MetaBatty

Finally, someone in PR is talking about this

After posting my blog this weekend (Why is no one in PR talking about this?), the San Francisco bureau of PRWeek (the industry trade rag for the PR set) sent an email saying they read my blog, were going to write a story about the issue, and wanted to talk with me about it. Not wanting to bring my current employer or any of our vendors into this issue, I passed on the opportunity. I guess I will have to wait for another opportunity at industry recognition. ;-)

It's great to see the industry talking about this, and kudos to Aarti Shah at PRWeek for his concise article (SIIA lawsuit places a PR practice on alert, PRWeek, Aug. 23, 2007), and for asking SIIA questions they still don't seem prepared to answer. Keep pushing, guys. This definitely needs to be resolved, and we are the only ones who can or will work with SIIA to resolve it. I hope this article pushes others to voice their opinions on the issue and demand SIIA clearly define their program and who they mean for it to affect.

Why is no one in PR talking about this?

Since the dawn of copy machines and glue sticks, PR and marketing organizations have scanned daily newspapers and important magazines for articles about their companies and industries, and passed those articles along to company management and clients to educate them on industry developments, provide competitive analysis, and show where they were mentioned in the media universe. Not only is it a great way to stay educated and current on all the important events and developments in the industry, it is a great way for PR people to demonstrate the results of their efforts.

When I worked in the Public Affairs Office of the US Naval Academy, the first order of business each morning was to scan the local papers, cut out articles relevant to the Academy and its leadership, paste them onto sheets of paper, and make copies that would be bundled into daily news briefings. These briefings were distributed by internal mail and fax to the head of the PAO and other officers running the Academy, to give them a daily update on the news they needed to know. It also was a great way to get multiple paper cuts on fingers covered with paste and newsprint.

That practice is still in full swing today, every day, in almost every public and private company and organization, large and small. In fact, it probably became a more widespread practice as the Internet and email made it easier to find, cut an paste articles into reports, and send them to their management over the network. (substitute carpal tunnel syndrome for paper cuts) No one asks permission of the news outlets to send this information to internal employees, since we have the Fair Use Doctrine, this information is usually free, and usually freely available online.

Could that all go away? Are there serious implications on the horizon for the PR industry because of this practice? A powerful business association in the US says this could be illegal, and is starting to sue companies under a new, poorly defined program.

On Thursday, the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) - a coalition of businesses formed to protect its members (originally just software companies) from the illegal copying and selling of copyrighted software code, aka software piracy - announced it settled a first-of-a-kind lawsuit against a company for piracy and copyright infringement.

But this wasn't about anyone pirating software code.

This is about content. The marketing department at Knowledge Networks, the company that was the target of the lawsuit,  was copying news articles and putting them into "press packets," which were then distributed internally to certain company employees (not external customers) on a "regular basis". Sound familiar? What's even more interesting is the list of names of aggrieved SIIA member organizations. They were not software developers. They were news organizations like The Associated Press and UPI, among others.

This was the first settlement in SIIA's new "Corporate Content Anti-piracy Program," (CCAP) a program designed to target and seek damages from companies who are distributing internally any copyrighted content from SIIA member companies.  According to the SIIA announcement, "This content includes text-based publications like articles in newspapers, magazines and newsletters, books – and also online works." They also pay big cash rewards to anonymous whistle blowers who tip off the SIIA on companies in violation of this ill-defined program.

Where is the line drawn? Can I no longer send URL links of interesting news articles to co-workers over email? Will I be sued if I share my newspaper with a colleague every morning? Am I going to pay a fine for scanning an article and putting it into an internal presentation? If you credit the author and publication, are you in the clear? It doesn't say.

What about Fair Use, which allows the reprinting of copyrighted content without permission, if that content is used for educational purposes? I think many in PR would argue that applies here.

Could this have major implications for the PR industry? I think so. Should the PR industry be concerned? Absolutely, unless this program better defines how this content may or may not be used internally with companies. I have not read anything that tells me the PR industry is aware of this or taking any necessary action. Maybe CCAP has been talked up plenty in PR circles, and I am missing something, but I don't think so.

