25 February 2011

Woe is the PR guy

So the Boston Globe reports that a local nightclub has paid a fine and issued a public apology for turning away a group of black students from Harvard who reserved a party room there last November after the Harvard-Yale game.   Seems like the nightclub's owners finally admitted they did a stupid, racist thing.

But here's where things get weird to me:
Last fall, speaking on behalf of the nightclub, George K. Regan Jr. told the Globe "there were a lot of people in line known to police and police and security circles as bad people, OK? They probably couldn't spell the word `Harvard."
I could be wrong but I think that's THIS George K. Regan Jr. - chairman of one of the most prestigious communications firms in Boston history.  This guy is no dope.    But the story goes on, and quotes from the public apology:
"Cure Lounge further apologizes for the statements made on its behalf by its public relations group in the days following the event. Those statements were uninformed and in no way reflect the values or beliefs of the owners, managers, and employees of Cure Lounge."
So the lawyers throw the PR guy under the bus.  Not the first time this has happened.  But Regan is a big deal, especially in Boston.  This statement could make it seem like Regan was the "uninformed" racist, and not the nightclub.  Regan has a reputation to protect.  And protect it he does:
In a telephone interview today, Regan bristled at being blamed for the comments he made at the request of the club’s owners last fall when the issue gained media attention and the attention of Boston City At-Large Councilor Ayanna Pressley. 
“I apologize for nothing,’’ Regan said. “I personally don’t happen to frequent the Cure Lounge. The facts that were related to the media I was told by the owners, who happened to be there.’’ 
Regan added, “they’re obviously under a lot of pressure from the attorney general’s office. They have a (nightclub) license to protect. Good luck to them. I did nothing but repeat what I was told by the owners.’’
Before you openly question the value-add of a PR firm if all the flack is doing is repeating what he's told, give this situation some thought. I've been in a situation where my client isn't telling me the truth, and I'm giving advice and making public statements based on that untrue information. When you learn the truth, you feel awful.   I believe Regan was repeating what he was told - and you have to trust your client. It's not like he could talk with the people who were turned away from the club.  He's not going to run background checks on nightclub attendees.

The tough part is throwing your (perhaps former) client under the bus in response.  Clients are organizations with many people. Sometimes some of those people make stuff up to protect themselves.  Companies may see a PR guy retaliate like that and wonder if he'll do the same to them if the situation gets dicey.   So as the PR guy, you're really stuck - let people assume you're an "uninformed" racist, or be the guy who slams a client when you feel the heat yourself.  It's a tough call.  Maybe Regan didn't think so, but I do.

Generally PR flacks aren't people who engender a lot of empathy.  Regan is a big boy and I know he can take a shot or two.  But as a guy who's been there, I can feel for him.

(no, I'm not looking for a job.)

22 February 2011

And speaking of education rants

My wife showed me a piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education about how the University of Kentucky is falling far short of its statutory mandate of being a "top 20" public university by the year 2020.  The reason isn't hard to figure out: the state doesn't fund education adequately and the voters don't seem to mind that.

Seriously - Kentucky passed a law that said UK is required to be teh awesome but has repeatedly cut its funding relative to costs.  As a result the university has actually dropped in every meaningful ranking system (to the extent that these rankings are meaningful at all) - including its own system, which probably gives itself the benefit of every doubt.  That's right - UK can't move up in the rankings, even when it grades itself on a curve.

Bottom line: when the issue is hiring a top-tier basketball coach or even building a new practice court, the state will always - ALWAYS - come up with the resources somehow.  Public money, booster slush funds, some cash stuffed in a mattress somewhere, whatever.   But when the issue is academics, that's a place to cut, not spend.

If the Kentucky legislature actually paid attention in math class - check that, if they actually HAD math class -  maybe they'd realize you don't get something for nothing.

21 February 2011

Time for another education rant

I think if my old boss were still around, he'd be in Wisconsin.  Because what's happening there is just plain wrong. For those more focused on other issues, the Wisconsin governor and legislature (specifically the state senate) is trying to ram through an "emergency" budget bill that not only cuts the salary and benefits of Wisconsin's teachers, but also strips the teachers of their rights to collective bargaining.

I'll be brief.  Wisconsin has some economic problems, but overpaying teachers is not one of them.    The starting salary for a teacher in Wisconsin: $25,000.  College degree required, along with extensive review and licensing issues.  Your average teacher can look forward to a salary somewhere in the mid 40's.  This is NOT a lot of money.  Despite this, the teachers' unions have already conceded to the GOP's demands to cut their salary and benefits.  So the budget arguments are off the table.

