Public Relations Blog

Ron Paul walks out of CNN Interview over charges of racism....or did he?

2011-12-26T11:34:00.000-08:00

For those following American politics, the past month has been a gold mine of examples of PR playing out in the real world.

Newt Gingrich rose to the top of the GOP pack only to fall back to third or fourth place (and from what we can tell, he is still falling). Newt's fall was in part due to his assorted involvement with Fannie and Freddie and his past flip flops. Turns out that voters were impressed with his debate performances, but upon closer look didn't like what they saw.

Romney continues to march along as first or second in the polls, but has failed to grow his base beyond what it was at the beginning of the race.

The dark horse in all this, and the most interesting PR story, is that Ron Paul has surged to the front of the pack in Iowa, where the first votes will be cast for the GOP nominee in a couple of weeks.

An interesting thing happened when Paul reached the front of the pack, something very few people thought would happen. The media started digging for any buried skeletons. They apparently found a few in the form of newsletters that were put out under Paul's name in the 80s/90s which contained some racist material (we'll get to this more in a little bit).

So Ron Paul did a number of interviews with CNN regarding his campaign and the issue of the newsletters. On the issue of the newsletters he states that he did not write the comments in question, did not approve them for publishing and disavows the comments.

In a third interview he did with CNN he answered policy questions and then at the end was hit yet again with the question regarding the newsletters. A little frustrated with the question being asked over and over, he walked out of the interview and left... or did he?

Here's what's interesting. Footage of the actual interview, raw and uncensored, shows a different interview than the one CNN put on air. CNN's version is edited to make it look like Paul, in disgust over the newsletter questions, pulled off his mic and walked away. Here is the video that ran on CNN:

Now, since that interview, which was a couple of days ago, footage of the entire interview, uncut, has hit the Internet. Not sure how Paul's campaign got the footage, obviously from CNN themselves which I find a tad surprising that they would release it, but the footage tells a bit of a different story.

It shows him answering a variety of questions and giving CNN ample time for the interview (which was about 10 minutes, which is a long time for an impromptu interview in the midst of a campaign). At the end, having answered all the questions, he does walk away and when pushed by the reporter as to whether he understands her job is to ask the question, he replies "I understand how the system works".

That little snippet at the end CNN cut out, because it's an inference by Paul that he feels the media are out to take him down and so will harp on the newsletter issue until his name becomes associated with the word 'racist'.

It also shows that Paul is not mad at the reporter, but rather frustrated by 'the system'. That little snippet is everything, because it's safe to assume audiences would react differently to the two videos. In the first many would take him cutting the interview short as evidence of some form of guilt. In the second, they would see his behaviour not as guilt, but rather simply walking away from 'gotcha' politics (and the media are not held in high regard right now in the US).

It's not hard to figure out why CNN didn't show the full video because some viewers would see them in a negative light.

So from a PR perspective, what is the take away from all this.

First, this is a unique situation. Paul is a anti-establishment candidate, so he hasn't been getting any attention from the media. Many of his followers believe it's because the media, the gov, the military industrial complex, the bankers, etc... all have a vested interest in the system staying the way it is and if Paul were to win, radical changes would likely unfold.

So they've ignored Paul for a long time and now are willing to give him air time (because he's leading in the polls). Paul needs that air time to reach more voters. Yet at the same time, he knows that ultimately CNN will pick the parts of the interview they want to air. If CNN were really out to take Paul down, you can see the pickle he would find himself in.

Do you do the interview knowing it might be edited to make you look back or do you decline?

Here's where PR comes in.

You always have to clearly identify the discussion points of the interview. You need to ask the reporter what subjects they want to cover in the interview. If they tell you: Iran, healthcare and the deficit, and then when you do the interview they hit you with other topics, then you can take issue with the interview. You can then respond to at least your core stakeholders and articulate that this was another case of 'gotcha journalism', where the media says they want to talk about one thing but then grill you on something entirely different once they've got you in front of the cameras.

Did that happen here? It's hard to say. Based on Paul's response, I suspect it probably did. If I had to bet, I'd wager that CNN said they wanted to do another interview to discuss a variety of topics and Paul's camp simply said 'OK' without setting the ground rules (which are nothing more than the topics to be discussed).

I would say shame on CNN for playing gotcha journalism, but shame on Paul's camp also if (and the if is important because I don't know the full story) they didn't clearly prep him with knowledge of the questions to be asked. If he essentially consented to further questioning regarding the newsletters and knew he was going to be asked about them, then his frustration is a bit uncalled for. If however he thought the issue was put to bed and CNN tricked him in front of the cameras under false pretence, then his response makes a lot of sense.

The second facet to this is the answers Paul gives, they aren't sufficient. This issue was brought up in 2008 on CNN as well (you can begin to see why Paul gets frustrated, he keeps getting asked the same question over and over - I'm sure he wants to say "If you've got PROOF I'm a racist beyond stuff I didn't write, then let's have it. Otherwise, enough is enough.")

From a PR perspective, Paul has had at least four years to dig in to this issue and find out the facts so that when he has interviews on the subject he can say more than simply "I didn't write it, I didn't read those issues, and I disavow the comments." I mean, OK, that makes sense the first time you get asked. But you have to know this is what the media is going to harp on. You'd think you'd go find out more facts about how a couple of racist comments in a couple of newsletters made it to print.

Now, given the type of guy Paul seems to be, he may simply have discarded the issue as ludicrous (the notion that he was a racist that is) and simply moved on with his political career after 2008. But that was a bad PR move that is now coming back to haunt him.

The irony in all this is that his defence is so poorly structured that his denials are most likely true (there are better defences he could have conjured up other than what he has). The notion that he's a racist is hard to imagine if the only evidence is a couple of sentences in newsletters 20 years ago that he didn't even write. I mean, someone who is a racist generally has a pattern of behaviour that supports the claim.

I mean, if he were out to espouse racist propaganda back in the 90s, there would be a lot more than a couple of sentences. You'd expect to find entire articles or hundreds of sentences espousing racist views.

You can't say on the one hand he was a racist who wrote racist materials and then on the other hand say he was a racist who tried to hide his racist views by not writing about them and that the occasional time where he did was a 'slip up' in his overall life-long effort to hide being a racist. It just doesn't make sense, if he was trying to hide being a racist, then he would not have allowed said comments to appear in his newsletters. If he was not trying to hide he was a racist, then you'd expect a lot more racial comments throughout the newsletters.

So the probability that ghost writers and editors at the newsletter let some inappropriate racial comments get by without Paul being aware of them is likely pretty good. Whether he was a racist or not, in both scenarios he was a poor publisher, because he either failed to hide the fact that he was a racist or if he was not a racist then he let comments slip by that cast suspicion that maybe he was.

So when the media says they find it hard to believe that he was as poor a publisher as he says, I'd argue that it's not hard to believe at all, because in both potential scenarios, where he is a racist and where he is not a racist, his publishing 'strategy' was harmful to him in both cases - pretty logical proof that as a publisher he wasn't very good.

Yet, like I say, that doesn't mean Paul shouldn't have gone back and dug up whatever info he could to clarify the situation further. In fact, if you believe that the mainstream media is out to slander you all the more reason to get as many facts together as you can to battle against the slander. You can always find a way to get the truth out through other media channels if the CNN's of the world don't give you a fair shake.

Personally I find it hard to believe that Ron Paul is a racist and I don't think the evidence supports that in any substantial way, at best it infers the possibility that was sympathetic to racist views. I do think he's handled this newsletter issue poorly and because of that some people are going to think that he is a racist as they simply won't buy his basic explanation of the issue - I didn't write them, I didn't read them, I disavow them. They will instead simply digest what they saw on CNN and assume he wouldn't have walked off if he had nothing to hide.

For PR folks, this is another thing you need to be aware of, the state of mind of the spokesperson you are representing. You should never avoid the media, but if your spokesperson is not in the mood to deal with some annoying questions, put the interview off if you can. Better to take a pass than to have a situation where your spokesperson comes off badly.

In all my years of dealing with the the media I've only been in a bad situation once where the media source literally misrepresented my client and stated something that was completely the opposite of what the spokesperson had told them. To this day I'm not sure why they did it, but as a result I'm uber cautious when dealing with that outlet now (and will avoid it when possible).

I believe that the reason I never (or almost never) have an issue with the media is because I always have my ducks lined up in a row.

If there's an issue my client can't speak to the media on, I let the media know that and ask if they still want to do an interview on the other topics. I also provide an explanation as to why we aren't addressing a certain topic at this time.
Even having said that, I still prep my client in case they get blind-sided
If a reporter asks my client said question, I step in and interrupt the interview (the only exception would be in the case of a live television or radio interview). I explain to the reporter that we couldn't speak to that topic as agreed on and take the heat for not allowing my client to answer (your client should not be the one saying no, you should step in at that point). Despite their bad rep at times, reporters almost always stand by their word if they have given it (however, too few PR folks define the ground rules at the start, so if the reporter hasn't told you what to expect, then they consider nothing to be off limits, they aren't breaking any 'word' because they didn't give you one).
I research past articles by the reporter prior to the interview to get a good feel for the types of articles they produce. If I see they've played 'gotcha' journalism in the past, I warn my client of the potential risks. I've actually cancelled an interview after having researched a reporter and finding that they were prone to sensationalism or misquoting a subject. (By the way, in this rare instance, you don't have to officially tell the reporter to take a hike, you simply say your client got called away on business and could we reschedule for next week, to which a reporter will generally decline such a delay).
And lastly, I make sure my client understands that they have to have a GOOD reason for not answering a question or explaining themselves with satisfactory depth. If my client wants me to simply 'spin' the media out of interest in the subject or if the client wants to try and get away with a quick one-liner answer, I then strongly suggest they simply pass on the interview (unless of course you're in a crisis situation, then you have to get your client to understand the damage associated with not responding).

So the situation with Paul I think simply comes down to poor PR in this one example (I think in general Paul handles himself fairly well with the media all things considered).

So what should Paul do now?

I think he needs to do what he should have done four years ago. At least make some calls and try to figure out where the racist comments came from.

Despite Paul's rabid base of believers (and I'll admit, he's my favourite politician), and despite having fans outside of the US (Paul is big in Canada and Australia and even Germany), he has to realize that those who are just being exposed to him aren't going to be swayed by his simple denial that he's a racist. While those that have been exposed to Paul's personality and views can't imagine he could be racist, those just learning about Paul will view the situation very differently.

Will this cost him the gains he's made so far? Probably not. I suspect they will slow those gains down and perhaps even reverse them a bit, but ultimately I think he does get through this and remains intact.

Yet that's no reason not to do the right thing (from a PR perspective). Shooting down these racist claims in a more definitive and fact-based manner would only help his momentum rocket upwards.

So we'll see in a couple of weeks whether these claims of racism stick. Paul fans are already posting videos attempting to off-set such claims.

Perhaps most surprisingly (or perhaps not, depending on how you look at the situation) black Americans have been posting videos supporting Paul (warning - some profanity).

(By the way, just as an aside, Canadian journalists are easier to deal with than American journalists. I've had dealings with Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek, New York Times, you name it, and the difference with American journalists is that if you get asked a hard question and you don't have your facts and supporting documentation ready, they won't give you a day to get your act together and they will write negatively about you because of it. Canadian journalists tend to be a bit more forgiving and are more flexible on the 'Can I get back to you on that?' response. That's a generalization, but it's been my experience.)

Anyway, is Ron Paul racist? Who knows. I suspect he's not, but I couldn't tell you for certain that he's not (but then again, I couldn't tell you who is or isn't a racist unless they exhibited racist behaviour).

That's the problem with calling someone a racist, how do you prove you aren't? In this case, Paul says he didn't write the comments, and if that's true, then what other proof is there that he's a racist?

I suspect that's also behind Paul's inadequate response to this situation, how do you prove you aren't racist beyond saying that you aren't?

Yet, Paul should have still seen this coming from a PR perspective and had a much better strategy than simply denying that he holds racist views of any kind.

Perhaps the biggest irony in all this and evidence of how poor Paul's PR response has been, is that his Director of Communications / Press Secretary, Gary Howard, is black! I mean, if that doesn't take the cake and make you bust out laughing, nothing will.

So the "racist" politician hires a black person to run his communications and then the one area where they are reacting poorly on the PR front, is on the charge of racism (when the very fact that the DoC is black clearly suggests that Paul is not racist).

Oh the insanity of running for office.

If you like reverse psychology you'll find this video funny...

2011-12-18T14:46:00.000-08:00

Ron Paul is surging in the polls States-side and some of his supporters are creating videos to support his campaign.

As I said a long time ago, I think YouTube provides you with a grassroots army of marketers as many people today know how to use video editing software to create interesting videos. This applies if you have passionate followers. The other candidates don't have any videos being made by their supporters (not sure what that says about how passionate their supporters actually are or if they simply don't know how to use video editing software).

The following video was made in response to things like NDAA and SOPA, essentially highlighting how Americans are losing their freedom at a fairly rapid pace.

Heck, they even created a site called RonPaulFlix that houses all the video content created by supporters as well as content from media interviews.

This is what is driving all the videos created by supporters. They are able to go to a site like this and download endless amounts of content that they can then edit to create their own little ad for Ron Paul.

I think in 2016 the candidate who wins may very well be whoever empowers their supporters with the right content to act as an army of marketers on YouTube.

Paul supporters apparently are taking the best of the best of these videos, burning them on DVD's and then passing them out to people. And none of this is done in association with the campaign, it's all grassroots.

So watch this trend carefully because big money influence may be coming to a crossroads where it may bang heads with grassroots effectiveness.

The corporate world can learn from this as well. A company like RIM for instance would be well advised to let those out there who love RIM make their own commercials. Perhaps run a competition or simply create a video database for users who want to create their own ads for RIM. I think they'd be surprised at how a couple great fan videos can really redefine how people see the brand and encourage others to give RIM another look when buying a smartphone.

I just came across another Ron Paul related fan video which I thought was interesting and well done. It's pretty provocative and the message is that the only one not in the bankers' back pocket is Ron Paul.

If only the mess in Europe were this funny...

2011-12-18T14:36:00.000-08:00

I won't go in to what a total mess Europe is right now (other than to reiterate, stay the hell out of the markets if you can, we are living in the world's biggest Ponzi scheme right now) but I will say the following video, which has gone semi-viral in relation to the mess unfolding in Europe, will make you chuckle at the notion of the European's working together to fix their problems.

MTV calls NDAA what it is - the beginning of Facism

2011-12-18T14:34:00.000-08:00

This story hasn't had a lot of press, but the US recently passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Basically it allows the army (that's right, the army, not the police) to detain any US citizen it believes a threat to national security.

Should they deem you a threat (or suspect you to have any connections with anyone who might be a threat) they can bust down your door at three in the morning, swoop you up, take you away to some detention center and hold you indefinitely. You get no access to a lawyer, no day in court, nothing. You will simply disappear.

Not sure what the US laws are right now regarding torture, but you can be assured interrogation will be part of your stay.

Anyway, I found this ad that MTV is running interesting. Government should take note that the youth don't buy in to this 'you have to be my master to keep me safe' baloney.

If the US keeps going down this path, the implications for PR are huge.

PR relies completely on free speech. Without it, PR is not PR, it's nothing more than propaganda - messaging approved by the powers that be and nothing else is permitted.

The fact that so few media outlets are covering this story really makes you wonder just how free the media are any more (or if the major outlets are too close to the people they are reporting on). The good news though is that it's nearly impossible to kill free speech at this point because of the Internet, so even if mainstream outlets play down stories, those seeking out information will find it if they look online.

Yet, with SOPA ready to pass (the Stop Internet Piracy Act) in the US, one has to wonder how much longer the Internet will be free from the control of politicians. The Act essentially allows the government to dictate to ISPs what sites they would like shut down. Now, technically this power is only suppose to be used in cases where Internet piracy is unfolding, but realistically, once you open pandora's box you can't really go back.

Once the processes are in place, it will be very simple to start requesting sites be shut down for other reasons such as unpopular political views and opinions. Will the ISP's vet every request? And what if the government kicks them some favourable legislation on the business end in return for them loosely interpreting SOPA and simply adopting the policy of shutting down any site the gov requests without challenging the request?

In an Orwellian future, PR would become a drastically different beast. Instead of being the vehicle through which ideas are spread, it would become much more about ensuring that an organization is not saying anything that might get it in trouble with the government. PR would become far more about ensuring that messaging is in-line with what the powers that be want to hear and which they deem acceptable.

We aren't there yet, but the legal obstacles that have prevented this to date have been removed, so the danger now exists. It's scary to think of a future where that's the role of PR, to serve the empire if you will.

I can say if it ever comes to that, it's not a career I would continue to be a part of.

PR should in one way or another be about inspiring the world to move forward towards a better, more dynamic future.

It should never be employed in the service of some dictatorial framework for controlling society.

Bye Bye Landline - Hello Smartphone

2011-12-18T14:29:00.000-08:00

Well I finally cancelled Bell and said goodbye to my landline. I'm now with Wind.

So why did I make the jump. It's pretty simple really.

With Bell, a basic landline, no voicemail, no caller ID, no call waiting, nothing but a basic line, costs 30 bucks a month.

With Wind, for 35 bucks a month, I get:

A free phone (I got the Google Nexus, valued at 380 bucks)
Unlimited calling in Canada
Unlimited calling any time of the day
Unlimited data
Unlimited texting
All the benefits of a smartphone (applications, camera, video camera, etc.)
Caller ID, Call waiting, Call holding
And best of all, I'm not locked in to any contract (just 30 days notification to cancel)

As you can see, for five dollars a month extra, the choice is simple. (I should note, this is a special Wind is running right now, in 12 months when it ends, my bill will go from 35 a month to 50 a month I think. Unless they have another special running, in which case they will give you that instead. So I suspect my bill will remain 35 even after the special ends).

Now, getting rid of your landline isn't feasible for everyone. A family of four for instance probably gets good value from the landline versus getting everyone a smartphone. Yet, on an individual basis, it makes no sense any more to have a landline.

But even if you are big on using landline phones in your home, there are adapters which twin your smartphone to your home phones using bluetooth. So when a call comes in to your phone, your home phones all ring and can pick up the call and chat using them.

Cons that I can think of with going with a smartphone include:

If you lose it, you're in trouble. Not only do you have no way of calling anyone, but you also have to dish out some bucks for a new phone. This is why if you are going to go all smartphone, you should have a headset for your PC so that you can use Skype or Google Voice to call people should you lose your phone. You'll also want to use Skype to call your phone in that scenario! Hopefully someone answers and you can get it back.
Landlines never have to be charged. With a smartphone you have to charge it once every day or two. Not a big deal, but for those that are forgetful they may find this annoying.
You may not hear your ringer if you left the phone in another room. With landlines you often have three or more handsets all ringing, so it's hard to not hear the phone. Yet with a smartphone only, if you left it in another room, you may not hear the ring over the television or music you've got playing.
Safety issues. One thing about landlines is that they are always in the same spot and easy to quickly grab and dial 911. If you are having a heart attack the last thing you want to be doing is scrambling around the room trying to find your smartphone. So for those with safety or health issues, I'd advise getting that adapter that lets you twin your home phones to your cell phone.
You'll also have to buy a case. I got a nice case-mate cover for 30 bucks and it does a great job of protecting the phone in case I were to drop it. You can get cases for as low as five bucks, but I like ones that look nifty.

So there you go. So far I'm loving it. The reception from Wind is excellent, so no complaints regarding call quality or reception.

I'm loving the Google Nexus Voice-to-text application which so far is highly accurate. And I'll admit, the integration of Google apps definitely make you want to start using things like Gmail and google calendar much more.

When it came to picking a phone, I picked the Google Nexus S. I really struggled as to go with a RIM or the Nexus (Apple wasn't even a consideration, I'm not an Apple fan boy). I wanted to get a RIM and support RIM (as a proud Canadian if you will) but I have no idea what kind of support RIM will provide in the future.

With the Wind deal, the phone is free if you stay with them for three years. This isn't a locked-in contract like with Rogers, you can leave any time and simply pay out the phone. But if you stay for three years, the phone becomes yours with no payment required even if you leave Wind. So whatever phone I got, my plans were to use it for the next three years.

With this in mind I asked myself, what kind of support will I be getting from RIM in two years from now? And in a year from now will I be kicking myself that I've got a BB7 BlackBerry instead of the new BB10 BlackBerry.

With the Nexus I know that bare minimum I'll be running off Ice Cream Sandwich (the latest Android OS) and that the phone will deliver most of the services and features that pop up over the next three years.

I will say this about Android versus IOS, Android definitely feels much more like a PC operating system. So for folks that like really really simple, the iPhone might be your better bet. Myself, I hate being constrained by an OS and I like as much flexibility as I can get. Android gives you that, with the same sense of customization and control that PC users are accustomed to.

That said, I've got my mom on a Google Nexus and she's using it just fine. Keep in mind, my mom has trouble using Google search on a PC! So Android is not that difficult to learn if she can figure it out.

I'll miss my RIM qwerty, but the voice-to-text should help in that transition. It's shocking how much time you can save with it, it's actually must faster than typing on a qwerty when the translation is accurate (which it usually is).

So there you have it, I'm super happy with my switch. I now no longer have any services with either Rogers or Bell.

I get my Internet from Teksavvy (which I'm loving by the way).
I get my television from the Internet (it's been a year now I've been doing this and I'll never go back to paying for cable tv).
And I get my phone service from Wind.

Despite the fact that I'm getting great service for half the cost, there's also the satisfaction of knowing that I'm not contributing to crazy pricing behaviors of the big boys. They really pissed me off with their Usage Based Billing attempts and if I can I'll avoid doing all business with them moving forward.

The only thing I wish I had was the ability to twin my PC to my smartphone. Years ago I use to work for a company named CounterPath, which makes softphones. Basically a phone on your PC. For the life of me I don't know why someone like RIM doesn't acquire those guys and create a seamless connection between your smartphone and your PC.

Right now, if I want to make PC-based calls, I have to use Skype or Google. Yet they are totally separate services from my smartphone. I could use CounterPath, but then I'd have to sign up with a SIP provider, and yet again, it would be a different phone number and different set of services.

If RIM were smart they'd acquire CounterPath and then enable a hosted softphone so that you can load up your phone service from any PC in the world. I suppose the carrier would have to buy in to the offering since they technically host the call control, but I'm sure RIM could figure out some way of enabling this service such that the softphone control was taken care of by RIM servers.

If they had such an offering, I would have bought a RIM instead of an Android phone.

The only reason I can think of as to why they wouldn't do this is that such a model would make it REALLY easy to cut all ties with the carrier (so carriers might get really upset with RIM for enabling their customers to essentially cancel their landline services).

If you've got a fully functioning phone on your PC, with the same number as your cell phone, and you've twinned them to your home phones (for convenience), then there's really zero reason to have a landline. So despite carriers not liking this, I think RIM should pursue it anyway because it's what customers want and in the end carriers would cave to market demand and RIM would win big time.

Anyway, RIM's not dumb and have probably thought of this, but have erred on the side of not pissing the carriers off by threatening their landline revenues with an enhanced smartphone-PC communications experience. Unfortunately, it's this kind of thinking that is absolutely killing RIM as a company and why they may not even be around in a few years.

I'll let you know how cutting my landline goes in a few months, but so far it has been an enjoyable experience.

Free At Last!

RIM gets slaughtered - is the end approaching?

2011-12-18T14:17:00.000-08:00

So RIM reported another dismal quarter the other day and the stock is trading down 10-12 per cent so far. It's now trading in the 13-dollar range (even below the bottom I thought it would hit of 15 bucks).