In my experience, all articles used in reports are sourced - that is, the article title, publication name, author, date, page number, etc are all included with the content - does that indemnify my peers from CCAP?

I fail to see how this specific practice is hurting these content providers. As an example, articles/content from (SIIA member) The Associated Press is available free, online, through literally hundreds of news sources. How do they lose any potential profit by PR/marketing organizations passing around links to or copies of their articles among an internal audience? The PR/marketing organizations are not turning around and selling that content or in any way taking money out of the pockets of the content providers.

Or are they? If a PR agency bills its clients to scan, clip and report on articles on a daily/regular basis, are they profiting from that content and financially injuring the news organizations who published the articles? In my opinion, no, but it will be intersting to see if the SIIA pursues this.

And what about companies like Vocus and Biz360? Their multi-million dollar businesses are built on software products that track media coverage, "clip" it (provide summaries, complete text, and/or links to the article) and package it, for profit, as "market intelligence" for PR and marketing organizations. If they are scanning, clipping, analyzing and repackaging articles and selling those clips and reports, are they in violation of this program?

Hard to tell.

Again, I may be missing something, but I saw nothing in that announcement or on SIIA's site that says Knowledge Networks provided this as market intelligence, for a fee. It looks like they were just sending out the daily news report.

Evian, spelled backwards

Are people really that shocked and upset at PepsiCo's revelation that their popular brand of bottled water, Aquafina, is tap water? (or, as the media say, "ACTUALLY tap water," or "ONLY tap water") It's fairly clear, since the Dasani debacle in the UK three years ago, that most of the major-label bottled waters come from the same place most of us get our water - the faucet.

Drinking water is healthy, practically by definition. If the companies making bottled water use that to market their products, they aren't lying. Nor are they lying when they say their water comes from "natural sources," since all water initially comes from natural sources in the first place. Sure, it's underhanded, deceitful and manipulative, but it's not lying - we get worse deception and spin from our own government, anyway. It's consumer advertising, people. If anyone wants to be angry with someone about being fooled by slogans and packaging, they should be angry with themselves for being so naive and trusting.

I don't buy a lot of bottled water - I think water from the faucet is fine, and all the packaging and shipping of bottled water gives me the carbon-footprint willies.

When I do buy bottled water, it is not to get the sensation I am cleansing my body with water from a gently bubbling stream in the Alps. I buy it when I don't have access to tap water. If I am going to be on an airplane for more than two hours, taking a road trip or hiking, I am happy to buy the lowest priced bottled water on the shelf. Big deal if the water in that bottle wasn't siphoned from an ancient underground aquifer in the Andes. All bottled water is filtered and processed, no matter where it comes from.

But, if you still really care about clean water, you might actually want to consider Aquafina. I would venture to guess that the water from the tap is cleaner than water from most streams, since wild animals don't relive themselves in public water sources.

There's their new ad slogan! "Aquafina - Deer Don't Pee in It."

At least, I hope they don't...

"The Path to 9/11" - brought to you by Toyota

Did anyone happen to see "The Path to 9/11," the 2-part ABC mini-series/movie that aired this Sunday and Monday?  It was a dramatization of the 9/11 Commission's report about what led up to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. (as well as testimonials, some creative dialog writing, etc.)

I recorded both episodes and just now finished watching the first episode, which clocked in at a full three hours - bear in mind the entire episode aired "without commercial interruption." (I love it when networks admit that commercials are an interruption, and that not having them is a selling point...)

But that's not what I want to talk about.  What I want to talk about is the gratuitous product placement in this TV-movie that made it anything but commercial-free. If I were a betting man, I would wager that Toyota Motor Corp. laid down some serious cash to help underwrite this movie and get it on the air "without commercial interruption." Their 4x4s were everywhere in this movie, and next to Harvey Keitel and Donnie Wahlberg they were the toughest things in it.

