Tiger Dissappears

Does an 800-pound gorilla leave a shadow ?

Accenture, the global consulting firm announced this week it had the perfect plan for solving its current public relations problem, i.e., commercials, ads, billboards, posters, etc. touting its close and paid association with the world's most recognizable professional athlete, Tiger Woods. The plan, undoubtedly cooked up over several high priced meetings between management and corporate PR consultants, is a simple one...eradicate the cheating philanderer from our corporate life and pretend he doesn't exist! I can't imagine the number of high-priced hours that were charged against this winner.

Accenture, as if Tiger Woods Were Never There

How exactly...by removing the "Tiger brand" from all advertising, web sites, posters, internal displays, T-shirts, caps, tchotchkes...and, I assume from all jokes around the water cooler or board room table.

"The company's advertising campaign is about "high performance" and Mr. Woods 'just wasn't a metaphor for high performance anymore,' a spokesperson for Accenture said." Really? Juggling thirteen plus affairs while being married... and winning Athlete of the Decade, might cause some to doubt that, but that's fodder for others to debate.

Ironically, Accenture's Orwellian decision has caused even more focus to be put on the company's decision making and not for its decisiveness, but for its silliness and perceived pettiness. Rather than suffer a little self-effacing embarrassment, stand by their original decision, or at least judiciously move to a new marketing strategy, Accenture has chosen to come across as humorless, self-righteous, and a shade petty. Just the traits we all want in our high-priced corporate consultants, I guess.


For the record, I'm one of those naysayers that actually do believe that Mr. Woods' does not have a "public obligation" to come clean...to open his broken personal life to the public hordes that may or may not have purchased consulting services, a watch, a Buick (which he obviously doesn't drive personally) or a razor because of his face and scripted word. Mr. Woods is one hell of a golfer, arguably the best that ever lived...and as a golfing role model with his picture perfect swing, power, and single-minded on-course competitive intensity, he should be admired and imitated...and well-paid as a professional athlete. If these same attributes...some God-given but most learned through hours and years of practice...also attract advertisers, PR-types, corporate hanger-ons, fawning sports writers, and yes, beautiful adoring women...does that present an obligation for him to "go public" with an explanation or act of contrition so all can feel better about their own foolishness. The corporate sponsors and their PR minions are no different than the women that threw themselves in front of him...hanging out with Tiger so they can feel better about themselves and maybe add a little value to their lives (products, services, etc. etc.) They all got something in return.

The only people that Mr. Woods has an obligation to are himself and his family...and maybe his golf game that brought him the fame in the first place. The rest of us self-righteous souls need to get back to work.

Not Again…Burson Takes it on the Chin

Mark Penn makes it easy to violate the 11th commandment...

Let’s get this on the record and out of the way early…I like to think of myself as politically semi-independent. I lean a little toward being more fiscally conservative as I approach retirement but definitely to the left on social issues. But as the politics of 2010 go, I would definitely be considered a liberal latte-sipping leftist. Ok that being the case, then why am I constantly criticizing Mark Penn, the self-anointed political PR guru, advisor to Hilary and other Democrats, and head of one of the great old PR institutions and my alma mater, Burson-Marsteller?

Why…because he makes it so easy. Burson-Marsteller supposedly under his expert guidance continues to make dumb decisions…not necessarily for the clients, but for itself.

The latest is a recent report that federal records show that Burson and sister company, Penn, Schoen & Berland, were paid $5.97 million by the FCC to promote the national switch from analog to digital television last Spring. Granted, $4.36 of this amount was spent on paid advertising through it’s parent, Young & Rubicam, but Burson readily and proudly admits that it was compensated $1.3 million in “professional fees for the work of a team of professionals.” Considering that the entire program supposedly lasted less than three months, that indeed is a team of at least very expensive professionals. And if I remember my days at Burson correctly, they all carried hefty titles and more importantly, even heftier hourly billing rates.

It’s hard to fathom the stupidity or frankly, the immorality, of such billing and even harder to understand in this supposed age of “change in politics as usual,” the hypocrisy of allowing it to happen. I had hoped that this new administration would at the very least be more diligent in its management of the sycophants who follow new leadership into office if not less inclined to such behavior. If not however, then we loyalists need and should not shrink from criticizing those of our own…PR profession or political party.

Burson itself is not without blame in this. Is it the recession or Penn’s greed that has clouded Burson-Marsteller’s judgment to such a degree that it cannot afford to turn down what is an obvious conflict of interest at worst, or at best a sketchy communication strategy…to haul in a few more million?

But my real question to the board of Burson-Marsteller or to whomever Mark Penn answers to these days, is why he continues to enjoy their loyalty when he continues to abdicate his responsibility of sound judgment and even, God forbid, good PR sense…

“Managing” without Lou Dobbs

It will be tough, but I’ll try…

This year we’ve lost Walter Cronkite and Don Hewitt…two giants of broadcast journalism. Now we’re losing CNN’s Lou Dobbs. Well…not quite. He certainly is still among the living; and while he is leaving the cable network, he has vowed to “go beyond the role at CNN and engage in constructive problem solving.”

I’d find this amusing given his last several years on the air except it seems there are a lot of devoted followers of Mr. Dobbs out there who professed this devotion on his radio call-in show the following day. (Yes, he has one too.) Not surprisingly most of the devotees hoped he would be joining their favorite “news source,” Fox, or even running for political office. "We need you in the Senate, Lou,” one caller exhorted. Now there’s a thought…next speech before a joint session of Congress, he could join Representative Wilson in shouting down the President over immigration issues.