A ton of negatives in this quarter, including:

- BB10 being delayed until late 2012
- the CEO's saying that they will each take a $1-a-year salary
- Emphasis that growth in emerging markets was over 700 per cent
- Growth strategies in 2012 essentially come down to a marketing campaign

I suppose you can see these things as positives, but I don't.

Delaying BB10 is the right thing to do if it's not ready, but the point is, it's not ready.

Taking a buck in salary might seem like a statement of commitment to the company, but what it really says to me is that morale within RIM is falling apart and a move like this is necessary to try and convince employees that the CEO's are committed to the company. Salary means nothing to CEOs compared to the value of their stocks and stock options, so if not taking a salary boosts employee morale, then that's what you do, the point though is that no one does this unless employee morale is falling off a cliff. Whenever you see a CEO take a one-dollar salary (John Chambers of Cisco did this many years ago, back in the tech crash of 2001 I believe), it tells you employees are all talking about jumping ship if they can.

Emerging market growth is very bad if it's the leading story. That means that the company is being forced out of the 'land of milk and honey' markets and in to the markets that others have less interest in. Not good (especially given at some point those dominating the top-tier markets will eventually move in to the lower tier markets and displace RIM there as well).

And lastly, and most importantly, a marketing campaign when you don't know how to market is very negative and a waste of money and what little brand equity you have left. I praise RIM for realizing that marketing is a HUGE part of their problem, but doing more bad marketing isn't going to help.

How bad is RIM's marketing? The very fact that they named the new OS, that is suppose to save the company, BB10, exemplifies they have no idea what they are doing.

Just how unoriginal can you possibly get? This is your 'fresh start'?

I mean BBX wasn't the best name either, but at least it said 'We're up to something different'. BB10 just says we've got another 'upgrade' heading your way. But don't worry, it's so good that we skipped BB8 and BB9 and went right to BB10!

I mean, give me a break.

I hate to say this, but at this point I think the best thing RIM could do is simply stop doing marketing or PR. Just get out of the public spotlight until you get your act together. Embrace humility, focus on execution, and hopefully wow the world in a year from now with BB10.

I almost never say that going quiet is a good thing. It almost never is. But in RIM's case, they've screwed up their marketing and their PR messaging so badly for so long now, that the more they talk the more they remind people how disconnected from reality they are right now.

Better to go quiet, issue statements as required for a publicly traded stock, and let people forget all about you. Even when you have wins, don't publicize them beyond the basic news release. Let the market's curiosity reform on its own. Do your best to be forgotten so that when you re-emerge in twelve months, people are receptive to what you have to say and perhaps some curiosity has built up over that time.

To see just how bad RIM's marketing is, go check out the BlackBerry Web site. There is a video on the homepage where they tout BB7 as unlocking 'powerful new features and apps'. Really? Everyone knows the problem with RIM is that they have no apps. So you are pitching your greatest weakness as your strength? That's ridiculous. It assumes that consumers are idiots who will believe a Big Mac is a steak if you simply tell them that's the case.

I'd embed the video here, but I can't, because while it's on RIM's Web site, it's not on their YouTube channel (yet again, one of a series of examples that shows RIM is just tossing spaghetti at the wall at this point to see what sticks).

See, RIM keeps thinking if they just say the right buzz words then people will start to think of them as being the same as Apple or Google (this is unbelievably common within the tech sector by the way). It's utter denial of the situation they are in.

What they need to do, if you are going to do marketing and PR, is re-frame the narrative as a comeback story. People like you RIM, they really do. They don't like your products anymore, but they like you.

YOU created the smartphone.
YOU created that entire market.
YOU started it all.

But the world passed you by and you have to acknowledge that. You have to market the fact that YOU started it all and YOU will get back in the race and YOU will change the face of communications again!

You have to think of yourself like Rocky and you have to get the public to see you as Rocky (and do your best to get them to see Apple as the Russian that supposedly can't be beat). Sure, you're outmatched, but that doesn't mean you are out for the count.

But if you can't see this then you shouldn't be marketing yourselves at all. Heal your wounds in privacy and rejoin the smartphone conversation when you're back on your feet. You may not realize it, but the more you market yourselves at this point (given the type of marketing you are doing) the more you are advertising that you are at best a second-tier offering compared to Android and Apple.

I don't even know what RIM's tagline is and I'm not going to bother looking it up, it's probably something like "Making communications simplier" or some other vanilla saying.

What RIM's new tagline should be is "You think your Boss? We'll show you Boss." Boss is a saying that is becoming popular to describe someone that is an underdog but who stands up to the powers that be - He's so Boss - is generally how it's used.

Yes, it's out there, but it says we've had enough and we're going to start fighting. It also brings to mind that RIM use to be the boss when it came to smartphones and you can't count someone out who started the industry.

Anyway, at its current prices I think RIM might be speculative play. I'm toying with buying some shares because I think you simply can't damage the brand any more than it has been damaged (I'll wait until next week to see if the stock gets flushed out even further from where it is). Having said that, sentiment can still go lower on RIM if they continue to show that they just don't get it, so be careful about jumping in to RIM.

Time to get real RIM.

Either go away and come back another day, or get some bite in your bark.

Update 4 on my recession post

2011-11-27T11:43:00.000-08:00

Thought I'd take a moment on this Sunday afternoon to do a quick revisit of the variables I track regarding the recession we are in and whether such variables are getting better, worse, or unchanged.

You can see my past posts on this topic here:

Top 10 Reasons This Recession Will Never End
Update 1
Update 2
Update 3

Now for Update 4:

1. Crashes hurt for a long time - worse - All you have to do is take a look at a six month chart of the DOW to see that the pain continues and is actually get worse. Every time the market finds an excuse to push back upwards, it inevitably comes to its senses and crashes back down, reflecting that the situation is not fixed and that no fix is really in sight. While corporate profits are stable in the US, employers have been laying people off, clearly demonstrating they do not see a recovery at hand.

Nokia Siemens to lay off 17,000 worldwide

Wall Street Layoffs Top 200,000

Ford Plans 4,000 Temporary Layoffs on Weak Demand in Europe, Driving Young People to Hit the Champagne Bottle

Anyway, you get the drift.

2. Until Debt do us Part - worse - Europe is now officially crashing under the debt of the PIIGS. The US super committee failed to reach a budget resolution, which risked a downgrade in their credit rating (which did not happen, yet). Now there is talk of the IMF (funded largely by the US) will step in to save Europe (so the US tax payer will take on more debt in the form of the Fed printing money and giving it to the IMF).

On the positive front though, consumer spending has been increasing lately. The bad news though is that it's not from increases in their personal income as they've been dipping in to their savings to fuel the spending. And it's unclear how much of that spending is the result of consumer confidence and how much of it is simply purchases they have put off over the past three years that they have no choice but to make now.

3. Eroded Trust - unchanged - OWS continues strong. Protesters getting pepper sprayed at UC Davis. Super committee budget failure. MF Global goes bankrupt (investors money 'missing' to tune of 1.2 billion).

Anyway, you get the drift.

4. Anxiety - unchanged - In my last post I ranked this as slightly positive. I think it continues to be so. Most people right now are believing the headlines out of mainstream media that say that things are very slowly getting better. I expect this variable to tank hard when the markets price in what is really going on. But for now it's unchanged.

5. Growth versus Replacement Cycle - unchanged - Not much to say here, we're still in a replacement cycle as innovation takes a back seat. I guess the only new item here is how Solyndra went belly up after $500 million of government investment in the solar company.

6. Shareholder model breakdown - unchanged - Unchanged may not seem bad, but remember in my last update I ranked this variables as 'way worse', and it remains such. But at least they haven't turned even worse than way worse =)

7. Lowest Common Denominator Thinking - unchanged - I still see LCDT as staying in the background. If anything. OWS and their focus on the 99 per cent has shifted attitudes away from 'they should get less' to 'those will less should get more'. Right or wrong, it's a marginal shift away from LCDT that we saw months ago.

8. Globalization - worse - You've got Russia and China supporting Iran. You've got troops being placed in Australia. You've got the US warning China about currency manipulation. You've got the EU begging China for money (and China declining).

Anyway, globalization is turning into global strife with very real overtones of major military conflicts down the road between current super powers.

9. Baby Boomer Cost - unchanged - no real change.

10. Extremism - unchanged - While the global actors are behaving badly (see #8) so far none of this has come to actual actions. This variable though could easily turn negative again in the coming months with the EU crisis unfolding and tensions between Russia, China and the US unfold.

11. Bonus: inflation - unchanged - Costs of goods are pretty much what they were a few months ago. Gas prices seem stable. If anything, the Christmas sales might be driving down costs temporarily.

So there you have it. Things are pretty much the same as they were in my last update about two months ago (which was not a rosy update).

For fun I thought I'd input a short chart tracking these variables since I started this blog entry back in March 2011 to see what is trending.

Now remember, this analysis is not empirical (I'm not tracking stuff like ISM numbers and I give little weight to 'numbers' that come out of the government, which in my opinion are bogus half the time). This is almost a PR analysis, simply tracking the macro issues and whether they are getting better or worse.

What the trends in these variables seems to suggest, and the markets seem to reflect this as well, is that most of the macro trends, at least since March, have not gotten better.

The only trends that have gotten better has been anxiety levels among the population and people's propensity to want to see others do worse if they have it better (LCDT).

These are positive things, but not so much for the economy (although they are required for a healthy, growing economy). They are more things you tend to see before a revolution (at least when they are the ONLY positive trends emerging).

Lowered anxiety reflects that people are no longer as 'afraid' as they use to be. But that doesn't mean they aren't upset, it just means they aren't worrying so much about the world falling apart. This can lead to things like the population rising up, such as we are seeing with Occupy Wall Street. When fear starts to go down, either anger or productivity tend to emerge - people either get busy working or they get busy fighting.

With regards to LCDT, yet again, this isn't necessarily good for the economy, although it is positive in terms of society. Less LCDT means that people are not going after each other as much as they use to. However, the reason for this could very well be that the 99 per cent are starting to unify against the one per cent.

The emerging empowerment and participation by 'the people' is a positive thing. In my opinion, a HUGE reason we had this crash was decades of apathy among the population which allowed corruption and greed to go unchallenged.

We'll see where things are at in a couple months, but I'm not holding my breath on things getting better any time soon.

OWS and Tea Party, both fighting the same fight?

2011-11-27T09:16:00.000-08:00

If you're still wondering what is actually going on in America I strongly suggest you read a blog post over at The Burning Platform entitled - Comfortably Numb.

This might be the best summary of what is going on with the economy and society that I've seen to date.

It also explains how both OWS and the Tea Party are essentially protesting the same thing, but they are attacking different heads of the same beast. I've held for a while that as things get worse, both OWS and the Tea Party will come to realize this, and despite their polar opposite views of small gov versus big gov, will actually intersect in a common purpose, that being addressing the corruption that those in positions of power are free to engage in.

While OWS is an amorphous organization, they would do well to create insightful articles such as the one at The Burner Platform (which as far as I can tell is not an off-shoot of OWS or the Tea Party, just a blogger with insightful commentary).

It's through clarity of the issue and clarity in communication that common understanding can be achieved. No surprise, as always, it will be PR that determines the ultimate fate of the US. Slogans are great - 'They got bailed out, we got sold out' - but at some point people have to understand what it is they are truly fighting against. The banks alone did not have the power to cause this mess by themselves, they needed help from the politicians and the Fed to do all this.

Both the Tea Party and OWS each need to better understand the other's positions, because each camp really only has half the story right and as such are fighting against only half the problem.

OWS ignores the government and the Fed and the Tea Party ignores the role of an unbalanced economic structure wherein corporations have gained far too much influence over the political system and supply and demand (primarily by using slave labor out of coutry's like China - if we really believed in Democracy we wouldn't be off-shoring to communist countries.)

Anyway, excellent article and worth the time to read.

One of the graphs I enjoyed was the food stamp graph. People say we aren't in 'recession', that we're in a slow growth recovery (based on GDP). I'm sorry, all you have to do is look at the growing use of food stamps to know the recession has been getting worse over the past three years, not better. Sure, someone might be employed, but if they aren't making enough to eat after paying their other staple bills (rent, gas, electricity, etc.) then the unemployment statistic means nothing.

As I've said, and as Canada supposedly does, we should be using a 'standard of living' metric to judge the state of our lives / countries. Is standard of living going up or down? That's really all that should matter.

Oh Man, this is a creepy video (UC Davis Chancellor walks to her car)

2011-11-20T21:27:00.000-08:00

In a previous post I had a video that showed students at UC Davis being pepper sprayed by campus security.

In the video below you can see UC Davis Chancellor Katehi walking to her car and the students protesting in silence over the actions taken (not sure, but I believe they are calling for her resignation).

It's a very creepy video.

The video actually reminds me of something out of the movie Village of the Damned, with Christopher Reeve.

Generally speaking silence is not the best form of getting your point across, but in this case I don't think the students could have chosen a better PR tactic for being heard. Nothing says 'shame on you' more than silence.

Maybe it's just me, but when you know that all those students are angry as hell and yet they are all able to contain themselves and remain silent, there's something very ominous about that. It communicates that if they can be disciplined in a situation such as this, then you don't want to see what would happen if they turned that discipline towards more vocal, if not aggressive, forms of communication.

OWS: 84-year-old woman gets peppers sprayed; Amazing marketing; A lesson from a Dog; Cops arrest Cops?

2011-11-19T10:08:00.000-08:00

Occupy Wall Street continues on. The politicians must be getting worried at this point, two months in and people are not letting up. I'm sure no one expected the 'ADD-Twitter-Post-MTV' generation to have this kind of staying power.

OWS has gone from being branded a 'bunch of communists' and being told to 'get a job' to now being seen as a bunch of people 'determined to change the system' - ironically, this is why people voted for Obama (he was suppose to be changing the system). OWS is quickly becoming a vehicle for those disappointed that Obama did not bring hope or change to the country (at least I think it is).

Anyway, some interesting videos associated with OWS that caught my attention this week:

Pepper spray makes a return. Student protesters get doused by the cops.

84 year old protester gets pepper sprayed by the police.
(Really? spraying old ladies might go down as one of the dumbest PR moves of the police yet.)

Ok, now this is amazing. I don't know how they did this, but this is top-notch marketing tactics right here. OWS used a projector of some kind - very Batman-esque - to project a message on the Verizon Building in New York while protesters were marching towards the Brooklyn Bridge.

A protester's dog and a police officer's horse play around at OWS (if only humans got along so well).

And perhaps one of the most telling videos that sums up what is going on with OWS is the video of a Retired Police Chief who joined OWS and who the police actually arrested.

You know things are upside down when you have police arresting police. If that's not a warning to politicians that over the long run using the police to squash the protesters will be a failed strategy, I don't know what is.

As this PR war for the hearts and minds of Americans plays out, right now I'd say OWS is winning the war. Not decisively just yet, there's still plenty of folks that don't support or like them, but those numbers are less today than they were two months ago.

If only positive moments got the same attention as negative ones

2011-11-19T10:05:00.000-08:00

Two interesting political videos caught my attention this week and they show how negative events get far more attention in the media than positive ones.

The first was Herman Cain, who when asked about Libya had a Rick Perry moment. The YouTube video is nearing the million hit mark and the video was on just about every news cast out there. It's scary (to me) to think that Cain could be the President of the United States.

On the flip side, this off-camera moment with Ron Paul, which is only hitting the 4,000 hit mark (and not surprisingly got zero media coverage), shows that politicians aren't all sociopathic narcissists.

To me, the Paul video is more important in terms of assessing a presidential candidate than the Cain video. Of course it's important whether Cain knows what he's talking about, but the Paul video is an example of how character is something you either have or you don't. If you want a just system / society, then you better elect someone who lives their life based on morals that reflect a concern for what is right and what is wrong (and not just when they are on CNN).

As long as society focuses on the negative over the positive, then the media will continue to serve up the negative over the positive.

And ironically, PR folks will continue to be forced to play the blame game and rally efforts to make their opponents look like idiots, versus running their campaigns based on their own strengths. The 'they suck more than I do' strategy will most likely dominate the 2012 election campaign, when what the world needs is an American electoral campaign based on solutions and candidates who run a 'I'm the best for the job and here's why' type of mentality.

On a positive front, Paul continues to stay strong in polls, so there's definitely a segment of society that is starting to look for character over charisma.

If you like horror movies, you'll love American Horror Story

2011-11-19T10:02:00.000-08:00

Admittedly a non-PR related post...

I've never seen the show Glee and would consider it a form of torture if someone ever made me watch it, so I was quite surprised to find out that one of my favourite shows was created by the co-creators of Glee.

American Horror Story, which airs on FX, is really good. I can't think of a tv show that actually felt like a really good horror movie, but this one does. I guess maybe some of the older Twilight Zone episodes were creepy enough to qualify, but AHS really hits the nail on the head when it comes to creeping you out.

The trailers don't do it justice, but regardless here you go:

The Interviewr - an interesting idea in the making, potentially a PR killer app?

2011-11-19T10:01:00.000-08:00

Stumbled on this new service called The Interviewr - it's basically an online portal where you can set up interviews and their system will call out to you and the person being interviewed and connect the two of you for your interview. You can attach files and notes to the interview, as well as record the interview. The best part - it's free!

The value here in my opinion is the 'reminder' factor. It's not uncommon even with calendar reminders, to miss a conference call because someone's day got overly hectic. However, with The Interviewr, the system calls you, so you can't miss your interview (unless you choose not to answer your phone).

There's also a serious cost-savings factor at play here. This provides both parties with a 'no cost' long-distance option. After all, the system is calling you, so you aren't incurring any LD fees (nor is the other person on the call). Not sure what the call quality is like, but provided it's not bad, this is a great feature for small businesses.

I wish I could say that it's a Web-based conferencing system, but right now it's simply designed for two people, which is to say the system only calls out to two phone numbers.

Their focus in developing the application seems to be on making journalists' lives easier. I wish they had approach this app from a PR person's perspective though, because I actually think this could be a killer app for PR. Interviews are a PR person's bread and butter, anything that makes them go smoother is gold.

Having said that, they are clearly building out a generic voice platform that I'd imagine could be very easily customized to suit various vertical. Simply come up with feature bundles specific to various industries and up-sell those features on top of the generic offering.

Anyway, the service just launched so we'll have to see how it develops over time, but it definitely seems interesting. With the right features built in to it I could see PR people really liking this - provided they can somehow ensure confidentiality of recorded calls and do things like important contact lists.

This is something I think Marketwire or CNW would be wise to take a look at as I could really see them making a lot of money off PR-specific voice services and/or integrating voice with existing PR services.

As the cost of voice services race towards zero, the money is going rest in vertical applications, embedding and tailoring voice services around the specific needs different professionals have. PR folks will be one of the most receptive verticals as this happens I think.

Pretty good WIND commercial...

2011-11-19T09:58:00.000-08:00

WIND might not have the big bucks that Rogers and Bell do, but with a little kinetic typography they can still produce a slick commercial.

I'm switching over to Wind in December and can't wait to once and for all be free of the the Big Two completely (by the way, my Teksavvy extreme cable is awesome, not sure why anyone goes with Rogers).

The only negative thing I can say about Wind so far is that when you go in to their stores (or at least the one I was in), which are fairly small outlets usually within local malls, they don't have any chairs for their employees.

I've seen this done before in some consumer-traffic businesses, take away the chairs and the employees are forced to stay on their feet and so they don't get lazy and sit down.

Back in my younger years when I worked 10-hours on your feet type of jobs, I can tell you, it's torture if every now and then you can't sit down for a minute or two. The only thing more torturous is 10-hours at a desk jobs (which destroys your back) ;)

This may seem like a small thing, but I actually delayed my purchase because of it. I thought 'How nice can Wind be if they force their employees to stand and never sit?'. And when something sets off my spidey senses that causes me to do more research before doing business with someone.

What Wind should do is give their employees some chairs.

Also, because Wind is growing in popularity, you, the customer, are often forced to stand around waiting for your turn with a sales clerk for a good half hour. So the customer is forced to stand around also.

Get a big orange Wind-branded couch in there guys, customers will be much happier with you if they are waiting on their butt instead of on their feet. Remember, people are coming to you because they feel that the big two are inhumane. Don't mess it up by treating your employees in ways that customers will think is not right.

Other than that though, Wind seems like a great service provider.

Obama has gone from "Hope and Change" to the scariest dude on the planet

2011-11-19T09:55:00.000-08:00

The dichotomy between Obama in 2008 and Obama today is perhaps one of the most striking examples of PR brand reversals in history.

Obama recently announced that in addition to moving troops in to the Gulf region, he will also be sending troops to Australia. The move in Australia accompanies his statements that the US is a "Pacific nation" which intends to play "a larger and long-term role in shaping this region and its future."

For a president who received the Nobel Peace Prize and campaigned based on hope and change, it's ironic that his strengths now are seen primarily as being a military president who will not shy away from any confrontation.

Yes, China is a bad country, but putting troops on their doorstep is not the answer. How would the US react if China put 2,500 troops along the Mexican border? Or how would Canada act if the US put 2,500 troops up in Alaska (for easy access to Russia) - I'm pretty sure Canadians would be enraged.

Not to mention, after 10 years of war, is the world not sick and tired of all this fighting yet? Should resources not be spent fixing the US economy instead of military posturing? And make no mistake, putting troops in to Australia is military posturing against China.

But perhaps the answer lies in the question. Perhaps the US economy can't be fixed. Perhaps Europe is in the tank as well. Perhaps all that's left now is for the world to fight over natural resources and political ideologies and to bully each other around in hopes of one day attaining dominance over each other.

This type of craziness is what, in part, lead to me exit the markets months ago. What we are witnessing in the world - whether it be with the banks, politicians, the military - is not reflective of a sound rational perspective focused on sustainability and growth. Rather, it's the old 'I've got bigger balls than you' mentality that caused much of the issues we face today. Essentially an ideology that outright rejects the notion that peaceful co-existence is possible in this world.

From a PR perspective, I don't think turning China into an 'existential' threat, the way they did with Al Qaeda (who was a threat, although existential is a bit over the top), is going to give Obama much of a boost in the polls. The economy remains the number one issue for most 'voters', whether in the US or Canada, and all this military focus will not go over well with the voters.

Let's hope the world can hold on another year and the US elects someone that cleans up the mess in Washington, fixes the corrupt regulators so businesses return to a fair playing field, and for the love of God turns their back on all this warmongering in the name of peace.

On a side note, I stumbled on this video the republicans are running regarding Obama. It's a taste of what he'll be facing come the general election. He will have to pull off the PR performance of a lifetime to offset this kind of 'hold your feet to the fire' messaging from the right.

OC transpo driver fired; another told to stop singing

2011-11-15T08:06:00.000-08:00

Looks like OC Transpo is all over the news today.

Turns out the bus driver that flipped out on a passenger has been fired. Apparently like the passenger in question had autism. I wrote my initial opinion on this incident in a blog entry - OC Bus Drive loses it... - in which I thought, without knowing the full facts of the situation, that this was a tough situation to judge. My conclusion was that this was more a reflection of how poorly we as a society manage mental illness.

While autism is not a mental illness, my conclusion still stands in the sense that as a society we are not equipped or social aware of how to manage behavioral issues that some people may exhibit. The public transportation system has a lot of mentally ill passengers, this is their primary way of getting around, and whether or not the bus driver's behavior was beyond reproach, in my opinion, really comes down to the extent to which drivers are trained to deal with those with mental illness.

If they are not trained in this area, then in my opinion, it's to be expected that when faced with extreme behavioral issues, some drivers are going to flip out.

