I lecture a lot at universities, entrepreneur groups and the like, and I generally try and be very upbeat and avoid politics.  I enjoy it and think I am good at it, so I plan to continue doing it.  But speaking to a group this Sunday afternoon, the constant toll of running a business really hit me.  It’s all-encompassing and not easy at all.  As a close friend and advisor reminds me often: “If it was easy making money, everyone would make a lot of it.”

That said, I recently learned the ins and outs and details of the “death tax.”  I have recently learned that upon my death, my heirs will need to pay 50% or so of what I leave behind in taxes.  This, in addition to all of the taxes I pay throughout my lifetime. 

I am a self-made guy from the Bronx, attended NYC public schools my entire life and wasn’t blessed with any money growing up… How is it possible I work and sacrifice all along and my heirs will have to pay 50% in taxes in addition to what I pay throughout my life?  Simply doesn’t seem fair or in the least bit capitalistic.

Ronn Torossian

5WPR

Being a boss and owner of a company is a huge responsibility, one which requires being tough and making difficult decisions regularly.  To this day, employing 75+ people is major pressure.

Today I received a call from a major crisis client, one who pays us a major fee solely to keep his company out of the media.  He urged me (to put it mildly) to tell a reporter in no uncertain terms to screw off.  This reporter was poking around endlessly, telling people half truths and straight-out lies about our client in an attempt to get sources quoted for a story.  A previous story by this same reporter had no named sources and many allegations.  I understood why this client was very upset.  So, of course, I harshly approached this reporter, instantly turning into “the bad guy.”  He was poking around in a kind way, and once we got tough, we were the “bad guys.”

Whether it’s (soon to be) President Obama banning reporters who didn’t endorse him from his plane, or the Fox News PR machine being harsh on critics, often times tough PR people are portrayed as not knowing how to deal with the media.  But in fact, these “tough guys” are perhaps the most effective PR people when it comes to difficult issues.

Same goes with owning a business and running a company: being tough isn’t easy.  But it doesn’t mean that there isn’t a modicum of fairness.  Being fair is vital to being tough, both as a business owner, and particularly when it comes to issues and crisis PR.

I complain sometimes to my closest outside business advisor about how difficult it is to run a business.  He reminds me, “If it was easy, everyone would do it, and everyone would be successful.”

Ronn Torossian

5W PR

Courtesy of today’s Bulldog Reporter/Daily Dog, Ronn Torossian featured …

PR Will Win No Matter Which Candidate Wins the Election: Presidential Campaigns Offer Lessons for Communications Industry, Underscore Its Rising Influence
 
Talking politics and PR with Ronn Torossian, CEO, 5W Public Relations

“Whether Obama or McCain is the President tomorrow, I believe the PR industry is a winner in this election,” said Ronn Torossian, CEO of 5W Public Relations, when we called him on the eve of the election asking for his take on what many considered to be several weeks, if not months, of negative campaigning and high profile PR. “PR certainly was at the forefront this entire campaign season—and the PR business will benefit as a whole, regardless of who is voted in on Wednesday.”

“PR was proven effective across the board,” he continued. “Even something as simple as Obama using SMS texting to get out the message illustrates this. And don’t forget that this election broke limits in terms of spending—both sides spent tons on messaging and advertising, and PR was at the center of it all. Mark Penn [worldwide CEO of Burston-Marsteller and president of polling firm Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates], who was Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist, illustrates a trend I believe will continue of national high profile PR pros working front and center of campaigns.”

So who, in Torossian’s point of view, won the PR battle between the candidates? Which specific PR strategies was he impressed with this election year? And is there a role for negative PR in politics, despite all the public backlash? We posed these questions and more with the purpose not only of dredging up Torossian’s strong opinions—but also your own during this polarizing election. To that, we welcome your comments on the following:

Who won the PR war—Obama or McCain?

I think there’s no question that Obama won the PR war in a major way—and not just because of the bias of the mainstream media, which exists and is clearly pro-Democrat. Obama dominated that front from a PR perspective, even when his team had little or absolutely nothing to do with it. For example, the Tina Fey-as-Palin bit was a major PR victory for Obama. And so was the McCain-Letterman mishap, even tough those weren’t part of any official PR strategy or effort.

