Business Storytelling

If You Tweet It, They Will Come…And Arrest You?

I’ve discovered a lot of ridiculous and sensational stories on Twitter over the past year – the balloon boy hoax, for example – but when I found this one about a man being arrested for a stupid little tweet, I thought it was worth rehashing.

On January 6th, 2010, U.K-resident Paul Chambers was stranded at the Robin Hood Airport(South Yorkshire, England) due to heavy snow. Annoyed and frustrated by the closures and grounded flights, Chambers decided to vent his (understandable) anger via sarcastic tweet. His message read; “Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your *&^% together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

One week later, Chambers was arrested under the U.K’s Prevention of Terrorism Act and interrogated for seven hours because he was perceived as a major “security threat.” This mild-mannered guy has since been released on bail, but is currently suspended from his job and banned from the airport for life.

This is really extreme, of course, but worth noting. After all, our tweets are not private, they’re public. It may seem obvious, but it's worth repeating.

This doesn’t mean that you have to overly censor yourself or cancel your Twitter account, of course, it just provides a friendly reminder that sometimes you need to ask yourself (especially if you're using a corporate account), “Am I ok with the public seeing this?” And, if the answer is “no,” then you may want to rethink it.

“Get the door, it’s…Candor?”

Last April, the PR and marketing folks at Domino’s Pizza were forced into overdrive when a YouTube video surfaced of a few employees doing some decidedly unhygienic things to food they were preparing. In an article on the ensuing PR crisis, New York Times reporter Stephanie Clifford noted that the company’s reputation among its core consumers went from positive to negative in just a matter of days. Domino’s initiated an aggressive PR and social media strategy to address the fallout, including a video apology of sorts from its CEO and the creation of a Twitter account to address consumers’ questions about the issue. Still, the damage was done and suffice it to say that the video, and Domino’s reaction to it, became a much studied topic among PR students and practitioners alike.

But that was last April and now Domino’s has moved on to a new PR/advertising strategy; namely, admitting that its products are pretty unappetizing. In a ubiquitous TV commercial, both high ranking executives and hourly employees discuss the company’s decision to “face our critics and reinvent our pizza from the crust up.” The ad features scathing comments from consumers ranging the gamut from “Worst Excuse for Pizza I ever had,” to “Domino’s pizza crust to me is like cardboard.” It concludes with company employees reiterating that they are facing this criticism head on, launching the “Pizza Turnaround” and promising to do better. This absolute candor, while incredibly refreshing from a consumer perspective, is a bit surprising when examined through the lens of our industry.

In a Washington Post article on the campaign, industry executives suggest there are some major risks associated with issuing a mea culpa as an advertising strategy. For example, by accepting that their pizza is awful isn’t Domino’s effectively admitting that they’ve lied to consumers in previous campaigns that boasted better ingredients than their competitors? And, by publicly promising to make a much better pizza, Domino’s is holding itself accountable. If consumers aren’t swayed by the addition of new spices and improved crust, they will most certainly let the company know. And then what?

Taco Bell’s Trainwreck

By now you’ve heard of it.  Heck, you might even have tried it.  Yes, I’m talking about the Taco Bell diet.  It’s the “diet” that, according to the official site, “is not a weight loss program.”  Interesting.  I can count the number of times I’ve eaten at Taco Bell on one hand, but I still know that something doesn’t feel right about this.

Technically, Taco Bell’s Drive Thru Diet just takes existing menu items and replaces the cheese, sauces and guacamole with salsa and calls it “fresco.”  This erases about 20-100 calories per item.  If you’re watching your calories and have a penchant for fast food, this could very well help you out a bit.  But to call anything from Taco Bell a “diet,” when even the website admits that it’s not true, is just poor marketing. 

On his blog Scalable Intimacy Mike Troiano writes that, “Where once you could focus on driving the product reality by shaping market perception, now you must also gather market perception to shape the product reality.”  Wonderfully phrased, this rule that becomes more and more important everyday, as social media, cellphones and other new ways of communicating continue to burrow into our daily lives.  The people who determine market perception are more empowered by the minute, and when something isn’t right, they’ll make that known.

Case in point: According to AdAge, the words now most closely associated with Taco Bell are “fat,” “stop,” and “joke.”  Social media is puncturing their message like a million tiny needles.  The reality of the public’s perception is that it’s a difficult thing to change and even more difficult to trick.  Had Taco Bell approached their health food offering differently, as McDonald’s has, things could have been different for them.