Anyway, from the story in the National Post there was little detail on what exactly happened prior to what we saw on the video. So who knows what actually lead to the decision to fire the driver. From a PR perspective, firing the driver is neither good or bad, but not explaining the rationale behind said action is not good.

OC Transpo's public comment was:

“The collective agreement provides for a process of grievance which may be exercised by the individual/union and is a matter of labour relations. As a result, there will be no further information on this matter.”

As I've mentioned in previous posts, for those starting out in PR, one of the best things you can do is befriend the lawyers in your organization. Not so much for working relationships down the road, but rather, to understand how their mandate will conflict with your mandate. When you see bad PR (such as we saw initially with the whole Murdoch fiasco), I would say that about 50 per cent of the time it's the result of lawyers getting involved.

In other OC Transpo news, one of their drivers has been told to stop singing.

I'd be willing to bet that most people would enjoy a singing transpo driver. Comments across the Web seem to suggest this is the case.

However, we do live in a era where a couple complaints can cause an uproar. In addition, as all businesses attempt to maximize productivity, behavior that is not within the strict confines of protocol becomes a no-brainer to prohibit.

I can appreciate how this is a tough call for the city though. Afterall, what if a bus driver wants to sing who is a horrible singer? Does OC Transpo then have to start assessing their driver's singing abilities in deciding who can sing and who can't? Or what if a driver wants to rap instead of sing?

I think there is actually a solution to this, but ironically, I'd bet that it would be the OC Transpo union that would never go for it.

The solution would be to simply enable the public to rate a driver. Enable passengers to go online, use their OC transpo pass number to verify that they are a customer, and allow them to rate (positively and negatively) any driver. Clearly, in order to do this OC would have to inform passengers about who their driver was, but that's not hard to do (simply flash the info in the overhead displays thingy).

Then you simply have a rule that if a driver receives a certain amount of negative customer feedback, OC management looks in to what is going. This way, if you have a 'singing' driver that people like you'll receive positive feedback and said driver can be allowed to continue singing.

Such a system engages the public and helps identify good drivers from bad drivers (allowing you to optimize your workforce and reward those doing a good job). In the end, it's a win-win for everyone (well, everyone except bad drivers).

From a PR perspective I think the public would be ecstatic over such a system.

Unfortunately, I don't think the union would ever allow that level of customer-feedback to occur. I'm not against unions in general, but in situations like these, unions can definitely inhibit a business from growing and evolving.

While OC Transpo might take a lot of flack for telling the bus driver that he can no longer sing, I'd be willing to be that the reason they have to make that call is because of the ramifications associated with the union if they didn't. They'd inevitably have some bus driver whose singing would give you a headache that they wouldn't be able to shut up because the union would say "If you let Frank sing then you've got to let Charlie sing."

The only way to get around that is to essentially hand the power over to the customer. Engage the customer and find out if they like Frank singing. If you can collect that data then you are in a position to say 'Charlie's BAD singing should not prohibit Frank's GOOD singing that everyone likes."

The CDC guide in case of Zombie Pandemic

2011-11-14T07:21:00.000-08:00

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released a graphic novel entitled - "Preparedness 101: Zombie Pandemic" - which teaches people about the importance of emergency preparedness. The graphic novel can be viewed on their Web site in pdf format.

Kudos to the CDC for being creative. While cartoons and comics have been used by government agencies in the past, they are generally 'see spot run' vanilla boring.

A zombie theme that captures people's imagination and makes kids think 'What would I do if zombies attacked?" is very clever.

And let's face it, the 'emergency preparedness' steps for zombies will help you in just about any other scenario you might actually face in actual reality.

60 minutes attacks Washington - love it!

2011-11-14T07:08:00.000-08:00

Maybe one of the best pieces of (mainstream) journalism I've seen in a long time out of the US. I'm so use to the media tip-toeing around issues versus going in head-on with hard hitting investigative journalism.

Well, 60 minutes can't be accused of scratching anyone's back on this one. They go at Washington hard and hit Pelosi and Boehner on the practice of politicians trading stocks based on information only they have (you'd think that would be illegal, but apparently it's not. Surprise surprise, what actually is 'illegal' nowadays that some loophole doesn't allow people to engage in?)

I love watching these politicians try to explain how one day before a stock pops or drops based on politic events in Washington their decision to buy the stock and dump it for a profit a few days later does not suggest anything inappropriate is going on.

I'm telling you, if the media starts to really investigate this stuff and put it on the air regularly, the 2012 election is going to mind blowing. Heck, no one might get elected because they'll be too busy dealing with the riots in the streets. I seriously would not be surprise if OWS were to protest the voting centers in the 2012 election and literally shut down the election.

Should be an interesting year ahead.

Jay-Z makes some money from OWS, but at what cost?

2011-11-14T06:56:00.000-08:00

What a dummy. Jay-Z apparently made Occupy Wall Street shirts and was selling them for $22 a pop. The catch? None of the profit went back in to OWS in anyway.

From a brand perspective this was an incredible dumb move (and by brand I'm referring to the fact that Jay-Z is a brand unto himself). Once again we come back to PR 101 basics - know your audience.

Making a profit, or at least not profit-sharing, off a customer base that is protesting capitalism and which sees itself as a movement against corporate greed and influence, is pretty dumb.

Jay-Z has apparently stopped selling the shirts, but his brand will take a black eye from this little escapade.

I'm sure from Jay-Z's perspective he was merely identifying a market demand and supplying that demand - capitalism 101 - in fact, he might have seen his actions as helping the OWS movement.

From the OWS'ers perspective, some things should not be about money and profit, and Occupy Wall Street is one of those things. In addition, they likely see it as 'some rich guy' making a buck off OWS.

No one is right or wrong really - this is where I tend to disagree with OWS in that making products that people want and selling them at a price they are willing to pay is a good thing, it's what makes the world spin. It's corruption, special interests, monopolies, etc. that are the problem with today's economic system.

Regardless of my view though, I'd still be aware enough of the OWS audience's views to know that making a profit off them was a pretty dumb strategy.

Actually, if I made shirts it would be fine (because I'm not a multi-millionaire). In fact, people would probably praise a common man making shirts and a bit of a profit. But Jay-Z isn't part of the 99 per cent, so OWS'ers would simply see this as a rich guy seizing an opportunity to make more money.

Jay-Z should have known this and he should have only bothered to make the shirts if it was about supporting OWS, which means doing so through a non-profit model.

OWS isn't a rock concert, it's a social movement for justice and equality.

Want to sell t-shirts for a profit? Hold a concert.

This guy should be the spokesperson for Occupy Wall Street

2011-11-10T20:32:00.000-08:00

Stumbled on these videos of some Irish guy explaining the economic mess the world is in.

I don't know if it's his accent or what, but he definitely got me laughing (the second video is better than the first I think).

This is what OWS needs, a few charismatic spokespersons that people are eager to listen to. While the decentralized nature of OWS works and you wouldn't want to change that, a few characters around the edges wouldn't hurt the cause.

(warning: videos contain cursing)
(from 2010)

(from 2011)

Sometimes I hate being right - RIM nearing $15

2011-11-10T09:21:00.000-08:00

Way back in July I wrote a blog entry - The hits keep on coming - RIM has a tough week - in which I made the absurd prediction that: It's a bit of a crazy prediction, but I won't be surprised if in a year or two from now if RIM stock is trading down around 15 bucks. I think there's more pain to come.

Well, in less than six months RIM stock fell from $29 in July (at the time I wrote the blog entry) to $17.30 today. While it's not the $15 dollar target, it's close enough for me to say that I came pretty close to the bullseye. I thought it would take at least 12 months, but it's occurred even faster. (And for PR folks out there, I personally believe that at least 50 per cent of that lost value is tied to PR damage the company has taken as opposed to fundamental issues).

I hate seeing RIM fall like this, it's a black eye on all of Canada if you ask me.

There is a positive though

On the positive side I really believe in the Neitzschean concept that "It's only after you've lost everything that you are free to do anything." I wish I could find the actual Neitzsche quote though which is more akin to 'It's only after one has died while alive that one can be reborn and free to truly live for the first time." (I'm going to search for the actual quote and will update at a later time).

The notion behind this saying is that at some point during the growth process one becomes stuck in habitual notions and perspectives that drive decision making. And once something becomes habitual it becomes a trap that limits one's ability to react and move in to the future with a fresh and open perspective and mind.

Really, everything going on the world right now is a function of this phenomena. Politicians, banks, world governments are all trying to tackle the issues we face through habitual forms of decision making as opposed to envisioning a future we wish to have and then figuring out how to make that future a reality. Right now, the decisions we should be making simply run up against too much 'habitual' opposition, we've lost our ability to 'dream' if you will and instead are trapped in a 'process' frame of mind (which is why nothing is getting fixed). This is where we get the notion that we are stuck in a 'system' and that the 'system' is broken - it's really not the system that is broken, but rather our way of thinking (for we are, after all, the system).

Anyway, that's a separate issue. What I'm trying to say about RIM is that the positive thing about their current situation is that they've now lost everything. They haven't gone bankrupt, but they've lost everything that made them who they were - they've lost their market leadership, they've lost their brand, they've lost share value, they really have lost everything.

But the good thing about this is that they are now free to do anything. They can let go of the past and ask themselves: who do we want to be in 5, 10, or 20 years from now?

If they realize that they've lost everything and take this is an opportunity to be 'reborn' then they can still rise from the ashes. RIM started the smartphone industry after all. If they fail to realize that they've lost everything though, then they may eventually go bankrupt, or in the best case scenario end up like Nokia, just limping along for years to come and dying a slow death.

Do I think Apple and Google will dominate the smartphone market forever? Not a chance. In fact, I think Apple is going to have a really tough go of things over the next five years with Jobs no longer around to keep that grand vision alive.

As you can tell, following my logic the initial place where RIM has to focus is on marketing. Creating a new vision for the company is a marketing / PR activity. Without it, RIM is doomed.

Yes, they have to remain competitive on the technology front, but that will not save the company.

RIM has to ask itself 'What is our place in the world? What do we mean to consumers?' It's not enough to say 'We make smartphones' (big deal, everyone makes smartphones today).

I don't know what the answer to those questions will be for RIM. I know this will sound crazy (just like my $15 dollars sounded crazy) but if I were RIM right now I'd run a huge campaign saying something to the effect "We make smartphones for the 99 per cent".

Yes, crazy, I know. Criticize it for being corny if you want. But what something like that does is show RIM is with the people and that its strategies moving forward are about people. The biggest knock on RIM today is that they don't care about their end users but rather make all their decisions based on what
carriers want (who in this case would be the one percent). In addition, the biggest knock against Apple is they lock people in to the proprietary Apple universe - which is not a 99 per cent business model, it's not about openness and freedom for the user.

Anyway, you get the drift. RIM is seen as a speeds and feeds company, versus Apple and Google who are seen as end-user centric. RIM needs to reach out to consumers and connect with them again. They also need to drive internal decision making based around a different philosophy, instead of R&D based solely on carrier demands, they need to be thinking more about the end-user. Instead of engineers making all the decisions, smart marketing people need to be at the table with an equal voice.

If Apple taught the world anything it's that you don't have to have the best product in the world to succeed, but your customers do have to care about your product. They have to support you because they believe that you THINK the way they do! This is where RIM lost its' way, the end-user stopped associated RIM as being a company that thought the same as they do.

If RIM can turn that corner, if they can emerge as a company that is built around end-users and market themselves with that theme in mind (and the marketing is the most important thing here - you could start turning this around today, even without new products), then $15 or $17 a share will ultimately turn out to be absurdly cheap and a generational buying opportunity. People would one day look back and say "I can't believe RIM once traded for 17 bucks a share".

If they fail to do this though (and do it soon) I suspect in a couple of years from now the name RIM won't even exist.

Let's hope RIM realizes that it has lost everything and is not, like Nokia, simply doing its best to tread water for as long as it can before it drowns. If it does realize this then all the things it has to do to be reborn will become evident and the years ahead will be interesting. If not, then this chapter in Canadian technology history is coming to a close.

Awww poor Rick Perry... really embarassing

2011-11-09T20:09:00.000-08:00

Check out mark 1:40 in the GOP debates last night.

Perry can't name the departments that he plans to cut (even though they are in his economic plan).

I think that pretty much brings his campaign hopes to a close. You have to feel bad for the guy as he clearly, for whatever the reason, simply had a deer in the headlights moment. I'm sure he knows what the departments are (I would hope so anyway), but the neurons just weren't firing in that moment.

I do find it hilarious that he turns to Ron Paul for help - who looks at him with a bit of a 'It's your plan, I don't know what departments you want to cut. I know I'm cutting five of them."

Should be an interesting primary in January. My predictions, Romney, Cain, and Paul will still be viable at that point, everyone else will fall away. Cain might also fall away if more details around these sexual harassment issues come to light.

Romney versus Paul would be a fascinating finale to the GOP nomination process. I think either of them would beat Obama.

Bell and Rogers, please leave me alone, it's over, just accept it and move on

2011-11-08T09:38:00.000-08:00

I left Rogers probably six months ago for TekSavvy and I get nothing from Bell other than a basic line (and I have plans in the next month or so to dump Bell and go all-cellular through Wind Mobility).

Yet, the big boys (Rogers and Bell) just can't accept that I've moved on. Every month I get mail from Rogers offering me three free months on all services (internet, cable, phone). Bell Canada called me today trying to offer me ways to reduce my 'costs' (I didn't listen to their pitch because it always involves up-selling new services and ultimately increasing your monthly bill).

Listen guys, it's over. I don't want anything to do with you for the next 30,40, or 50 years that I have left to live on this planet. Offering three months of free service which ultimately ends up costing twice as much as service I can get elsewhere isn't a bargain. So keep printing up those pricey flyers with the money you are milking from your existing customers, but it's a waste of your time and money.

Clearly the big two are suffering from customer attrition and are trying to get customers who left them to return. The customer churn might not be huge yet, but I'm willing to bet they are seeing a trend that is starting to scare them.

Until they become competitive on the cost front, they are pissing in the wind. Today's under 40 consumer is far too consumer-savvy to pay twice as much as they have to.

I'd go so far as to say even if Rogers offered me the exact same deal that I get from Teksavvy, I'd still stay with Teksavvy, whose brand I now associate with consumer-centric service offerings (great service, great cost).

Also, it's great to see Teksavvy expanding beyond just an ISP reseller. They are starting to form a corporate brand. I was pleasantly surprised to see that they are supporting prostate cancer awareness month and for every person that follows them on Twitter, they will donate one dollar to the Canadian Cancer Society.

Not only does this communicate that they are a socially-engaged company, but it's a great way to build out their Twitter following.

Are Canadian banks better at PR? I think so.

2011-11-08T09:04:00.000-08:00

It's interesting to note the difference between American Banks and Canadian Banks when it comes to PR.

On some level, this is kind of like asking which is worse, a hurricane or an earthquake given populous sentiment towards banks has forever been fairly negative.

However, I think the Canadian banks can teach American banks something when it comes to PR. We all know that Canadian banks handled themselves much more responsibly on the financial front during the financial collapse of 2008, but since then they've also done a better job on the PR front.

I say this with regards to two events recently by TD bank:

1) TD recently announced that it was increasing fees on checking accounts. However, they appear to be targeting the increases towards services that will least affect their customers. Their official statement is that only one per cent of their customer base will be affected.

Compare this to the banks in the US which implemented debit card fees that affected almost every customer and caused such a backlash in public sentiment that the banks have since revoked the charges.

2) I was also surprised to see that the CEO of TD, Ed Clark, supporting Occupy Wall Street. When asked for what advice he would give OWS his response was:

"My main advice is stick to your guns. When people say, ‘You don’t have a solution,’ say, ‘Of course we don’t. If there was a solution, don’t you think people would be doing it?’ To ask the people who occupy Wall Street or Bay Street to have a full answer is absurd. They’re doing their job which is to say, ‘If you think this [system] is working for everyone, it’s not.’

What you are seeing when it comes to Canadian banks, or at least TD, is that customer service (and understanding their customers) seems to be directing their PR strategies. Which is excellent - the best PR strategies are ones that aren't about manipulating publics to come around to your views but rather aligning and articulating your views in relation theirs.

In essence, messaging as though you were sitting across the table from them face-to-face, as opposed to simply communicating with them through letters, news releases and other less-than-personal forms of one-way communication.

Now, this is not to say the Canadian banks are perfect by any means. I had a family member who recently had a horrible experience with Scotiabank, and ironically, it was TD Bank who saved the day.

All this is not to say that Canadian banks won't at some point start milking customers like US banks have tried to do. But for the time being, they are doing a good job on the PR front and I think most Canadians are thankful that we are dealing with TD Bank versus Bank of America.

I did a quick search on YouTube for TD related videos. The first to pop up was a video of their CEO reviewing 2010. It's interesting to note that the focus of their messaging was on community and employees. Yet again, clearly exhibiting that from a PR perspective, they clearly understand the importance of being people-centric in their messaging.

OC Transpo Bus Driver loses it....

2011-11-07T12:35:00.000-08:00

This video of an OC Transpo bus driver losing it on a passenger has gone viral in Ottawa today.

While the driver's reaction was over the top, I don't think it's clear from this video that he was necessarily in the wrong.

From the YouTube description, this took place when only two people were in the bus and the passenger in question, who has been identified as being mentally ill (or at least that's what people say), is very likely harassing the bus driver. Which at the very least creates a safety concern for the driver who must pay attention to the road.

While the bus driver's threat of violence is over the top, we can't simply assume that such threats were genuine. They very well could have simply been a frustrated attempt to get the passenger to back off and sit down.

If the passenger was mentally ill, one has to sympathize with the driver who could very well be wondering to himself whether said mentally ill person might pull out a knife and stab him or some other such irrational act (remember the story of the man on the greyhound bus who attacked a fellow passenger and literally cut his head off?)

Given he is driving the bus, he would be unable to defend himself in the event of an attack - hence why you might see such an over aggressive reaction on the bus driver's part.

If the bus driver truly was a mean-spirited bully, he could have easily just tapped the brakes and sent the passenger flying. I've seen bus drivers do that when no one was bugging them (I'm assuming they simply got a kick out of seeing people tossed about in the bus).

I think the real issue in all this is how we handle mental illness in society. In my opinion, bus drivers should not be expected to be able to handle mentally ill persons. I've seen bus drivers have to deal with mentally ill people on the bus who are causing problems, and I felt really bad for the driver because that's not their job. Their job is to drive the bus, not be a security guard.

In this situation, I think the driver should have simply stopped the bus and called the police and let them deal with the young man. Too often with mental illness people simply get angry at the person who is behaving strangely, instead of handing the situation over to authorities. And I think people in general don't think that you can call the police over a mentally ill person - 'acting strange' isn't a crime after all.

Yet, by handing things over to the authorities at least then whoever the person's care taker is becomes aware that their behavior needs to be addressed.

I don't really see this situation as anyone's fault really, it's merely the outcome associated with mental illness. The bus driver was simply reacting to being provoked and the passenger was likely behaving in ways out of his control.

Now if the bus driver had actually hit him, or tapped the brakes, then it would be a different story.

Either society puts more resources into addressing mental illness, or this kind of thing will keep happening (and this is not a one-off, anyone who takes the bus knows this stuff happens fairly regularly).

The PR lesson of this story, especially for OC, is that we live in a big brother world now. Everyone has a camera on their cell phone. The days of assuming that unpalatable events that occur now and then will simply go unnoticed by the general public are over. Which means organizations need to equip their staff with greater 'crisis prevention' knowledge so that they don't get caught in a situation where they don't know how to respond.

As we see here, this is an incident where only three people were present, and yet, because of video, everyone in Ottawa is now aware and talking about.

Organizational protocols for professional behavior must take in to account that someone is always watching AND must equip employees with the ability to handle a wide variety of situations that can occur when servicing the public.

So my take on this video is that it says:

1) We have a long way to go in terms of treating the mentally ill (if not for this video I bet no one would ever even know this situation took place, and I'm sure now that people know, the young man will get additional assistance in handling whatever issues he might have).
2) Organizations are not equipping their employees with the situational awareness and response knowledge required to operate effectively in a big brother / iPhone everywhere world.

Obama already running campaign ads, and they aren't very good

2011-11-06T19:05:00.000-08:00

After claiming for months that he was not campaigning, Obama has just released, you guessed it, a campaign ad for the 2012 election.

Given, I'm not a huge fan of Obama at this point, so my view might be overly pessimistic, but I don't think the ad is very good. In fact, I'd argue the rationale behind the ad is almost delusional.

For the ad to make sense it assumes that there is still a huge investment of hope in Obama. That people haven't given up on him for the most part.

The statistics however argue that they have given up, with his approval rating lower than every other president except Carter and in recent polls of Occupy Wall Street protesters, 60 per cent of them voted for Obama yet 73 per cent of those voters now disapprove of the job Obama is doing.

The ad will resonate with hardcore Obama supporters, since they would take anyone over another republican after what Bush put the country through. Yet, that's a very small base of people to create an ad for.

As it pertains to the general public, I'd almost argue the ad works against Obama. Because he's actively and visually getting people to remember all the hope and joy people had back in 2008, which is a stark contrast to their current view of the economy and their politicians. In fact, the very same crowd that was cheering him on is most likely the crowd that is now marching in protest.

It's tantamount to revisiting old picture albums after a divorce and assuming that one will remember old times with fondness. My assumption is most people who get divorced what to forget about old memories and stick said pictures in the back of the closet somewhere, because looking at them only depresses them.

That's essentially what Obama's ad does for the many American's who had such hope for him and who now feel like he's definitely 'not the one' they've been waiting for.

It's just bad PR to remind people that you once promised them a five-course, five-star meal when all you actually delivered to them was a Big Mac and fries.

What Obama should have done in his ad - and mind you, it's very hard for him to do anything effectively because his record speaks louder than any ad he creates - would have been to emphasize his jobs plan. Hammer home that he's the only candidate with a jobs bill on the table ready to go. While he's been doing this in his press conferences, he should have done it in the ad as well.

The reality is that come election time he absolutely must be seen as the 'jobs' president or he's done. Unless of course the US goes to war with Iran, then, just like Bush and the Iraq wars, voters will be very hesitant to change horses in the middle of a war. Yet, barring various war-scenarios, he must be seen as a the jobs president or it's over.

The hope and faith that he clearly thinks people still have for him, is not out there. What it has been replaced with are people who are now convinced that no politician is working for them and as such they've taken to the streets in protest.

Blogger Goes Dynamic - I like, two thumbs up!

2011-11-06T17:18:00.000-08:00

If you read my blog then obviously you know that I use blogger. They recently introduced a brand new layout design called dynamic templates and I'm pleasantly surprised (especially with the magazine view). It's not just a different template, it's a whole new design system for blogger (at least from what I can tell!)

The Good

I think the new template(s) is really cool and functionally appealing. I love how it pulls out video or images from your post and places them by the headline. I also like how it condenses the articles so that viewers can see multiple articles when they hit the landing page of your blog (whereas before you'd simply see whatever was the first article).

It's also worth noting that every blog post now comes with a retweet and Facebook button (thank you Google for not being proprietary and limiting people's social networking options! Although I still think YouTube would be much better if you could retweet from within the YouTube site).

The Bad

The only negative right now is that the dynamic template isn't compatible with Blogger gadgets, so in using this template I've lost all my sidebar gadgets. But it's not a big deal as the gadgets will be available soon they say.

