media being a driver of public perceptions of the level of risk that's way out of proportion with reality.

According to the Florida Museum of Natural History, the odds of being attacked by a shark in the US are roughly one in 11.5 million. Only two percent of attacks are fatal.

On the other hand, the chances of dying in a hunting accident (even without the involvement of Dick Cheney) are one-in-ten.

Which event would attract the most media space?

As an aside, 1500 Americans managed to injure themselves using a toilet bowl product in 1996 (I’m not making this up) while 2599 fell victim to a household deodoriser or air freshener.  

PR always has an uphill battle in balancing public perceptions when working against ingrained perceptions, prejudices and emotion. That's what makes it interesting.

Phoot credit: MSNBC 

PR sting in the tail for surveillance drones

 

By Craig Regan

 

From the UK comes this story about the people who brought you flying surveillance drones wanting to lift their public image.

The Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems Association – yes they have a representative body for drones other than the UK Parliament - has recommended that these flying spies should be shown to "benefit mankind in general”. 

They’d like them to “be decorated with humanitarian-related advertisements, and be painted bright colours to distance them from those used in warzones”.

OK, these are spy drones, not the armed version that take out Taliban warlords. But if they’re being used for surveillance and aren’t supposed to be seen, what’s the point of them carrying advertising?

If you hadn’t thought much about how PR could improve the public image of surveillance drones you’re not alone. The Poms have a far more sophisticated view of these things than most people, with almost as many closed circuit TVs in their public places as churches and ruined castles.

There’s even a UK website that keeps tabs on the flying cameras.

If you think it odd that such a specialised industry sector should be worried about PR, don’t.

Public relations agencies are even employed by all sorts of organisations. The eastern European state of Kazakhstan brought in PR after its image was allegedly trashed by the Borat movie.

A British lobbying firm was even brought on board to run a social media campaign using children to attack Sting after he cancelled a concert in their country.

(Personally, I think the kids gota reprieve when Sting was a no show but I wouldn't say that publicly.)

 

Canberra clash a gift for media watchers

By Craig Regan

The Australia Day melee in Canberra is the gift that keeps on giving for PR and political junkies. Gillard media adviser Troy Hodges did what any political operative must – he took a bullet for his boss.

This isn’t suggesting the PM was a party to the chain of misinformation that provoked activists to lay siege to The Lobby restaurant. It’s just an observation that the public and media storm determined that a head had to roll. Hodges committed hari kari.

Many people would be unaware that political advisers from both sides routinely tip media to unfolding stories with the intention of reportage favouring their side. It's the way the game is played and  sometimes this extends to events of public disorder.

In this case, Hodges pushed the envelope by indirectly inflaming a protest at an event where his boss was in attendance. If the protest hadn’t been so ugly nobody would have noticed and Hodges wouldn’t be looking for a job.

TV loves colour and movement and the footage of Julia Gillard being keel-hauled into her Commonwealth car will be a defining moment of her leadership.

It will be filed next to Mark Latham’s bonecrusher campaign handshake...

 

...and John Howard’s  inglorious no ball:

     

 

The Pope commands you to get off the Net

By Craig Regan

Holy smoke! The Australian newspaper online reports The Pope wants people using the Internerds to chill out just a tad.

Pope Benedict XVI hailed the benefits of silent reflection to stop being "bombarded" by information from the internet but said social networks could be useful modes of communication.

"People today are frequently bombarded with answers to questions they have never asked and to needs of which they were unaware," the Pope said.

That quote’s scarily reminiscent of ex-US Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld’s pronouncement about “known knowns” but we’ll move on.

He’s not urging people to stop typing in caps. Just to give their Blackberries a break.

Easier said than done.

There is a Papal Twitter feed but it’s not really a happening place. His Holiness has tweeted six times in eight months.

A vision of the Pope surfing the Net takes a bit of conjouring. I wonder if he’s ever stumbled across this site promoting merchandise like the Pope Soap On a Rope?