In his on-air departure announcement Dobbs said, "Each of those (major) issues is, in my opinion, informed by our capacity to demonstrate strong resilience of our now weakened capitalist economy and demonstrate the political will to overcome the lack of true representation in Washington, D.C. I believe these to be profoundly, critically important issues and I will continue to strive to deal honestly and straightforwardly with those issues in the future." Those issues, he added, are defined in the public arena "by partisanship and ideology rather than by rigorous, empirical forethought, analysis and discussion," and he vowed to work to change that.

In my humble opinion, Dobbs’ first step in changing the fact that partisanship and ideology are defining the issues in the public arena is his leaving the bloody CNN pulpit he’s been using for the last several years. Amen.

Ironically and once again for the sake of full disclosure, fifteen years ago Dobbs was hosting a weekend half-hour CNN business show from New York titled, “Managing With Lou Dobbs” on which I was a featured guest one week. While I admittedly enjoyed the attention the show focused on my PR business, I was underwhelmed by Dobb’s lack of preparation for the interview. Ok, I admit managing a national PR firm is not the same as being the head of the Federal Reserve, but a little professionalism would have been nice. (For those of you devotees, this show was prior to Dobbs’ previous departure from CNN in the heady days before the tech bubble burst. He left then to start his own dot-com devoted to space exploration. Alas, the bubble burst and Lou, perhaps a little less flush but no less humble as the journalist/advocate, returned to CNN.)

It may not be CNN next time, but Lou Dobbs needs the adulation of the multitudes and not the clubby Senate camaraderie of Al Franken. He’ll be back on the air soon enough.

Failing Up

Some of our best and the brightest…

The monthly jobless report came out again this week and the picture was bleak enough to flatten the earlier upward movement of the markets. Double-digit unemployment…ten point two percent…not since Reagan was well into his second year had we had this many of our citizens standing in line or looking for jobs. And many of those standing outside looking in are us…journalists, agency types, marcom pros, PR practitioners, and even whole small firms just not able to withstand the tightened or withdrawn budgets or credit squeeze. And while I’m enough of an optimist to believe that I see a faint glow at the end of this nightmarish tunnel, it still is a personal tragedy for those directly among the “jobless.”

But then I read a piece in the Sunday NY Times and was reminded again that sometimes real positive growth comes from being forced to re-evaluate our circumstances of employment…nice way of saying, “being canned.” Or, as the Times puts it, “The Benefit of a Boot Out the Door.” In the column, Jeffrey Katzenberg, elaborates on how his forced departure from Disney “fueled him to get on…etc.” Hey, I recognize that most of us that get laid off or fired, do so without the warm fuzzies of a Disney multimillion-dollar severance package to help us cope. But the point that being fired, whether from a seven-figure position or twelve-buck an hour job, is not necessarily always a bad thing…and good things can actually come of it.

Before someone out there says, “sure, easy for Mr. CEO to say,” it’s best for me to come clean. I’ve been fired, terminated, laid off, and generally just jobless on not just a couple of occasions, but several. And I’d like to believe that each time I’ve learned something about myself, and others. I also learned that losing your job whether self inflicted or not, is only failure if you fail to grow from it. I had a boss once, a man that had started three companies with the first two ending upside down…the third, highly successful. He believed strongly that only those that have tasted failure were worthy of employment consideration. His reasoning was that sooner or later most of us will stumble and fall, and he wanted to surround himself with those that had that out of their system and had grown accordingly.


I’m not sure I would go that far, but I certainly understand his thinking. My hobby is motorcycling and I must admit I prefer riding with those that have respect for the inherent dangers of the sport and ride accordingly. And more often than not, this respect is gained through a close call or even an accident…’going down’ as we say. The same can be said for a business enterprise…be it a news organization, corporation, or agency. Having a couple of close calls or even a job loss on your resume’ can be a positive…if you can demonstrate how you’ve grown from the experience and gained respect for the warning signs moving forward.

Yes, some may skate through life perfectly attuned to success and never be bothered with life’s annoying little stumbles…never being tested by a touch or two of failure and self-doubt. But come on, how many people really fit this description, and those that do…do you really trust them…or even like them? Me…I prefer to see a few scars on my associates and employees. To me, these are by far the best and the brightest.

What's in a name?

Shakespeare might have got it wrong …

As Juliet says to Romeo: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

Well…maybe. I’m not sure Shakespeare would be so sure of his prose if he were to deal with today’s law firms, advertising agencies, and PR firms. I was reminded again of the difficulty and the egos involved when I recently read Stuart Elliott's
 In Advertising column in the New York Times. He answers a reader’s question Q&A section about the famous ad agency, BBDO, and its name being associated with a famous quote that the original name of the agency -- Batten, Barton, Durstine & Osborn -- “sounded like a trunk falling down a flight of stairs.” Indeed.

The story reminded me of the name of my second place of employment, N.W. Ayer & Son, often referred to as the oldest advertising agency in America…or affectionately (and despairingly) as “the old gray lady of Philadelphia.” The story goes that when the agency was founded in the late nineteenth century, yes, in Philadelphia, old N.W. had nothing to do with it. In fact, he was already deceased. His son, whose name escapes me as well as most advertising historians, decided that an enterprise as auspicious as America’s original ad agency needed more gravitas than his name alone bestowed. Thus, he gave the lion’s share of the letterhead to his deceased father and he took up anonymous residence to the right of the ampersand.