I'll also have to play around with just how much the display can be customized. It would have been nice if they had added some image customization options. My one fear with this dynamic design is that if everyone switches over to it, everyone's blogs are going to look pretty much identical. Yet, I'm hoping that this is just the first template in the 'dynamic' line and that there will be many more to come.

And I've got to also say, big kudos to Google for keeping all the original templates in place so that people don't have to switch over if they don't want to. It drives me nuts when services introduce a new 'option' but don't allow you access the original option if you preferred it.

The Verdict

Overall, two thumbs way up for dynamic templates, I think it adds real value to the blogging experience. I hope they continue to add new features so that one day a blog can be as visually pleasing and content pliable as a Web site is.

Also, here's a quick video Google did promoting dynamic templates. They used some kinetic typography and a pretty good sound track and it keeps you interested despite it being a pretty simple overview (note to PR folks, audio tracks are part of your messaging, anything that creates an 'impression' or 'feeling' in the viewer is shaping your message.)

Texas Judge Responds - horrible PR move (clearly advised by a lawyer)

2011-11-03T20:15:00.000-07:00

In my previous post I talked about a recent video showing a Texas Judge whipping his daughter with a belt. The judge has come out with an official statement to the press. You can read the full statement here (it's three pages in length).

Essentially he argues that his daughter is trying to damage his reputation because he refused to keep paying for her BMW.

To quote:

If the public must know, just prior to the You Tube upload, a concerned father shared with his 23 year old daughter that he was unwilling to continue to work hard and be her primary source of financial support,if she was going to simply “drop out”, and strive to achieve no more in life than to work part time at a video game store. Hillary warned her father if he reduced her financial support, and took away her Mercedes automobile, which her father had provided, he would live to regret it. The post was then uploaded.

William Adams regrets the interruption and inconvenience his daughter’s post has caused to the Aransas County, Texas community. Judge Adams is confident that when the dust settles.....it will be concluded that Hillary Adam’s actions in 2011 were misguided and misleading.

It's just mind boggling that this is how he would respond to the situation. However, from a legal point of view, it's not. He's laying the ground work to show that this was a one off incident and that outside of that he was a good dad giving his child everything she needed.

Watch his daughter on Anderson Cooper to see the other side of the story ...

From just the facts above, what it seems likely happened was that yes, he abused his daughter. Yes, the daughter was dependent on him financially (giving her reason to stay quiet about the abuse). Yes, when he cut her off (removing the only reason she had to remain quiet) she had nothing to lose and finally struck back at him for his behavior in the past.

If that's the case, it doesn't change the simple fact, he whipped a 16 year old kid. Abuse is abuse, no matter how you cut it.

Any 'irrational' behavior on her part - for instance, why remain in contact with her father after such behavior - is easily chalked up to the fact that abuse victims often times continue taking the abuse for years. They sometimes never confront the abuser in an entire lifetime. That's actually normal - doing what she did, standing up to the abuser, is actually out of the norm (especially an abuser in such a position of power such as he has being a judge).

From a PR perspective, this guy just did the worst thing possible, he attacked the victim. Even if the catalyst to her releasing this video was him cutting off financial support, it doesn't change the fact that she was victimized.

If you've committed an atrocious act and want to lose public support as quickly as possible, attack the victim. Hey, it's working for the banks right (please note my sense of sarcasm here).

In this situation clearly the PR is being handle by a lawyer who is using their public statement to essentially lay out their defense strategy.

Regardless though, he botched this on the PR front. When you've done what he did, the only option available to you is to take accountability for your actions and hope people forgive you. But without taking responsibility, much less blaming the victim themselves, you have zero chance of gaining any kind of public leniency.

Texas Judge beats daughter

2011-11-03T18:10:00.000-07:00

A very disturbing video broke about a Texas family court Judge who beat his daughter. The video was released by his daughter (good for her!)

The video is very disturbing so you may not want to watch.

The judge's response to the video:

"In my mind, I haven't done anything wrong other than discipline my child after she was caught stealing," Adams said. "And I did lose my temper, but I've since apologised."

Call me liberal but this guys a classic asshole and the absolute last profession he should be in is that of a judge.

From a PR perspective he's shot himself in the foot. It's one thing if there was no video, but this video is plastered all over YouTube.

What he should have done is come right out and said his behavior was flat out wrong and that he regrets it deeply and is deeply sorry that he put his daughter through that. And in addition, he would seek to work with family abuse charities to help further shed light on the issue of abuse in the home. Even that probably wouldn't be enough to reverse the negative public sentiment towards him, but it's the best you can do in this situation.

I think he's up a creak without a paddle on this one. I know if I bumped in to this guy on the street I'd probably cold-cock him right there and then (and I'm not an advocate of violence).

Occupy Wall Street... starting to get scary

2011-11-03T17:49:00.000-07:00

If you haven't seen the latest in Occupy Wall Street stories, check out the various items below.

The movement is entering an interesting phase where certain segments are starting to get more aggressive.

One of the strengths of OWS has been that it represents a diverse uprising of disgust aimed at all the powers that be, from political to corporate. Its been a movement which had no singular message and that was basically all-inclusive to anyone that was sick and tired of the status quo.

However, the downside to not having a clear message is that your movement can become fractioned and co-opted by more extremist elements. Which is what we are beginning to see happen.

From a PR perspective, this fracturing will drain public support over time as the 'movement' begins to look more like a 'mob'. If OWS loses public support, then logically the police will gain public support for implementing harsher methods for controlling the 'mob'.

To date the police have done a pretty poor job on the PR front. From macing protesters, to arresting 700 people, to putting one in the hospital with a fractured skull resulting from being hit with a tear gas cannister - the police have been losing the war over public opinion.

It should be interesting to see how OWS progresses. I suspect the movement will continue to move towards being more aggressive as that is the natural progression that all large-scale protests eventually take when their peaceful actions produce no results.

It may destroy their brand, yet it may not. If the move towards aggression is sparked by an external event - police brutality, further disclosures of extreme corruption in the banking sector, etc. - then such aggression may be tolerated by the public.

Either way, now is not a good time to be a mayor of a US city, because reality is that the grievances OWS have are with federal/national level issues. As such, mayors are caught between maintaining law and order and appeasing protesters that will only be appeased by federal-level actions.

From a PR perspective I think the best course of action for mayors to take is to engage with OWS. While rules around peaceful assembly exist, mayors would be well advised to reach out to OWS participants and make sure everyone knows the rules.

Mayors need to be seen less as 'maintaining law and order' and more 'keeping the peace' - and while the two things may be the same thing, they have very different connotations. The later encourages communication, mutual respect and mutual support, which in turn enable an entirely different set of communications strategies and tactics than one would implement under a more traditional and strict 'maintaining law and order' stance.

It's the mayors who have to step in here, even though the protesters are upset over federal issues.

And on with a quick OWS update:

Oakland March gets violent (bank windows smashed). Apparently all banks in Oakland were closed and employees sent home.

Wells Fargo gets smashed in Oakland

Oakland Protesters shut down the port

OWS in Seattle

Apparently 500 protesters waited outside Sheraton Hotel where Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, was giving a speech (they were waiting for him to leave so they could protest him face to face). Dimon snuck out the back and did not have to face the protesters.

The video that disappeared

There was a video of two protesters that were hit by a car when the protest blocked the street. The driver got frustrated and hit the gas and ran over the protester.

The video appeared online today, but is now nowhere to be found. It was on multiple sites (linking back to YouTube) and now it is removed from all those sites.

YouTube Censoring OWS videos?
This is just my observation, and I hate saying this (especially given my praise of YouTube only days ago) but I think YouTube is now heavily censoring any videos relating to the Occupy movement. You use to see 30 videos minimum hit YouTube every single day, now there is maybe fifteen per day and almost all of them are about commentary (versus actual video of the protests). There's also rumors that Twitter may be censoring OWS tweets as well.

I really hope this isn't the case, because it would be a sad commentary that video from elsewhere in the world isn't censored, but US related videos are.

I notice when a story breaks, YouTube has a bunch of videos uploaded with titles that suggest video of the event. But the video never actually loads and within minutes it is taken down.

Oh Man ... Rick Perry like you've never seen him

2011-10-30T18:57:00.000-07:00

I don't know if he was drunk or what, but Rick Perry was sure in a different state of mine when he gave this speech recently...

People are saying this is his Howard Dean moment that will officially end his campaign.

What I find interesting about this video is that usually Perry gets tongue tied when he talks and ends up making no sense. Yet throughout this speech, despite the fact that it's totally out of character compared to how he's presented himself in the campaign, he doesn't get tongue tied one time.

I think it's because he's not really thinking, he's just being himself.

I talk about in PR how important it is to be yourself, to play off your natural personality because presenting a false image of yourself is very hard to do and still remain aware of what's coming out of your mouth.

Now, being intoxicated (not saying Perry was for sure) isn't the path to go down though.

While this little blunder may cost Perry the race (but really, he lost before this incident) it will ingratiate him with the public. What this video shows, which the debates failed to show, is that he seems to be a pretty nice guy underneath it all.

YouTube now selling movies - it's just scary how good Google is

2011-10-30T10:44:00.000-07:00

If you haven't seen, you can now rent movies on YouTube. I was impressed at the price, the selection (they have movies like Scream 4 and the like) and that YouTube prices things in your currency (so for me in Canadian dollars).

Not to mention there's lots of free movies as well.

RIP NetFlix.

And for all the cable companies, it was fun while it lasted.

There's the truth and then there's the truth....

2011-10-30T10:34:00.001-07:00

Obama recently announced that all the troops would be leaving Iraq by year end.

Now, technically he is telling the truth. Yet, as the New York Times reports - U.S. Planning Troop Buildup in Gulf After Exit From Iraq - it's obvious that exiting Iraq does not necessarily mean lower military presence in the region. In fact, the article seems to suggest that the next 'phase' of all these wars is to create a Nato-like, Middle East security council in the region

Regardless of the Nato-plan, moving troops to the border of Iraq via Kuwait is as close as you can get to staying in Iraq without actually doing so. Let's call it what it is, the moment any type of fighting breaks out in Iraq, the USA will remobilize its troops back in to Iraq.

It's this kind of 'truth telling' that gives PR a bad name and for why public confidence / trust in government is so low.

Obama knows that the public will interpret his statements as meaning 'The Iraq war is over', when in reality, in terms of military presence in the region, it will still be going on.

I think Hilary Clinton does a better job on the PR front, at least making a statement that lets people know leaving doesn't mean leaving the region...

“We will have a robust continuing presence throughout the region, which is proof of our ongoing commitment to Iraq and to the future of that region, which holds such promise and should be freed from outside interference to continue on a pathway to democracy,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Tajikistan after the president’s announcement.

When you hear that it's pretty clear that the US is there to stay and is set on transforming the Middle East into a democracy.

So yes, the US will leave Iraq and yes, units will rotate (as some come 'home' and others get deployed), but it's not really the truth that the US will be 'out of Iraq'. They will simply set up camp on the borders of Iraq.

The traits of good communications - the four C's - are: clear, consistent, complete, and concise (and I believe compelling also).

Obama's statement appear to be those things, but ultimately when viewed against actual reality, is none of those things.

Bad communications lead to negative public opinion and I expect that will be the case here as well.

Google refuses to remove police brutality videos

2011-10-28T17:30:00.000-07:00

A US law enforcement agency asked Google to take down videos showing police brutality, according to the Huffington Post.

Google's response? Sorry but no.

This is why Google rocks. Now mind you, apparently the US government has requested Google remove 757 videos in 2011 and Google did removed 63 per cent of them. Although it appears they did so in accordance with defamation laws, which sounds reasonable to me (Google can't be asked to break law on behalf of its users after all).

Whether it's favouring freedom of speech, or I guess in this case, freedom of video, or its standing up to China, I'm always impressed by how Google seems to make its choices in favour of freedom and the every day man (even if that means banging heads with the powers that be - from law enforcement to the Chinese government).

I don't know if it's a great day or a sad day when Google becomes more essential to democracy, freedom and transparency than the US government itself.

Greeks are pissed - the mocking begins

2011-10-28T17:16:00.000-07:00

Way back during the BP oil spill crisis I wrote a short blog entry called - That's a Wrap - and in it I made the point that the process of 'mocking' is one that has a tremendously powerful affect on a brand.

When the public begins to mock you, that is their way of robbing you of all power and authority your brand may carry. The whole point of mocking is to redefine the characteristics associated with your brand, to associate everything you say and do with being 'laughable'.

You essentially lose the ability to communicate, because no matter what you say it is twisted to look absurd so that no one takes it seriously.

Mocking is also different than being provocative (I'll show the difference below in a second).

Over in Greece, things have now entered the mocking stage. As the Chicago Sun reports - Nazi jokes, wrath at Germans highlight Greek despair. It may be hard to believe, given Germany is leading the charge to save Greece via the EFSF, but those in Greece are furious at Germany (viewing them as their German overlords). As such they are evoking past Nazi imagery.

A poster of Angela Merkle in a Nazi uniform was created and apparently posted in the streets of Greece.

While mocking often takes a humorous approach, it sometimes can be quite jarring such as what is happening in Greece with the use of Nazi imagery. There's nothing funny about the image to me, but you can nonetheless recognize the juxtaposition of Merkle on the one hand smelling a rose while on the other hand wearing a uniform associated with death and evil - the intent is clearly to encourage people to 'laugh' at any notion that Germany is actually 'saving' Greece.

While not humorous, the mocking effects are the same. They erode Merkle's ability to be taken seriously by the general public. The image doesn't necessarily make people think anything about her per se, but that's not what mocking's goal is, in fact quite the opposite. It's designed to get people to simply stop taking someone seriously, to stop thinking about anything they say, to in essence look upon them as a joke.

It's no surprise that mocking is used so readily in the process of bullying. One of the most salient traits of a bully is that they are very quick to mock others, especially in front of other people. They recognize that the act of mocking is highly damaging to the person who is being mocked.

As I mentioned above, there's a difference between mocking and being provocative. Mocking is designed to get people to no longer take someone seriously. Being provocative generally attempts to do the opposite, to heighten the seriousness with which people see a situation or person.

An artist in Miami decided to go after Wall Street by being provocative. He depicted a banker being hung with the phrase 'Give a Wall St banker enough rope and he will hang himself'. The display was done at a major Florida highway.

As you can clearly see, being provocative is different than mocking. When you see the provocative images the first thing that comes to mind (at least for me) is - Is this going to far? Which then makes you really think about the issue of anger towards Wall Street. So provocation makes you think about something, whereas mockery makes you take something or someone less seriously.

Now, both tactics can backfire. When Obama was elected a ton of images designed, I think, to mock him (versus simply be provocative), sprung up everywhere. From Obama as the Joker to Obama as Hitler.

They had little to no effect. In part because mocking the president before he even had a chance to govern only made said mockers look like fools / bullies.

Mockery, to an extent, is an art form. There is a thin line between engaging the audience and offending the audience. Personally I'm not a fan of Obama, but I find the images on the left to be offensive and my personal view is that I suspect those who were so anti-Obama back in 2008 were most likely racist (given he hadn't even had a chance to govern).

When mockery backfires, it can often empower the subject being mocked as they quickly appear to others as someone who is under unfair attack and as such this elicits sympathy from the general public.

Now in Merkle's case, while the image of her in a Nazi uniform is as extreme as you can get, the situation in Greece is also as extreme as you can get. I won't go in to it, but what is currently going on with the EFSF bailout attempt is a joke in my opinion, once again kicking the can down the road at the expense of citizens of the European Union.

The more extreme the situation, the more extreme the mockery becomes and is accepted by the population.

We'll see where things go in Greece, but my two-cents says that once the mocking starts, while it may seem not that important at the outset, it's actually the signal that you have serious and significant issues boiling up to the surface and shifts in public attitudes.

Italy will be the country next to watch. If mockery of the European Union starts to emerge there as well, then I think you are witnessing the beginning phases of the eventually break-up of the EU.

On a final note, mockery can be done in a humorous manner. A good example of this is the endless 'Hitler Rants' videos on YouTube where people take a scene from a movie about Hitler and add captions that mock some company or subject. These make you laugh while also accomplishing their goal of mocking.

Apple understood the power of mockery. Their "I'm a mac' commercials lampooned Microsoft and were very effective.

Or check out this Google Android ad, which mocks Mac (it's obviously not done by Google, just someone on the internet). I found it funny.

Chase Bank makes a very smart PR move

2011-10-28T15:42:00.000-07:00

For those that think free markets can't work, Chase Bank shows that they can.

While Bank of America started charging customers $5 a month for debit card usage, Chase Bank has chosen not to implement debit card fees. Chase had been charging its customers $3 month in Georgia, but has decided to remove said fees and to not implement them anywhere else.

When free markets actually work - which is to say no one is given preferential treatment by the government that allows them to engage in unfair practices (wink wink, CRTC, cough cough, Bell) against consumers or which assist them in monopolizing a market - then the balance of consumer demand and production/service costs dictate prices.

Anyway, kudos to Chase on the PR front for recognizing that while milking customers $3 a day may enhance the bottom line a little bit, it doesn't offset the brand damage they suffer over the long run. And kudos to the American people who apparently have been closing accounts with major banks and moving their money to credit unions in protest.

I'm not saying Chase is any different than any other bank, after all, they DID try to get away with this. I am however saying that the PR folks over at Chase are clearly smarter than the ones over at Bank of America. They recognize that at a certain point, public sentiment begins to affect public behaviour, and $3 a month is not worth having a brand crisis on your hands.

So Darth Vader, lay off Chase Bank, go rob a Bank of America instead.

On a funny note, one customer who had enough with BoA created a new logo for the company (in my next post I'm going to talk about why something like this is highly relevant in the world of PR).

Madoff attempted suicide - boo hoo

2011-10-26T19:56:00.000-07:00

Apparently Madoff and his wife attempted suicide shortly after his Ponzi scheme was discovered. From what I can tell there's no proof of this other than Ruth Madoff's word given the couple said they took sleeping pills but then woke up in the morning (so I'm assuming there's no hospital records of any attempt).

I don't know, to me this smells like PR spin. A desperate attempt to reframe the story of Madoff as being not such a bad guy. After all, if he felt so guilty as to attempt suicide, could he really be that bad?

When the abuser tries to reframe themselves as one of the victims, your 'bullshit' radar has to go off and you have to really be suspicious of the messages being put forth.

Madoff was a criminal that stole other people's money and destroyed lives - he's as far from a victim as you can get. He was a bad bad guy. His actions ultimately contributed to, or at least one has to assume they did, to his son committing suicide.

The video below, by author Diana Henriques, suggests Madoff on some level perhaps realizes just what a bad guy he was and that on some level there is guilt within him.

Kudos to Harper - appoints unilingual Auditor-General

2011-10-26T19:37:00.000-07:00

Kudos to Harper for appointing an Auditor General and saying to hell with the bilingual requirement - Opposition cries foul over Harper’s unilingual Auditor-General pick.

It's this kind of thing that gives socialism a bad name, the opposition to the appointment that is. Let's not pick the best candidate because only someone who is bilingual should be picked, not because French is actually needed for the job, but rather because 'dem's the rules'.

I tell you, this act alone will get the conservatives my vote moving forward (and I didn't vote conservative in the last election because I felt they really dropped the ball on usage-based billing and allowed a corrupt CRTC to almost screw over the whole nation when it came to Internet billing).

I've always felt the bilingual requirements within the federal government discouraged merit-based hiring (actually, here in Ottawa everyone knows that to be the case, merit is a far second in considerations to bilingualism). I've known plenty of people who have jobs in the government who hardly knew how to do the job they were hired for, but because they were bilingual they waltzed through the front door.

Good on Harper for doing what's right instead of 'politically correct' - I think from a PR standpoint it will only strengthen his standing with most Canadians.

Given that ....Only 9% of Anglophones outside Québec can communicate in French.... it seems fairly absurd to me that, as a result, 89 per cent of the anglophone population outside of Quebec are essentially excluded form federal government jobs (given almost every federal government job is bilingual).

In the PR war, the police just lost, OWS just won

2011-10-26T19:02:00.000-07:00

Occupy Wall Street, whether you agree or disagree with them, is a PR war. It's a battle to frame the narrative of what is happening to society (which is far more complex that anyone really understands, although people have their own understanding of things based on the experiences they are living and politic views they may hold).

On the OWS side you've got a protest against greed, corruption and poverty and on the other side you've got a belief in order, maintaining the status quo and structuring society based on a competitive / meritocracy model of reward (those who work hard and are smarter than others, reap more rewards, and in turn, hypothetically, create a better world to live in for all of us).

Now, putting aside the corruption element (which everyone should be on the same side about), you've got a classic socialism versus capitalism / free market debate.

And up until now the public has been pretty split on OWS. About 20 per cent strongly support, 20 per cent strongly oppose and 60 per cent not really knowing how to feel about it.

However, recent events in Oakland will, I believe, shift public sentiment strongly towards the OWS camp. Recently the police descended on protesters in Oakland at five in the morning to clear them out of a park. Obviously, the early morning raid was designed to catch them asleep and unprepared. Not to mention crowds would be at their lowest at that time.

Tear gas was used. Probably not the smartest move by the police, as tear gas looks and sounds pretty dramatic on video.

But what tips the PR battle heavily to OWS side now is that the police shot one of the protesters in the head with a tear gas cannister. The protester was an Iraq veteran and is now in the hospital in critical condition with a fractured skull and brain swelling.

This was a giant mistake by the police as it now recasts the police from being a force for social order to being a totalitarian force used to suppress civil (and peaceful) disobedience. These kinds of actions help create a narrative of US (the people) versus THEM (the state). You almost have to wonder if America's own Tianamen square moment is around the corner (although I don't think we'll be seeing tanks any time soon).

Below are videos of the event that took place in Oakland. I've also tossed in a video from NYC of an Iraq veteran who went down and confronted the police (I only toss it in as it's gone viral and has over two million hits on YouTube).

The police need to reassess how they are handling protesters because they are seriously losing credibility with the general public. Which doesn't only compromise their ability to handle the protesters today, but erodes the public's faith in them long term.

America is still, after all, a democracy. So unlike dictatorships where public opinion can be suppressed and ignored (hence why you don't see many PR folks within a dictatorship, as PR relies heavily on free speech), in a democracy public opinion is everything. The people you are beating today could easily become the people elected to office tomorrow. As such, heavy handed tactics are a bad PR strategy, because it's not just a group of 200 people you are pushing around, rather it's a display of governmental force that millions of voters are watching.

1:00 minute mark is the time where people realize the veteran has been injured.

NYC video of veteran (over 2.4 million YouTube hits)

Wow - Bernie Sanders lays in to Wall Street, there's a 'war' going on

2011-10-25T21:25:00.000-07:00

I've always liked Bernie Sanders, I see him as the left wing equivalent of Ron Paul.

Passionate and honest, and whether you agree with him or not, I always respect people who don't have a hidden agenda and who are working for the benefit of others. I happen to agree with a lot of what Sanders says, although I tend to differ in the sense that I don't think being 'rich' is the problem per se, but rather corruption and illegal behaviors that go uncontested (by politicians, rating agencies, banks, and some corporations) are the problem.

Corruption (and lack of accountability and morality) in general is always the problem, not just by the one per cent but by everyone in society. The more corruption there is, the less the rules then matter to people, which then breeds further corruption, and so the more lemmings rush towards the cliff.

This recent speech by Sanders is worth watching if you want a preview of things to come. Sanders lays it down and calls a spade a spade (in his view), the war between the one per cent and the 99 per cent is on.

This reflect badly on Obama that his own people (Democrats that is) are calling the system utterly corrupted. While such messaging in 2008 hurt the republicans, as we move in to 2012 it now hurts Obama as this is now his mess. If the system is as corrupt as Sanders suggests, one has to ask what Obama has been doing about it?

