A couple weeks ago, when the Eliot Spitzer story broke, friends and family began asking me what I would have done were I the former governor's public relations advisor. Most everyone I know is aware that I study PR, and they were curious to know how I would have handled the prostitution ring scandal and what I would have advised the former governor to do.

My parents and some other relatives were not only disgusted by the whole situation, but were totally turned off by Spitzer's two brief speeches (one that informed the public of his wrongdoings and of his apology, and one that announced his resignation). My family members thought the speeches were poorly done and that they made people even more angry with the former governor.

I, however, have a different opinion of the PR behind Spitzer's actions following the discovery of his link to the prostitution ring. In a reply to those who wanted to know what I would have done, I first informed them that years ago, I vowed never to do PR for politicians. In my few years on this earth, I have learned that politicians almost always have some steamy sex situation brewing, and that I don't ever want to be the individual who has to clean up that mess.

Also, though, I told friends and family that even if the best PR person in the world had been working for Spitzer, the final two speeches wouldn't have changed. When a politician gets embroiled in something of this magnitude, what else can a PR advisor do than to advise him/her to just tell the truth quickly and get out of office?

In much of the crisis communication research I have read, it has been found that the best thing to do to steady oneself after a crisis occurs is to be fast about telling the public exactly what happened. Speed and honesty are often crucial when trying to ease public anger or, in some cases, save the organization or individual involved in the crisis. Also, when a public feels cheated, it wants someone to blame and pay for the offense, and it wants an apology.

Whoever helped Spitzer come to the decision to say what he said and then leave office was giving the public just what it wanted: a target (Spitzer) for pointing the finger and a straightforward apology. The speedy admission of the truth and the fact that Spitzer paid for his crime (by leaving office) were actions that quite possibly helped prevent an even worse reaction from the public.

I'm not saying that the PR behind the speeches created a favorable impression of Spitzer, but it certainly did more for him than lying, blame-shifting or making excuses would have done. Think of the many politicians who have done something awful and then lied about it afterward. I'd be willing to bet that Spitzer will come out of this media storm better off than those politicians who didn't just come out with the truth immediately after they offended the public.

-Kelly 

Informing the Media and the American Public

The press conference, once seen as a staple of media relations, has taken a backseat to content electronically being released through the Internet. However there are still plenty of instances where a press conference is useful when one needs to address issues that are controversial or complex. Though this instance was not a press conference in the traditional sense where reporters have opportunities to ask questions, it served the same purpose as the senator was addressing questions that had already been asked.

 

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s speech last Tuesday on race in America was intended to sway voters in the upcoming Pennsylvania election, but it also served a more immediate purpose. Two weeks ago video clips began circulating on the Internet and in political talk shows of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a man Sen. Obama has described as his spiritual leader and mentor, denouncing America’s foreign policy as being terrorist in nature. The Reverend preached that 9/11 was a result of U.S. foreign policy supporting terrorist abroad, and that “What we are doing is the same thing al-Qaeda is doing under a different color flag.”

 

For a presidential candidate to have described this reverend as his mentor, this calls for some urgent damage control. More and more clips began emerging and it became clear that this issue was only gaining momentum. A New York Times article stated that Sen. Obama “concluded over the weekend that he had failed to resolve the questions” and “wanted to address the firestorm in a speech.”

 

Sen. Obama and his campaign staff were facing an issue that had garnered media attention on the national and international level. I can imagine far too many news sources were writing or broadcasting on the issue for the campaign to efficiently respond to individual media inquires. A high-profile speech would be an opportunity for the senator to address the issue and make sure he had a forum to state his case. Rather than the media having to follow this story based on press releases from his campaign, Sen. Obama instead chose to address the issue head on in front of both the media and the American public. A televised speech allowed Sen. Obama to inform the media, but also to directly send his message to the America viewers who watched the speech live, or afterwards on YouTube.

