Online privacy

A few weeks ago in class, we saw an episode in the BBC series "The Virtual Revolution". The episode was called "The Cost of Free" and was about how most people didn't realize how much of our online activity that is being watched, made a record of and used for commercial purposes.

As some of the kids interviewed in the programme said: "We use the search engines and social media for free and in return they get to send us tailored ads on Facebook and the like. We think that's a fair deal". I must say I'm with the kids on this one. I'm just not frightened by the fact that Facebook somehow can detect that I’m searching for a deal on holiday houses in Tuscany, and uses this information to put ads for villas in Florence in the Facebook sidebar.

People who do get worried point to the fact that this means there’s a huge amount of data stored about my internet use somewhere, and that this could be misused if it fell into the wrong hands. And this is true. I’m sure there would be embarrassing bits if someone managed to make my entire Google search history public. For some, it could even be dangerous.

There are two main reasons I don’t worry. If some unsavoury character should somehow get hold of all this information, my internet history would be one among billions. Why would they worry about little old me? I’m surely not that interesting. Someone will probably be run over by a car somewhere in the world in the next hour, but I don’t spend time worrying if that will be me either.

Some people get very upset with all the CCTV cameras there are in the public space these days, feeling that it’s an invasion of privacy to be filmed wherever you go. I feel safer with all the cameras. If someone were to kidnap me, those cameras could help the police track down the culprit! (At least that’s how it works on TV).

The other reason is that there are other databases with far more sensitive information about me that already exists. There’s information stored about me somewhere detailing my hospital records, my personal economy (in Norway all tax records are made public), where I travel, what I spend my money on, who I vote for and criminal records for some people. Even if I never even went online, these things will be stored about me, and I don’t really worry about that either. Possibly because I don’t really feel I have that much to hide.

The Obama code – not suitable for everyone

Barak Obama’s 2008 election campaign has among other things been hailed for its innovative use of social media and online technology. Especially voters aged 18-29 can be hard to reach with your message, as they may not read traditional media, or watch political broadcasts on TV. So Obama took his message to them, to where they were, to the internet.

Through Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and his webpage he was looking like the first two-way presidential candidate and he managed to excite and engage people with his messages of change. The result was a whopping 65% election participation, the highest turnout since the election in 1908, and a comfortable win to Mr Obama himself.

Was this all due to getting his campaign online? Of course not. In politics, as in real life, if you’re going to convince anyone of anything you have to be believable and credible. You have to have a message that resonates with the people you need to convince, and you actually have to be yourself.

When David Cameron tried to copy the success through his YouTube channel “WebCameron”, it failed dramatically. Trying to prove he was a “regular guy” just busy with his kids and the dishes like every other father, just didn’t ring true. The obviously staged clip (if communicating with the British people was so important, why not do it in his office, or somewhere else where he wouldn’t be occupied with his kids and the household chores) just annoyed voters as it seemed dishonest and fake, and at complete odds with his posh image.

See WebCameron here:

The point is, social media no magic potion in politics either. It’s just another platform to reach people who may have been hard to reach before. The rules are still the same: You still have to have an appropriate, engaging message, credibility and trust. It's about being genuine.

I follow Norway's Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, on Twitter. He states on his page that most of the tweets are written by him personally, and the rest are dictated by him but written by his assistants (who he names). He tweets about politics, his party and his opinions and the odd personal tweet about the Norwegian football team or the nice weather we're having. In short it seems like genuine stuff, and he also occasionally engages in conversation with other twitter members.


Jens Stoltenberg is a popular politician in Norway. He has
also succeeded in building a reputation as a "normal guy".
Photo: Erik F. Brandsborg, Aktiv I Oslo.no


I know his presence on twitter is a carefully thought through PR strategy, but I'm still falling for it. I still feel that I know him better now, and that, if I should so desire, telling him how I feel about something is only a tweet away. It's a transparency that invokes trust.

However, should I one day find out that Stoltenberg hasn't tweeted a single thing himself, that whole trust disappears and I will feel cheated. So unless you can be yourself, be genuine and be transparent as a politician, you should probably not try to conquer the social media scene. Voters are not stupid, and cheating is not accepted.

Sources: PR Media Blog and Brian Solis.

Should CSR be the job of PR practitioners?

As corporate social responsibility is becoming more common and more important, is seems important to consider the logistics of the increasing significance of ethics in business. So far the responsibility of CSR have been largely placed with the public relations departments, but is this really the best solution?