I've included a speech Ron Paul gave this year, just because I thought it was interesting to see how BOTH the right and the left are pointing out that the system is totally broken.

You can make big government. You can make small government work. You can make medium sized government work.

But regardless of size, you can never make corrupt government work. And that's where I think both the left and the right could come together (then again, that would require them not to be corrupt, haha).

Here's how you save NetFlix

2011-10-25T18:07:00.000-07:00

So Netflix got demolished today, down 34 per cent. Over the past six months the stock is down almost 70 per cent.

I've written a couple posts in the past on Netflix:

NetFlix backtracks, but did they do enough?
Who is Dumber? Bank of America, NetFlix or Bell Canada?
Where Netflix messed up (what happens when you ignore PR)

As you can tell from the titles of my blog entries, it's no surprise that I'm not surprised by the spectacular unravelling of Netflix over the past year.

If you are interested in Netflix I'd suggesting reading a great article that overviews what is going wrong with the company - Why The Netflix Death Spiral Is Imminent.

Netflix has made the biggest mistake a start-up can make - assuming that bigger is better. In a 'content is king' world, they've made the assumption that it's worth paying one-billion dollars to stream television shows from the CW network. They also are paying 30-million per movie to stream Dreamworks movies.

This is 'fields of dreams' type of behavior - don't worry about how much you spend, just build it and they will come.

The problem with this model is that it's totally the opposite of how a start-up should grow.

Look, when Netflix content was crap to start with people came. People were looking for an 'entertainment' alternative to their $100-a-month cable television package.

So when Netflix started jacking up prices (which is clear now why they had to do this, when you're paying a billion here and 30 million there) they attempted to grow based on faulty logic - that being that their customers were looking for more and more content from television.

It was a giant miscalculation and reading of who their customers are. Sure, their customers won't complain about getting 90210 on Netflix, but they will be seriously pissed off if suddenly they are paying twice as much BECAUSE Netflix paid CW a billion dollars to stream shows like 90210. This is the cable company model, we'll just keep throwing more and more food on your plate (most of which you won't eat) and charge you more for it.

Anyway, Netflix lost 800,000 subscribers in the third quarter. It still has over 20 million subscribers though.

Here's how Netflix can stop this downward death spiral it is in:

Think like a start-up. This means, money DOES matter. You have to do more with less. You've built an amazing content delivery channel, now figure out how to make it better without spending billions (on to my next point....)
Leverage Internet media (BE DISRUPTIVE). All start-ups have to be disruptive to breakout. There is TONS of amazing content on the internet that would charge Netflix absolutely nothing for the opportunity to stream to their viewers. Off the top of my head:

The Real News Network
The Young Turks
Yahoo Finance TV
Current TV
RussiaToday

That's just a few outlets, there are hundreds of others that offer tons of news and entertainment. Point being, Netflix, while offering tradition offerings, could easily incorporate an 'emerging media' or 'Internet media' section and leverage all these organizations that are challenging traditional media.

To the above point, by offering (selective) second-tier outlets a place on Netflix this then puts the fear of God in to the top-tier providers and they start worrying about Netflix being a channel that promotes their competition. This in turn brings top-tier providers to the table at a reasonable cost.
Also, offer / leverage live streaming content. Think of Occupy Wall Street. Imagine how cool Netflix subscribers would find it if they could tune in to live streams of OWS. Yes, they can already do this on the internet, but 99 per cent don't know they can (and probably wouldn't even if they knew how), and yet a lot probably would watch if only for a minute or two if it were accessible on Netflix. If it were part of their entertainment hub, then it becomes valuable content.
Netflix needs to change its tagline from "Watch tv shows online" to something like "Connecting you to a world of Entertainment and Information". It's not about 90210, it's about interesting content. As long as the content is interesting, people will pay.

This is how a start-up should think, leveraging trends and the competitive landscape to generate a relevance to consumers (in a b2c model anyway).

My basic point is this, somewhere along the way Netflix started to see itself as an online variant of blockbuster and / or traditional television.

OK, fine, that worked when the price was 7.99 - it doesn't work now. The model is broken when you have to spend a billion dollars to get content from one network.

What Netflix needs to do is redefine it's mission. It's mission should be to deliver content to viewers that they are willing to pay for. Simple as that. Their strength is that they've got the viewers (at least 20 million anyway), they've got the delivery mechanism (Netflix)... now all they need is growing, evolving content.

Some might argue 'But who wants Internet content? People can just go to YouTube and find it.'

Wrong. That's another Netflix potential strength. Most people do not spend hours and hours searching for interesting Internet content. They find out about it when friends tell them about something they saw online. Also, even when they know it's there, most people are not going to sit at their PC every day to watch it.

Netflix is perfectly positioned to deliver that 'convenience' offering...bringing people interesting content they never even knew existed. Now obviously, shows that don't end up with a lot of viewers you drop from rotation, over time building up a quality rotation of Internet-based media that people enjoy (remember, this is costing them nothing to do).

Not to mention, with the integration (and promotion) of Internet-based media Netflix becomes a major acquisition target for Google in my opinion (or even Apple if Apple goes hard in to TV). But as long as they are only streaming traditional media (just like Hulu and others) I don't see why Google or Apple would want to acquire them (because as we are seeing, the content model doesn't work when you have to pay 30M per movie that you stream to your customers).

Right now Internet media is all over the place. Every outfit is doing their own thing. Netflix could so easily become the outlet for these properties... then suddenly their viewers are getting movies, television AND all kinds of new and interesting content - from news, to comedy, to music.

And that's all Netflix customers really want... to be informed and/or entertained. That's it. Now, you don't toss up crappy content from the Internet, but there are tons of Internet outlets now that are not crappy. They don't have multi-million dollar budgets, but they are still very well done.

So there you have it, why I still think Netflix could become the powerhouse people once thought it would be. But it has to change its vision and mission, it has to change its narrative, and it has to stop trying to be an 800-pound gorilla and start trying to be a cheetah.

Start acting like a start-up and Netflix can still save its brand. Keep acting like a bloated, know-it-all big shot tech company where money is no object and the skies the limit and watch this stock crash to zero over the next couple of years.

(Oh and on a side note, what's happening to Netflix is twice as absurd when you consider that for those that partake in P2P downloading, every television show and movie from every cable network or hollywood producer is available for free off bit torrent mere hours after it appears on television. But that's a different discussion, as most people want to pay for content and are uneasy downloading 'pirated' content (rightly so - pirated content is bad - people should be smacked when they download off bit torrent =)). So it's not a competitive threat to Netflix today... but the Internet, specifically P2P, will ultimately destroy the revenues of all traditional content providers.)

Herman Cain campaign video, the worst campaign video ever?

2011-10-25T08:51:00.000-07:00

I have to believe this is some kind of joke, yet apparently it's not, it's an actual campaign video for Herman Cain.

The video is of Mark Block, Herman's chief of staff and campaign manager, telling folks why Herman Cain is what America needs, and then at the end of the video, he smokes a cigarette.

Wow, just wow. Nothing against smoking, but why would you put it in your video?! This might be the only campaign video ever, in the past 20 years, where someone is smoking a cigarette.

I mean, did Herman cut a deal with the tobacco lobby in exchange for donations or what? Because if not, this is just stupidity at its finest.

Made me laugh: European Swiss Army Knife CDO Square Cubed

2011-10-24T10:56:00.000-07:00

Over at Zerohedge there was a post today that made me chuckle with regards to what they are doing over in Europe to 'solve' the debt crisis.

For those not following, EFSF stands for European Financial Stability facility. The mandate of the EFSF is:

- Provide loans to countries in financial difficulties
- Intervene in the debt primary and secondary markets. Intervention in the secondary market will be only on the basis of an ECB analysis recognising the existence of exceptional financial market circumstances and risks to financial stability
- Act on the basis of a precautionary programme
- Finance recapitalisations of financial institutions through loans to governments

Basically the EFSF is the 'facility' through which they will save Europe.

Anyway, on to the post...

-----------------------

Remember: when in doubt, baffle with bullshit. From Dow Jones:

EU Paper Confirms Looking At 2 EFSF Options, May Combine Them -Senior EU Source
EU Paper Says EFSF Option To Set Up Special Purpose Investment Vehicle -Senior EU Source
EU Paper Says EFSF Bond Insurance and Special Vehicle Options Could Be Combined - Senior EU Source
EU Paper Says Neither EFSF Leverage Option Requires Change To EFSF Rules -Senior EU Source
EU Paper Says EFSF SPIV Would Combine Public, Private Capital - Senior EU Source
EU Paper Says EFSF Could Set Up One Central Euro Zone SPIV - Senior EU Source
EU Paper Says EFSF SPIVs Could Be Set Up In Several Euro Zone Countries - Senior EU Source
EU Paper Says EFSF SPIVs Would Be Used For Bond Purchases, Bank Recapitalization - Senior EU Source
EU Paper Says EFSF Bond Insurance To Be Tradable Independently Of Bonds - Senior EU Source

It also has a Phillips-head screwdriver, opens cans, serves as a flashlight, dispenses crazy pills can be used as a garrote. And if you act now, you can get get a second one free for the low, low price of €1 trillion, leveraged infinitely courtesy of the world's most complex structured credit product ever conceived.

--------------------------

At least someone made me laugh at all the insanity =)

WikiLeaks - confusing statements, end of the road?

2011-10-24T10:36:00.001-07:00

So WikiLeaks has come out and said that it has temporarily shut down operations as a result of the banking blockade that has dried up 95 per cent of its funds.

This makes absolutely no sense to me in the least.

A whole bunch of variables don't make sense here:

Why can't WikiLeaks simply create a shell corporations that people can contribute to and then simply move the money from that shell corporation over to WikiLeaks?
Assange is saying that WikiLeaks needs the public's support, yet does not tell people what they can do (essentially making an empty statement that will leave viewers scratching their head as to what they can do to help)
WikiLeaks never released its supposed banking documents that were going to 'shock' the world and expose banking behaviors during the 2008 economic meltdown.
The blockade has been through Bank of America, Visa, Mastercard, PayPal and Western Union - ok fine, use other options, or a different bank, or let people send in cheques. Are we really to believe that five companies have the ability to cut WikiLeaks off financially?
WikiLeaks was getting 100,000 pounds a month in contributions, but now it is only getting 6,000 pounds a month (ummm, how are they getting the 6,000 pounds? However they are getting those contributions should be how others can contribute also).
Are you telling me that WikiLeaks couldn't approach guys like Michael Moore, who have come out very vocally in favor of WikiLeaks and ask for some cash? There are tons of celebrities with gobs of cash that would be more than happy to kick WikiLeaks some operating capital (especially with consideration to the publicity they would get).
To the extent that the banks have cut off 95 per cent of WikiLeaks revenue, why are they just speaking up now? Would you not be making public statements when you noticed revenues dropping to 50 per cent? Why wait until it's basically too late to state that you're about to go under?
Lastly, how much does it really cost to run WIkiLeaks? It's a web site for heaven's sake. People send in leaked info, you post it online. Ok, fine, you've got to read it and sort through it but that doesn't cost millions of dollars to do. WikiLeaks started with no money and now we are to believe they can't exist without millions?

I'm sorry but this whole story stinks to me, especially the fact that they never released the banking leaks they publicized so much. You'd think if they had all these leaks from a big bank (people speculated it was Bank of America) that the very first thing they would do in response to a banking blockade would be to release said documents in retaliation.

If you want the world to support you, the easiest way is to show that the people attacking you truly are evil. The public would rally to your aid in that case.

Nope, it sounds to me like WikiLeaks has been officially co-opted. The powers that be have likely sat Assange and company down and told them 'Enough is enough kids. Sure it was fun being global, whistleblowing anarchists, but you've had your fun and now it's time to pack it in. You can go out and make a big spectacle about funding issues to save face and provide a rationale for why you are closing shop, but make no mistake about it, it's time to close up shop."

Despite equity markets going higher (which makes no sense - that's not just me saying that, many are saying the markets don't make sense any more), the world is on the titanic brink of crashing in to a debt iceburg that simply can't be avoided much longer.

Can you imagine what would be happening right now if WikiLeaks were releasing information on Bank of America or on what's really going on over in Europe with the EU, ECB and all these crazy plans to save the PIIGS?

Such information would prevent political leaders from doing the things they need to do (away from the public eye) to stabilize things. Such information would only fuel populous anger, potentially causing folks like Occupy Wall Street , protesters in Greece or the public in Germany (who are going to get hosed in any ECB bailout plan) to become even more extreme in their opposition to the powers that be.

From a basic PR perspective WikiLeaks public statements regarding lack of funding just make no sense to me at all.

What will be interesting to watch is the extent to which Assange engages the media over the coming months. If my assumption is correct and this is all just PR whitewashing in an attempt to wind down WikiLeaks in a believable fashion, we won't be hearing much from Assange.

If I'm wrong then one would expect to see Assange go on a global media tour talking to every media outlet that will listen in an effort to rally public support for WikiLeaks.

Time will tell what the real story is here.

Margin Call - Great Movie

2011-10-23T17:54:00.000-07:00

For those fascinated by what it must have been like back in 2008 when the markets crashed you'll want to go see Margin Call.

Great acting and a good look at what it must have been like when everyone realized the emperor had no clothes. The last few minutes of the movie with Jeremy Irons is a seminal scene that captures perfectly the world we are living in (don't worry, clip below doesn't give it away, it's just a trailer).

Do PR people suck at tweeting? I think some do.

2011-10-23T16:26:00.000-07:00

I recently came across a great list of PR folks who are on Twitter.

I've got to say, I was sort of shocked at some of their Twitter accounts. Their tweets had nothing to do with PR. For some of them it was simply an endless string of where they ate, what their fastest run time was, etc.

I mean, your Twitter account is yours to do with as you please, but if you are going to make it business related then the Twitter stream should at least resemble a business line of thought versus that of a bored 16 year old.

Also of note, when going through a Twitter list such as the one listed above, you really only have time to look at the five most recent tweets in determining if you want to follow someone. Therefore, if you've got 10 tweets talking about how your dog is so cute, that's all anyone is going to see upon first look (and it's probably what they will use to decide whether they want to follow you).

I will say though, there were some gems in that list. Folks tweeting about really good PR content and insight. I can't list them all here, but I'm sure you'll pick them up as I retweet some of their content over the coming months.

Steve Jobs' bio redefines how we see Jobs?

2011-10-23T16:04:00.000-07:00

I'm always hesitant to view anyone as standing head and shoulders above the rest of the human race.

There are a couple of people in history who probably fit that category - Albert Einstein, Marcus Aurelius, Mahatma Gandhi - that's about all I can think of.

There are lots of people who accomplish amazing things, but that doesn't mean they aren't like everyone else, they often are!

The bits and pieces that have come out about Steve Jobs the past week, including the fact that he refused surgery that could have potentially saved his life and instead went with 'herbs and vegetables', shows that Jobs wasn't some super human whose frontal cortex was from the year 3055.

He was a genius, he built the most successful tech company in the world, yet, it appears, that he was fundamentally the same as everyone else in that he was prone to the same internal struggle that most people face, balancing critical thinking versus emotive thinking.

Apple changed the world and for that Jobs was a titan of industry, yet it's clear that he had his flaws as well.

I don't think that makes him less amazing. If anything, I think that's what makes him amazing. To be essentially human (and flawed) like everyone else yet to have changed the world nonetheless. It's a testament that our future is not, and never will be, dependent on super human individuals, merely individuals who have a vision and who find a way to try and make that vision a reality. The rest is all horseshoes and four-leaf clovers if you ask me.

It's interesting to watch how the media praised Jobs as some ubermensch and yet two weeks later they begin to slowly pick away at the very persona they helped to create with reports that he could be cruel to employees at times, that he didn't give much to charity, that he had no interest in knowing his biological father, etc.

I don't know, maybe he wasn't the nicest guy, maybe he was (hopefully the biography coming out will separate the man from the myth).

Either way, I'll be happy if Jobs' legacy gets a little rust on it if only because it's far more inspirational to know that success (which Apple is the epitome of today) doesn't hinge on perfection.

Rogers: It's official, they suck!

2011-10-23T15:30:00.000-07:00

I left Rogers over a year ago and I'm glad I did because recent testing shows they are the worst Internet throttler in Canada, by far!

Quote below from the article linked to above:
--------

Here are the most recent results for Canadian ISPs and the percentage of connections they throttled in the first quarter of 2010:

Shaw: 14%
Bell: 16%
Rogers: 78%
Telus: 6%
Videotron: 3%
Bell Aliant: 6%
Cogeco: 46%
Sasktel: 5%
MTS: 6%

-------

Are you joking me? Rogers throttled 78 per cent of their connections? Just pathetic.

I don't see how this is any different than the recent Groupon scandal where 'discounted' prices were really prices based on inflated prices. Sure we'll give you 50 per cent off something that we've marked up 50 per cent.

Anyway, Rogers advertises certain speeds but clearly you better not expect to get those speeds. You might get them at two-o'clock in the morning, but otherwise forget it.

I don't know if Roger's thought it would never get caught - to my knowledge they continue to say publicly that they do not throttle - but the jig is up. Time to either stop throttling or be honest with your customers that you will prohibit their use of certain applications, including online gaming, to curtail their bandwidth usage.

Online Advertisements Exploding

2011-10-23T15:15:00.000-07:00

It seems to have happened in only the past couple months or less, but online video advertisements are now everywhere. CNBC, MSNBC, NBC, YouTube, you name it and they have ads before every video. If you even refresh the video you will have to watch the front-end ad all over again.

This is a recent phenomena. While video ads have been around for a while, they've been used sparingly or not at all (case in point, Bloomberg still offers free live streaming of its live broadcast and has not inserted video ads... yet). Bloomberg aside though, short video ads are in front of every single video clip out there. It's shocking how pervasive this has become in just the past few months.

I tried to find some info on what could be causing this sudden adoption (or implementation if you will) of online advertising, but failed to come up with any significant info.

Of all the outlets out there, YouTube does the best job with their ads, allowing viewers to skip the ads and go directly to the video if they like. While they may suffer in terms of ads viewed, they don't piss off their viewers.

CNBC, in my opinion, is perhaps the worst of everyone. They break their video content down in to small segments so that you have to watch more videos to view their content. In front of each video is the same ad, so to view say 15 minutes of CNBC content you end up watching the same ad five times as you watch five different, three minute videos.

It's so annoying that I've stopped watching CNBC videos online unless there's something that is a 'must watch'.

Anyway, what this sudden explosion in video advertising online tells me is that a couple things must be happening:

1) The price is right - with a double dip recession looming companies may be looking for cheaper ways to promote their brand than television

2) Online is the new television - clearly the traffic must be there for companies to be willing to spend online.

3) Online means mobile also - any content available online is essentially available on mobile devices. With iPhones and iPads selling like hot cakes, it would only make sense that advertisers would seek real estate on those devices, and what better way than to embed within the channels through which mobile users get their content. So when you advertising online with CNBC, not only do you hit up their PC viewing audience, but those viewing the content through their mobile device as well.

Now, if only content providers could follow YouTube's example and not destroy the viewing experience with repetitive and intrusive advertising.

If they don't follow YouTube's lead, they will end up losing their online audience and ultimately end up losing their advertising revenue.

I think a simple rule should be something to the effect of for every 15 minutes of online video the viewer has to watch 60 seconds of advertising, so basically a 1:15 ratio.

Right now it seems more like a 1:4 ratio, for every four minutes of video the viewer is having to sit through one minute of ads. That model is not sustainable.

Greece protests turn violent

2011-10-19T09:37:00.000-07:00

Looks like austerity isn't going over so well in Greece today... you have to feel bad for the cops, they are definitely earning their pay today.

Ron Paul comes out with his economic plan - cut everything =)

2011-10-17T16:14:00.000-07:00

So Ron Paul put forward his economic plan today. Should be interesting to see how people respond to it.

Basically, the plan slashes the living hell out of the government and ends all the wars. Personally I like it, but then again I don't believe that the world will fall apart if you don't have government controlling everything, printing money endlessly, picking winners and losers through subsidies and fighting half the world in a 'war on terror'.

What's interesting about this though on the PR front is that Paul is getting wise when it comes to PR messaging.

The criticism always laid against him is that he's 'radical'. In his interview on CNN he turns that around and frames them (those who oppose him) as radical, and it's their radicalness that has lead to massive debts, endless wars and the people rising up such as with the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street.

It's hard to propose 'cuts' during a recession, but the reality is that cuts have to come in one form or another (and why is it that government jobs are sparred while people in the private sector get the axe?). They either come in the form of non-job cuts, which means increasing debt (which future generations have to pay off) or they come in the form of reducing inefficiencies and actually changing with the times.

The whole system needs a reboot if you ask me, and while people may not like hearing that, it's the best chance at actually returning to a growth phase in the market (versus going sideways for the next 10 years).

Anyway, GOP debate is on CNN tomorrow night at 8pm EST, should be interesting to watch.

How can a 100 year old man run further than me?

2011-10-17T15:46:00.000-07:00

Apparently Fauja Singh (aka the Turbaned Tornado), who is 100 years old, just ran a marathon in Toronto (that's 42 kilometers). It took him nine hours.

That's insane.

Most 20, 30, 40, or 50 year-olds can't run a marathon (I've never tried, but I doubt I could).

Anyway, just goes to show that the potential of the human body and mind are far greater than we generally think them to be.

So for all you PR folks out there, suggest to your CEO that to promote the company they should run a marathon. When they decline tell them that if a 100 year old man can do it, surely they can.

You think OWS in NYC is nuts, check out Madrid

2011-10-17T15:38:00.000-07:00

Not sure on the numbers, I've heard 30,000 and others say 10,000, but in la Puerta del Sol in Madrid, Spain, this is what you call a protest.

Considering Madrid has a population of only 3.3 million, this is one heck of a crowd. By comparison, NYC has a population of just over eight million (not including Brooklyn, Manhattan, etc.), kick it up to say 11 million with surrounding areas. It's 18-19 million if you count the whole state.

Makes you wonder what NYC would look like if you had the same ratio of protesters to population density as in Madrid. You'd be looking at 20,000 to 60,000, maybe even 90,000 people.

Anyway, just blows your mind to see so many people in the streets.

Apparently Montreal actually had a decent showing as OWS protested outside the Bank of Montreal.

Vancouver seemed kind of small given the population size.

It's funny to see the difference between Montreal and Vancouver (folks seem a bit more energetic in Montreal).

Toronto seemed like a small crowd as well (considering the city's population)

RIM continues to do damage control (+ funny videos)

2011-10-17T15:15:00.000-07:00

Bloomberg reports that RIM is offering its customers free premium apps (worth up to $100) as a way of saying sorry for the outages they experienced.

RIM is also considering compensation to Service Providers as well, although details are unknown at this time.

Next Media Animation (an Asian animation studio) did an animated video regarding the outages, which includes wall street bankers jumping out windows, Android attacking RIM towers and Steve Jobs (with a Halo over his head) racking up sales.

Another funny video is some guy impersonating the 'Leave Britney Alone' viral video, but this time it's Leave RIM Alone.

On the PR front, good on RIM for how it's handling this crisis. Yes, damage to the brand has occurred, but you have to move on and handle the situation regardless. The apology, free apps for customers and potential reimbursement to service providers show that RIM cares. That's all customers really want to know at the end of the day... that they care and that the problem is being solved so this doesn't happen again.

This is technology folks, there's going to be problems from time to time. Most customers can live with that - as long as problems are once in a blue moon and the cause of the problem is not related to screwing customers over (ie. running less servers to lower capex to maximize profits at the cost of service quality - which it's safe to say is not what RIM did here).