Beyond that, Obama did some fascinating and successful things from a PR perspective. The campaign was very effective in fighting smears. They did an excellent job early on in avoiding his being called Barak Hussein Obama by his full name. It can’t be denied that not being referenced as “Hussein” was a major victory in swing states with white, middle class voters.

How did McCain actively lose the PR war, then?

The campaign failed to define or speak powerfully to the issues which were important to him and that constituted the heart of the race in the last thirty days—namely, the economy. This became a one-issue race—and it surely wasn’t about terrorism or the War in Iraq anymore. The McCain camp didn’t make that shift effectively.

Is there a role for “negative PR” in politics?

Absolutely—it sticks in people’s minds. It works. But I thought this election would be uglier. I think, to a degree, that a woman and a black guy running at the head of two tickets made it harder for things to get nasty. The race issue and gender issue may have precluded some of the bashing that otherwise would normally have gone on. Beyond that, I will say that the media itself engaged in some questionable things. They pulled so hard for Barack—even when he was against Hillary—that is was really evident. On the other side, you watch the cable networks and easily see that an independent Fox News is very different than an independent CNN. So, it’s all “negative” and biased one way or another, and it’s all built around building and playing to perceptions. That’s the reality.

Can you think of any “negative PR” efforts the campaigns engaged in that worked?

I can think of efforts that didn’t work. Everything McCain did in a “negative PR” light just didn’t work. The whole does-Obama-wear-an-American-lapel thing went nowhere, really. There was no smoking Islam gun, nor link to Farrakhan, which were whispered for months. They really could have gone harder on certain issues, and certainly Bill Ayers or the Columbia professor vis-à-vis terrorism. So if there’s a lesson here, it’s that if you’re going to go negative, you have to push hard and see it through.

Instant polls say “negative PR” doesn’t work. But I don’t buy it. You are shaping a voter’s perception of a candidate one way or another—and if you do it right, it works. Some of these efforts just weren’t executed well.

Do you think there will ever be backlash on the practice for “negative PR” efforts?

Nope—not in reality. Bloggers may write about it, but in the practical world, I don’t believe it’s an issue. You’re not going to see any push back in reality, dollars and cents.

Ultimately, this election wasn’t about “negative PR,” however. It became about the economy. That’s it. The only thing in the media today, for example, is the economy and the election. What’s the last thing you heard about Iraq? How much news did other issues get in the last few weeks, really?

So your take is that PR has proven itself to be a power player in this election?

Yes. We’ll be winners no matter what. PR’s influence will only continue to increase in politics, and we will see more prominent PR leaders involved in major political campaigns moving forward, just like we saw this year with Penn. There will be no real backlash, and I feel strongly there will be positive forward results.

What final take away lessons does this election hold for PR readers?

Simple things like Obama’s successfully fighting smears and their efforts to try new things like using SMS in campaign outreach shows us that there’s plenty PR professionals can learn from watching the campaigns and their communications efforts. Political PR in general is a tremendous training ground for any PR person. It’s PR at its quickest and at a level of highest impact. It’s high stakes, state of the art work. Obama, in my opinion, ran a very smart campaign from a communications standpoint. Their use of social media only scratches the surface.

Brian Pittman

Read today that Joe the Plumber had hired a public relations agency to assist him in getting a record deal? Anyone out there join me in wondering how his 15 seconds of fame translates to people wanting to buy records?

Separately, there’s no doubt the economy is very tough, and while President Bush, both of the Presidential candidates and the brightest financial minds in the world are focused on trying to solve the world’s financial crisis, I believe entrepreneurs and small business owners shouldn’t get sidetracked by that. 

What I have promised to myself, and my employees is: I will work harder than ever before and be more focused to client needs than ever before.  The pledge I believe business owners can make is to simply be hurt a little less than their competitors. 

It’s refusing to lose.