Simon Goldsworthy (Senior lecturer in PR at Westminster University) doesn’t think so. In a chapter entitled “PR ethics: forever a will o' the wisp” in the book “Communication Ethics Now” he argues that PR practitioners are no more qualified to act as ethical councillors than other members of the organisation. He suggests this notion has come about due to the apparent large amount of “socialists” in the PR industry, who wishes to bring about a new dawn for more ethical business, and therefore takes the responsibility upon themselves.

Other PR ethicists, like Kathy Fitzpatrick and Phil Seib, points to PR practitioners duty to society as a reason why it’s natural for them to be involved in CSR. They thereby place PR as the social conscience of the organisation linking good, ethical behaviour with a good reputation.

Personally, I side most with the latter argument. While all PR practitioners might not be educated particularly on the subject of ethics any more than CEOs, HR or whoever else could be in charge of CSR, there are good reasons why they should be. There is an undeniable link between good behaviour and a good reputation. What constitutes “good behaviour” changes over time. While it not many years ago might have been enough to ensure financial gains, these days most of an organisation’s publics also crave ethical behaviour on one level or another. It seems to me that public relations practitioners, who are dealing with these publics, are well placed to be involved with CSR.

Nonviolent action? Let me count the ways...

Nonviolent action has been the tools of NGOs, freedom fighters and individuals seeking political and social change without bloodshed for centuries. Advocates of nonviolent resistance include Martin Luther King, Mahatma Ghandi and Nelson Mandela, and modern examples are for instance the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the "velvet revolution" in Iran and the recent uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.

The last examples have by many been attributed to the writings of the American Harvard Professor and Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Gene Sharp who in 1973 published the hugely influential book “The Politics of Nonviolent Action”. His idea is that no ruler can rule a people who refuse to obey, that any ruler is only as strong as his subjects’ obedience to his orders. Ultimately the power of any state derives from the subjects of the state.

Gene Sharp

Included in this work, and in his consequent publications (including the widely distributed and translated work “From Dictatorship to Democracy”, the “guidebook” to nonviolent revolution) is a list of 198 different methods of nonviolent action, ranging from the use of colours to the importance of public assemblies (like the orange in Ukraine and the Tahrir Square in Cairo).

As the list was written back in the 70s, naturally it does not take into account new inventions and developments like the internet and social media, which turned out to be an important part in uprisings such as the one in Egypt). It would be really interesting, especially to those working in NGO PR, to see what tactics could be added to the already extensive list of tools, whether you’re trying to topple a dictator or fight things like racism or social inequality on a smaller scale.

Any suggestions on what should go on such a list?

Has PR and spin undermined trust in politics? To a certain degree.

The original motion at the Westminster University debate was:  “PR and spin have undermined trust in politics”, and it is a complicated matter. It would have been much easier had the motion been “PR and spin is the only reason why people have no trust in politics” or “PR and spin had no part in undermining trust in politics” (the answer would be “no” in both instances).

Personally I think that PR and spin has some responsibility for the trust deficit, but that politicians and the media also has played their part. What can be done about it?

Knowledge is power. Too much power

First of all, the system under Blair with Campbell as the autocratic ruler of all information was bound to be bad both for trust, for transparency and for democracy. In most democratic systems of governance, power is divided (between executive, legislature, and judiciary branches) to prevent anyone getting too powerful and thus threaten the democratic process.

A free and independent press is also crucial to a democracy, and “rewarding” “obedient” journalist or “punishing” journalists who dare to write things you don’t like, is a very slippery slope towards corruption. And if there is anything that corrodes trust, it’s corruption.

Together we stand, divided we fall

But here journalists and editors also have a role to play. Playing along with this game is completely self-destructive for a so-called free and independent press. I totally understand that being the only one who says no will be catastrophic for that newspaper, being the only one not getting the juicy news.

And I also get (and have witnessed first-hand) that there is so little money in newsrooms these days. Journalists are under a colossal pressure to produce sensational news, without being given the time or resources to do their job properly. To also go up against powerful government aids, might be a little too much to ask for.

But seriously, there is going to have to be a change in culture, and the media will have to put their foot down to such un-democratic tendencies. THAT is their job.

And it’s PRs job, as an ethical profession to make sure such practices are not being used, no matter how tempting.