Naming an advertising or PR agency with just the right combination of gravitas and ego…mixed with trendy creativity is not an easy task as I learned when faced with just such a task a few years ago when I founded my own firm. (I cannot speak for law firms since they seem to be dedicated to gravitas and ego alone.) I ran through the usual boring suspects like…RH Grove & Associates, Grove Communications, and my personal favorite, Gordon, Geotz & Grove (or G3 as in “cubed”.) Gordon and Geotz, both being deceased high school friends, to add “size” and the gravitas while the “cubed” hit a note of ultra cool creativity. Thank goodness my daughter and experienced communication professional herself, stepped in to save me and the new firm from such an embarrassment. Her frank assessment…”why not just name the company for what it does, not who founded it. Call it, INK…that’s what you do for clients…get them ink.” Indeed.

Not as much gravitas, little to no ego, trendy creativity…maybe. But INK by any other name after all these years wouldn’t smell nearly as sweet.

Gullibility… media is thy name

The stunt worked and that’s what’s so pathetic

Face it. We all got sucked into the drama last week played out on the nation’s TV screens. Those at home paused to listen or watch. Those at work were interrupted by co-workers either attuned to breaking alerts on the Internet or an office television. But we all paid attention…even if just momentarily. We all paid attention. Why? It was a hot breaking news story with all the elements that we’ve learned make our senses prick up. It had a child in terrible, immanent danger. It had distraught parents. It was highly visual and perfect for television. And, it had gained the instant gravitas of CNN and Fox, with the other networks soon to follow. Perfect!

Except for one minor problem… it wasn’t true.

Then, of course, came the backlash of what Frank Rich in Sunday’s NY Times (In Defense of the ‘Balloon Boy’ Dad) referred to as, “a warm bath of moral superiority. No matter our own faults, we could never top Richard Heene, who mercilessly exploited his child for fame and profit. Nor as craven as the news media…”

I don’t believe the broadcast news media to be that craven. Gullible, sloppy, and driven above all else for the scoop in this age of the 24/7 news cycle, yes. Open to exactly this kind of a misfortunate publicity stunt by the same kind of individuals that are pathetic in this instance (and yes, smart) enough to feed off their kids to satisfy their and the media’s needs, yes. But I do agree with Rich in his Times piece, that we in the watching audience must share in that gullibility. Did we all suspend all sense or common sense while watching that over-sized Jiffy Pop floating over Colorado? The answer to that is also, yes. And it’s that secret knowledge of our own gullibility that adds to our outrage. “A massive fraud!” so thundered Bill O’Reilly.

However we in the business of publicity must also applaud…no, not the sad use of one’s own kid to exploit for fame and profit…but the execution of the stunt to gain the incredible primary coverage as well as the secondary and continuing coverage. This story has great legs…not in spite of its falsehood, but now because of it. Amazing! The media can’t help itself.

“They put on a very good show for us, and we bought it,” the local sheriff said last weekend.

And, we are continuing to do so.

Is it blessed to receive?

From random fax-spam to blogger freebies …

There’s something strangely comforting about still receiving faxes in the age of the Internet and email…even if the faxes are solicitations of the absurd. My favorite this week was from Presidential Who’s Who, addressed to “Dear Company Owner” and exclaiming that “my information had been reviewed and accepted for inclusion in the 2010 edition.” Hot Damn! After forty some years I am finally being recognized for “outstanding business and professional achievements.” Well ok…it’s about time.


But wait. It then went on to ask me to fill out and return an attached form that asked my name and title, my company’s name, its industry, our principal product or service, and personal specialty. Hmmmm…just a random thought, but if my company and me have “reached the distinguished level of success in my chosen profession,” as stipulated, and I’ve already been reviewed and accepted to be in this fine edition, why ask? On further review, I choose to continue in anonymity.


Of far greater import than my personal recognition in yet another bogus edition of Who’s Who, was the piece in the New York Times Ad and Media section this week, "Soon Bloggers Must Give Full Disclosure", that the FTC has decided to crack down on bloggers plugging products sent to them by companies hoping for a favorable review. The FTC rules governing endorsements and testimonials in advertisements are going to be studied and possibly expanded to cover bloggers and social media like Facebook and Twitter. This kind of “freebie spam” has been a stable of marketing for just about forever; and certainly long before the invention of the Internet or social media. According to the Times, “For bloggers who review products, this means that the days of an unimpeded flow of giveaways may be over. More broadly, the move suggests that the government is intent on bringing to bear on the Internet the same sorts of regulations that have governed other forms of media, like television or print."

We all know that one of the beauties and really cool things about social media and blogging in particular, is the freedom of everyman or every woman to express themselves without the impediment of commercial or organizational restrictions…other than their sense of good taste and social mores. But all the FTC is now institutionalizing is what we’ve all known for some time was destined…that the Internet and social media have become tools for enterprise. Yes, on a macro level it’s still a great new way to communicate, share, and expand our worlds, and without doubt the phenomenal transforming tool of at least the early Century. All well and good…but it’s also a great way to push diapers or a cell phone. And it’s probably time to recognize that as well.

As one mommy blogger said, “I think that bloggers definitely need to be held accountable. I think there is a certain level of trust that bloggers have with readers, and readers deserve to know the whole truth.”

Accountable….there’s that word again.

So, where’s the value?

PR is worth real dollars, but only if it’s accountable …

I recently read an interesting blog post by Chris Brogan titled, "The Audacity of Free", wherein he expounds on the notion that in today’s tough economy, many people behave as if “free” is the watchword of the day. That the imparting of knowledge and information… in his example, it’s through conferences… somehow is often expected to be given away. “The sense of walking into somewhere and listening to sage words doesn’t seem like it should cost money….” But he argues, and rightly so, to, “Never apologize that something costs money if you’ve determined the value of it.” And, to not “ever feel embarrassed to charge for value.”