Working in PR, there are lots of lessons I take away from this.  Transparency is key in all communication and companies that understand this are most likely to win the support of their audience.  Not just transparency with the public, but with the press and with their agency partners as well.  You can’t slap an audience in the face by making ludicrous claims about a product or service.  Respect and loyalty are built gradually and messaging must be consistent, or it will be called out.  As one online commenter stated, “It is pretty difficult to convince consumers that you have a diet plan after several months of telling them to stay up late for their "fourth meal" of the day.”

Contributed by Jim Fay.  Follow him @JGF3

Why the Law and Facebook Aren’t Friends

The insatiable urge to use social media sites, like Facebook and Twitter, comes from the excitement and novelty of connecting with people we might otherwise not know, but it also begs the question: where is our common sense?

It’s a loaded question, I know, but the time has come to demand more from people and ask them to start using their brains instead of just their keyboards.

What finally brought me to this conclusion was the unbelievable story I heard about jurors becoming Facebook buddies while a trial was still underway. I heard about it from a coworker, who ended up forwarding me Adam Ostrow’s Mashable post, “Jurors Becoming Facebook Friends = Grounds For Appeal?”

The story goes a little like this: Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon was on trial for embezzlement – she was accused of stealing gift cards intended for needy children – and was later convicted on December 2nd.  The Facebook issue was raised – after the verdict was declared, of course – when Dixon’s attorneys became “suspicious” about the jurors’ online activities and started looking into whether or not these individuals were contacting each other outside the courtroom.

The Baltimore Sun article explains that the lawyers discovered about half of the jurors had become Facebook pals. In direct violation of the judge's orders, they also found out that these friendships were made during the trial and the jurors had participated in ‘prohibited communications’ with each other (and outsiders) throughout the process.

The interactions were pretty absurd; jurors wrote on each others’ walls, had comments talking openly about the trial with outsiders, and a couple even met for Thanksgiving dinner! Yes, it’s touching that former strangers could establish friendships online and even share the holidays together, but it’s the wrong circumstance.

Think people. Sometimes you don’t need to post everything for everyone to see. Even if you only have a dozen friends or you're new to Facebook, you should know enough to realize that it's not ok to blab about the details of a trial. Ever. The jurors’ Facebook activities were definitely out of line, but this convoluted situation does (at the very least) raise some important questions:

• How did the defense lawyers gain access to the jurors’ Facebook pages in the first place?
• Can this trial be considered fair if the jurors lose their privacy and personal freedom in the process?
• Were the jurors knowingly violating the judge’s orders or has Facebook become so ingrained in their lives that they didn’t realize the consequences of their actions?
• Does this really establish ‘just cause’ for an appeal?

This case will definitely set a precedent for upcoming juror selection and trial proceedings, there’s no doubt about that. It is also a firm reminder to all of us that we need to step back and think about what we’re posting, sharing or tweeting. And, sometimes it’s just not ok to share.

-Contributed by Gretchen Doores  You can follow her on Twitter: @canadiangal84

Read The Baltimore Sun article, “Juror contact in '06 with Dixon, witness could cause mistrial” for more information on the ensuing juror controversy.

Dear Abby? Not Quite.

I thought it was a joke when my co-worker first told me. Ashley Dupre, the call girl embroiled in last year's sex scandal involving then New York governor Eliot Spitzer, is the New York Post's newest advice columnist. No, really. 

In her weekly "Ask Ashley" column, Dupre will share her expertise on all things related to love and sex. I'm sure you won't be surprised to see that the column is accompanied by a color photo of Dupre in a low cut blouse, doing her best sexy librarian pose.  And I'd be remiss if I didn't also point out the catchy "Spitzer's babe answers your love questions!" line.  I know the newspaper industry is in big trouble, but come on...really?

Dupre's introductory column featured this note from the editor: "Sure, she's made some mistakes. But now, the former escort who brought down Gov. Eliot Spitzer is sharing what she's learned in her new sex, love and relationship column -- exclusively in the New York Post. Is your husband cheating? Is your daughter on a dangerous path? Our readers asked -- and Ashley fired back with her no-nonsense advice." 

Here's *my* question: what woman in her right mind would ask a former escort for marital advice? But I digress.

Dupre's new column is yet another sad reminder of how desperate some media entities have become. What message are we sending when some of the country's best journalism school graduates can't find work, yet a former call girl is given her own column in a New York daily?  "I used to be on the front page of the New York Post," brags Dupre in a video on the newspaper's website. "Now I'm writing for it."   