Every time the viewer was shown a scene taking place in the rugged, rock-strewn, river-laced mountains of Afghanistan, or the crowded, patchwork towns of Algeria and North Africa, they were simultaneously shown some kind of Toyota 4x4 vehicle effortlessly making its way up steep hills, over rocks and through rivers with nary a brake light to be seen. Didn't matter if the passengers were CIA, Northern Alliance, Taleban or ABC News (yes, apparenly a single ABC reporter played a critical role in several chapters of the 9/11 tale), 9 times out of 10 they were in a Toyota. And while the show may have not been interrupted by what we commonly refer to as 'commercials,' the 20-30 second cut-scenes of these vehicles besting mother nature in sublimely beatiful shots, getting the job done, were nothing less than commercials in their own right. I was interrupted by commercials plenty of times.

Even if they really did all drive Toyotas, this was over the top.

At one point the CIA honchos in DC, who were discussing Bin Laden's arrival at a training camp, actually referred to his chosen mode of transport in reverent tones: "He's arrived - in a Toyota Land Cruiser."  In another scene, said to have taken place in March 1998, a team of terrorists are given their marching orders to leave for Pakistan and then go on to America, and are shown leaving their camps in well-polished Toyota Tacomas.  What struck me as odd (other than how clean they were), was that the lead truck was a four-door/double-cab version of the Tacoma which, as I recall, didn't yet exist in 1998.  But they sure exist now, and one is ready and waiting for you at your nearby Toyota dealer.  I mean, how could you not want one? They looked so COOL cutting through creeks and carting explosives against an Afghani sunset!

OK, so, all that said, I really enjoyed the first episode. It has an outstanding, cinema-quality cast who understand their roles and play mostly true to them (although there are obvious "heroes" and "villains" on all sides - and there are more than two sides to this story). Although it is a dramatization that admittedly takes creative license with some facts (ie, it is a MOVIE, not a documentary!), I still found it intriguing, and it prompted me to want to find out more about the recent history of the turmoil Middle East - after Reagan and before 9/11.  So, while I may snipe about the obvious corporate patron of this program (who's products I have previously and currently own), I do recommend this to anyone interested in understanding more about the complexities of fighting terrorism, its motivations, and how it touches us all.

A Salon by Any Other Name

Where is it written that independent hair and nail salons have to have these terrible names that are a based on a pun, or meant to be a play on words commonly associated with hair and nail styling, the instruments and techniques employed in said styling, and just hair and nails in general?

What am I talking about? Let me give the most egregious and best known example: Curl Up & Dye. If you have never seen that before, please stop reading.

Look - I get it. I do. You want a name that quickly connotes what you do, and is clever and memorable, to attract customers. But some of these are just really bad – and it’s become so commonplace that I think the whole practice is tacky, and results in a negative stigma. Is there any other industry where this cheesy novelty is so pervasive?

I can’t be the only one who has noticed this strange and very common phenomenon. I challenge you drive past a strip mall in your local neighborhood that doesn’t house a hair salon with a name like “A Cut Above” or “Manes to Tame.”

To honor the legacy of these creative entrepreneurs, I have thought of some more “clever” and truly horrible names for a hair and/or nail salon that I offer to any stylist about to hang their shingle. Just be sure to check and make sure someone else in your area isn’t already using the name…

• A Brush with Greatness
• At your Fingertips
• Shear Joy
• Splitting Hairs
• Comb the Desert
• Hair and Now
• Wax and Wane
• We Cut Your Hair and Style your Nails for a Nominal Fee

OK, that last one only works in Germany.

 

I'm in the wrong industry

It's fairly well known in the PR world that one of the best industries to be in is IT/hight-tech.  It's fast paced, high pressure, insanely competitive, puts out products and services that affect just about everyone in the world (directly or indirectly) - and is one of the best paying for a PR person.  It's a great place to be, if that's your cup of tea.

But I think I found an outfit that might trump any single tech company - the White House.