Ronn Torossian

5WPR

I spent the weekend reading “Off the Record: The Press, the Government, and the War over Anonymous Sources,” by Norman Pearlstine, who spent years in the media serving as executive editor of The Wall Street Journal and editor-in-chief of Time Magazine.  Pearlstine writes about his experiences at Time battling the White House and court systems; he also discusses the press and its limits.  The book is very interesting reading for anyone involved with the media, PR, or public affairs. 

As I have stated before, journalists have the ability to make and break people, products, and businesses and often feel “above the law.”  This book details many of the conflicts inherent in high-level journalism, most notably regarding the law and protecting anonymous sources.  I really enjoyed it.

In the business of public relations, and certainly in politics, there is often a need to feed information to a reporter off the record.  This process requires some level of trust between reporters and their sources.  Reporters rely on the vital information sources provide for many high profile stories and investigative pieces, whether in sports, entertainment, politics, public affairs or law. 

Day to day, sources and journalists work hand in hand to create stories.  It’s simply the way the industry functions.   This book examines and questions the limits and parameters of these relationships and their boundaries.

Ronn Torossian
5WPR

As the owner of a public relations agency, and someone who has worked with governments, lobbyists and journalists, I analyzed The Sunday Times of London expose on lobbyist Stephen Payne (Stephen Payne: a hotshot lobbyist who can get you into White House, July 13, 2008[i]).

Beginning with the basics; bribery is unacceptable, and for a democracy or civilized government it is wholly abhorrent. If that is what happened, it is illegal and reprehensible. That said, I am sure that it will be fully investigated, and I am also very confident that the investigation will lead to little or nothing.

Yet, lobbyists and PR firms are hired to represent and to advocate on their clients’ behalf. It doesn’t suggest that they agree with the causes; its business, not academics. Public relations specialists and lobbyists use their skill and resources to change minds, address laws and affect lives. The job of a lobbyist or PR pro, once they agree to accept a client, is to use every means within law and reason to arrange access, introduce and sell a client’s viewpoint or objective. That’s a fact; the concept that Paine was going to be paid to attempt to offer access and persuade policy is his business, and it is the sole purpose of the business of lobbying.

The author included, albeit buried towards the very end of the article, “that the payment to the Bush library was not a ‘quid pro quo’ and that his company had performed many ‘good things’ for the world that were ‘ethical and always above board… He said that making a payment to the library would have had no impact without the client’s cause having merit…”

So, what he said was, and as the video included represents: If you make a donation, serious people are more likely to listen to you over the crowd of others waiting.

How many political requests does any government receive? Cold calls? Urgent matters? The way of the world, like it or not, is about access and money. In this real world, those who pay are often taken more seriously. There is, of course, outrage that money vastly improves ones ability to gain access. Our system of democracy encourages this. Elections bring the need for campaigns; campaigns bring the need for campaign donations; donations grab the attention of the individual running for office.

Whether is should be that way is a great philosophical question that is often debated and even fought over. Still, no one has yet to develop a better system of government than what we know as our popular election system.

Access and name dropping are key parts of business for lobbyists, PR firms and those in political life. It is often how one gets in the door for new business; most of which may never need the access, save the fact that the client knows you have it. We see this on all levels of business in almost every business. Friends introduce one another for leads; others use a golf course, country club or fraternity to impress and flaunt. Isn’t that offering access? It is, and government access is no different. Payne had access, he dropped names; no scandal!

Also, many in PR are often too quiet about actions by an overzealous media attempting to make headlines and sell ink. Media oftentimes can endanger a client’s business interests to the point of no return. Some reporters, believing they are doing a public service, or thinking a “hard hitting” exposé will get them broadly noticed have zero boundaries at all; pure ruthlessness, often believing they can dictate morality and attack someone, while few call into question the tactics of the reporter.

The media is supposed to be impartial players in the news reporting process. Reporters should give the public objective facts and not impose his or her opinion. Unless the role of the media, is as Howard Kurtz so aptly states regarding a similar incident involving Ken Silverstein to “lie, deceive and fabricate to get the story?”[ii]

Certain elements of the media seem to have no restrictions when it comes to destroying people, businesses and those they deem not to agree with. To me, it comes as little surprise that Payne is someone supposedly close to the Republicans in an election year. Most of American media today leans left and anything on the right is fodder for ideologues with a bully pulpit… that pulpit being a keyboard and the Internet.