Politicians need to get their act together

And lastly, if the main problem is a lack of trust in politicians (rather than politics, which is the system, rather than the people), then of course the politicians themselves bears the biggest responsibility to act trustworthy. As an elected represent of the people it is your duty to them to be intensely ethical, transparent and above board with everything. All the PR and the media coverage in the world can’t make or break you as good as you can yourself.

After the whole debate I ended up (as one of few) voting for the motion. I think PR and spin has at least played a part in the break-down of trust. I was appalled by the stories of the spin doctors’ behaviour, and the lack of backbone in the media. But in the end, if the politicians want to be trusted, then they had better start to act the part.

Has PR and spin undermined trust in politics? NO!

Yesterday we looked at the arguments for why PR and spin should take the blame for the lack of trust in politics, today we'll here some opposing views. Francis Ingham and Lance Price were on the panel athe the Westminster University deabte speaking in defence of PR, and here is what they had to say:

Francis Ingham agreed that spin has played a part in the loss of trust in politics, and then especially the excessive control practised by Alastair Campbell. He also agreed the PR gimmicks and obvious lies make politicians less trustworthy, as the public sees right through it.

He however refused to accept that PR was the singular or even main culprit, and pointed to the politicians themselves and the media as other possible offenders.

He pointed to the expense scandal, tory MPs preaching about family values only to be exposed as cheaters, and the hiring of Russian beauties (who turn out to be spies) as examples of how MP behaviour undermines trust, entirely without the help of spin doctors.

The media crisis

An increasingly sensationalist media also has to take part of the blame, he said. Political journalists have gone from reporting without question what politicians say, to now assume that everything that comes out of their mouths is a lie.

24-hour news and the incessant need for new angles and stories coupled with vicious cuts in news teams, demands sensational and dramatic stories.

A politician having a re-think about a decision becomes “an embarrassing U-turn”, and not only in the tabloids. Ingham concluded that while PR does play a part, it is a junior part compared to the other two culprits.

Spin is nothing new

Lance Price then claimed that professional political communication is actually good for politics, and indeed increases democracy. He pointed out that 20-30 years ago only the Tory party were using all the classical spinning techniques, and that Thatcher managed to convince voters that there was no real alternative to a Tory government. He felt that since only one side used spin, democracy suffered.

His other argument was that spin doctors are only as good as the politicians they work for. The only reason they could help get Blair into power was that he was already popular, and no amount of spin seemed to be able to save Gordon Brown.

He was also of the opinion that the politicians did a fine job of eroding trust themselves, with the help of a witch-hunting media. He said: “trust in politics is lost when politicians say one thing and do the oposit” and mentioned examples like the changing stances on tuition fees, forests and the importance of libraries.

Tomorrow I will look at both sides and analyse what we can learn from this debate.

Have PR and spin undermined trust in politics? YES!

You often hear that political ‘spin doctors’ are to blame for the lack of public trust British politicians are experiencing these days.  PR practitioners claim that it’s the journalists who are doing the spinning, and that the British press is the cause of politicians being so untrusted.

Interesting debate

I attended a debate at Westminster University a few weeks ago where the motion: “PR and spin have undermined trust in politics” was put forward. On the panel we found Kevin Maguire (political editor of the Daily Mail) and Sheila Gunn (formerly political journalist and John Major’s press spokesperson) for the motion and Lance Price (Former Labour spin doctor) and Francis Ingham (Chief Executive PRCA) against the motion. It was a really interesting debate and I found myself being swayed each time a new person presented their views.

I will today sum up the arguments for the motion, and tomorrow I will look at the arguments against it.

Abuse of power

Sheila Gunn told us about her experiences with Alastair Campbell during the Blair years. She told of how he had gotten himself in a position where he had full and absolute control of all information, and how he was not afraid to use this power to his advantage.

If journalists displeased him, he would refuse to talk to them again, and keep them from getting important info other, less upsetting journalists would get. If he was happy with you, he would drip feed you good stories.

Her point was that an all-powerful spin doctor is not healthy for democracy and that when good headlines becomes more important than running the country, a lack of trust will surely follow.

Personal experience

Kevin Maguire also blamed PR, saying that it’s the spin doctors that has to step up and take their part of the responsibility. And with a fine selection of anecdotes from his experiences with both Campbell and David Cameron when he used to work in PR, he made a very good case for the motion.