A report released today by congressional democrats revealed that the Bush White House spent on PR in its first term almost twice what the Clinton White House spent on PR in its second term.  Between 2001 and 2004, the Bush White House spent $250 million on PR contracts, compared to the $128 million spent by the Clinton White House between 1997 and 2001.   Global firm Ketchum made almost $100 million from the Bush administration in W's first  term alone.

Amazing.  No doubt a testament to the importance of PR in both getting your message out to the masses, as well as shaping public opinion and setting the agenda.  Also a strong indicator of how far the Bush administration is willing to go to use every tool at their dispoal to get Joe American on board with its controversial programs and initiatives.

Then again, when you think about it, look at the issues they were facing (self inflicted or otherwise) during those tenures:

Bush:  9/11, an unpopular war in Iraq, WMD, Osama, tax cuts during spending increases, monster deficit, Gitmo, job losses, the dot com bubble bursting...

Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."

OK, so maybe the price tag makes sense, from a certain point of view.

I'm signing off - need to get my resume over to Ketchum.

Rolling Back a Tarnished Rep

Wal-Mart last week kicked off what could be one of the largest corporate communications initiatives in recent history.  In an effort to combat "urban legends" and other allelgedly false allegations/criticisms against the company, Wal-Mart placed an ad in more than 100 US newspapers to "set the record straight."  This was accompanied by broadcast interviews with CEO Lee Scott, a press release, plenty of media outreach, and more.

According to their press release, contrary to all the rumors you may have been hearing, "Wal-Mart is good for consumers, good for communities and good for the U.S. economy."  They also launched a Web site, www.walmartfacts.com, to address these allegations more specifically.  The overarching theme: Wal-Mart is working for EVERYONE.  Yes, everyone, apparently.  The emphasis on the word everyone is Wal-Mart's, not mine.

Impressive effort, and I look forward to seeing how they use these and other tools to move the needle on their somewhat tarnished reputation.  I'm even more interested to learn how they will measure their success in this initiative over time. Seems like a good start.  What will really make it work is if they are consistent in their messaging, and keep being active and proactive - sometimes a company makes a big push, and then never follows through, which means all the prep and launch work is eventually wasted - and the reputation does not improve.

Hey - interested in seeing some of the urban legends they are challenging (WM wasn't nice enough to list them for us)?  Here's a whole list of them from the Urban Legends Reference pages at snopes.com.  Great site - ALWAYS check it whenever someone sends you a story via email that sounds too good/weird to be true.

Perception is Everything

Before I start:
The disaster brought on by the tsunamis in South Asia is beyond anything I ever imagined could happen, and is still sinking in.  My heart and thoughts go out to all of those affected, and I have already made my donation to the American Red Cross International Response Fund.  You can do the same here, or contribue to any number of other organizations that will ensure your dollars help.

Today's Post:
One thing you learn early on in the PR business is: substance is one thing, but perception is everything.  In the wake of the tsunami disaster four days ago, the US is being perceived by many in the international community as aloof and uncaring - and cheap.

In response to the historical disaster and loss of human life in the Indian Ocean region, the major global powers are doing their part and donating significant sums of money to the countries affected by the disaster.  As the death tolls rises, so seemingly do the amounts pledged from each country.  And while the US government has so far pledged a $35 million donation, governments of smaller countries like Australia, Japan, the UK and France are contributing similar if not greater amounts - which has some major organizations, even the UN, accusing the US of being aloof, uncaring and even stingy (the UN official who said this has since backed off this claim - but, he already said it...).  After all, we are the richest country in the world, why can't we give ten times that amount?  The World Bank has already pledged a quarter of a billion dollars, (or, to sound less dramatic, $250 million).  Why can't we?

I think this argument misses the bigger picture, and the substance of what the US will really be contributing when all is said and done.  When the US sends monetary relief, a large amount of that overall aid comes from private donations outside of the government - corporations, citizens, religious organizations, etc.  In fact, the amount contributed from private donations always exceeds that of the government, which is a phenomenon almost wholly unique to the US.  In fact, from Dec. 26 through Dec. 29, US citizens had already donated $18 million to the Red Cross alone in response to this disaster.  Add that to the $35 million already pledged from the government.