Americans have fought and died for rights like collective bargaining.  This is a freedom issue, and the Republicans are on the wrong side of it.  Making teaching a less-attractive profession does nothing to improve Wisconsin's ability to educate its children and compete and succeed in a rapidly evolving economy, but taking away hard-fought rights (only for unions who historically support Democrats, of course) is disgusting.

Wisconsin can now look forward to less motivation and talent in their teaching pool.  Attention, potential teachers:  You can now make more money working full-time in food service or retail.  Especially if you join a union.

Move over, Kentucky - Wisconsin is about to join you in the tragic sinkhole of low expectations.

12 February 2011

Why I Like Soccer

This is just SICK.

<a href="http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&brand=foxsports&from=foxsports_en-us_videocentral&vid=d0c22342-6f41-4bd7-938c-d5f9a31eb7e8&src=FLCP:sharebar:embed" target="_new" title="Rooney's Bicycle Kick from all angles">Video: Rooney's Bicycle Kick from all angles</a>

09 February 2011

Climate Change and Strategic Communications

This is how scientists prove their critics are wrong - but line graphs don't shift public opinion
The scientific case regarding man-made climate change has never been stronger.  Climate change is real, our actions are prompting it, and the failure to address this will lead to severe consequences.   (here's how it works - we burn oil and coal and gas, which belches a humongous amount of carbon into the air, which traps heat in the atmosphere, causing all sorts of weird weather and other nasty stuff.  It's more complicated than that, but that's basically it.  It's actually pretty intuitive.  Pour enough crap into anything that supports life and eventually bad things happen.)

The political position of those who would fight climate change has never been weaker.  Last year the US House of Representatives (under Democratic control) passed a "climate bill" that was widely regarded by pundits as the absolute most that could be accomplished politically - and widely panned by environmentalists as not nearly enough to turn the tide.  The Senate didn't pass anything.  Last year's UN meeting on climate change - the overblown farce known as COP 15 - saw a lot of speeches that said "the time for talk is over, the time for action is now" but produced an "accord" that basically said climate change is a bad thing and maybe someday someone should think about doing something.  Maybe.  Even though the "scientific" arguments presented by climate change deniers are absolutely pathetic (as outlined in Dr. Gleick's piece at Huffington Post), they're still winning on Capitol Hill.

This year, House committees (now under Republican control) will hold hearings designed to smear climate scientists.  A "climate bill" isn't even under serious consideration in the House or the Senate.  (We will see, however, a debate on abolishing the EPA.)  Companies that profit from burning oil, coal and gas have funded all sorts of "think-tanks" and hired a bunch of PR guys to work together to confuse the issue and make sure John Q. Nascar remains focused on the things he can see, like President Obama's birth certificate from Kenya.  (it's on the internet, you know.) The UN meeting on climate change that took place in December (COP 16) thankfully wasn't overhyped, but didn't really accomplish much more than COP 15. And I'm not the only person who noticed that the words "climate change" mysteriously disappeared from the State of the Union address this year.

The problem is simple: those who support the status quo have a coherent, coordinated, and well-funded communications strategy.  Those who support real change (and sound science) do not.

So when I see someone like Chris Mooney - someone who is smart and actually trying to fight this battle - point to a form letter written by a group of scientists addressed to every Member of Congress and suggest it "teaches us a thing or two about communication" - I have to sigh.  Chris clearly has an optimistic viewpoint on this and says he wants to encourage more scientists to get involved in the political process.  He's right about that.  However, since the pro-science (and actually pro-business) message on climate change comes in uncoordinated and often random spurts, it has very little impact.  And when scientists make the observation that their valuable time and effort on outreach like this is being wasted, they are less inclined to try it again.

So my advice - start working more closely together and agree on a strategy, a message, and a set of tactics.   And if all you want to do is criticize how others are doing this, or say it's not worth doing because it's not perfect, STFU and go away.   Here's an outline of what I'd do, as promised in an earlier post.

Topline Strategy: Position your side as the solution, the way forward.  Associate supporters of the status quo with the salient problems of the status quo more generally, and position them as opponents of progress.  You saw something resembling this in the most recent State of the Union Address. The President didn't mention the words "climate change" but he did talk a lot about "winning the future" and the economic benefits of clean energy technology.    Then develop a range of strategic and realistic policy goals and attack.

Identify your audience.  "Everybody" is not an audience. "Members of Congress" are an audience, but the way to reach them isn't a letter.  You need to have face-to-face meetings with them and their staffs.  More importantly, you need to have face to face meetings with the people who influence those Members of Congress most.   I think that means the real audience is the media, business leaders, trade associations, and political donors.   As for consumers - and they're also important, because they vote - Mom is unquestionably the household decision maker for basically everything, so you need to develop a coherent message for moms.