So spin doctors’ abuse of power and letting headlines become more important than politics are good reasons for why PR is guilty for the lack of trust in politics, but there are also very good reasons why they should not take all the blame. Find out tomorrow!

Social media vs. traditional media: A trust issue

By a lot of PR practitioners social media, is seen as this fantastical new tool that will trump all traditional media when it comes to getting your message out. In their book "Online Public Relations", David Phillips and Philip Young goes as far as claiming that "everything will change" now that we have social media. 

Trust takes time

Recent research indicates that most people might not agree, at least not yet, with that assessment.



Public relations as all about building relationships and creating (good) reputations. An important aspect of both, is trust. Bombarding your stakeholders with your message will not achieve anything unless the stakeholders trust the information.

Not unexpectedly Edelman Trust Barometer shows that different sources have different levels of trust. Most trusted are academics and "experts", and at the other end of the scale we find employees, government officials and CEOs. The advantage of third party endorsement is in other words still alive and kicking.

Another piece of research that is even more interesting when it comes to the topic of social media and traditional media, is that where the source is delivering his message is also of great importance.

While there are many good reasons for getting your messages out through social media, it appears that creating trust should not be high on that list. Social Media is the second-to-last media platform, beaten only by advertisement when it comes to not being trusted.

Traditional media, and those who work for them, often show up on lists like these of untrustworthy sources. But this recent research shows that they are still more trusted than information we get from social media. My teacher, Pam Williams, mentioned an article she read where it said that while people might have gotten a piece of news first on Twitter or Facebook, they wouldn't trust it until they saw it confirmed in traditional media.

Choose your media platform

If you’re looking to traditional media to make sure your message is trusted, it’s also useful to realize that some traditional media is more trusted than others.

Business magazines are at number two, only beaten by stock or industry analyst rapports. We then find radio at number four, TV at number six and newspapers down at number eight.

I’m not sure why people perceive newspaper journalists less trustworthy than their colleagues on the radio, but I will guess that in Britain the BBC might have something to do with it, as one of the most trusted media institutions in the country. Radio (and also TV) is perhaps seen as a more sombre medium than newspapers with their tabloid shenanigans.

Readers build relationships with newspapers, radio programmes and TV News for years. It's no wonder they tend to trust them more than a new media outlet.

For PR practitioners the lesson is that not everything that glimmers is gold. Just because social media is new and shiny and exciting, doesn’t mean that we should completely turn our backs on traditional approaches. I think the best practice is to combine the two, and to find out in which situations we should chose social media and in which situations we should go with traditional media.

Here is another piece of research from 2008 that suggests that spending a lot of time on corporate blogs, might not be worth it…

Is political spin really such a new invention?

If you listen to the arguments against political spin, you’re almost left with the impression that the concept was singlehandedly invented by Alastair Campbell in the mid-90s.

Even though you might already suspect that this is an exaggerated claim, you might be surprised how long politicians have been spinning the truth, wanting to look good themselves.

We can find a lot evidence of public relations techniques in ancient times such as Roman emperors’ usage of bread and circus. Making sure the people was fed and entertained is an effective way to lead attention away from poor policy making.

Pope Urban II also employed many “modern” PR techniques in rallying up support for the first crusade, including a catchy slogan (“God wills it!”), “press conferences” (the Council of Clermont), appropriate advocates (Peter the Hermit) and a good old fashioned slander campaign of the enemy consisting of both true and totally made up atrocities committed by the Muslims. 

So how about spin? Are the origins of spin just as old? You bet!

As with all incidents set so far back in time it is hard to know with certainty exactly what happened. History is often written by winners, and is in itself a good example of how the victorious side can put a positive spin on appalling events making themselves look good for future generations. What we do in life may echo in eternity, but with a good spin doctor (historian) it can echo so much nicer, valiant and heroic.

Still I find the theories of Italian historian Cettina Vozi both interesting and plausible. Her specialty is Greek scientist and inventor Archimedes, and in her article “The death of Archimedes: A reassessment” she explores possible alternatives to the popular account of his untimely death.



Archimedes Thoughtful by Domenico-Fetti 1620



Archimedes lived in the city of Syracuse, on Sicily, and died there during the Second Punic War in 212 BC. After a two year roman siege, the city was captured by the forces of General Marcus Claudius Marcellus.  