Well normally you won’t hear me do much supporting of something that seems to be closely related to charging for pure consulting, which can lead to hourly fees, which in my opinion can lead to nothing but mischief. But Mr. Brogan makes a point about what appears to be a trend in companies today believing that they and not the vendor (another term I dislike almost as much as hourly fee) are the sole arbiter of whether a service should have a charge attached, i.e., they determine the cost based upon their interpretation of value received. While I understand why today’s dreary economy and years of malfeasance and overcharging have brought us to this point, it is still a frightening thought… the inmates in control of the asylum? If only clients determined the price of our services, oh what a scary world this would be.

Or would it be? Maybe we deserve to have the moneychangers driven from the temple so that clients can once more believe that the cost of PR is directly related to value received. And most importantly, that this perceived value be determined on tangible results and not smoke and mirrors or spoken words alone. That kind of accountability leads not to mischief, but to a compensation model that is credible and just.

That is not to say that the clients determine the price of such compensation. I haven’t given total leave to my senses or control of the asylum. I agree again with Mr. Brogan when he says, “it’s not your buyers who decide this, no matter what we like to think in social media kumbaya-ville” We in PR must not be embarrassed to charge real dollars for the services we provide. But make sure these services are tied to the tangible, measurable results that our clients desire…not just our words. If we’re going to charge for “knowledge” be willing to demonstrate just how that knowledge provides such results. Once again to paraphrase Mr. Brogan with a modicum of literary license… “Free is beautiful, and costs are part of life.” But please… based on accountability.

Hey… This PR stuff actually works!

And size doesn’t always really matter…


It may seem odd or ironic, but after all this time in the PR business and all the preaching and pontificating I’ve done over the years on the value of media outreach, it still brings a smile to my face (as it would any appreciative client) when I see the results of a good solid publicity placement in a medium that is directed at a key audience. And once again, it’s proved that this kind of strategic hit with the right message doesn’t have to be lengthy…just focused. In this instance, a few lines about INK inc. at the bottom of a column What Have You Done for Me Lately? by Geoff Williams in the October issue of Entrepreneur magazine.


The results thus far after only a week of publication…five strong new client prospects have contacted us inquiring about INK’s pay-for-performance PR services. This, I believe, proves at least two things…the economy is beginning to recover…and, this PR stuff actually works!


As mentioned, the piece is short but it covers succinctly what we at INK refer to as “the why.” That is, the reason or “the why” that a prospective customer or investor will be interested…the essence of a company that will drive a prospect to immediately pick up the phone, or at minimum commit it to memory for future action. It’s what gives a publicity placement value. Without it, it’s just a nice story.


In our case, it’s the line, “Clients pony up only when they get media coverage, and if the exposure is small, the client pays less.”


Obviously a few clients are getting the message. Enough said.

No such thing as a free lunch…or free PR

It’s always amazing to me that even the most knowledgeable people associated with the marketing industry seem to periodically fall into the semantics trap of referring to public relations, publicity, press coverage…call it what you may…by preceding it with the adjective, “free.” As in “no cost.” Even veteran New York Times columnist, Stuart Elliot trips occasionally...A Deluge by NBC to Promote Leno's New Show.

The thought that the vast $10 million that NBC supposedly has squandered on pushing this rehash of Leno’s later night persona into primetime, strictly on paid advertising…with not a penny going to secure the publicity bonanza of magazine covers on Parade, TV Guide, and Time, is laughable. Why, those cover stories came about without a penny of cost…strictly because the editorial sides decided entirely on their own that Jay Leno and NBC were newsworthy. Right! And of course all the PR hacks in the background, either hired agency hands or internal NBC publicity staffers, that have toiled away behind the scenes for months making sure all the details were covered, did so for no pay. Right!

The false and silly declaration that all advertising and direct marketing is paid for in real dollars, but that publicity campaigns and PR (good and bad) is free is yet another reason that PR doesn’t really get its rightful due in the marketing mix. How can a marketing and communication discipline as important as PR ever get to sit at the table with its more expensive cousins, if it is forever referred to as something that “just happens” spontaneously, like a miraculous conception? Never mind how this perception affects budgeting priorities and allocation. Does the image of short sticks and suckling toward the far end of the sow come to mind?

I’m also not going to let my fellow professional (as in…paid) PR practitioners off the hook easily on this costly misrepresentation…particularly those in traditional pay-by-the hour agencies. By lumping all services including media outreach under a single, but ever expanding fee, the individual tactical processes, like great media placements, i.e., magazine covers, are demeaned. “Hey, that cover just happened as part of our overall ‘consulting services’…like, it was free. Pay by the hour or monthly for our consulting and messaging expertise, and get all that other stuff for nothing.” Really? How much better to break out the real effort of making that magazine cover happen…and charge accordingly.

Nothing easy or free about it.

Welcoming the New and Improving the Old

It’s time for us PR types do what we supposedly do best…just spin, baby, spin.

“Enough of the negatives…can’t you and all the other bloggers say anything positive for a change?”

As we all look forward to the last quarter of an absolutely dreadful economic year and summer winds to an end, isn’t it time we all took a little accounting of the good, even great things, that have happened over the last few months or year…and give it our best spin.

On a macro level, this country has made some incredible strides.We’ve elected our first African American president who seems to be young enough and hip enough to connect with most Americans, even those that may not agree with all his policies.We’re recognizing the major problems of the country…the endless wars, healthcare, the housing and credit crisis…even if we aren’t yet at solutions.That will come.The positive is a universal recognition of the problems and airing the grievances. We’re all Americans and we’re all patriotic. And we always eventually figure a way to meet somewhere toward the middle to move forward. Are we better off than last year at this time? Not necessarily…but do we feel better about progress toward solutions? I, and a lot of others do.

