Working in public relations and, in particular, crisis management, there is a tremendous balancing act between projecting clients’ images and agendas and, at the same time, protecting them – essentially keeping the press at bay.   Often, as it is, the purpose of PR and wrangling with the media is to encourage positive coverage for whomever or whatever you represent.  If the story is not going to be positive, then it is best just not to do it.  The job of a good PR person is to protect his clients and make them look their best in the media and in public.

It is for this reason that I found myself agreeing with the recent Obama campaign’s decision to ban a reporter deemed to be from a publication believed to be less than objective for Obama from his press plane on this week’s International “foreign policy” trip.  Let’s face it, there’s no shortage of reporters wanting to travel with the presidential candidate – as the campaign received 200 requests for press seats on the plane, of which they were able to grant only 40 – so why grant space to a publication who has previously hurt the campaign, and who may skew coverage in place of someone less inclined to do so?  It is hard to imagine the New York Yankees allowing a Boston-minded sports reporter unfettered locker room access.

Candidates and clients as well, offer access to media with the hope, and perhaps even the expectation that media will present a positive narrative. Yet, anyone worth his salt in public relations knows all to well that media access by its very nature presents the possibility of either a good or a bad story.  So, if there is choice, why ante-up with media deemed to be biased against your position when there are so many other journalists one can gamble on to better the odds?

Equally as reporters at the top tier publications want exclusive information, unique off the record comments and the like, so too must there be a very fair and real expectation for them that if they present a negative or seemingly prejudicial story then the possibility of being excluded is very real – especially when there is a major issue at stake, like a presidential election, and especially where the candidate has the luxury of choosing any media he prefers.  Indeed, he cannot avoid bad coverage from someone inclined to do so, but he does not need to offer a seat on his plane.

The banned reporter in question, Ryan Lizza of New Yorker Magazine learned that Obama had earned a reputation of “‘you’re not going to punk me, you’re not going to roll me over, you’re not going to jam me.’”[i][i]  This is not an issue of Freedom of the Press; Lizza can write what he wants, but Obama is not obligated to open his arms in welcome.  Outrage by media over such policies is also hypocritical, as stated in The Huffington Post, “Wow. So it’s gonna be like that, is it? Retribution for unfavorable coverage is a chilling thing to contemplate.”   No, it is not chilling – it is valid.  As journalists are arbiters of fate, they should expect that those on the receiving end of their opinions or ideals be cautious.

I find myself agreeing with this statement from Anita Dunn, an Obama advisor, “The press corps wouldn’t be doing its job it if weren’t demanding more access than we’re willing to give,” Ms. Dunn said. “We wouldn’t be doing our job if we didn’t occasionally irritate the press.”[ii][ii]

I understand those of us in the public relations business who feels that media must not be allowed to simply run rampant over clients – especially those who garner tremendous media attention.  It does not mean that we should not cooperate with media – We do, but while we would love totally positive coverage, we generally seek what we can expect to be fair and objective.

[i][i] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/obamas-revenge-emnew-york_n_113969.html

[ii][ii] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/us/politics/19campaign.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Ronn Torossian
5WPR

Spent a few hours with the CEO for one of America’s largest private companies.  He spoke of walking throughout mega-stores and speaking to huge brand CEO’s who spend hours talking about macroeconomics and square footage, and who can go through power points and huge industry analyst reports and never once mention the key word – CONSUMER (and how he never hires people who speak in these abstract terms… as a consumer is someone they touch and feel).  As the recession continues, the brands who actually focus on the consumer are the ones who will win.  This industry expert spoke of product always being the key… above all else… and treating the customer right… which leads me into the next concept regarding product…

What is it that a brand can do to create enough mystique that there are pre-orders? Clearly Steve Jobs seems to have figured this out… I had the question myself this past Saturday during my 7 AM morning jog, when I saw tens of people lined up outside my local UWS movie theatre waiting for Batman.  It’s been a long time since a movie has done that… but clearly Nike in the sneaker industry, along with many others, does this.  What is that mystique that would have someone stand outside a movie theatre for hours? For me, clearly it’s about many things… it’s a combination of sexiness, brand loyalty, great PR and marketing.  Clearly something every brand would love to have.