I asked my friend, media analyst Steve Safran, for his take. "The New York Post has never pretended to be a model of journalism," Safran says. "This hiring shows just how low they will go to sell newspapers."  Indeed. Safran says he's not surprised by the paper's choice to make New York's most famous escort its newest star, but hopes it isn't a trend copied by other news outlets.  "There are plenty of problems facing the news industry,”  Safran adds, "but I hope they can come up with better content solutions than this titillating but dubious offering."

Only time will tell. We'll have to wait and see whether Ashley Dupre becomes the next Abigail Van Buren, solving the world's relationship problems one email at a time.  I have my doubts, but you never know. 

- Contributed by Amy Erickson. Follow her @amyerickson

Facing Off on Privacy

Unless you live under a rock, you know that this week Facebook announced a change in its privacy settings to give users more control over who sees the information they post to their personal pages.  Although the company’s intentions are to give people more privacy, there are plenty of complaints form the angry mob about the new policy. Many users believe the new settings will inadvertently expose their personal information, and they've threatened to delete their accounts. As is the case with almost every change the social networking giant makes, there's now a Facebook group against the moves: PETITION AGAINST NEW PRIVACY'S SETTINGS ON FACEBOOK!

In some cases, users are upset because the old privacy settings gave people the ability to make it harder (or impossible) to find someone through a simple search.  For many users that was the very thing about the privacy policy that made them comfortable with joining the site.  The way users see it, with the new privacy settings, they no longer have the option to keep their name, profile picture, current city, gender, networks, friend list or pages private.

According to Attorney Kevin Bankston from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), in reaction to the new Facebook privacy settings, “I think you're better off in some ways and worse off in some ways. It's really a mixed bag."  Contrary to Bankston, Brendon Slattery of PCWorld states in the article, “Why privacy concerns are ruining Facebook” that:  “If Facebook users became more acquainted with the power they have to protect themselves, perhaps sweeping shut-downs such as these wouldn't be necessary. But as Facebook locks doors and tosses keys, I cannot help but feel it's headed in the opposite direction from whence it started, dismantling its very purpose, and adopting an attitude of exclusivity.”

Not What Tigers Do Best

There are over 16,000 car accidents in the U.S. everyday.  Many are quite severe and yield fatalities, while most are just minor collisions.  Tiger Woods was lucky enough to escape his with a few bumps and scratches, but he wasn’t ready to handle what came next.  While most of us would be filling out insurance papers, Tiger was dealing with a flood of media attention, to which he reacted like a deer in oncoming headlights. He froze.

The story has been well documented.  After driving his Cadillac Escalade into a fire hydrant not far from his driveway at 2:25am, Woods’ wife and neighbors came to his aid.  His wife wielded a golf club that she supposedly used to pry him out of the car; questions abound as to whether this was truly a make-due replacement for the Jaws of Life or domestic abuse weapon.  A retired physician, the neighbor laid Tiger down and gave him a blanket while the ambulance arrived.  It took some time for the news to break, but the questionable nature of the accident and Woods’ star power have combined to make it an intriguing news item.  Was Tiger drunk?  What was he doing out so late?  Is he having an affair?

There’s one definitive answer we can take from all this, though: Tiger has no crisis communication skills.  In a time when it’s crucial for him to control the flow of information surrounding the accident and communicate openly, he’s barely communicating at all.  Beyond his statement saying that “This is a private matter,” Woods has failed to influence the conversation at all.  He hasn’t cooperated with police or spoken to the media.  His steadfast clinging to his privacy may seem fine from his end, but on our end it just looks bad.  A number of Boston PR experts have weighed in, and their observations are spot on.  Tiger is fueling speculation by making it appear as though there’s an untold aspect of the story.

Update: Tiger did post an apology on his Web site.  The media swirl continues today with the press asking, "did we deserve a public apology?"

Tiger’s love of privacy is widely known as well; the very word is the namesake of his yacht, he lives in a gated community, and he rarely appears in the media for any reason other than his golf game and product endorsements.  His personal brand is so incredibly refined and developed that it essentially stands upon one characteristic, being the best.  Tiger’s skill at maintaining his lack of a public image is precisely why he is poorly prepared to maintain it.  His media relations have never been proactive.  When he failed to meet with police, it made things worse.  When he canceled his upcoming tournament appearance, it made things worse.  If Tiger has reasonable explanations for these actions, he’s not making them known.

Many big stories have been made out of small issues that go unresolved, and many big stories have been made bigger as a result of poor media relations.  As the conversation continues to build in traditional media and social media, Tiger can’t just hope that it will fizzle out.  By ignoring the basics of crisis communication he’s ensuring that it won’t.