RIM's stock got crushed today (down almost seven per cent) but I'd bet that was more to do with Ichan saying he has no interest in RIM

Anyway, while I still think RIM is going to get beaten black and blue on the stock market, the way they've handle this crisis has protected their brand in the long run. While they continue to get hit for making inferior product (in many people's eyes) I think there is still lots of goodwill out there towards them as a company (people genuinely wish that they could get their act together). Apologizing and treating customers right will only build that goodwill, now they just have to get their marketing and product act together.

Also of note, hardly any youtube videos were posted regarding the outage. Which is a good sign. It means that while people were upset, they weren't so upset that they were jumping on YouTube with videos trashing RIM as a company.

Occupy Wall Street heating up

2011-10-15T15:33:00.000-07:00

Looks like the Occupy Wall Street protest is heating up. It's interesting to see that Canada had its OWS protests today (Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal). Pretty much no video was uploaded to YouTube yet and from what I can gather, the crowds were pretty small.

Not sure why the OWS was so small in Canada, perhaps because our country isn't screwed like everywhere else in the world. At least to the extent that we have universal health, social safety nets of various sorts, our housing bubble has popped (yet) and our banks didn't commit financial suicide back in 2008.

So that level of social anger just isn't as prevalent in Canada, but that's not to say it won't be in time (we've got serious unemployment issues and under employed graduates just like everywhere else).

Anyway, I'd hate to be a politician in Italy, the UK or the US as it seems this OWS protests just keeps ramping up instead of fading away.

Riots in Italy

London Joins In (over 3,000 show up)

Cop hits woman over in NYC

Crowds keep growing in NYC

Bye Bye Firefox, Hello Google Chrome

2011-10-15T06:12:00.000-07:00

I've been using Mozilla's Firefox browser now for at least six years (if not more), but today I went and downloaded Google Chrome. Stupid Firefox has been crashing endlessly. In order to use the stupid thing you basically have to have your task manager open (Alt+Crtl+del) endlessly to manually shut the thing down because it just freezes up.

This all started happening on release 7.0 (which was the final release after a flurry of releases that was having me upgrade my browser ever few days for a week - very annoying).

Speculation says the crashes are due to some McAfee plug-in, but I don't buy it. First I don't have McAfee on my system, second I never downloaded a McAfee plug-in and third I'm pretty sure it's due to a flash plug-in, because the browser mostly crashes when encountering flash.

Stats are showing that Google Chrome is catching up to Firefox and I can definitely see why. Right now I don't enjoy the Chrome interface as much, but it doesn't crash and it actually loads much fast than Firefox did.

It's too bad too see Firefox fall apart like this. I guess all good things must come to an end eventually.

Peter G Peterson Foundation - Great Political Ads

2011-10-13T16:14:00.000-07:00

A couple nights ago I watched the GOP debate on Bloomberg and I was really impressed with a series of ads that ran during the commercial breaks.

From what I can tell the Peterson Foundation is a non-partisan organization. Their mission statement reads:

Our mission is to increase public awareness of the nature and urgency of key fiscal challenges threatening America's future and to accelerate action on them. To address these challenges successfully, we work to bring Americans together to find and implement sensible, long-term solutions that transcend age, party lines and ideological divides in order to achieve real results.

While I'm usually against kids being used in advertisements, the Peterson Foundation actually did a good job and it worked well.

Now if only the rest of America could adopt an attitude as sensible as these ads.

Kudos to RIM, no seriously, they did the right thing

2011-10-13T16:13:00.000-07:00

As everyone knows Blackberry service around the world has been disrupted for the past few days. I'm sure it's the last thing RIM needed right now, but I've got to say they did the right thing apologizing to their customers. And they didn't apologize through a news release, or letter, or tweet, rather they used video.

While their customers are probably still furious, this act of humility will minimize the damage they suffer long term from the outage. Moreover, it actually puts a human face on RIM, something that has been missing for a long long time.

I'm really impressed with Lazaridis in this apology. He comes across as sincere and humble. When you consider that he's a multi-billionaire and his company has been getting attacked endlessly for the past few years, he could have simpy issued a press release or had executive management comment to the media. Most CEO's would not do what Lazaridis did.

He stepped up and put his face on this mess. He came to the forefront, stood in front of everyone and apologized. This video of him apologizing will be around now for the next 10 or 20 years, yet he didn't care, he took the heat for the entire company.

It shows that regardless of RIM's bad decisions in the past, Lazaridis still really cares about his company. When most CEO's would be hiding from the public's outrage, he steps up and responds to it.

That's leadership.

It almost makes me wonder now if RIM might ultimately find its legs one day. If Lazaridis can be humble enough to apologize as he did, perhaps management is humble enough to realize that they have to make drastic changes to the business to be competitive down the road.

On a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole mess was somehow tied to the fact that RIM laid off 10 per cent of its workforce a few months ago. The effects of losing one out of every ten employees is significant. Suddenly people have responsibilities they aren't use too, some responsibilities even fall through the crasks to no one, everyone's work load increases, morale sinks, etc. - ultimately you end up with something like a worldwide blackberry outage.

Then all the effort everyone has to put in to that crisis - reassuring customers, fixing the technical problems, managing the PR fall out - is a HUGE waste of everyone's time, pulling them away from duties they would otherwise be engaged in.

This is how companies get in to a death spiral as they try to appease shareholders by running leaner and meaner to the point where their business starts to fall apart.

While I praise Lazaridis for his response to this crisis, and I do think it will do a lot to contain the damage, it's likely not enough to save RIM from its current trend of rapidly falling behind its competitors.

I suppose we can only hope that whoever acted to create this video apology (whether it was the PR staff or Lazaridis himself) is put in charge of more brand decisions at RIM. If so, maybe there's hope that RIM will finally realize that marketing is its biggest challenge (and that's saying something given they have big challenges on the technology front as well).

There's no reason RIM has to die (or be acquired) over the coming years, but it does have to accept that it needs to be reborn.

"It's only after you've lost everything that you are free to do anything."
- Fight Club

I'd like to think that RIM has now reached its Nietzschean moment of hitting rock bottom. Because it's only after RIM has lost everything that once made it special that it will find the freedom to imagine what it could someday become and then begin the journey towards that vision.

(Oh, that just gave me an idea. Their next phone, assuming it's a good one, should be called 'The Pheonix")

Infographic: Social Networking in the UK

2011-10-13T16:12:00.000-07:00

Cool infographic I came upon over at infographics that outlines the demographics of social networking users in the UK (click on the image to enlarge, if any issues, view the full sized image here)

NetFlix backtracks, but did they do enough?

2011-10-10T14:10:00.000-07:00

So NetFlix has cancelled the spin-off of their mail-DVD service, which was to be called Qwikster. The move appears to be in response to customer churn.

The various stories on this development don't articulate whether NetFlix will continue with the price increase they did back in July. I assume this will be the case.

So really, the only thing that changes here seems to be that instead of having to sign up to two different services - NetFlix for streaming and Qwikster for DVDs - customers will get both services through NetFlix (for something like 16 bucks a month, which was the price hike over the original 10 bucks a month).

I just don't get NetFLix, they clearly know that they have ticked off customers because customers are clearly leaving the service in droves.

Given the size of this PR disastser, if they were smart they'd turn back their business model 12 months.

Revert back to a subscriber growth model versus a revenue growth model. Get people back to the service and get them believing in it again, THEN in 12 months, start to roll out pricing modifications. And this time do it right, layer additional services on to the base service package so that customers can voluntarily upgrade.

Unless they come out and decisively show that customer satisfaction is their number one priority, they are going to continue to bleed out in my opinion.

Rick Perry gets dirty

2011-10-10T13:26:00.000-07:00

So Rick Perry has basically fallen off the map in the polls. His run for the GOP nomination is all but dead at this point.

In a move of desperation he's launched a pretty aggressive ad against Romney.

Personally I love this because maybe if all the republican nominees attack each other like children like this, Ron Paul may actually have a shot at the nomination.

That said, I think Perry accomplishes very little with this. Yes, he may very well knock Romney down in the polls, but I don't think it will raise Perry up. Which is kind of childish when you think about it - it's a "If I can't win then neither can you" attitude and it actually reflects everything that is currently wrong in Washington.

However, some would argue, and rightly so, that the more a nominee is attacked the better they'll be able to withstand the attacks during the general election.

With regards to the ad itself, overall I found it ineffective, but I will say the one moment where Obama is looking in the mirror and then suddenly it's Romney looking in the mirror was very creative.

Now this kind of thing is foreboding - "NYC billionaires Walking Tour"

2011-10-10T13:14:00.000-07:00

The Occupy Wall Street crowd are now organizing a "NYC billionaires Walking Tour", where people can walk through the neighbourhoods of the "one per cent" and see how the "one per cent live".

I know I'm being a bit melodramatic here, but this is the kind of thing that while innocent on the surface, is kind of scary when you think about it. Up here in Canada I can't imagine this kind of thing happening, simply because no one would support an angry mob (who have been peaceful so far mind you) walking through a specific neighbourhood and potentially scaring the people who live there.

What's the point of walking through said neighbourhoods? To let the one per cent know that you are upset with them? They already know this. To see how they live? Everyone already knows how they live.

The real reason can only be three fold:

1) To garner increased media attention (and this is a good strategy in that regard)
2) To try and scare the one per cent (and this will do that, especially the young children who live in that area)
3) To identify the one per cent as a 'target' and identify where said target can be found (while I hope this isn't the case, it does by its very nature identify a 'target zone' where you can 'hit the rich' if you wanted to)

The protests continue to grow and their tactics continue to evolve, not a good sign for politicians who are hoping that they will simply tire out at some point and head on home.

My personal guess is that should the protestors attempt to protest the neighbourhoods where the rich do live we'll see the police batons and pepper spray come out in full force.

Fallout from BoA $5 banking fee starting

2011-10-10T12:52:00.000-07:00

I thought Bank of America's five-dollar debit card fee was a horrible PR move and spoke about it in two posts - Bank of America Headlines: Let the PR Crisis Begin and Who is Dumber? Bank of America, NetFlix or Bell Canada?

The Los Angeles times ran an article on this topic and it looks like BoA's fee is moving from bad headlines to negative customer reaction.

Some interesting quotes from the article:

In Los Angeles, police arrested 11 protesters who marched into a BofA branch Thursday and refused to leave after trying to cash a giant check for $673 billion made out to the "People of California." Protesters continued their efforts Friday with a march through downtown L.A.

------

"This frankly is just an incredible marketing and PR debacle," said Bert Ely, an independent banking analyst. "They roll this thing out with no testing, make it nationwide, it's higher than anybody else. What kind of reaction do they expect?"

In addition, Senator Dick Durbin called on Americans to leave Bank of America.

“Bank of America customers, vote with your feet, get the heck out of that bank,” Durbin said on the Senate floor. “Find yourself a bank or credit union that won’t gouge you for $5 a month and still will give you a debit card that you can use every single day. What Bank of America has done is an outrage.”

------

On the Occupy Wall Street front they have launched a 'Bank Transfer Day' - a campaign slated for Nov 5/6, urging Americans to transfer their money from the large banks and move it to credit unions. Apparently 14,000 people have RSVP'd, indicating that they will be making the transfer.

On the stock front, BoA is down 11 per cent in just one month, although it's unclear just how much (if any) of that is due to the fee hike given all the banks have been struggling in recent months. Although, BoA is down much more than its counterparts (most banks are down between one and six per cent for the month). Yet again though, this could simply be due to a larger beta (degree to which its stock moves in relation to market movements) that BoA has.

Either way, BoA looks like it has some choppy waters ahead of it. Best case scenario, this blows over soon and they simply walk away with a weaker brand than they already have. Worse case scenario, this continues to grow as a crisis and the protest of their $5 fee actually leads to a run on the bank.

I suspect if customers actually start to leave in droves BoA will simply revoke the fee. I know a few years ago up here in Canada, TD once implemented a fee for something that was free. Customers swamped them with complaints and they quickly reversed their position.

There's plenty of noise out there, so BoA might be able to sneak off into the bankground on this, but I'd say it's 50/50 at this point. This silly little $5 fee could become one of the defining moments that fuels the protest against Wall Street further.

PR executive curses out Mom - the danger of 'Reply All'

2011-10-08T11:16:00.000-07:00

An executive over at Brandlink Communications got himself in deep trouble recently.

The firm apparently pitched a blogger, who responded rudely to them. The VP, in an exchange with the PR person dealing with the blogger, emailed "What a f*cking b*tch!" The big mistake? He hit 'reply all' and the blogger received the email. (by the way, I don't know why I'm replacing the 'i' - as if that somehow cleans up the language, haha).

To make matters worse, in following correspondence, he went on to criticze her (the blogger) for her behavior.

Now, ok, this was a giant clusterf*ck on his part, no question about it.

But I have a lot of sympathy for this guy. I'll tell you why. I've said things in emails that I wouldn't want public. I once delt with a reporter, I won't mention names, that was just beyond rude.

I remember when it happened, I'd been working 12 hours already, and just as my day was about to finish (around eight pm at night), he replied to my earlier email and chewed me out over some small thing - something like he didn't like the words 'news release' in the subject of an email (that wasn't it, but I'm just giving you an example of how small the grievance was, I can't actually remember what the grievance was though).

He went on a bit of a tirade in his email. I really could not understand where all this rage and vitriole was coming from.

I forwarded it to my boss and said something very similar to what the VP said. My words were something to the effect "This guy is a total asshole. I don't know if I can deal with him. I'm about to lose it on him."

Now, I made sure that the reporter's email address was not on the email I sent to my boss, so there was no danger of a 'reply all'. My boss was great, he said 'Agreed, totally unacceptable. If you want to cut ties you've got my backing to do so."

I think I spent about 30 minutes just fuming in my office before deciding what to do. Who the f*ck did this guy think he was? What gave him the right to dump on me for no reason? Here I am killing myself in my job and he thinks just because I'm a PR person he can take his bad mood out on me?

After ranting and fuming for a while, I returned his email. You know what I told him?

I apologized for any inconvenience I caused him, promised that in the future I would follow processes more to his liking, and appreciated his feedback.

In reality I wanted to punch the guy in the face (and I'm not a violent person) that's how offensive I had found his email earlier. Yet, I sucked it up, and did my job. I didn't burn the relationship. In fact, he apologized for his behavior in his return email and actually covered our story.

While it's hard in those situations, the best technique for remaining cool is what's called a paradigm shift. You can't take things personally. You have to imagine that there are things you just don't know that could be causing the reaction. For instance, in my case, maybe the reporter just found out that his wife was sleeping with the milkman and I simply happened to catch him shortly after he found that out.

Sometimes you have to just accept that taking abuse, as unfair as it is, is part of the PR job sometimes. And you have to remind yourself that you are getting paid to take that abuse when it happens. Which is also why I feel so bad for PR folks who take abuse from within the companies they work for, because their days can be utterly horrific at times, with both colleagues AND reporters beating them up.

While the PR exec was wrong, I do sympathize with him in this case. I know where he was coming from. All PR folks do.

Hopefully this blows over and his business doesn't suffer too much from it. I also hope that the bloggers don't go after him like a pack of wolves. Just like I took the high road with that reporter long ago, the bloggers should take the high road in this case as well.

The paradigm shift applies to everyone in life, always try to imagine what the other person may be going through that is causing the behavior you find unacceptable. In doing so you will often find that under certain circumstances you not only aren't mad, but actually feel sympathy, or empathy, or pity for them. And you would be shocked at how they respond to you being kind when they are being mean - often it shakes them out of whatever took momentary grip of them and they actually end up apologizing.

Yet, also let all PR folks learn a lesson from this, don't lose control of your emotions on email. I've done this in the past (although I never got burned by it) and now all venting that I do, I try my best to do face to face. Email is just to dangerous for that kind of thing, especially in the age of social media.

Bye Bye Herman Cain

2011-10-08T10:33:00.000-07:00

This week's 'foot in mouth' award goes to Herman Cain.

In an interview with the wall street journal, Herman Cain, hopeful republican nominee for president, said: ""Don't blame Wall Street," Cain said. "Don't blame the big banks. If you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself."

What an idiot. Yes, personal responsibility and determination play a huge role in becoming successful in life. Yet, they do not guarantee success. Basic supply and demand is a huge factor. Corruption plays a huge factor. The basic math - not everyone can be rich (if they could then being rich wouldn't mean anything) - plays a factor. Becoming 'successful' in life is not a linear process and there is no guarantees even if you do everything right (read Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers for a better understand of how success plays out for various folks).

If anything, I'd argue it's actually because so many people have worked hard and gone to school for training that it's become harder to succeed. If we had less of an educated population, willing to work manual labor jobs for five dollars an hour, unemployment would be near zero (stnadard of living would suck, but unemployment would be low).

The problem is we have so many successful professionals that any little shock to the economy and even successful people start getting crushed. One day someone is making 80k (ie. they are successful) the next day they can't get a job.

Cain could have easily made his point about the virtue or hard work, determination and resiliency without condeming the masses as being lazy failures.

It was an idiotic thing to say, even considering that he is pandering to the republican base. While republicans are for small government and against the 'Nanny state' they aren't so disconnected as to believe that the current unemployment levels and hardship of the American people are the result of said people being lazy or failures.

If that were the case then they'd have been failures in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. If that were the case we'd have a shortage of engineers, software developers, accountants, etc. (and we don't, we currently have an over supply in relation to demand).

While his comments may attract compaign contributions from Wall Street, I think he basically just destroyed his campaign. You won't get elected during the worst recession since the Great Depression by telling those suffering that they are to blame.

Cain's appeal is that he's outspoken, but as I pointed out in a post on Chris Christie recently - Chris Christie: Why he resonates and what we can learn - for said type of politicians you have to go out of your way to make them aware of potential land mines. It's less about telling them what to do and more about telling them what to make sure they DON'T do.

In Cain's case his handlers obviously failed to impress upon him that he should avoid attacking segments of the America population.

Kenetic Typography - The new cool trend in video

2011-10-08T09:59:00.000-07:00

I didn't know it had a name (behind the curve on this one) but Kenetic Typography is trending when it comes to videos. Kenetic Typography is the process of creating compelling and creative videos using just text.

The process is achieved through the use of Adobe Illustrator and Adobe After Effects (as you may be aware I spoke about After Effects in a previous postings). PR folks should be interested in this because this is really a messaging trend. While video usually relies on, well, video of people and things, Kenetic Typography doesn't use video footage at all.

While it uses video motion software to create videos, it's all text based manipulation, which means it's 100 per cent about the message.

Before you think it's easy to do, it's not. The amount of time, effort, creativity and skill required to create these videos is astounding - which is why most of the Kenetic Typography videos you see are from professionals or students doing video projects.

Every word that you see in the video is actually an imagine. And every image is manipulated along a timeline, camera angle, motion setting, and a wide variety of special effects that can be applied.

Below I've embedded a ton of kenetic typography videos so you can see this trend at play. I've also included a couple videos where people provide tutorials on how to create either kenetic typography or after effects intros - as you can see, a 30 second basic video can take 8 hours to create (for someone that knows what they are doing and not factoring in the creative thought process required before even starting).

Heck, some of the videos below, while only a minute in length, I suspect took days to create (and that's for people who do this for a living or who are training in the field of video). As you watch the videos try to imagine that every little movement you see requires very skilled manipulation of After Effects settings. You can also see how much the artist's creative abilities play in to how the video flows and resonates with the viewer.

I like this medium so much that I think I'm going to take a crack at creating a kenetic typography video for my business, but unfortunately probably won't have the time to do so for another month or so.

But I definitely want to learn how to do this because it is a PR person's dream. Video production is fun, but it's a tangent for a PR person to engage in that domain. Yet, text-based video messaging is the absolutely perfect outlet for a PR person's creativity in extending the reach of their messaging.

Part of me is actually thinking of investing in Adobe, because the youth of the future will be learning how to use these programs in high school I imagine. In 10 years from now I think using these programs (which will evolve and become easier to learn) will become as common place as using powerpoint is today.

Imagine for a Moment...
This is my favorite video of the bunch.

This video was created by the Ron Paul campaign I believe, so who knows how much it cost. But I'd imagine it took a while to create, especially with the audio work done. The video is in response to criticism Paul often gets that his anti-war stance and issues with US foreign policy are anti-American.

Fight Club Scene
For those of you who like the movie fight club, this video blends kenetic typography with a scene from the movie. Most likely created by a student who liked the movie. Can't say for sure, but the detail around all the character movement suggests this took a long time to do.

Dark Knight Scene
Scene from the Dark Knight blended with kenetic typography. Once again, one minute of video, but probably hours and hours of work to create.

Fight Club Scene
Another video based on the movie Fight Club.

Portal 2
For those of you who have played Portal 2 (one of the best video games ever) you'll appreciate this video which blends the end of the game (the song that plays during credits) with kenetic typography.

Network Movie
Famous rant from the movie Network. Note the music in the background was added by the video creator (they blended the actors rant with their own background music). Audio editing is an entirely different beast but one that has a huge impact on the overall impression of a video.

Family Guy
Scene from the Family guy blended with kenetic typography. Not the most interesting scene, but wow, just amazing typography work, the zoom in zoom out and constant flow within the orange space are phenomenal.

The Hives
Music put to kenetic typography. Not the most amazing typography, but great video because the song is catchy and the typography work is nonetheless very good.

Dark Knight
Another scene from the Dark Knight.

Da Bomb Media
A media design studio using kenetic typography to promote its business. This is the sort of thing I'm going to create for RMCC.

Music Track
Not a fan of the actual song, but amazing typography work. Poster said it took them three months (of off and on work) to create the video.

No Zebra Showreel
A web agency promoting their company using a mix of non-typography video and typography design. This is a great example of how typography can be used to enhance a corporate-style video. Watch towards the end to see what a difference camera angle work in After Effects makes. All the movement you are seeing was not done during actual filming, it all takes place within After Effects.

How To Video
A video explaining how to create kenetic typography. The video is 15 minutes long (with elements of fast forwarding built in) all around the creation of perhaps 5 seconds of video.

Intro Video Tutorial
A tutorial on creating an intro using After Effects. This is less typography and more traditional After Effects work. Having said that though, typography is in play. Once again, a 20 minute tutorial (ie. 20 minutes of work) to create a five second video.

If you actually watch the tutorial you'll also see that if you were creating this intro for the first time it would probably take you hours (the producer obviously knows all the presets he wants, but upon first creation I'm sure it took a lot of time to determine what those settings should be).

Mocking Occupy Wall Street? An unwise move.

2011-10-05T16:19:00.000-07:00

You know, say what you will for the Occupy Wall Street protest - their message is unclear, many of them look like hippies, the annoyance of their mass repetition of what someone says (which they do as a means of getting around bylaws around using a bull horn) - the one thing you have to give them massive credit for is being peaceful.

Three weeks in and not a single incidence of violence or property damage as a result of the protest, which is mind boggling when you think about how pissed off these people are.

In addition, various unions are now supporting the protest, mass media is now covering the protest daily, and dozens of videos telling the story of the protest are popping up on YouTube every day.

In response to their success, it would appear that some folks on the other side of the debate decided to send the protestors a message.

As you can see the signs in the window say "We are the 1%" The building is the Chicago Board of Trade Building (the occupy protests are in Chicago now) that has a variety of tenants, including derivatives and future exchanges operations. It's unclear though who was behind the signs.

Either way, what a stupid thing to do. Then again, maybe the signs were made by people supporting the 99% protestors, knowing that such a display would only fuel people's anger and participation.