Clients pay for positive outcomes, but also for protection from potential negatives. One cannot approach media feebly or even be lulled into thinking they are friends looking to serve the cause of justice. Journalists often claim a mantle of self-righteousness, self appointed and self governed; it neither makes them right nor gives them the right. The public can decide right from wrong based on objectivity.

I recall my recent experience when a Journalist at top tier investigative TV news program called me. The reporter relentlessly pursued an interview with my client, and we were not accepting any. I was running out of ways of saying “no” kindly. He called my client’s office when he could not get me to move. He insisted on speaking with my client, yet I told him again politely “He’s not interested.” Making a long story short; he cursed, threatened, and bad-mouthed me, then he called for weeks on end. He could not get his way “” and was shocked.

Lobbyists, lobbying firms, PR agencies and the like exist to help influence public opinion. As long as the world has existed there have been people serving in those roles. Even God had Moses use his access to his “brother” Pharaoh to lobby the cause of the Hebrews. While of course Presidential libraries must not be built on bribes; being paid to perform a service and providing access are not bribes.

Ronn Torossian

5WPR

The Scott McClellan case has received a tremendous amount of attention in the mainstream media, understandably.

My thoughts:

If he felt he was lying at the time, why didn’t he resign or stop working ? The golden rule in PR is to not work with liars or lie to the press.  It reflects on us, and for us, if a client makes a claim we believe not to be true, we won’t represent them.  Lying to the media is a golden no-no for us… Challenge them, fight them…. Don’t answer them… but lie ? No.  If one lies to the media, how can they be trusted the next time around ?  I question Mr. McClellan’s honesty, reliability, and decency.

How can this be anything other than trying to run to the bank and make money ? Ethical ? Honest ? No.

Ronn Torossian

5WPR

As the owner of a PR agency, I found Sunday’s New York Times blockbuster article “Behind Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,” (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/…) fascinating. For me, it’s a given that all organizations (including the US military) attempt to “spin” what the public sees and educate and influence spokespeople who appear in the media. It’s not deception any more than the political candidates who are trained to respond in a certain way, nonprofit organizations that routinely use one set of statistics instead of another or CEOs who are media trained on a daily basis by their PR firms.

Reading this article, I’d urge all to leave their politics aside. Whether one does or doesn’t agree with the war, once the President decides the war continues, the military must use all their PR might to convince the public they are right, and that means educating (in their way) and influencing “talking heads.”

Some specifics on this article:
· It’s natural that many who appear on TV have a vested financial or personal interest in the industry they are discussing. When one turns on any business station to discuss the economy, is the talking head not someone affected by the stock market? Clearly these individuals can’t speak about specific companies any more than someone in the market can discuss a specific stock, but they have a vested interest all the same.

It’s not at all a surprise to me that the ex-military personnel in this article have ties to people and companies in the defense industry, and in fact, benefit from it financially. (How else would one retired from the military earn a living?) So too, do many people on CNBC regularly make money from the stock market. So too, do commentators on E! make money from entertainment, and so on and so on.

Does one expect that a successful, renowned individual is doing TV and media interviews as a public service? I imagine very few do. Nearly everyone who appears in the media these days has a self-interested purpose.

· “Over time, the Pentagon recruited more than 75 retired officers.” Is it a surprise that retired officers would tend to be pro-military? Is it a surprise that the Pentagon wants the most favorable experts on their side? That the most eloquent, best-looking individuals would be the ones the military wants front and center? Experts are regularly sought out by the media, so why wouldn’t these military experts be the ideal type for the Pentagon to try and “spin”? That’s quite simply again, PR 101.

· The New York Times wrote of commentators “losing access” if they spoke negatively. While that sounds sinister, in reality, PR 101 would tell anyone to grant access to individuals more likely to speak positively. (Think Hillary Clinton or Obama is granting a lot of time to Commentary Magazine? Think the New York Yankees are allowing a Boston Globe sports reporter unfettered locker room access?)