According to the story, Marcellus was a great admirer of Archimedes work, and had ordered that he should not be harmed as he saw him as a valuable scientific asset. But as his city was falling down around him, the great scientist was apparently so engrossed in his mathematical studies, that when a roman soldier ordered him to get up, he refused, wanting to work on his studies instead.  Enraged, the soldier killed him not knowing who he was.

According to the greek-roman historian who wrote down the account (over a hundred years after it happened) Marcellus “was said to have wept” as he heard the news and subsequently arranged for a grand funeral.

Vozi however, is not buying the “death by misunderstanding”-theory, and claims it was most likely an excellently executed early example of political spin by the romans. Archimedes didn’t just dally in finding formulas of volume and other math theories, you see. He was also an inventor of war machines, like catapults and an alleged mirror-device that could make ships catch fire, inventions that made Syracusans a feared enemy.

Such a man would probably not sit in his room oblivious to the destruction around him, and more importantly, due to his involvement in the siege, Voza argues that Archimedes would have been Roman target number one.

Archimedes' solar powered "death-ray"

She believes Archimedes death was nothing more than a “state-sponsored assassination”, conveniently spun to blame the killing of one of ancient world’s greatest scientist on a case of mistaken identity, and throwing in a portrayal of Marcellus as a honourable and cultured man for good measure.

The theory is hard to prove without a time machine, but I find is as plausible as the popular account written down by roman-friendly historians with no primary sources.

Spin was not invented by Alastair Campbell and his minions, nor will it be possible to get rid of it completely. But with a functioning press, and a general public able of critical analysis, I am confident democracy is safe for a while yet.




Archimedes too engrossed in his work: Truth or clever spin?

 

By the way, if more examples of ancient PR is of interest, I'd like to recommend Tom Watson's article in Public Relations Review (vol 34 (2008) 19–24): Creating the cult of a saint: Communications strategies in 10th century England. It's really interesting to realize how sophisticated the PR machinery was even more than a thousand years ago.

Hope, not despair, brings support to NGO campaigns

When working in the NGO sector, dealing with victims of poverty, war, deforestation or other serious hardship, it can be tempting to try and use the despair to make people want to help. Thinking something like “If we can only make people see how hard life is for this little girl in the slums of New Delhi, surly they would give us money to make it better” may seem to make sense, but actually often has the opposite effect.

When faced with overwhelming problems like world poverty, or global warming, you find that they often feel paralyzed by the enormity of what needs to be done. If you also add in messages of suffering, or guilt for not doing enough, chances are that you potential donor will just switch the channel, or walk away.

One NGO that has understood this is WWF who found that their old scare campaigns about the effects of global warming should we chose to ignore it, just weren’t working. They decided to device one that was positive and empowering instead, and that was the start of Earth Hour. By giving people an achievable task (turning off their lights for an hour each year) WWF have managed to mobilize a billion people worldwide, including local governments, companies and celebrities, making a stand for sustainability and against climate change. By focusing on happiness, positivity and the message that by standing together we can move mountains, WWF has managed to engage with people in a way a scare campaign would never do.

While the act of turning off your light for 60 minutes a year won’t achieve much in that respect, it is always easier to ask people who are already involved to up the ante. And when engaging those who have the power to accomplish the needed structural change, it is always nice to point to a billion supporters championing your cause in a very visual way.

Webcast about current trends in PR: Trust and transparency

As part of our master degree in public relations, we've been asked to produce a video adressing a current trend in PR. We are to pretend that we work for a PR agency and that the video is meant for our clients.

So while *Firefly PR is completely made up, the research is all real.

Transparency and accountability is becoming a key aspect of gaining trust, and the PR industry should definitly pay attention.

Publics and stakeholders: The bread and butter of PR

One of the most important aspects of Public Relations is exactly that; building a relationship with your publics. But before you can communicate your carefully scripted message to those you need to reach, step one is to find out who those people are. And which publics should be on the top of your list of importance?

Often the words “publics” and “stakeholders” are used interchangeably, as if they mean the same. Others have tried to differentiate between them. R. Edward Freeman claims in his book “Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach” (1984) that stakeholders are people or groups of people who either affects your organisation, or are affected by it. These could include (depending on your organisation) customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders, members, local community and pressure groups.