This comes on the heels of Erin Burnett (a CNN anchor, previously of CNBC, and who is married to a Citigroup executive) being accused of mocking the protestors.

Her piece led to a Forbes article - Erin Burnett Is Vapid, Occupy Wall Street Matters - which given she is brand new to CNN and trying to make that leap from CNBC star to becoming a CNN superstar and household name around America, is not a good thing.

Even if the protestors are 100 per cent wrong about everything (and they aren't on many issues), mocking and belittling them only generates exponentially more support for them.

The best thing the one per cent can do is just stay out of all this (and that seems, wisely, to be what 99% of the 1% are doing). Ultimately this will become a political issues that will get resolved in the presidential election. That's if people don't mock the protestors and turn what is currently a peaceful protest in to something much uglier.

Chris Christie: Why he resonates and what we can learn

2011-10-05T06:36:00.000-07:00

In PR we talk a lot about messaging. We subscribe to the notion that there is a formula for good communications. If you factor in all the various messages that surround a particular issue, the varying views that publics hold towards that issue and future trends expected to unfold in relation to that issue, you can 'position' yourself to achieve thought leadership status by cutting through the noise in such a way as to bring a clarity and guidance that people are often seeking.

And yet, despite all this, what is less talked about is why two people can say the same thing and publics react positively to one person and negatively to another. It's the most frustrating element to PR because it reminds us that there is no absolute set formula that guarantees resonance with one's audience.

In this blog I've attributed much of this phenomena to what I call authenticity.

Recently we've seen Chris Christie, the government of New Jersey, went through a bit of a PR whirlwind as party stakeholders urged him to get in the presidential race. He recently made it official that he would not be entering the race.

Christie is fascinating because he has a lot of brand variables going against him. He's highly outspoke (which makes him prone to saying something off-message), he's overweight, and he's more than happy to be curt with both the media and his own constituents.

And yet, the media and his constituents love him.

The reason? Authenticity.

He comes across as someone who is completely transparent, who has nothing to hide, and who is giving it to you straight, whether you like it or not.

All great PR stems out of authenticity, which when you think about it, is almost the opposite of how PR is traditionally done. Normally people and companies are told to put their personal views aside and STAY ON MESSAGE. PR people cringe when their spokesperson goes off-message because anything can happen. And there are endless examples of how going off-message utterly destroys a brand / reputation in mere seconds (just look at various bank executives who have shot themselves in the foot over the past three years!).

Yet, if you have a spokesperson who is genuinely authentic (remember you can't fake authenticity, by definition, it's not authentic if you are faking it), then you have to throw out the traditional PR model and approach things from a completely different perspective.

If your spokesperson is a 'wild horse' (which is what authenticity is somewhat analogous too) then your focus must be on anticipating various issues that will arise from being outspoken. You must anticipate what messages may end up conflicting with each other, what positions may be misunderstood by the public and how opposition may twist your messaging openness against you. Upon doing this, you must then equip your spokesperson with said knowledge.

With an authentic candidate you can't pigeonhole them in to rigid talking points. You have to let them run free - your job though is to make sure that they understand the various dangers that await them. My experience is that authentic spokespersons are often fearless and as such rarely think of the dangers, yet once they are made aware of them, they often take heed and will show caution around certain topics or how they handle certain questions.

The resonance we see in Christie is purely a function of authenticity, yet at the same time, while he is clearly not a talking-point machine, he exhibits an in-depth understanding of the PR process. While he is outspoken, he is not out of control. While he is blunt, he's not offensive. While he is serious, he is self deprecating.

Watch a couple Christie clips below to see how authenticity plays such a huge factor in messaging resonance. Try to imagine others saying the same things Christie was saying and imagine the uproar in the media that would ensue (and yet when Christie says what he says, people tend to laugh).

This is the biggest issue facing Obama today is that he's lost his authenticity with the public. Which would not have been a big issue if he had simply been a talking-point machine from the beginning. Yet, he did what few ever manage to do, he actually managed to take canned speeches and make them sound authentic back in 2008, leading the public to believe that what he was saying was truly who he was deep down inside. That Hope and Change and Yes We Can weren't just bumper stickers, but rather they were in his DNA, they were his belief system.

Yet, in general the public now realizes that Obama isn't authentic (a good person, a smart guy, but not authentic) and that is the reason why no matter what the president says, his talking points resonate only with his most ardent supporters and fall flat with the rest of the public.

Authenticity is an essential element to success in PR, even if it is rarely factored in to the equation for success.

Update 3 on my recession post

2011-10-03T11:28:00.000-07:00

A while ago I wrote a post - Top 10 Reasons this recession will never end - and followed it up with two updates: Update One and Update Two.

It's been a few months since my last update and I thought I'd take a moment to review my recession variables to see if anything has changed. The markets seem stuck in a 50/50 bull/bear dynamic, making it near impossible to figure out what the macro trend will be. I find reviewing my recession variables often helps me sort out the noise from the facts.

Keep in my, many variables that are important (ie. employment for instance) don't make my list because in my view they are more the result of variables on this list. If everything on this list suddenly was green (ie. doing better) then employment stats would be better. The more red (ie. things doing worse) then the more macro measurements - employment, housing, GDP, etc. - are likely to be worse also.

To understand how I define these variables simply refer to my original post (linked to above).

Crashes Hurt for a long time - worse - The DOW for the year is down seven per cent, erasing every dollar of gains it made over the past 10 months. Yep, we are still stuck in an endless cycle of dashed hopes and endless pain.
Until Debt do us Part - worse - US is now AA, Greece is going to default, fears of contagion throughout Europe, US home prices predicted to fall further, people questioning whether US banks actually have enough capital to survive contagion of debt defaults out of Europe. And the irony? The only thing that can save things is, you guessed it, MORE debt =)
_
Eroded Trust - worse -We've now got protests cropping up all over the US and they will only get bigger as unions join the protestors in coming weeks. Trust in the president, congress or the financial sector are at all time lows and still sinking.
Anxiety - slightly better - In all my posts this is the first time I've been able to say anxiety is better. In the stock market (ie. for traders) it's not, with the VIX rising steadily. But out there on the street I think anxiety is starting to lower. I think this is happening for a variety of reasons:

People have really cut back over the past three years, so they are saving more which means they are better prepared for a collapse than they were in 2008.
With protests and the 2012 election coming up, people are moving from that 'passive fear' state of mind to an 'activist' state of mind.
A lot of people have finally exited the stock market and as such aren't beholden by the wild fluctuations.
Familiarity breeds contempt - people are simply getting numb / desensitized to the endless news cycle of fear and panic.

Now, while it's good that anxiety is going down, because a populous living in a constant state of anxiety is an unproductive, uncreative, uninvolved populous (you can't make decisions if you are frozen by fear), this factor alone doesn't reverse recessions.

But it is a good sign that anxiety is lessoning and people are starting to get involved in fixing the country in whatever ways they can think of (whether that be protests, or saving more, or spending less, etc).

Growth versus Replacement cycle - worse - Innovation is not only still in a comatose, it's getting worse. Solar stocks have been trashed (most down over 70 per cent this year alone - not to mention Solyndra who went bankrupt).

Smartphones are where it's at though right? This year alone RIM is down 60 per cent.

LinkedIn? Down 20 per cent this year since its IPO (and down 30 per cent off its 52 week high).

NetFlix? Down over 60 per cent off it's 52-week high.

YTD Google is down 16 per cent.

Point is, innovation (what little there is of it) is not being rewarded. Companies are being written off left, right and center (just look at the p/e for many growth oriented companies, they are sinking like a rock).

No one wants to invest based on future growth and when you really think about it, the markets are punishing companies who are trying to innovate for the future. Only a handful of companies (such as Apple) have been spared this fate.
Shareholder model breakdown - WAY worse - The market is always a tier / spectrum of risky to safe investments. For instance, bonds are safe, small cap equities are high risk, and mid and large caps are somewhere inbetween. However, the markets are now being manipulated by the FED who is stripping away the safe end of the spectrum - lowering returns on bonds, increasing margins on gold, etc. - which then drives people back in to equities in hopes of making some kind of return (so people are trying to hide in high-yeild dividend blue chips).

The only problem? A LOT of people (myself included) have simply gone to cash and simply refuse to participate in a market that makes no sense right now and which is nothing more than making a bet on what politicians will do any given week.

Many IPOs that were slated for 2011 have pulled back in the past few months and are now looking at 2012 (and I suspect many will defer their IPOs in 2012 as well). They don't want to be a part of the stock market right now because it's an insane place to be.
Lowest Common Denominator Thinking - slightly better - There is definitely a shift going on out there where people are not turning on teachers and unions as much as before with a 'I don't get six weeks vacations so why do they? I don't get a pension, so why do they? etc.'

While there is definitely still some of that, the shift seems to be moving now towards 'Instead of stripping away what they've achieved, maybe I should be helping them protect it so that I live in a society that protects the average working person.'

Whether unions and the like are good or bad is irrelevant. The point is though that within the populous, people are slowly moving away from fighting over the scraps of bread crumbs. A big part of that is the focus has now shifted to the rich versus everyone else - the 99% versus the 1%.

While this is dramatic to watch, it's good for the economy, because it will start to push politicians and corporations to create a more balanced economy that works for everyone. Things will never be ideal, but to get out of this recession you need some kind of willingness to create a balanced ecosystem.
_
Globalization - unchanged - nothing new on this front. Although if Europe falls apart the global market will simply be flooded with millions more unemployed workers, driving down the cost of labor further.
Baby Boomer Cost - unchanged - deficit is still ballooning, health care costs still the same, 401ks still massively depressed, on and on. Although, there has been talk of raising the retirement age to 70 or 75 (while negative for baby boomers and standard of living within the US, it would address some of the costs coming our way for the baby boomers as they age). But all in all this issue remains unchanged.
Extremism - unchanged - No terrorist attacks, good. No mass shootings, good. No nuclear reactors blowing up, good.

Yet, we've got the stock markets swinging down 500 points one day and up 400 points the next. We've got the markets up seven per cent one week and down seven per cent the next. We've got (peaceful, for now) protests cropping up all around the US. We've got a president stoking the fires of class warfare. We've got Europe on the verge of a recession (depression?).

So net-net, we're still living in extreme times. Having said that, if we can go a few more months without starting another war (ie. invading Iran), without some nut job blowing something up and without the protests turning violent, I do think we may be seeing a calming in the world.

But it's definitely too early to say this variable is better yet.
Bonus: inflation - worse - Bell Canada raised it's prices seven per cent last week. Some of my favourite foods at the grocery store jumped 20+ per cent this week also. The only positive is gas prices seem to be a little bit lower (but mostly on fears of a double dip recession). We'll have to wait and see if lower gas prices result in lower food prices, or if that correlation has been decoupled for the time being.

On the whole though, things are more expensive than they were only two months ago.

This variable might get better in the near future, but for the wrong reasons. If a double dip occurs then we'll see deflation. But for the time being, we've got say that inflation is currently getting worse (if only slightly).

So there you have it, another recession update. What's interesting is that some variables that have never turned green since I started this thread back in March, suddenly turned green. On the negative side, variables that SHOULD be turning green by now, aren't. In fact, they are getting worse.

So the positive is things are starting to change out there, the question however is whether net-net they are changing for the better or the worse. It would appear that it's still too early to tell (at least based on my personal views of assessing a recession).

In the video era your followers are your greatest marketing asset

2011-10-02T18:42:00.000-07:00

I thought I'd take a quick moment to talk about the power of enthusiastic brand followers and one tremendous benefit they provide when it comes to video and marketing.

When a company is marketing its products it does so under very strict limitations. All content must be created and owned by the company. If a company is creating a marketing video, if they want to use a popular song track for said video, they must pay the artist. As you can imagine that can be quite expensive when it comes to popular artists (which is why you only see Coke or Nike using popular music in their video ads).

And even with said song track, the track is likely only appealing to a certain segment of the overall intended audience. And no company has the money to create multiple versions of a video with multiple tracks and by association pay multiple artists. Much less do they have the strategies for segmenting the distrubtion of said content to specific audiences.

This is where enthusiastic brand followers (via social media, specifically video) can come in handy. In the future, and it's already happening today, individuals who are really excited over a brand are out there marketing said brand. And as an individual they are not bound by the same restrictions as a company.

Technically, they are. But realistically, a band isn't going to sue some every day Joe for posting a video on YouTube with one of their tracks. Joe has no money and the band knows this, so what's the point of suing? However, if a company had used their track, you better believe they'd be suing (because obviously a company has money).

A recent example of what I'm talking about is the following video promoting a 'money bomb' for Ron Paul. The video was not created by the Ron Paul campaign, so they have no connection to it, and as such no legal responsibilities (it's purely grassroots). The video uses a popular Rage Against the Machine track.

Now I doubt Rage Against the Machine would even let Ron Paul use one of their songs even if they paid (although they might given his anti-war stance). Point is though, because this video was created by some person from who knows where, there's no problem.

In addition, when an individual uses a band's music, the band assumes (rightly so) that the person who created the video is a fan (and probably a consumer of their art). As such, I'm sure the band is actually happy to see them using their music (the thought of suing them or telling them to take down their content probably doesn't even come to mind).

Having enthusiastic brand followers can open up a huge world of marketing opportunity and content creation that a corporation, especially small and mid caps, simply can't engage in themselves.

In addition, users create marketing content that appeals to their demographic. Which means, with enough enthusiastic brand followers, you can penetrate multiple target audiences with content that resonates with them (because it was created by one of their own).

Now, like anything that has a benefit in life, there usually comes associated risks. The risk, if you haven't already figured it out in this case, is that user created content can redefine what a brand means. For many corporations, who spend thousands or millions defining their brand, this is a scary concept.

Yet there's no way around all this. User created video content (which basically is tantamount to a commercial) will grow more and more common (I think video is the future of socmed and will far surpass Twitter and Facebook as the medium through which ideas are communicated). As such, organizations must prepare themselves to empower said users to create compelling content while at the same time become thick skinned to the reality that their brand will be a hybrid of the brand definitions they create and the brand augmentations users create.

Right now user created content is done by the most enthusiastic of followers with no help from the various brands themselves. But in the Ron Paul video above, one thing the campaign could have done to encourage said content creation is to have a data base of all Ron Paul video associated with the campaign. This would then allow users to simply go to one spot and get all the 'footage' they need to build out their own video. This would also help the campaign mitigate what video clips users are using, thereby supporting the brand messages that they want to see front and center.

When constructing your brand today you have to think simply beyond the activities and messages that you are going to use and also factor in the potential user created content that will take place outside of your control.

Companies who do this will find themselves with a grassroots marketing force creating content that the company itself cannot legally create and creating a wide assortment of content that augments the marketing efforts of the company itself.

It can be a little odd to view your brand as a 'shared asset' but like it or not that is the future. And there's no reason it can't be an amazing future where your brand followers are creating compelling content, on your behalf, for free!

Occupy Wall Street: Wow, crowd is growing (video)

2011-09-30T19:53:00.000-07:00

Apparently the occupy Wall Street protesters headed down to the NYPD headquarters.

I've got to say, that's a pretty big crowd. After 13 days of protest now you'd think people would call it a day, but it doesn't look like these folks are going to go away.

If the crowd size manages to double or triple in coming weeks it's hard to imagine how the NYPD will handle the crowd. At some point they will have to break it up if they want to maintain control over NYC streets.

Bank of America Headlines: Let the PR Crisis Begin

2011-09-30T18:54:00.000-07:00

Fascinating to watch all the headlines erupt over the Bank of America announcement that they will start charging five dollars a month for debit card usage.

Debit card fees: Outrage triggers backlash against BofA (Los Angeles Times)

Bank of America faces outrage over debit card charge (Washington Post)

Bank Of America Is 'Sticking It' To Customers, Senator Says (NPR)

Bank of America has declared war--on America (Catholic Online - ok, second tier, but great headline)

Customers cry ‘holdup’ as Bank of America blames feds (Boston Herald)

Bank of America Goes Through With Stupid Consumer-Hating Idea (Tucson Weekly)

Bank of America: Please Don't Use Our Debit Card to Buy Stuff (CNBC)

Bank of America debit card fee plan met with resistance and anger (The Guardian)

Anyway, you get the drift.

At this point Bank of America might as well go through with the charge because they've trashed their brand so bad even if they cancelled the charges they would still suffer the same damage.

It will be interesting to see if customers actually walk away from BAC when the charges go in effect. If NetFlix tells us anything about today's consumers, when you piss them off, they will walk.

Now for some BAC laughs....

Who is Dumber? Bank of America, NetFlix or Bell Canada?

2011-09-29T10:51:00.000-07:00

Milking your customers is a bad PR move. It's ok to increase prices as long as you increase the value they are getting also. Simply increasing prices to increase profits is a sure fire way to kick your brand in the nuts (pardon the french).

Bell Canada recently pissed me off (and I'm sure many others) raising their prices seven per cent for no apparent reason. Although I think it's due to the failure of usage based billing.

Netflix jacked up the prices on their customers also not long ago. It was a move I disagreed with and wrote about in a post - Where Netflix messed up (what happens when you ignore PR). Since then their stock has crashed from $298 a share to $112 a share (that's around a 60 per cent hair cut in under three months!)

And now Bank of America has announced that it is going to start charging customers $5/month for debit card usage. Perrrrrrrfect! This is just what you want to do. After the tax payers bail you out turn around and start charging them more. Heck, if they were willing to give you hundreds of billions I'm sure they won't mind paying an extra five bucks a month on top of it.

I honestly don't know which of the above companies is dumber.

I think Netflix takes the cake, only because they went from a position of 'for the people' to 'milk the people' and essentially imploded their entire business model.

Bell gets second place (if you combine their price hikes with the UBB fiasco).

And I give Bank of America third place, although this is a photo finish for dumb PR moves.

Corporations have to return profits to their shareholders (we all get that), but picking customers pockets to do so doesn't work in the long run. BAC and Bell are more insulated from bad PR moves because of the near-monopoly status they hold, whereas NetFlix got crushed because government has no interest in protecting them in any way.

Yet, government regulations, lobbying, and market control won't protect your brand over the long run.

As we enter 2012, we know that we are likely facing higher rates of inflation, an anemic GDP, and high unemployment. Which means that people are going to be suffering worse than they are today. To pick their pocket when they are barely surviving is a dumb move.

Sure it may increase the share price a tad as investors assume increased profits resulting from the additional service charges. But six months later when revenues actually decline because customers not only stop using thier BAC debit card, but leave BAC all together, the stock price then declines.

Not to mention this is just a sweet talking point for politicians, it plays right to the populous rage over the banks and Wall Street.

It should be interesting to see whether customers flock to players like Ally Bank. I wouldn't be surprised if the big banks keep going as they are if some politician, looking for votes, just says 'enough is enough' and takes a proverbial sledge hammer to the big boys.

You Don't See This Everyday: Oracle Publicly Attacks Autonomy

2011-09-29T10:23:00.000-07:00

I don't follow Oracle news, but recently they sure pulled out a fairly atypical PR move, publicly revealing confidential information about another company (Autonomy) in the media.

The story is a confusing one and I'm still not sure why Oracle did this. Basically though it appears that Autonomy approached Oracle about being acquired. Oracle declined. Autonomy was then acquired by HP and denied that it ever approached Oracle. In response to what Oracle says are lies, Oracle posted powerpoint presentations that Autonomy, via proxy of Frank Quattrone, presented to them.

You can view the powerpoints here on Oracle's Web site. Oracle also came out with a press release - Another Whopper from Autonomy CEO Mike Lynch.

Usually this kind of thing is done behind the scenes via leaks to the media. Oracle could have easily just leaked the powerpoint presentation to a key reporter to change the narrative within the media.

Why they went with such a formal PR process I couldn't tell you.

Furthermore, this is a clear case of how disclaimers don't mean jack (yes, they are deterrents, but by no means are they absolutes). The presentations included disclaimers, including a line that said:

These materials have not been prepared with a view toward public disclosure under state or federal securities laws or otherwise, are intended for the benefit and use of the Company, and may not be reproduced, disseminated, quoted, summarized or referred to, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of Qatalyst.

Well, Oracle just gave Qatalyst/Frank Quattrone/Autonomy the bird when it comes to their legal disclaimer.

I suppose their legal counter argument would be that once Autonomy made public statements which were false and that such actions waived any disclosure disclaimers that essentially prohibited Oracle from defending itself as telling the truth.

Either way, this is one strange PR move by Oracle. While it may tarnish the reputation of Autonomy, it also tarnishes Oracle's reputation as well. It sends a message to all current and future businesses / partners dealing with Oracle that if you piss them off they will try to bury you in the public domain.

I mean, if everyone starts ignoring disclaimers and putting confidential information in the public realm we'll quickly descend in to a Jerry Springer-style business landscape.

If damage was being done to Oracle I can see why they may have wanted to hit Autonomy back, but from what I can tell, it's not like Oracle suffered some form of damage that demanded a response. It seems more like they were simply ticked off by Autonomy saying things they hold are untrue, even if such things don't materially impact Oracle to any great extent.

Oh well, there you have it, one of the strangest PR events in recent memory.

National Post: Suicides Infographic

2011-09-29T07:52:00.000-07:00

It's interesting to see the National Post using infographics, such as they recently did for a story on a young boy that committed suicide as the result of school bullying.

The graphic isn't as fancy as it could be (basically it's a lot of circles all over the place) but it's still a great value add.

With many graphic designers unemployed or under employed, now is a great time for the media (and corporations) to augment their communications with infographics that significantly increase the resonance of their messaging.

People are visual by nature and presenting statistics in graphical form generates far more interest in the reader/viewer than simply embedding a litany of stats in table form or as text.

The full sized image can be seen in pdf form here

LED monitor: A must have for heavy PC users

2011-09-28T13:36:00.000-07:00

I recently got an LED monitor and let me tell you it's night and day compared to my old LCD monitor.

I spend a lot of time at my PC and with my old LCD monitor it takes a toll on your eyes. I suppose it's a function of the flicker, refresh and resolution rates. Either way, by the end of the day your eyes are worn out.

Since using this LED monitor, I'm telling you, you can stare at the thing for hours on end and experience absolutely zero eye strain.

If you are still using an LCD monitor, do yourself (and your eyes) a favor and go get an LED monitor - you won't be sorry.

Every business should be using LED, PC productivity is so much higher when you aren't being fatigued by eye strain two hours in to your day.

Health Care Connect - you'll get a doctor before you die (maybe)

2011-09-28T08:21:00.000-07:00

Two years ago I signed on to Ontario's Health Care Connect, a service by the Ontario government that helps people who don't have a doctor find one.

Two years later I'm still getting letters from them saying "Your Care Connector is still working to find an available family health care provider in your area and will contact you as soon as one becomes available."

And government wonders why tax payers generally feel that government is nothing but a black hole filled with pointless programs that do nothing except spend money to accomplish nothing.

I mean, if you can't find me a doctor after two years then what good is the program? Is anyone even really looking? Or is everyone who signs up to Health Care Connect basically just tossed in some database that is programmed to send out a "We're still working for you..." letter every six months?

Now, I found a great doctor a year ago, but it's through a walk-in clinic, so it's not the same as a dedicated private practice doctor (which is ok with me because my doctor is awesome and I rarely go to the doctor anyway).

I haven't taken myself off the Health Care Connect list because technically I don't actually have a dedicated doctor. I'm also interested to see if they ever actually find me one.

I think in 10, 20, 30 years from now I'll still be getting letters saying "We're still working for you..." because the database will still be sending out automated responses. Heck, I'd be willing to bet that even after I die one day the database will still be spitting out letters to me.