Messaging.  Have a backgrounder available for the paleo-clima-anthropomorphi-techno stuff, but scientists and environmentalists aren't losing this fight on the science.  They're losing on the economics. Right now, the message from the other side is simple: capping carbon = less energy use = less economic activity = less profit = fewer jobs for John Q. Nascar.   But to buy into their mindset you have to believe that we won't or can't change the way we use energy, that efficiency doesn't really move the needle, and that wind power is crazy-looking. I think it's time people realized that we don't have cap-and-trade, and the economy sucks anyway.  While messaging should always be in the authentic voice of the person speaking, I think it makes sense for everyone who's speaking on the pro-science side of the topic to assert the following general points:
  • The people who deny climate science support a status quo that works for no one but them. High energy prices hurt the entire economy - except maybe a handful of companies and individuals.  We're looking forward but they're clinging to the past.
  • Climate science deniers also deny consumer choice.  The technology exists to give us electric cars, energy-efficient appliances, and so on.  Polls show millions of people want them.  But the people who say climate change is a "hoax" also oppose policies that would make it easier for consumers to get them.
  • Climate science deniers oppose innovation.  They've gone all-in for a 20th-Century energy strategy that says "dig it out of the ground and set it on fire." They work hard to make sure the rules favor this strategy, and they're holding on to their advantage for as long as they can.
There are other points to make, but if you notice, these general arguments (opposing the status quo, supporting choice and innovation) are largely generic arguments that "test well" with the public and with policy elites across all sorts of issues.  They're also relevant and truthful.  This sort of thing has to be THE message - not "the sky is falling," not something about tree rings, not something that must be measured in parts per billion.  

I'm sure some scientists are thinking "we've said all that already."  Not really, no. These messages haven't been forcefully, clearly, creatively, and repeatedly delivered to the people who matter.  They haven't been built into a coordinated campaign that includes earned media, paid media, social media, and lobbying.  

As for policy issues, there are plenty of options - but what's most important is going on offense.  A really smart political operative once told me "if you're not on offense, you're on defense - and if you're on defense, you're losing."  If you're looking for specifics I recommend my pal the Ecopolitologist for ideas.  Start with battles you have a good chance of winning, build momentum, and keep pushing.  And stop it already with the "it's not for scientists to decide policy, our role is only to share data and analysis."  Everyone has a right to participate completely in the political process. Everyone.

07 February 2011

Huffington Post - AOL is a bigger deal than you think

"Rosebud." 2.0
So it's all over the news this morning that AOL just bought Huffington Post for $315 million, and Arianna Huffington will be in charge of all of AOL's content development. AOL owns a number of niche media properties - sites like TechCrunch, Moviefone, and Mapquest.  Huffington Post has been trying to diversify its offering into many of these niches.

I think we may be witnessing the first real digital media business model that will be profitable over the long term.  I also think the feisty global digital media startups that have tried to have a global impact could very likely be eaten for lunch.  Consider what Ms. Huffington says in her announcement post:
At the first meeting of our senior team this year, I laid out the five areas on which I wanted us to double down: major expansion of local sections; the launch of international Huffington Post sections (beginning with HuffPost Brazil); more emphasis on the growing importance of service and giving back in our lives; much more original video; and additional sections that would fill in some of the gaps in what we are offering our readers, including cars, music, games, and underserved minority communities.. 
By combining HuffPost with AOL's network of sites, thriving video initiative, local focus, and international reach, we know we'll be creating a company that can have an enormous impact, reaching a global audience on every imaginable platform.
Remember my New Year's resolution? It's coming true -- and it's only the beginning of February. Let's go down the checklist: Local? AOL's Patch.com covers 800 towns across America, providing an incredible infrastructure for citizen journalism in time for the 2012 election, and a focus on community and local solutions that have been an integral part of HuffPost's DNA. Check.
Expertise on local focus, global reach, leveraging citizen journalism to cover important issues, with a flair for politics.  Sound familiar?  That's what Global Voices Online does right now.  (And their coverage of what's been happening in Egypt has been excellent.)  Their model of tracking and aggregating local bloggers in every corner of the world is a good one - but they've done it from a non-profit mindset.  I'd argue they do it from an anti-profit mindset.  GVO has been very resistant to work with for-profit enterprises (though there have been some exceptions) because they see it as a threat to their independence and credibility.

GVO is less than a year away from getting a titanic competitor in the form of a global media network with real financial backing, political clout, and strategically audacious leadership.  I don't think GVO will die - there will always be a place for non-profit media - but I think the leaders of GVO and groups like Internews better be thinking long and hard about evolving, adapting to the new marketplace, and looking for new partnerships.