What about all this business and social technology that seems to be causing such consternation…will it cost me my daily newspaper, my job, my very sanity as I try to keep up? Yes, it could, and much more.Is that all bad? No (well, not sure on the sanity issue…) There are some real positives to be taken from our rapid march to an all-digital world. We are far more cognizant of our neighbor next door as well as across the globe. We know more about what they’re thinking, how it might affect us personally or professionally, and we know it almost instantly.We can communicate in a nanosecond what used to take us hours or days. And in spite of all the inane and silly tweets, texts, posts to the contrary, this is a good thing. Ask the paramedic or even your CFO if they’d prefer the old way…no way.

But one of the real positives of what’s new is how it affects what’s old…. like responsibility. Not only do fresh ideas and fresh technology offer obvious advances in that which they replace, but they also offer the opportunity to reevaluate that which is indirectly affected, and how to make it better. If we now have the capability of communicating what we are doing instantly to a million “followers” and “fans,” should we not also consider now what it is we’re communicating…and more importantly the positive effect that communication might impart?Cool, huh.

Where do we PR types fit in this new world? Well, we get to live in it and enjoy it, and experience it… and we get to use the new stuff; and we get to do what we do best… tell others about it.The possibilities are endless… and that’s the biggest positive of all.

The Fall of The House of Burson

Mark Penn has found yet another way to embarrass his storied employer...

A story in this week’s New York Times, "Wall St. Journal Gives an Ethics Green Light to a P.R. Executive's Column" , reminded me again as to how far the practice of public relations has changed (and not necessarily in a good way) since I first entered the profession forty-one years ago fresh out of grad school as an assistant account executive on third avenue in New York. A naive kid from Kansas, I’d been offered a job with what was considered at that time the largest and most prestigious PR firm in the world, Burson-Marsteller…and boy, did I have a lot to learn.

I learned almost immediately that the hard work of PR, media relations or press coverage as we called it then, was the backbone of any good PR campaign, and it was done in the trenches. That good press coverage, positive press coverage, was the measurement of successfully serving your client. I still vividly remember those weekly “bogie meetings” with the GM of the New York office to see whether we had individually met goals for column inches of coverage for our clients. Almost of equal importance to new recruits to the Burson team, were the admonitions to learn to write a great lead for every pitch or release we drafted, as well as keep a low profile, i.e., never become part of the story.

Times have obviously changed. Burson-Marsteller, which long held out its independence and practiced both the art and science of PR at the highest level, has been bought and sold a couple of times into the mega-world of communication conglomerates, and is no longer the largest, nor the most prestigious public relations agency in the world. The firm now promotes itself for its “PR consultancy” not its press capabilities. And by the looks of it, Burson-Marsteller’s latest president and CEO, Mark Penn, continues to find ways to abdicate his responsibilities of both sound judgment as well as that old company admonition about becoming a part of the story.

Penn has not only become part of the story, his ego seems to demand he become the story itself. First, it was the fiasco of his inept creative leadership of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign (high-profile firing, anyone?) and now he’s writing a regular column for the WSJ with Burson staffers contributing for their mutual clients (high-profile conflict, anyone?)

As both a former “Burson-person” (yes, that’s what we were proudly called) and a current agency CEO, I can’t think of many more ways for Penn to exhibit his ineptness in leadership or professionalism. With my apologies to great historical quotes… “I know Harold Burson, I served with him; and he’s a friend of mine. And Mark Penn, you’re no Harold Burson.”

It’s bad enough that this proud old agency that has served so many clients so well over the last fifty-six years no longer practices nor uses “positive press coverage” as it’s modern day metric for success; but to have Mark Penn as its standard bearer, doubles the embarrassment.

Is PR 3.0 a Trojan Horse?

Finding a new way to charge those big fees for little results...

In the same manner and vein that Wall Street is finding it impossible to move far from its old compensation model of extravagant bonuses to those pitifully poor executives laboring away in the trenches of bail-out supported derivatives, the traditional PR industry is discovering new ways under the guise of PR 3.0 to continue to convince clients to pay out fat monthly charges for everything and anything… except of course, real media coverage.

I understand that as part of any client’s efforts to increase its online presence, engage its online audience, and have a much greater handle on the online conversations about the company and its industry, the client has to look for a public relations firm that can develop social media strategy and execute a plan that targets the public influencers while monitoring and tweaking the engagement process as well as traditional media outreach.

But too many old guard traditional PR firms as well as a few boutique shops that were never able to consistently deliver media coverage are finding a client’s desire to engage in the new PR 3.0 as a means to disguise this incompetence and once again justify the fat hourly fees and monster retainers. As far as traditional media coverage…say, that story in The Wall Street Journal, on CNN, or the local media… it’s subjugated to ”oh, we’ll get that as well, and under the same (enormous) fee we’re charging you to know what the public is saying about you on Twitter.” Right.

Hey, I’m not so old or old fashioned not to recognize that the Internet has changed both the rules of PR and the game itself in such a dramatic fashion that any program not acknowledging its influence is obsolete before it is launched. But I’m also old enough to recognize the old shell game once again being played by many in this industry… dazzle clients with new and mysterious ways of understanding and communicating with their stakeholders and customers, then charge them like crazy every month whether or not there’s been any tangible results. Actual media coverage…”it’s coming… maybe next month.”