-Brian

Target takes wrong approach when dealing with blogger

A blogger recently contacted Target in regards to her concern about a Target billboard in Times Square which featured a young girl, fully clothed but spread-eagle with Target's trademarked bullseye design in line with her crotch. A public relations person at Target responded to the complaint with "Unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with nontraditional media outlets."

News spread over the blogging world about Amy Jussel, the founder of the blog and contacter to Target about the billboard, and Target's response to her complaint. It eventually blew up enough for The New York Times to feature an article about Target's lack of communication with new media. If you haven't seen the article Target tells a Blogger to Go Away, here it is http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/business/media/28target.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=media+relations+target&st=nyt&oref=slogin.

With the growth of the internet and new media outlets, you would think Target would recognize the importance and power of the blogging community. Company spokeswoman, Amy von Walter stated that "Target’s policy is to focus limited resources on the big media outlets, like television stations and newspapers, which reach large numbers of shoppers," but said Target is making small strides towards improving their relationship with new media outlets. Currently, Target is reviewing their policy of responding to traditional media only and may adjust it to encompass new media as well.

Other large retailers, such as Walmart, have been praised for their attempts to work with new media. Walmart's WalmartWatch.com was recently launched in order to keep up with customer complaints and see how customers feel about service and products. Many other large companies are expanding their Web sites to accomodate for bloggers and their opinions. Will Target be next?

-Mandy

Obama's free ads

People tend to turn their heads when political advertisements are at large. They are usually so full of agendas and mud-slinging that any sort of credibility is usually lost. Something is different during this election though, advertising creative's seem to have a crush on Obama. Some of the best creative minds in the world are creating world class advertising for Obama--they are not part of his campaign and are doing it for free, because they can.

If you haven't seen the videos check out http://www.dipdive.com/. As of tonight over 11 million people have watched the "Yes We Can" music video, which features an all-star cast and first-class production. It was all done by calling in favors from friends, just because they like Obama--talk about great media relations! This isn't the first time either, many artists and ad people are diving in to free promotions.

What is it about him that makes ad people and celebrities so excited to endorse Obama? "This is a guy who speaks in poetry -- he's a wide-open canvas and really right for making incredibly moving and incredibly inspiring work," said John Dukakis, senior VP-branded entertainment at Hill Holliday. He seems to possess qualities that make the online media world ready to create viral pieces that speak volumes.

Celebrities don't endorse products for free.

Advertising agencies are usually in the same boat.

Yet, with Obama it's different. It gives him huge credibility that paid promotion simply could not offer. Over 11 million times, people have sought out his message and been completely engaged with it, knowing that it was created by his true supporters. Only time will tell if the buzz marketing will turn into votes but one thing is for sure, the media is on Obama's side and willing to help get him where he wants to go.

-Jessica

Leave the Pop Wreck Alone, Media

For the past few months, it seems as if what pregnancy test Britney Spears is stocking up on is the most relevant current event to many media outlets. You know it’s gone too far when CNN tags the reoccurring subject as “Britney in Crisis” and flaunts it right next to the breaking news headlines about death tolls in Iraq. You also know it’s gone too far when entertainment source TMZ.com posts at least four daily videos of Britney walking to her car, fighting off rampant photographers, going to court or some other scene that is probably not worth watching. 

Have we really become this pathetic? Do we really have nothing better to do with our time than follow the daily antics of the not-so-luminary pop star?

Granted, while a more appropriate term for her may be a pop wreck, the media really should focus on the more pertinent issues in today’s world. Let’s face it, we have a lot of pressing issues that need to be exposed, and I don’t think Britney’s underwear situation or greasy-haired boyfriend fits anywhere within the conventional elements of news coverage.

Besides the fact that the media has a great responsibility to feed the public news that will inform and educate, the focus on Britney is doing a glaring injustice to her well being, and to the sanity of her children. It is quite obvious, especially after her recent visits to psychiatric clinics, that Britney has issues. Constantly putting her in the spotlight in her condition opens her up to unnecessary scrutiny and leaves her defenseless.

While Britney and her family attempt to clean up the mess that is her life, I suggest that the media find something else to cover.

- Courtney