Additionally, private contributions to organizations that support relief for this disaster are tax deductible, which means the government will incur the cost of not getting that tax revenue.  Add that to the total.

On a more specific note, also overlooked is the fact that the US is sending an aircraft carrier and its accompanying support vessels to the region to help in the rescue efforts.  How does a war ship help a rescue effort?  Well, aside from the fact it has desalinization equipment that can make fresh water for drinking and cleaning, it also brings to the region hundreds of US soldiers ready to pitch in.  And these resources don't run on good will and fairy dust - they cost millions of dollars to move and operate.  Add that to the total.

In the end, whatever the US or any country sends won't be enough to make up for what might be the largest single-event loss of human life in my lifetime.  But to combat an already tarnished image, here are a few tips the US should have considered before a.) making too small a donation at first ($15 mil) and b.) not framing the issue properly.

1.) Perception is everything - you have 10 seconds to frame the issue and build good perception.  Should have made it a $100 million donation, as it would have cost you less in the long run - now you're going to spend that much just explaining the too-small donation.  Compare the 100 to 35 or 15 - which sounds, looks and feels better?
2.) Then, call it an "UPFRONT" donation, which quickly and easily tells people there is more to come, this is just to get immediate relief to the region.
3.) Make darn sure people know on a daily basis how much you are doing and how much it costs, by sending out information on the cost of, say, sending an aircraft carrier to the region.
4.) Don't go on the defensive and tell everyone what a great philanthropist you are to the rest of the world when justifying how much you are sending.  Tell them how much you care, and remind them again about everything you are doing and WILL DO about the problem at hand.  People don't care that the US was the world's largest relief provider last year with $2.4 billion in donations and costs - they care about the fact that 116,000 are reported dead and the richest country in the world SEEMS TO BE handing out table scraps.
5.) Show a little more sympathy - emotions don't save lives, but they show you care about them.

War of the Words

Interesting article from the New York Times today (read it in the Chronicle) about a debate going on in the Pentagon over whether to manipulate information to influence public opinion overseas.  And we're not talking about battlefield propganda/disinformation campaigns, we're talking about using these "deceptive techniques" on neutral and even allied nations, to build support abroad for the U.S.  The Times article goes on to highlight some concern that, due to the wired nature of the world today (Internet, satellite, etc), these campaigns "could easily be repeated by U.S. news outlets."

Could be repeated?!  Try - "100 percent most certainly will be repeated."  With the sheer number of 24-hour news channels, Web sites and other sources of near-real-time news available (like blogs?), these news outlets will take as fact just about anything they hear, from almost any source, and report it, just to scoop the competition and try to garner a greater share of an essentially non-expanding audience.  (For those of you asking why - for the ad revenue, of course.). If it turns out to be wrong later, they might mention their mistake in passing, before heading on to the next "late-breaking" story.  But usually it's too little and too late.  The wrong information has been processed and opinions formed - and acted upon.  That's why I always try to filter what I hear in the U.S. media by watching and reading news from outlets that aren't as beholden to the corporate dollar (even when I am) - primarily BBC World News and The Economist.  They are on the outside looking in, and have a refreshing, well researched and often much different take on events of the day than our own popular news outlets (like CNN, Fox News, USA Today, NYT and others).

But I digress.  Aside from that, this is just a bad idea from the Pentagon.  It will only serve to further erode what little trust and good will we still get from foreign nations.  How?  The truth will eventually come out (always does), and will do so primarily through the outlets mentioned above.  We learned this as kids, people.  It's always easier when you tell the truth.   It's how you build trust and respect.  In the court of public opinion, state the facts as they are, educate people on your position, motives and goals  - and let them form their own opinions.  If you can't do that, then you're probably doing something you shouldn't be - or at least not beneficial for those you are trying to influence.  Remember, I am not talking about information use on the battlefield - that's a whole different story.

I'm rambling.  Off to a company holiday party....  with PR people.  (see the irony here?)