No question PR 3.0 is vital. It’s imperative for clients to understand and address their online presence when creating an overall comprehensive PR program. And online presence no longer just means a client’s web site design or simple search engine optimization. It means understanding and developing a strategy that takes into account the online media; and utilizes the correct channels that will reach your public, such as blogs, community forums, video channels and using micro-media tools with some form of measurement for ROE (return on engagement).

But don't dismiss the value of a great story on CNBC or in The Journal or even the local small town gazette, to put your company on the public radar and bring a smile to the CEO’s face. Now that’s worth charging for.

Does technology take the common sense out of brand marketing?

Written by Cindy West, Guest Blogger

I was reading a blog post over the weekend on Chris Brogan.com titled "The Myth of Brand Loyalty" and his post struck a nerve. Chris talks about his long relationship with Apple as a satisfied customer. His recent purchase of the 15" MacBook Pro, a good choice I might add, was another example of his loyalty to Apple. So you can imagine his slight annoyance when he received an email from the Apple Store, trying to sell him the very same laptop that he purchased a month ago...as if he were a newbie to the brand. Where was the brand loyalty to the consumer and are we just fooling ourselves into thinking that our loyalty matters?

I remember my days in retail, when learning about your customer through the act of conversation was the way we built trust in our customer relationships which evolved into brand loyalty…yes, the old fashioned way. We didn’t have computers back then, we had handwritten customer profile cards. The comments we added to those cards provided analytics in the most archaic form, but it worked. We knew their fashion preferences by design, style and color, that worked with their lifestyle. We knew about those special occasions to assist their partners with gift ideas. By keeping a list of previous purchases we were able to coordinate new arrivals with their existing wardrobe. Every customer was sent a personalized thank you note.

Those days have somewhat evaporated, and with the type of technology today and massive amount of information available, it makes me wonder if we are dismissing the human element in our strategic marketing? Is face time less valuable than a database full of information? Or are we just using this information to strategically analyze for mass marketing tactics that frankly leave us feeling under appreciated?

I can’t begin to tell you how often I get a call from a vendor soliciting my business only to inform them that we are current customers. Oops!!! I’m not sure why they don’t know that I have been a customer for 10 years, but it always ends in a repetitive excuse like “I am so sorry, they must not have updated this record. I will take care of that now”. Hmmm...

So my question is this, “Is technology the culprit and does it interfere with developing brand loyalty or is it how we manage the information we get?”

The Clients Are Now in Charge...for real

And some of the big ones are real monsters…

If fighting for every client dollar amongst our own industry wasn’t enough, now we are fighting the clients themselves for theirs… as well as ours. A couple of stories this last week really brought this fact home. The Wall Street Journal "Thrift Darkens Industry Hopes" once again reported that this recession is causing big companies like American Express and Shell to cut back on the fees they pay their advertising agencies and thus, asking for equal or more service for the same or less. And "Advertising Age" reported this week that the biggest of all companies, Walmart, is actually asking many of the consumer companies marketing through this behemoth to divert some of individual marketing budgets back into Walmart’s budget…or else! (Walmart of course, doesn’t state it so overtly. They simply hide the threat with a wink under the guise of a “simultaneous push to clear their shelves of underperforming brands.”

So why should this concern me, a CEO of not an ad agency, but a PR firm that specializes in clients much smaller than any of the above? Because in this business of marketing and influence, what happens at the top eventually filters down…and in this current recession and 24/7 trade news cycles, that eventually is shortened to ‘very quickly.’ The big clients are now firmly in charge.

Yes, I know, we have all played to the cliché, “the client is always right” or some such platitude. But that usually only went so far as to acknowledge a client’s right as the “spending partner” to have final say in friendly, professional disagreements…sometimes financial, sometimes creative. This is a different animal entirely, and worst of all it appears to be a trend. Companies that only recently spoke of and often treated their ad and PR agencies, not as vendors, but as marketing partners, now in this buyer’s market have shifted completely into the “you’re a vendor” gear and are driving hard compensation deals where only they are the winners.

What’s an agency to do that wishes to work with the big boys and girls of the Fortune 500? Not much, unfortunately. You could always just keep quiet and go along believing it’s only temporary and once the economy has righted itself the compensation and partnership equilibrium will be restored. Do I hear snickers out there? You could of course, speak out and up at the injustice of it all…using what’s left of the media, trade or otherwise, to state your case. The end result unfortunately isn’t likely to be any more satisfying and, even more damaging to your bottom line.

Or, you can concentrate like many of us in this business have on the smaller entrepreneurial companies as clients. But you better know how to work smart… and for less here as well. Yes, we’re seeing even ‘more for less’ client demands among the smaller companies as well; but since we’ve never really dealt with monster budgets, incrementally it doesn’t seem as bad. And smaller companies don’t have the bureaucratic layers of internal marketing, advertising and PR managers professing to have the knowledge and wherewithal beyond that of their vendor agencies. Our clients, (well ok, most) actually act like they really respect and need what we bring to the partnership.

At least for now.

Incubators are Growing New PR Opportunities

They’re there if you know where to look …and it isn’t just Silicon Valley

I couldn’t agree more with a recent NY Times story, "In Tech Industry, Some Signs of a Comeback" that stated, “even in a downtrodden economy, hope springs eternal, and technology companies are among those starting to feel more hopeful.” This was really brought home for me this last week as I attended meetings on both coasts with the young internet entrepreneurs that are refusing to be intimidated by the doom and gloom pundits, long hours and even in many cases, little to no funding.