In reality, reporters and PR people have a give-and-take relationship. It only makes sense that “unfriendly” interests won’t be granted access. Why not grant access to someone more likely to say nice things? This is true in any business, and yes, war, government and politics is business.

I’ve heard the arguments for “complete transparency,” but it’s not fair to ask the administration to meet 100% of these requirements without also demanding the same from our political parties, nonprofit organizations, and profit-driven businesses on the same topic, all of whom have vested interests. Many of the groups that would oppose my opinion have considerably lower standards of transparency for their own organizations. In order to meet any agenda, it’s important to control and manage the flow of information.

Spin is part and parcel of PR (and most definitely crisis/issues PR). The job of a good PR professional, particularly on issues, is to influence and convince people your way is right. That’s done in a variety of ways, including continually training your sources, continually providing talking points, and even (on occasion) blocking access to unfriendly reporters or experts. That’s true for all levels of big business and big politics.

This statement makes sense to me: “The intent and purpose of this is nothing other than an earnest attempt to inform the American people,” Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said. It was, Mr. Whitman added, “a bit incredible” to think retired military officers could be “wound up” and turned into “puppets of the Defense Department.”

Spin, Spin, Spin.

Ronn Torossian

5W PR

A few random thoughts and ramblings on this Friday nite @ 11 PM, pre an early bedtime so I can be on the treadmill by 7 AM running (ran tonight also and loved it)….As I have said, sweat always makes one more focused:

1: Watched the Democratic debates last night and at the outset, an item jumped out at me. As the candidates walked out, Hillary walked right to the anchors and “big-wigs” hosting the debates and shook hands… and Obama lagged 15 seconds behind to shake hands with a few people on the edges of the audiences before he walked to the “big-wigs.”. Has she still not learned the lesson that one needs more contact with the people, that this election has been won on the ground, rather than by the traditional establishment ? This election is won on the ground, from minute one (a lesson Rudy Giuliani, my favorite from the original choices clearly didn’t get)… and Hillary still isn’t.

PR angle? It’s a new media world – Bloggers, Myspace, Facebook and the like all count as PR today. The big and the small. THE WORLD HAS CHANGED – IN ALL AREAS.

2: Recession? I spoke to 2 fellow PR firm owners today of firms about our size and we agreed – There’s certainly been a slow down… not a ton of hiring being done, and a genuine concern about spending on PR. All of us agreed we are keeping a close eye on collections, and there is concern. That said, 5W’s business is healthy… and I firmly believe opportunity exists in recession. But it requires continued uber-focus and harder work. Period.

3: Latest Reading? Tonight I read INC Magazine (which I always love and find to be so accurate in terms of relevance for an entrepreneur), Portfolio Magazine (which I admittedly just started reading but really enjoyed), and finally finished reading Khaled Hosseini’s 2nd novel, A Thousand Splendid Sons…. This after reading in a single weekend “The Kite Runner.” Both books were tremendously inspiring, exciting… and a must read for anyone unsure of the true problems in the Middle East.

4: I spent a little over an hour today over lunch with all of the entry level Account Coordinators at my agency and really enjoyed it. I still can’t believe it that I have 90+ people working for me, and find it very very important to spend relevant time with employees. We talked about life, philosophies and general agency life. It was the best part of my professional day.

Ronn Torossian
5W PR

As we start to enter an economic downtime, lets hope this proves true for corporate PR agencies as well…

The current presidential race clearly demonstrates that PR has surpassed advertising as the most important part of the campaign, according to Karl Rove.

While the “TV ad man” was the most potent operator during the closing decades of the 20th century, the 21st century is “seeing the rise of the communications director and press spokesman as the more important figures on the campaign staff,” writes Rove in today’s Wall Street Journal.

President Bush’s former counselor says PR’s role has increased due to the “age of the Internet, cable TV, YouTube, multiple news cycles in one day and the need for really instantaneous response.” TV ads don’t count as much as they once did because campaigns have become “so intense, long and geared toward retail politics that people form opinions that are different to alter by early and voluminous advertising.”

Ronn Torossian

5W PR