As an aside, I haven’t really until very recently read Jack Welch… I just started, and wow are his comments and thoughts amazing.  A must read for any business leader

Now, onto the second interesting meeting… with a niche business market leader in NYC, who spoke of having a large business with many distractions.  But at the end of the day, it’s really just two simple concerns that he asks himself (and I agree 100%):

1 – Is it good for my client?

2 – Does it make me money?

If the answer isn’t in one of those two questions as an entrepreneur in where you spend your time in business, then clearly you are misfocused.  It really is that simple (and a major difference between an entrepreneur and an employee)…

And lastly, business (and life) isn’t an “academic exercise”.  It’s real – not theory or concept… not a fictitious name posted on a blog, but instead something very real and measured. Real business – real life – real dollars and cents.  There are many who can criticize and nitpick which is easy… but working hard every day and building is a hell of a lot harder.

Ronn Torossian

5WPR

We recently lost a major RFP/new business pitch… and I am happy about it.  At the end of the day, we lost because another firm (one our size) convinced this global company that their global capabilities and “International” network was better than hiring one firm for the U.S., and additional firms in other more localized markets.

With very, very few exceptions, to say that I vastly disagree would be an understatement.  Every single market is a unique animal and Europe is not one country. Every single small market has different languages, different cultures and different media styles. By nature, PR firm are not large in the grand scheme of business, and are even that much smaller worldwide (besides the handful of global conglomerates).

A PR agency with 10 employees in Europe may be the best firm for a consumer goods company. But is that firm really the best firm for a technology or political entity? How can it be the same?  Can an agency uniquely be best served in Sweden and also in France? Simply inaccurate.  And as much as the big holding companies who dominate the conglomerates claim that their offices work hand in hand, it’s a complete crock. Below the top levels (CEO, General Manager), no one in these offices is compensated by referrals to other offices, and it doesn’t affect their individual P & L statements for their offices.  It’s simply a crock, and no one cares.

So… sometimes when we don’t win, it’s all the best.  While we still win in excess of 80% of our new business pitches, more often than not in cases when we don’t win, companies often return and hire us after other firms over-promise and under-deliver. My advice when firms ask us for global recommendations is hire an agency market by market (which at times we have helped hire).  But the reason we aren’t part of a network is because I won’t refer business blindly to firms without thinking of a client’s DNA and needs market by market.

Clients who need global reach can and should indeed get it, but not as a cooker cutter, but instead on a case by case basis.

Ronn Torossian

5W PR

I always tell clients involved in court cases that there are two courts – the court of law and the court of public opinion.  With the changing nature of media today, a forum doesn’t exist where the media doesn’t play a major part.

This past week provided ample opportunity to study this theory in action, with high-profile celebrity affairs and divorces receiving almost continuous attention.  NYC coverage of Christie Brinkley and Peter Cook’s divorce proceedings was truly great media.

One colorful quote I saw from Brinkley included that she needed to settle on that particular day because she had run out of outfits to wear.  Brinkley was determined to use the court of public opinion to her own advantage, countering Cook’s claim for custody with a terse, but loaded, strategy: “Well, I’m going to let the world know what you’re all about,” according to Stephen Steinberg in the New York Times.  And she wasn’t lying, as you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who wasn’t privy to Cook’s now-public indiscretions.

There are plenty of PR agencies and firms hired both openly and quietly to influence judges and juries of all sorts.  And with the recent success rate, I suspect that it won’t end anytime soon.

Ronn Torossian
5WPR

A bold, aggressive and very smart announcement by a buzz marketing agency was covered in Adage this week.  The agency is betting that its Word-of-Mouth campaigns can outperform competing campaigns for the same client by 20 percent, with a money-back guarantee. Great idea for media coverage, and most likely something which will be very successful for the agency.

While I don’t believe traditional advertising is dead, there’s no doubt the communication landscape has forever changed.  I believe buzz marketing is a very credible option and worth the marketing spend.  As media fragmentation continues to be a trend, word-of-mouth marketing is an increasingly economical and viable way to reach influencers.

Ronn Torossian

5WPR