My first visit was with Dreamit Ventures in Philadelphia, a dynamite gathering of embryonic companies run by a new generation of “garage entrepreneurs” that are as bright and ambitious as they are impressive in their goals…and, in their desire to learn from others that have gone before. I was fortunate to have been asked to join a long list of previous speakers from corporate attorneys and marketing gurus to venture capitalists. They listened intently, asked great questions, took tons of notes, and were genuinely interested in understanding how to best communicate to their present and future market audiences. Truthfully, I’m not sure who learned the most…myself, or these young entrepreneurs. Their creativity and enthusiasm was infectious. But it was their optimism against arguably some of the toughest financial times ever, that left the greatest impression. I suspect more than a few will beat the odds and grow into successful long-term businesses.

A day later I was in Southern California…Orange County to be exact, where twenty-five years ago I opened Burson-Marsteller’s first ever technology focused office. That office is long since gone, but technology start-ups are still flourishing along the Interstate 405/5 corridor. My company, INK inc., has been fortunate over the years to have developed strong working relationships with many of these young companies, but on this trip I was here to meet with a young exec with Google (aren’t they all) that was kind enough to be introducing me to several new start-ups as well as the VC’s supporting them. Once again, I couldn’t help but marvel over the simple fact that to these young companies and the fresh minds that create and drive them, there are few negatives in their day. They cannot afford the time to feel empathy or sympathy for others struggling with the economy. After all, they are in survival mode all day, every day…have been from their inception.

Yes, some, if not many of these start-ups won’t survive. So as a PR agency, is it worthwhile to waste valuable time on such risky endeavors? It is, absolutely, if the agency can work within the constraints of time and budgets that dominate this entrepreneurial world. However, those PR firms that can’t leave their fat retainers, hourly fees, and big egos at the door, will miss and should miss this golden opportunity. For those select start-ups that do grow and thrive against the odds represent fantastic opportunities to forge a long-term client bond based on not only being there in the beginning, but in contributing to their success.

Not Charging By The Hour Doesn’t Make Time Worthless

PR recessionary lesson No. 1…save the baby!

You know, as long as we’re stuck in this nasty quagmire of a recession there are a number of lessons to be learned while we all wait (and hopefully work) for the promised turn-around. The first of which is how we keep from devaluing time when we have more of it on our hands. This seems to be a particular trait of larger enterprises where being busy or at least the appearance of being busy was prized and rewarded with ever increasing promotions and escalating salaries. But as the economy has soured and marketing or PR salaries have gone south or disappeared altogether, we have a new phenomenon emerging….doing more for less on the inside of an enterprise…and doing more for nothing on the outside. The attitude seems to be that “if I have to work harder for less, than you, Mr. PR vendor, must work for even less and perhaps nothing until you have proved your value. Since you’re not charging me by the hour, then your time must be free…” Really? I don’t think so.

Granted, this recession is driving many of the bad compensation practices and PR-types cultivated during the boom into the waste basket they deserve…however isn’t there an old saying about babies and bath water that should apply here?

Sure, budgets have disappeared or tightened, and the competition to hold existing business and to secure new accounts is far more competitive than ever. And, traditional PR agencies are even (God forbid) ever so slightly experimenting with performance-based compensation to keep those elevators rising. But does shifting away from exorbitant hourly fees or being more creatively competitive in proposals mean that the time still expended has lost all value? Even if such value is translated only in respect for the time spent. Exactly when did dollars charged equate to respect given? Where is it written or taught that when one does not charge incrementally for something, than the cumulative effort has no value…particularly if it is as a result of a plea for assistance?

We’ll continue to utilize all our experience and put forth our most creative, and therefore most competitive thinking to both sign and launch our clients toward success. If these tough times didn’t call for it, then our respect for our own professionalism as well as our client’s business would require it. What we ask in return is not an hourly stipend but that the prospects and clients respond in a timely manner and participate in the process. Respect our time as they ask us to respect theirs.

We all know that a long-standing truism in this business is that when a prospect or client wants something, it’s always with a yesterday deadline. And, when the agency needs something in return, yesterday deadlines become a few days. Ok, understood. It’s part of the game and we’ve all played it. But, hey…a little respect for our time here…even if we’re not charging you by the hour.

Reflections on the First Blog

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”


Thomas Jefferson, et. al. – July 4, 1776


Enough said.

Age of Irrelevance

From left to right: Dick Grove,+++, Katy Leakey+, Philip Leakey ++
Relevant contributors on a global scale inspiring change

Where the media gets it wrong…

As many of us know, growing older is a double-sided coin. And those of us in PR, still laboring and not yet retired out of desire or necessity, know that this coin spins and lands heads up or down daily as a reminder of our vulnerabilities and strengths… as well as our irrelevance to many. This blog post will probably not resonate with those readers that don’t remember a world without MTV or for that matter, Michael Jackson…a time long ago when all great music on TV came from either American Bandstand or Soul Train. However, if you’re willing to indulge an inhabitant of what must seem like “the old days,” you might learn something.

That double-sided coin landed on both sides this week. My company, INK inc. PR, was in the final stages of being mentioned in a story being written for Entrepreneur Magazine when it was discovered in the fact-checking stage that the founding CEO’s age was sixty-four. Not a big deal and certainly never hidden since it was never thought to be relevant. Aha and alas! It may not be a big deal, but it is important…at least to the editors of Entrepreneur. It seems under the old regime that no CEO was profiled over the ancient age of 50 to 52. We await (with our pacemakers carefully monitored) to see if the new editors are more enlightened and understand that maybe, just maybe a great business idea might possibly be generated by someone older than the founder of Twitter.