Contributed by Jim Fay.  Follow him @JGF3

On Our Way to a More See-Through World

In PR we talk a lot about transparency: when pitching reporters make it clear who you represent and why you are writing.  In fact, transparency has become one of my golden rules these days in general, and I think it's something that needs greater priority in the world at large.  For example (in no particular order of importance or relevance to one another): the Bernie Madoff scandal, food fraud, and most recently, the Hadley Climate Center saga.  The Hadley Climate Center saga is really what inspired this post. 

According to the Wall Street Journal and other sources, the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain was hacked last week and thousands of sensitive documents, including emails from climate scientists dating back a decade, were posted online.  The aftermath: the emails and documents that were leaked indicate that scientists may be "manipulating computer climate modeling data and research reports to support the theory that man-made greenhouse gases are causing global warming." See full article here from Environmental Leader.

So what does this teach us? Well, some may argue that the most important lesson here is that we need to be more careful with sensitive data and continue to tighten security to prevent cyber crime.  However, another lesson to consider is the transparency challenge.  Whether we're talking about climate change data, food nutrition labels, or information on financial investments, industries across the board lack standard systems and procedures for documenting their calculations and transactions.  Let's zero in on the climate issue.  As carbon counting and energy efficiency tracking continues, businesses need to be accountable for the improvements they claim to make, scientists need to demonstrate the sources of their calculation, and consumers, investors and other stakeholders need to know how to interpret the data and where to find it.
 
Solving the transparency challenge is a tall order, but if more organizations start to talk about it and demonstrate how they support their claims, perhaps industries as a whole can start to make progress.  What practices have you come across for improving transparency and accountability that seem to be working? I'd love to hear your thoughts. 
 
Contributed by Susan Wise.  Follow her @swise

Confessions from the Sick Ward

I admit it -- I look like death warmed over this week. But I have a good excuse -- I'm a swine flu survivor. That's right, my family of four fell victim to the dreaded H1N1 virus last week, and we all made it out alive. 
 
I'm here to tell you that I learned a few things while I was camped on the couch, chugging cough syrup and willing my lungs not to explode. The biggest lesson? When H1N1 hits home, it's hard to not be swept up in the "pandemic panic" we all blame on the media.
 
You have to understand that when the term "swine flu" first started floating around last winter, I was the biggest skeptic out there. I was a journalist at the time, and constantly complained to colleagues about how we were blowing it out of proportion and putting the fear of God into people over a simple virus that was likely to be no worse than the seasonal flu. When people talked about how scary it was, I countered with facts from the Centers for Disease Control. Up to 20 percent of the population gets the flu every year, I'd tell them. More than 35,000 people die from the flu every year. This was no different. Just a flu like any other. I scoffed at people wearing surgical masks on the subway and at travelers who canceled trips because of swine flu fears. Over-reactors, I thought.

What Can We Learn from Kermit (Aside from What it’s Like to be Green)?

If you spent any time on Google, Twitter or Facebook this week you’re likely aware that Sesame Street is celebrating its 40th year on the air. Forty years is a long time, particularly in an industry like television, which has experienced radical innovation in the last four decades. Think about it for a moment - the field of special effects has advanced so much that even movies or shows that were shot a few years ago appear dated by today’s standards. Yet, for 40 years, Sesame Street has remained consistent, churning out educational programs for generations of children without changing the structure of its show.

Or has it?

In an article on the show’s anniversary National Geographic reporter Ker Than writes that, while some puppets and situations are familiar from year to year, Sesame Street has gradually altered its programming to keep up with the changing times. For example, this season marks the rollout of the program’s “Green Initiative,” where characters will emphasize the importance of caring for the environment and introduce viewers to the basic concepts of sustainable living. In another example, Sesame Street’s producers recently created DVDs for children with a family member deployed to the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, or who had a parent disabled or handicapped in combat.

Sesame Street has also changed the characters and situations on its show to reflect the norms and cultures of the individual regions in which it airs. The South African version of the program features an HIV positive character and, in Bangladesh, a puppet named Tuktuki reminds viewers that girls can—and should—pursue the same opportunities as boys.

While the core of Sesame Street retains the overall theme and purpose it had when it first premiered in 1969, I think the intermittent changes it made to stay current are responsible for the show’s enduring popularity. It made me wonder, can we apply anything from Sesame Street’s legacy to our industry? What small tweaks can we make to our core business model to ensure we weather the current media storm in the same manner Sesame Street navigated the last 40 years?

I’m not sure what the answers are, but it’s definitely food for thought. In the meantime, happy anniversary Sesame Street, and may you have many more to come!

Contributed by Kate Finigan. Follow her @PRKateFin