Here Freeman explains the importance of stakeholders

Grunig and Hunt and Grunig and Repper are more interested in publics. They are also more concerned with issues and situation, rather than the organisation per se. Grunig’s Situational Theory is a good theory because it takes into account that the publics aren’t necessarily static. They are often dynamic groups that may change continually. One public can at one time be closely linked to your organisation as a stakeholder that is affected by your organisation, only to move to the periphery of your publics a few months later as the situation that made them affected has changed or disappeared.

Grunig divides publics into four groups:

·         Non public

·         Latent public

·         Aware public

·         Active public

Non public is the people not in a relationship with your organisation. They don’t affect you and you don’t affect them. As such it is not important to communicate with them, but one should still keep a little eye on them, in case they become involved at some point,

Latent public is people who are affected, but don’t know it yet. They are possibly on their way to become more involved, and you should think about what sort of message you send out to them.

Aware public is an informed public that is affected and realise that they are. They are the people who will ask for more information about the issue, and they may want to influence the outcome.

Active public is your loudest public. They have taken an active interest in your organisation/issue and are trying to do something about it.

Grunig’s theory means that to know how to communicate with your publics, you need to continuously keep an eye one them and analyse at which stage they are.

Crisis management and celebrity PR

Protecting a brand’s reputation may be difficult enough when your brand is a company, but when your brand is a person, it’s a whole other ball game.

People are as we know only human, and if you set yourself up to be an idol and an inspiration to the world, that pedestal can be the source of a mighty fall once you mess up. And at those times your PR team, and their crisis management will be crucial to your reputation’s possible survival.

What was that Tiger? Pictures or it didn't happen?

Take the case of Tiger Woods; Deeply respected athlete, at the top of his game, hardworking family man with impeccable morals, and inspiration to us all. He’s been called the most marketable athlete in the world, and has made obscene amounts of money on his endorsement deals.

Then the scandal broke. The not too reputable celebrity magazine, the National Enquirer, claimed Woods had had an affair.  Tiger’s response was deafening silence.

A few days later he had a car accident in the early hours of the morning, reportedly because his wife had chased him down the road threatening to smash his head in with a golf club, and all hell broke loose.

A dozen women came forward claiming to have had affairs with the so-called family man, some with irrefutable evidence of his indescretion. His infidelity had a devastating effect on his reputation, but his PR team’s crisis management made everything a lot worse.

The plan seemed to be to deny everything that couldn’t be proven, and to refuse to talk about anything else. In the first week after the crash, the only thing the world heard from Tiger were two vague statements on his webpage, sort of apologising, but mostly stating that whatever he’d done, it was nobody’s business but his family’s.

In this vacuum of information, he let the press run riot with speculation, rumours and everybody else’s opinions. When he finally decided to talk, almost two months after the story broke, the damage was already done.

His endorsement deals were being dropped in droves, his wife divorced him, and his reputation was in tarnish (although he is still an excellent golfer).

We don’t know the reasons for Tiger’s silence. As a person, it might have been the best thing for him. Maybe his wife asked him to say nothing to diminish the humiliation of the truth (the National Enquirer at one point reported that he had had 120 affairs…), or maybe he just honestly felt it was nobody’s business. As a human being, it might have been the best solution, but as a Tiger Woods the brand, it was a disaster.  

There are other tried and tested methods of dealing with moral failure for celebs. The tell all, apologise and beg for forgiveness-strategy seems to have a higher level of success.

Mark Owen and his wife Emma.

Mark Owen of Take That is another person loved by his adoring fans. He also cheated repeatedly on his loving wife, in much the same manner as Tiger Woods. It was The Sun that found out first, and called up Mark to tell him that they were breaking the story. Unlike Tiger, Owen decided to spill his guts, and hope for forgiveness.

Under the headline “I am a love-cheat, a drunk… and a complete idiot” he admitted ten affairs. This was the first mention of the scandal the public hears and with the press and the fans knowing all the facts from the very start, the consequent coverage was about his wife’s reaction, Owen’s atonement and his wife’s subsequent forgiveness.

David Letterman managed even better. His habit of sleeping with his co-workers was first discovered by one of his mistress’s new boyfriend, who subsequently tried to blackmail the popular talk show host.

Instead of paying up, Letterman went to the police and assisted them in a ploy to catch the blackmailer red-handed. Knowing that he would not be able to keep his cheating secret from his family or the public, he then daringly and unexpectedly told everything during his late night show.