The entire incident reminds me of the great song from the musical hit, Chicago, “Mr. Cellophane”…the ultimate paean of reaching a certain point in your life where you become irrelevantly transparent to the world you still very much inhabit. That is exactly how much of the media and pop culture treats us. We no longer fit the advertising demographics of greed. We’ve hit the “plus or and above” point. You know, that upper level in demographic metrics no longer worthy of a number…just a + or ‘and above’ notation. All of us are lumped as “seniors” or even worse, not lumped at all.

Then just when I’m about to take out my hearing aids and slink off to find a good nap, that fickle coin flips back to heads up. Invited to address an off-site client’s sales force that is facing a crisis of potential media negativity, my age is revered under the guise of “vast experience, knowledge, and gravitas.” I receive a standing ovation as much for the gray in my hair as the words I have spoken. It seems that when a crisis strikes, as they inevitably do, a little “been there, done that” (or a lot, as this case may be) can be more valuable than a whole legion of Twitter followers.

Touché’, Entrepreneur!

As a matter of full disclosure, I readily admit to being an avid if older Michael Jackson fan with no reservations, as well as a proud owner of the Thriller rock video. Of course I did purchase it in 1984 as a VHS tape...

Father Knows Less

Passing the torch to a new generation…

In reading Garrison Keillor's Fathers Day column today my mind wandered to my own feelings about fatherhood and getting older.

One of the really great things about getting older (and there are not nearly as many as popular songs and aging pundits would like you to believe…) is coming to realizations that your kids might just have something in how they’ve chosen to approach their lives… that maybe, just maybe, your way has some flaws or at least is passé, and may not be appropriate for others just because they carry your DNA. And when your kids are no longer kids, chronologically at least, but adults pursuing their own version of life, liberty and happiness, this realization can be even more apparent. But alas, when your offspring choose by design or circumstance to follow into your profession then the admission that it might just be time to pass the torch to a new generation is all the more personal.

Sharing a profession with a new generation is a touchy thing. Sharing a profession with a new generation that shares your name has its own sensitivities… and rewards. Family gatherings and telephone conversations often wander to business discussions and comparisons of technology, strategy, and even pitching techniques… and always the media. However over time one fact becomes undeniable, things have changed and usually for the better. Technology is driving this evolution across the board…it’s forever altered the media landscape, it’s revolutionized the how and the speed in which we communicate, and it’s heightened expectations from all quarters.

Sure, even us aging PR types can adapt…heck, didn’t we move easily from typewriters to computers… from dial phones to cell phones…from daily newspapers to hourly online updates? Of course, but is there a point where we still want to as badly as before? A point where we look back with pride of our accomplishments and forward with equal pride over what is yet to be from our namesakes. It doesn’t take long to realize that the new generation might just be more inclined if not necessarily better equipped to take on these challenges. They are our best and brightest… time to let them risk it all as we did…fail as some of us did…and succeed as some of us did.

There is one thing that has not changed with technology. Public Relations is still not rocket science in its complexity nor curing cancer in its human importance. There are those in this profession that would love to have you believe otherwise because of their own internalized need for self-importance. These same people that strive to find euphemisms for publicist are the ones that insist that without initials and acronyms attached to their names, they will be considered less than “professional” …hogwash (a nice, very old fashioned word.)

So one bit of sage advice I’d like to pass on as a father, to both mine and others that follow in PR… do so with integrity, but with a sense of perspective and humor.

When Did Integrity Become a Four-Letter Word?

All the news that’s not fit to print

A few days ago a well-respected citizen in the small town I reside in, was unfortunately killed in a bicycle accident. An experienced cyclist wearing a helmet as always, he simply hit a pothole in the dimming light of dusk, and was thrown headfirst over the handlebars. One of those horrible reminders that life and fate are fickle and never to be taken for granted. In the days following however, I have witnessed an absolute outpouring of testimonials to one quality above all others of this gentleman…integrity…his insistence throughout his life of truthfulness and fairness in dealing with others, even to the point of sacrificing his career on occasion.

With a certain article in the New York Times still fresh in my mind. I couldn’t help but wonder what many of our contemporary “blog journalists” will be remembered for when it’s their time. “Integrity” “Truthfulness”… not a chance in hell.

When Michael Arrington openly and proudly boasts that what he reports in his highly popular TechCrunch blog is not always true, but that he “doesn’t want to lose the rawness of blogging.” The article points out that Arrington, with a law degree and no journalism training, sees less importance in credibility and fact checking than in an involved readership. “Getting it right is expensive,” he says. “Getting it first is cheap.” Now there’s a philosophy to live by and be remembered by.

None of this, and certainly not Arrington, his super arrogance, and his less-than credible blog posts, would be of much importance if it wasn’t, unfortunately, indicative of what passes for journalism in these days of blogs, tweets, and YouTube “gotchas.” Just when did reporting backed by solid investigative research become the exception and not the rule? Sure, we all want and demand our news fix quickly and conveniently in this fast paced world. But at the expense of truthfulness? Just when, exactly, did integrity become a four-letter word?

We in the PR profession often get blamed for playing slipshod with facts in defense of our clients. And undoubtedly some of us have. But we look like paragons of virtue compared to those interviewed for this Times article.

It was only a few brief months ago that Arrington wrote his famous blog about his life being threatened and therefore he was going to cease writing and go into hiding after someone deliberately walked up to him and spat in his face.

Arrington stated at the time it was “the right thing to do…and spend time getting a better perspective on what I’m spending my life doing.” Perhaps Arrington should have spent a bit more time on this reflection…or better yet, report in his next TechCrunch blog that he was heretofore going to only print real news…Wink. Wink.