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.

What’s in a Name…

…does the rose still smell as sweet monthly?

It was announced in the "New York Times” last week that the venerable (hey, ten years in the this modern communication age qualifies…) weekly public relations news magazine, PRWeek, was becoming a monthly…but still keeping the same name.


Not only is this industry tabloid reducing the number of issues, but its physical size as well…shrinking down to standard magazine size. Oh great…now, it will no longer stick out on the reception area coffee table, but now will get shuffled amongst the other media rags relegated to the seldom read, but purely authoritatively decorative category. More importantly however is whether this size and frequency metamorphosis will alter the content, and thus affect its interest and value to the PR industry, i.e., its ‘brand.’ The publisher of course, says no…but only in time and a few issues will ultimately come the answer.

It raises an interesting issue, however. Just how important is a name in branding a company’s product or service? And if circumstances, economic or otherwise, dictate a shift in how those products or services are delivered, should the name change as well? In most cases, I would say no, not as long as the product or service itself does not change. But, in PR Week’s case, I’m not sure it matters since it is doubtful that the name has little to do with the content and a lot more to do with its time of delivery…and frankly, most of us are already getting our PR industry news and gossip on a hourly or minute-by-minute basis on line or by tweet. So, I can certainly understand the reluctance by the publisher to rename it, “PRMonthly but a little smaller.”

I like to believe that a company name can and should be very much a part of its ‘brand. ‘ When I founded my company twelve years ago, I pondered a variety of names…from ego-centric initials to multiple names (some even fictitious, but with great gravitas) before being advised by someone younger but much wiser than myself to keep it simple…”just name it for what the company does then you’ll never have to change it…or forget what you’re good at.” It was a good exercise to go through, and one I’ve advised to other entrepreneurs and spin-offs. Find your core competency and embrace it. In our case, we named ourselves INK inc for what we deliver to our clients, nice and simple. Over the years our ‘brand’ hasn’t changed…either in essentially what we do or in what we call ourselves.

Ok, maybe in today’s fast paced world we should change it to INK/Video/Social Media/Tweet inc. After all, that’s what we now do….nah, it doesn’t seem to be quite as catchy.