Again with no more secrets to uncover, the press concentrated on the blackmailing plot and the following trial, and Letterman escaped his misadventures relatively unharmed. Hell, he even got to joke about it on his show.

The moral is, I think:

1.       Don’t cheat

2.       If you do anyway, don’t lie about it once you’ve been caught

3.       If all else fails, go on Oprah and cry. All will be forgiven.

Power to the Twitter people

Back when I was in high school I’d bought a camera at a local photo store. It constantly broke, yet they refused to give me a new one. Both me and the shop knew that I was by law entitled to one (as I had gone down there with a book of Norwegian law, and read them the relevant paragraphs), but it wasn’t until my mum went down and threatened to contact the local paper, or the Norwegian version of “Watchdog”, that they gave in.

Everyone involved knew that there was a very slim chance my broken camera-story was spicy enough to be picked up by any media we might contact, but I suppose they still didn’t want to risk it.

I fear the art of writing a strongly
worded letter is a dying skill.

Back in those days, before Facebook, Twitter and well, internet for most of us, newspapers, TV consumer shows, or the government consumer council were the only way to create a reputation crisis for a company that had treated us badly.

These days, it’s a brave new world for consumers, a world with a lot more consumer power.  Instead of taking time to write a strongly worded letter, or wait for an hour on the phone to get through to customer service, the internet will in many cases provide you with a much swifter reply.

If you have the slightest celebrity status, you can create a media frenzy in minutes!

About a year ago filmmaker Kevin Smith (creator of cult classics like Dogma, Clerks and Chasing Amy), got thrown off a Southwest Airline flight to Burbank, because he was apparently to overweight to fit in his seat. The airline’s guidelines for “customers of size” stated that if you can’t lower both armrests while seated, you have to book two seats. As it were, only one seat was available, and an enraged Smith had to leave the flight.

Furiously her tweeted a series of angry tweets about the incident, tagged the airline in them, and sent them out to his 1.6 million followers. The reaction was instant, and as the rant was retweeted around the world, Southwest Airlines was suddenly facing tide wave of complaints from people who sympathised with Smith, and thousands of newspaper articles potentially giving people a very negative view of the company.

Too fat? The verdict is inconclusive.

Southwest quickly realized they had a PR crisis on their hands, and after frantically trying to apologise via Twitter, Southwest was forced to issue a lengthy, public apology and a refund to the film director. They also explained their decision on their blog, in a careful attempt of self-defence.

This case wasn’t entirely a win for Smith and a loss for Southwest though, proving that you can’t always count on the people backing you up against companies.

As anyone who’s ever been on a flight next to a “person of size” can vouch for, it is quite annoying to have your own, already small, personal space crowded by someone else’s fat, and many people applauded Southwest on their guidelines, and told Smith to go on a diet.

Now, most of us do not have nearly 2 million followers on Twitter, nor would our predicament cause worldwide media attention, but stories like the Smith-incident have caused many companies to pay close attention to what is said about them on Twitter and Facebook, and firing off a complaint on social media can be wise.

Chicago Tribune tells the story of completely normal consumers who got their complaint dealt with instantly by tweeting. It’s a good way to get noticed.

Southwest Airlines now have two employees devoted to their Twitter page, and three people monitoring their Facebook fan page.

The advantage of online complaining is that your predicament is visible to everyone on the internet, and companies are aware of the possible crisis arising from angry consumers united. In a consumer world where reputation is key and crisis can be generated from the smallest incident, the power is continuing to grow for the consumer.

PR practitoners will ignore this trend at their own peril...

When war PR backfires

It’s hard drumming up support for war, especially a war as unpopular as the war in Afghanistan. The war effort is especially unpopular in Germany where a poll last year revealed that 70 per cent of Germans want their forces pulled out.

As a PR-tactic to increase support for a continued presence, the popular talk show host Johannes B. Kerner brought his entire crew down to Afghanistan to co-inside with a visit to the troops by defence minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg.

The plan was to interview the minister and the troops in an on-location talk show, a program that was expected to be watched by millions.

This seemingly fluffy plan backfired totally when it transpired how much the production had cost the German army, and thus the tax payer.

17.000 euros was the final price tag, and the already war weary Germans, were not amused.

The Ministry of Defense had been open about the talk show being a part of their PR effort to gain support among the people and in parliament, but instead it resulted in a plethora of negative articles of the extravagant spending.

Not exactly PR gold.

If you speak German, you can see the talk show here: