Yesterday, I spoke with a group of 40 MBA students visiting from France who came to my office.  As we spoke about job opportunities in the new market, the similarities between the new financial realities of the U.S. and the socialist system of France became readily apparent, as Newsweek in fact recently noted.  While I don’t usually blog on politics, I can’t resist the opportunity to refer to this brilliant letter on how the current political system is adversely affecting entrepreneurs, which has been making the rounds on the Internet and which a number of entrepreneur clients have forwarded to me.  I absolutely agree with the sentiments of it, and I think we are living in tremendously unique financial times. 

As I remarked a few months ago in The Atlanta Journal Constitution, the era of trust in the U.S. simply doesn’t exist these days.  As the era of lies and liars emerges – Bernie Madoff, Bear Sterns, A-Rod – brands that can manage to communicate authentically can win in a major way.  I believe marketing in the short term is best done on a personal basis with niche marketing or hand-to-hand combat. Targeted strategic communications and PR plans will win a lot better in the short term.  It’s a sniper rather than a machine gun (and yes, this economy remains a war). 
 

It’s remarkable that things are so bad these days in the newspaper business that shares in the New York Times Co. on Friday slumped to a low of $3.99, less than the price of the Sunday paper. 
 

While many people often speak about the value of social media, there are also dangers that we must be aware of.  A competitor recently “friended” me on facebook, and then contacted nearly all of my friends in an attempt to send them information on his agency.  Similarly, LinkedIn and other networks are dreams come true for recruiters, competitors and the like.  So be careful with your public contacts.  Risks and reward should both be considered when participating in new social media platforms.
 

Ronn Torossian

5WPR

Friday morning, as part of our ongoing speaker series, 5WPR hosted Rev. Al Sharpton.  Although I disagree with him politically, Sharpton has influence and access, and he brought a new view to our conference room.  He’s clearly a messenger with a voice in politics and the media, and someone we can learn from.

As a PR agency, we host a speaker series for our clients, friends, contacts, and the media.  In the past four months, our speakers have included Hank Sheinkopf (a friend and very smart political consultant… daily on CNN), Roger Stone (political genius), two Israeli MK’s, including Gilad Arden (a probable Minister in a Netanyahu administration) and Yoel Hasson, a longtime friend and Chairman of Kadima (current ruling party), among a slew of others.  It’s beneficial for our clients, interesting and exciting.
 
Sharpton’s topic was Race & Business in the Obama Administration.  He spoke quite eloquently, acknowledging that while a significant glass ceiling has been broken, there is still a ways to go.  “We’ve made a lot of progress, but I don’t think we should stop until we make it all the way,” he said

When asked how far he thinks he has moved the Civil Rights movement, he responded, “We have made enormous progress, [but] Martin Luther King used to say ‘you gotta measure things from the bottom to the top.’  So we made a lot of top progress, but the bottom has to be on the same progressive curve as the top.  You can’t just have Tiger Woods, Oprah Winfrey, Barack Obama, but double unemployment in Harlem and act like it’s not important.  That’s where the challenges still remain.”

Sharpton’s entire presentation can be heard at 5W Public Relations’ YouTube page. 
The presentation is broken into three segments:
Part -1:
Part -2: 
Part -3:

Sharpton’s most resonating words for me were, “This isn’t the end of grievance politics.  There will be grievance politics as long as there are grievances.”  Working with a ton of politicians on PR issues, I agree that as long as there’s politics there will be grievances.

It was an all around exhausting week, so I’ll end with a quote from an investment banking friend, who said: “Most people DON’T have a clue what they’re doing and the ones that do work their asses off – right?”  I concur.  It’s not easy being a business owner.

Ronn Torossian
5W PR

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

Brand equity and brand positioning are both incredibly important.  However, an act that gives your brand power today can bring a cloud of negativity tomorrow.  Ringing the Opening Bell at the NYSE has long been a coveted photo opportunity and a chance to flaunt a brand in front of hundreds of millions of viewers. But with market turmoil and an unpredictable financial landscape, the act of ringing the Opening Bell has become an undesirable risk.  Who could have ever thought that a brand could be sullied by associating with the NYSE?  But, indeed, a New York Times article seems to say so.

As I have stated earlier vis a vis sponsorships, every action has a reaction, and brands have to be cognizant of the world around them before agreeing to participate in any initiative.  Public opinion can shift swiftly and dramatically.  The wrong association can cause it to shift against your brand.  We’ve had a number of clients ring the Opening Bell in the past, when the NYSE was seen as a bastion of power and prosperity, and I am sure those days will return soon. 