From a PR perspective this makes the Ontario government look utterly incompetent. What is the point of starting a program if it cannot achieve its mandate? We all know the answer to that... it's good PR to look like you are taking some kind of action.

Except, it becomes bad PR when it becomes clear you are doing nothing.

I feel sorry for anyone that signs up to Health Care Connect and actually waits for their assistance. Get up and go find a doctor yourself, because if you are waiting for Health Care Connect to call you, you'll be waiting a very long time.

Bell increases phone costs

2011-09-28T08:05:00.000-07:00

Got my Bell bill this week and it was seven per cent higher. Apparently they have increased prices because, as the rep told me, "everything goes up in price over time' and Bell is the "Mercedes of phone services".

Are you kidding? Voice services (especially landline) should be going down in cost, not up, given competitive pressures in the market.

What do I think the price increase is really about? I think Bell was banking on usage-based billing (UBB) increasing its profits dramatically. When UBB fell through they figured they'd make up the difference by simply raising the cost on existing services.

You'd think that corporations would look at NetFlix and realize that consumers today won't put up with getting hosed. Raising prices during a recession will only drive consumers to seek out what competitors are offering.

What really annoyed me (and this is more a PR function) is how Bell never notifies you that a price increase is coming. It simply appears on your bill. At least Rogers use to notify you months in advance.

Anyway, I continue to think that much of Roger and Bell's profits are fueled by baby boomers who tend to want simplicity and dealing with a brand they've known their whole life. But the Gen-X generation (and those younger) have no brand loyalty to these large cap providers because what they see is that they are almost always 25-30 per cent more expensive than competitors.

Suffice to say I won't be paying the increase and I encourage you to fight that increase as well. The only thing Bell listens to is customers threatening to leave.

BCC interview - what was the BCC thinking?

2011-09-27T21:49:00.000-07:00

If you haven't seen it, Alessio Rastani (an apparent stock trader) was inteviewed on the BBC and his interview has gone viral.

I'm sorry but this is just journalism at it's very worst.

First, I actually think it's a great interview and I agree (as do many others) with what Alessio said. He went a little overboard in his description of Goldman Sachs, but all-in-all, he articulated a view that many economists are saying is very possible.

Here's the problem though. No one - and I mean NO ONE - knows who this guy is. There's no account of him working at any significant brokerage firm (he says he did, but refuses to disclose who). He simply appears to be a casual trader with only a few years under his belt at that.
How does someone with no significant credentials get on a national broadcast like the BBC?

I'll tell you exactly what happened (without even knowing the situation - so I could be wrong, but I doubt it).

The BBC probably had a guest booked, the guest cancelled last minute, BBC freaked out over having dead air, they pulled up the research list they had created when preparing the segment, they started calling down the list of potential guests they had initially researched (of which Alessio was one of them, probably as the result of an initial research some junior intern did), no one on the list was available and when they called Alessio he was.

Whoo Hoo segment saved (NOT)!

A junior staff member probably included him on the initial research list after stumbling on his FaceBook, YouTube site, or Web page and didn't research him further figuring he wasn't anywhere near the top of the list of potential guests they would approach for that segment.

And there you have it, a total unkonwn gets on a national BBC broadcast and makes headlines around the world.

Kudos to Alessio for keeping his composure through the interview. The guy should be a spokesperson because he's definitely calm under pressure (espeically given he knew the level of absurdity in suddenly finding himself speaking to millions of viewers).

Having said that though, just absolutely horrible journalism on the BBC's part.

Also, it was most likely a bad idea for Alessio to accept the interview. Yes, he got his 3:29 minutes of fame, but the PR he got won't do anything for him or his business because the story is now becoming that this guy should never have been interviewed in the first place.

So essentially he gets a ton of PR for saying the world is going to end, but then gets a second round of PR wherein everyone says that what this guy says doesn't matter. So does he really win from this?

Aside from being the talk of the town in his neighbourhood, I'd say he doesn't. So drink up Alessio, enjoy the fleeting fame, and kudos on actually doing a good interview.

The only thing he could have done that would have brightened the spotlight even more would have been halfway through his interview saying to the anchor "Actually, you know, I need to stop here. I'm not qualified to make these statements at a national level. I have absolutely no clue how you guys let me on the air."

Now that may have very well got him on Late Night with David Letterman!

The danger of social media - Rich Mock Protestors (or did they?)

2011-09-27T21:13:00.000-07:00

A video recently came out of a group of suposedly rich people watching the Wall Street protestors from a balcony above while they enjoyed champagne and laughing at the protest (starts at 50 second mark).

Now, I have no clue who those people actually were, for all we know they aren't rich at all but rather were simply at an after-work function or a wedding reception. Plenty of average folks dress up and can look 'rich' for special occasions.

Heck, for all we know the guy in the video who was laughing had just finished telling his buddy "Those wall street fat cats are really going to get it now."

In fact, most rich people wouldn't find the protest that interesting. The super wealthy tend not to be 'gawkers', they have more entertaining things to occupy their attention in life. Generally speaking it's middle-class folks that can't turn away from a spectacle.

This is one of the problems with video, it doesn't always tell the real story.

It's also an example of why people need to think about the context in which they find themselves. It's almost absurd to say that walking out onto a balcony to see what's going on below is not a smart thing to do, but in the era of social media and video, you have to ask yourself that question now - you have to ask 'how would this look on video and could it be taken out of context?'

You don't want your face plastered over YouTube, especially if it's a misrepresentation of who you are. It may sound melodramatic, but those people in the video will probably end up being confronted by someone who recognized them from the video over the next few weeks. And even if it doesn't happen, I guarantee you they will see the YouTube video and will be worried about whether their safety is at any risk.

Wrong place, wrong time, wrong context and with a little video an average person can suddenly find themselves with a big problem on their hands.

Personally I think posting the video on YouTube was irresponsible and wrong. While the odds of danger are minimal the video nonetheless puts those people filmed in harms way.

I mean, just look at some of the comments on YouTube (yes, YouTube comments are often extreme, but rarely this extreme):

See if they are laughing when we stick their heads on pikes and their bodies hang from lamp posts.

Molotov cocktails should have been what they were sipping on!

Molotov Cocktail to that balcony. Burn the vermin.

Hope you scumbags on the balcony are ready for the guillotine.

It would be nice if we still lived in a world where you didn't have to worry about waking up one morning and finding yourself on YouTube being accused of mocking poor people, but alas, case in point, it can happen.

So when you find yourself in a circumstance where everyone has their iPhone out video taping things, stop and think for a second as to whether you want to be a part of the story. If not, then avoid the cameras, because social media can be dangerous.

Seesmic: My Fav Twitter App

2011-09-26T10:59:00.000-07:00

I usually follow my Twitter feeds from my mobile device, but I recently installed Seesmic on my desktop and I really like this app.

Previous desktop twitter apps I found frustrating to use. Tweekdeck for instance I found very hard on the eyes. And for some reason a lot of these apps don't let you resize the text, which is beyond frustrating because looking at a sea of 10 point font gives you a headache.

Seesmic however lets you change the background to white and increase text size so that it's a pleasure to use. You also get little 'bing' notifications every time a new tweet comes in (an option you can obviously turn off).

It integrates LinkedIn if you want, as well as FaceBook and Foursquares.

Anyway, best socmed app I've come across and definitely worthwhile downloading.

Occupy Wall Street, starting to get interesting....

2011-09-25T22:20:00.000-07:00

Mayor Bloomberg warned of impending riots and the recent Occupy Wall Street protest may foreshadow such an event.

The protest started off with only a couple hundred people last week (your usually assortment of hippie-esque protestors) and went unnoticed for the most part. However, after a week now, the number of protestors seems to be growing and YouTube is now starting to get a constant stream of videos regarding the event.

I've talked about video becoming more and more important in marketing / communicating anything. Just as important is the video editing software which is allowing people to add music and audio tracks to their video, creating more compelling viewing experiences (see the video below at mark 3:00 for an example of this).

The video below shows the police are starting to crack down on the occupy protest. While video of police managing a protest always looks 'dramatic' what's interesting here is that the 'occupation' has officially become a spectacle, which is usually when such protests start to draw in ever increasing numbers.

We'll see what happens over the next week, they'll either have locked up enough of the protestors that the occupation will come to an end, or I suspect the crowd will simply double or triple in size.

You have to give it to the protestors, this at first didn't get any media attention (in fact the media laughed at how few protestors there were). But through persistence (the protestors simply did not go away) they are now getting people's attention.

From a PR perspective there's something to be said about persistence - get in people's faces long enough and you'll become a media story. Gandhi's hunger strike garnered endless media coverage and actually ended the war between Pakistan and India at that time, all through nothing but the public display of persistence.

If the police had been smart on the PR front (which they rarely are, because PR isn't their job) they would have handed out water to the protestors in the days prior. This would have showed that they weren't against the protestors. Then, when they had to break the protest up, it would be harder to make the police look like simply the strong arm of the law if there was video of them being 'kind' to the protestors only days earlier.

It's always the images of peaceful demonstrators being manhandled by the police that cause more protestors to show up.

d

Pew Research says Press Credibility In Decline

2011-09-25T08:34:00.003-07:00

According to Pew Research negative opinions about the press are at an all time high.

Definitely check out the source article because they have a ton of infographics that are worth looking at.

The main graph related to the research is the one below:

As you can see, the public no longer views the media as unbiased or fully accurate.

There are dozens of variables that play in to this phenomena, but I think the biggest one is that the public has traditionally viewed the media as doing the people's work. Which is to say, they are kind of like the FBI, but they work for the people not the government.

They are suppose to root out what is going on and inform the people so that society can hold politicians and corporations accountable (note the reoccuring theme of accountability that I talk about often in this blog, because it's a causal variable behind much of the issues in the world today).

Over the past 15 or so years, the press has lost it's credibility with the public because they have failed to root out the real story time and time again...

The dot.com bubble
WMDs and Iraq
The housing bubble
The credit default swap bubble
Regulatory sloppiness (hello BP)
Bernie Madoff and SEC incompetence

And the list goes on. In almost all these cases the media was not ahead of the curve and was caught totally flat footed.

But you know who must find this more frustrating than anyone else? People in the media!

For all of the above disasters, there was someone in the media writing about it long before it happened. The problem is that they were one voice. Meanwhile their colleagues were so focused on other things, or even espousing counterviews, that the few articles that were setting off alarms simply came and gone with little notice paid to them.

The general public though doesn't care about such nuances. In their mind the press is suppose to be the canary in the gold mine, safeguarding society by rooting out the crooks and liars and basically keeping society honest. With the majority of the public perceiving corporations and politicians as corrupt, it's no surprise that they would feel let down by the press as they conclude that it is no longer serving its function of keeping society honest.

One has to wonder if the press even feels this is there job though. Reporters use to view that as their job, to root out corruption for the public good. But today, is that their mandate, or rather, is it to simply report on current events as they happen?

If the latter is the case, then obviously they can't act as a canary in the gold mine.

You'll also notice that for many reporters their reporting abilities are secondary to their expertise in a subject matter. Which is not surprising if you think about it. If their job is more and more about reacting to events as they happen, then the most valuable skill they have is the ability to analyze said events.

A reporter not steeped in knowledge of their 'beat' has to call around and talk to 20 different people to figure out what the story really is. However, if the reporter is a near expert in the subject matter related to their beat, then they can make a quick couple of calls for comment and hit the presses with a story within hours.

The obvious problem with this however is whether they are as much of an expert as they think themselves to be. Which is where we fall in to this trend of the media being biased. You get one expert reporter at one outlet saying X and another at another outlet saying Y and the public doesn't know what to make of it. It's very rare nowadays not to read an article that is filled with commentary by the reporter themselves (versus the old 'just the facts 'mam' style).

Ultimately these things will work themselves out though. There are new media outlets cropping up all the time now. I'd have to say that I get more than 50 per cent of my news from outlets that have only been around for the past few years. I don't have anything against the major outlets, but I like getting detailed insight in to a story that you generally can't get with mainstream media.

As more and more people stumble on new media options it will ultimately push traditional media back towards 'getting the scoop' style journalism, versus simply commenting on breaking developments type journalism.

Until then, we can at least be thankful that the media is able to correctly pronounce people's names...

Elizabeth Warren could teach Obama a thing or two....

2011-09-25T08:34:00.002-07:00

I don't lean to the left when it comes to the economy, but Elizabeth Warren, who served as assistant to the president, definitely knows how to make a compelling case. Warren headed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and is now running for senate after Obama passed her over to actually run the Bureau as director.

In this campaign speech she hits her points perfectly and comes across as very authentic in her beliefs. This is exactly what Obama should be doing, but for some reason he can't find his rhythm.

This reinfoces a PR point I've said many times, which is you can't teach authenticity. While Obama is a great orator, he lacks authenticity, hence his reputation for being a teleprompter president.

Even the way Warren frames a question and then answers it herself with a definitive 'NO' is great PR. That's exactly how you do it. You always answer the question with a definitive answer and then articulate your various nuances. So many spokespersons do it the other way around. They start with the nuances "blah blah blah' and then end with 'So what I'm trying to say is No.'

Anyway, Warren is a great example of how you can play the 'class warfare' card without even using the term class warfare. Notice how she only brings it up once and only for the purpose of removing it from the conversation?

Actually, what she does that's very intelligent is how she reframes the debate away from 'class warfare' and shifts it to accountability - actually, shared accountability. This is always a great theme to base your messaging off of, because it resonates with people.

In addition, it also creates a tone in which future compromise can be had without people losing face, because if your opposition caves in they aren't seen as 'losing' but rather they are seen as 'being responsible'. If you don't want a war you have to give your enemy a way of surrendering without losing face.

Obama pulls out the tough love strategy...

2011-09-25T08:34:00.001-07:00

Obama spoke at the Congressional Black Caucus on Saturday. The key quote that came out of his speech was:

"I expect all of you to march with me, and press on," Obama said. "... Stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying. We are going to press on. We've got work to do." (at the 11:30 mark in the video below)

I was kind of surprised that he'd take such a forceful tone with a black audience who have suffered the most under Obama (with unemployment near 20 per cent).

My favorite quote of all time is by Gandhi (who Obama is apparently a huge fan of), who said: "Poverty is the worst form of cruelty." Although some say the quote is "Poverty is the worst form of violence."

So if Obama truly is a Gandhi fan, I'm a bit taken aback that he's saying to those living in poverty to stop complaining and stop crying. On the surface it seems like a dumb thing to say.

But from a PR perspective it's actually quite smart (yet also a big gamble). The reality is things are going to get worse over the next year, not better. So he has to get out in front of their anger and channel it away from him. The best way to do this, to slip in to a leadership role, is to try and embrace the 'parental' role.

In the same way that a parent will be harsh with a child for their own good, so Obama is attempting to be harsh with the black caucus in an effort to get them to view him as their parental figure (which is essentially as good as being seen in a leadership position). This will allow him to direct their anger away from him and towards his opponents (thereby garnering him votes).

Despite it being a good strategy, I don't think it will work.

Obama's big problem is that he has no 'street credibility' at this point (he doesn't talk the language of the common man if you will). He doesn't come from the streets. He doesn't know poverty, he's never lived in it and it shows. This is also his problem on the economy, he's never run a business or even worked in one and surprise surprise, businesses don't have confidence in him (partly because he doesn't talk in their language).

He's an academic that understands everything through an academic lens. And one thing about academics is that within academia, losing your cool is frowned upon. Which is why Obama finds it so hard to motivate his base right now, because he doesn't know how to lose his cool (it's a foreign concept to him, he's use to maintaining composure).

What Obama needs is a Malcolm X or Martin Luther King Jr moment (which I think he tried to have in this speech), but I don't think he's going to have it. There's just no way around it, he's no Malcolm X (who, in my opinion, puts Obama to shame when it comes to giving a speech).

We'll have to continue to watch whether this 'tough love' strategy plays out in his favor though. I think in six months from now when things are worse than they are today economy-wise, this hardline, rally the troops speeches he gives will fall flat. I think the turning point will be that at some point he's going to start hearing boo's from the audience, and then it will finally sink in that the people have lost confidence in him.

He's a smart guy, he's a brilliant speaker, but with the crisis currently unfolding, he lacks the authenticity required to lead the people through it. He just hasn't realized this yet and still believes that he can rise to the status of past great black leaders through calculated PR maneuvers in his speeches. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and he'll surprise me, but I don't think I am.

Listen to the Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. talks below and you'll hear a great example of what authenticity and conviction really sound like. I can't even imagine the kind of speeches Malcolm X would be giving today in light of current events, but I can tell you this much, the narrative in America would be very different than what it currently is.

Company refuses to cut staff, gains marketshare

2011-09-25T08:34:00.000-07:00

Great little story of a private company - Marvin Windows - that has refused to lay off any of its 4,300 employees.

This doens't surprise me. From what I've seen of private-based companies, owners will sacrifice greatly to protect their employees (it's a myth that the 'rich' don't care about people, at least from what I've seen). It also goes to show, which I've spoken about before, that it's our stock market model that is at the root of the cuts we've seen (maximizing profits in the short-term to appease shareholders, even if it be at the cost of long-term growth).

The president of Marvin Windows puts it perfectly...

While Marvin’s story might seem quaint, even naïve, Ms. Marvin says the no-layoff policy is as much a business wager as an act of benevolence. She says she is confident that it will ultimately pay off. Already, she says, Marvin is gaining market share from weakened rivals.

Ms. Marvin acknowledges that her family’s private company may have more leeway than public counterparts. It has forgone profits for two years to keep everyone employed, for instance. Nonetheless, Ms. Marvin suggests that corporate America could learn a thing or two from Marvin’s approach and long-term outlook.

“You can’t cut your way to prosperity. You can’t grow if you are cutting your lifeblood — and that’s the skills and experience your work force delivers,” she says, adding later: “Today, I think, to a great a degree, I think things have gotten out of balance. We see Wall Street almost punish companies that take the long view.”

While Marvin Windows may suffer in the short term (but they are going to suffer no matter what, it's just a question of what form that suffering takes), there's a great PR advantage here over the long-term. Standing by your employees is a positive in consumers' eyes. And when consumers feel loyalty to your company they are willing to pay more for your services and products because they WANT to buy from you over the competition.

Private companies can afford to implement this strategy because they don't answer to shareholders. Essentially, it's the private owners who take the hit in the form of less profits. But it will be a short-term hit that will pay huge dividends down the road as they not only protect their brand, but strengthen it in the minds of customers.

Obama's new tag line "Warrior for the middle class"

2011-09-22T13:47:00.000-07:00

You know, the other day I talked about 'superhero' campaigning. Right on queue Obama comes out today and says:

If asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or teacher makes me a warrior for the middle class, I'll wear that charge as a badge of honor.

You can read the full story here.

I'm sorry, but it's really laughable that three years in to his presidency he is now calling himself a 'warrior', when even his own base sees him as someone who sits on the fence more often than not and who tries to be seen as the 'compromiser in chief'. If he was really this so called 'warrior of the middle class' where was he when he first took office when it came to the middle class?

More to the point, why keep pretending like taxing the wealthy is going to create jobs. As I've said before, I don't care if you increase taxes on the wealthy, but it's dishonest to act like doing so will have any significant impact on unemployment or the deficit.

Yet again though, read the PR tea leaves. The fact that he is now using words like 'warrior' tell you everything you need to know about what his messaging strategy is going to be over the next 12 months. He's going to do his best to establish himself as the 'defender of the people' and the only way to do that is going to be to villify the wealthy and congress (specifically the republicans).

I think politicians should officially ditch the suit and tie and just start wearing spandex. If you want to pretend you are a superhero then you might as well go all the way =)

Anyway, I think he needs a new PR team. What we need is less mud-slinging and more confidence building. Americans don't want a 'warrior' they want jobs, they want to see their 401ks go up, they want to be able to buy a house (or in many cases, sell their house without going in to debt because it's underwater).

If you want to 'fight' against something, instead of wasting time fighting the wealthy, fight unfair trade tarrifs, wall street corruption, political campaign contributions, lobbying, etc.

Essentially clean up Washington like you said you were going to do.

James Carville wasn't so far off in offering Obama some good advice:

1. Fire a lot of people
2. Indict people
3. Stick to your rationale for decisions made and to be made in the future

If Obama had worked a single day in the corporate world he'd know this is exactly how a corporation responds when it's falling apart.

Case in point, HP just fired its CEO and announced Meg Whitmey will be the new CEO.

But Obama keeps coming at this like a tenure-driven university professor where no one ever gets fired, strategies never change and people 'fight it out' in academic debates and papers.

Oh well, I can't wait for Obama to compare the republicans to Dr. Doom or Magneto or some other such super villian.

Maybe the PR guys over at the World Wrestling Federation will be in high demand from political campaigns as we get closer to the 2012 elections.

WTF - Tobacco companies sponsor elementary schools in China?!!!!

2011-09-22T10:32:00.000-07:00

OK, now this is just messed up. Apparently in China tobacco companies are sponsoring elementary schools.

With strict regulations on tobacco in China - you can't smoke in public, you can't advertise on television or in print - the tobacco companies are reaching kids by sponsoring their schools.

Over 100 schools now have names like Sichuan Tobacco Hope Elementary School.

This is about as immoral as you can get when it comes to marketing.

Reasons reporters will delete your press release

2011-09-21T10:06:00.000-07:00

PR Daily News had a short article on five reasons a reporter will delete your news release. Let's forgo the irony that they used the digit 5 instead of using the word five in the article headline (a basic CP style rule), the five reasons a reporter will delete your news release were:

Send it to their personal email
Include the phrase ‘For Immediate Release.’
Fail to personalize it
Include a ton of copy and don’t hyperlink.
Include a typo

Keep in mind this article was written by a reporter. While you may think that advice from a reporter must be wholly accurate, I'd reconsider that assumption. I think PR people can tell you far better what will or won't cause you to lose traction with the media (because they've approached thousands of journalists... and not all journalists are the same!)

For instance, I'd disagree with his second and fifth point. Yes, you should never have a typo, but a reporter is not going to pass on a news item simply because there's a single typo in the news release. Yes, 1 out of 100 of them will, but the vast majority won't (unless it's a serious typo - for instance, instead of typing orange you type orangutan).

Also, 'for immediate release' is often a standard part of the news release template format. Again, I simply cannot imagine a reporter passing on a news item because of those words. Most reporters understand that the term 'for immediate release' is used more for the news release wire than for the journalists themselves.

Instead of looking at what will get your news release deleted, I think it's better to look at what will get your news release considered by a reporter. Some of the key variables that contribute to journalists taking an interest in your news include:

Having approached the reporter in the past so it isn't the first time they've heard of you
Contextualizing your announcement in relation to a bigger narrative and/or past stories the jourrnalist has written (personally I think this is the most important variable of them all)
Having a compelling headline that almost tells the story in-and-of itself.
Identifying value-add elements beyond the news release (spokespersons, statistics not mentioned, collateral, etc.)
Including links to video-content or images that expands on the news release
Keep your email as short as humanly possible (but no shorter than it needs to be to communicate the value of the story)
Pitch the right journalist (this is the number one mistake a lot of PR people make, pitching the wrong journalist. If your tech product is enterprise focused, don't pitch the consumer tech editor!)
Offer (if possible) external sources that augment your announcement - analysts and customers are great for this.

So there you have it. If you have all the above you'll be successful, even if you have a typo!

The key to approaching reporters is for your communication with them to impress that:

1) Your news matters to their readers
2) You have all the things they are going to need in writting their story
3) Your news factors in to larger trends / narratives playing out in the media