Ronn Torossian

5W PR

There has been a lot of buzz today about the Us Weekly covers below vis a vis bias in the media.  Although idealists suggest otherwise, I find the concept of an unbiased media simply impossible.  First, as human beings, we have inherent biases that can’t be discarded on a whim.  Whether political, cultural or simply a level of taste, each of us holds certain ideas closer than others.  Secondly, bias creates tension and drama, which sells more magazines, attracts more viewers, and keeps online visitors coming back for more.  Especially in an age when a new, unbridled media is quickly usurping the old, the rules of objectivity will continue to be a moving target.

Regardless of one’s political stance, bias in the media is a discussion worth consideration by PR professionals, and certainly a topic this PR blog will continue to blog on.  As a student of journalism, I suggest reading Bias by Bernard Goldberg – Certainly will make you think.

Ronn Torossian

5WPR

Great cover story today in The New York Observer entitled, “Convention Pits Texting vs. Press.”  Amid the buzz surrounding the Obama camp’s intention to release the VP choice via text message, the article focuses on how print journalists at the DNC just aren’t getting many exclusive (or good) stories that aren’t being told elsewhere.

Gail Collins of The New York Times was quoted as saying “There’s 10 million people watching TV, and if we can’t find something that’s not on the TV to be useful about, then what the hell is my paper paying me to be here? I feel morally obliged to be running around futilely trying to find something.”

In today’s new world of instant communication, it’s that much harder for print reporters to find good stories.  As the article states, “For journalists being powerful in the arenas they cover is as significant as being powerful in their own industry. A political reporter wants to cover politics.”

The New York Times’ chief political reporter, Adam Nagourney said, “If you come here and David Axelrod came walking down the aisle over there, there’d be 500 people around him, and you’d be getting the most boilerplate quotes. So what’s the point?”

I don’t believe print journalism is dead (as some have surmised). But the old medium is a mess.  Every aspect of the world has changed, and journalists and media have to learn to deal with it.  There’s much more competition and instant communication and much less exclusivity.

PR people need to continue to nurture relationships and feed media stories, but also learn to function differently as well.  This article is interesting reading for all of us concerned with spin and what media is thinking, and how they are continuing to evolve.

Ronn Torossian

5WPR

As a PR professional who started his PR career in politics, I remain consumed and fascinated with the art of the spin, particularly in the political sphere. Today’s reality is a McCain vs. Obama race, but the real story is the PR behind the campaign. From how Rudy Guiliani ran his race — focusing on Florida — to the way Hillary Clinton conducted her campaign, handling political public relations is often the most intense, serious, and challenging work a PR professional can have.

This article in The Atlantic is a necessary read for anyone interested in learning from mistakes. Although, as I often say, it’s easy to criticize and harder to do, and in business and life, hindsight is always 20/20. Nevertheless, the number of documents leaked at this extremely high level was amazing, and, as stated, “Everything from major strategic plans to bitchy staff e-mail feuds was handed over.”

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

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

A truly remarkable political milestone occurred last week.  Barack Obama’s campaign launched a Web site devoted entirely to discrediting so-called smears at www.fightthesmears.com. 

When I first learned of the initiative, I assumed it had to be an unaffiliated site run by Obama supporters, but I was amazed to learn it was part of his official campaign.

In past political campaigns, rumor and innuendo has consistently been part of the game.   Third parties with vague affiliations to specific candidates leak unsubstantiated information that calls an opponent’s character into question.   In this campaign, however, the official Obama for President campaign’s plan is to attempt to challenge existing rumors head-on, which raises many additional questions:

* At what point does the campaign decide to list a “smear” on its site? Are these smears prior negative evening stories, or Page Six items, or merely circulating rumors that many have yet to learn about? 

* How does the campaign respond differently online vs. its daily press briefings? By calling attention to and denying a “rumor” so blatantly, there are inherent risks. 

* Does the campaign risk opponents abusing the “Push Back Now” feature to further disseminate rumors/truths from the Obama email system? 

Clearly, this is a very aggressive strategy for a presidential candidate.  Forward thinking, yes, but perhaps not the best move for the official campaign.  I think it is wiser to use a third party support group than have the official campaign as the front. 

Third parties have the freedom to take controversial actions that a candidate would never dream of undertaking.  A third party would keep the situation at an arm’s length, leaving Obama free to steer the campaign away from smear and toward the issues.

One Obama quote on the Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire that I found telling and quite interesting from a campaign that claims to be positive: Candidate Obama set the stage for the coming “fight” by saying, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

For an interesting marketing perspective on the initiative, Washington Post blogger Chris Cillizza’s post is worth reading.  His most compelling argument in favor of the site is how the speed of information has exponentially increased in the last four years, making rumors spread far faster and deeper than in past campaigns.  That particular issue is one we’ve seen affect a wide range of industries, and it’s not surprising that politics is no exception.

Ronn Torossian

5WPR