In late January RIM replaced its co-CEOs Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis with COO Thorsten Heins. As a now-former Blackberry user (I just switched to the HTC Rezound) this news certainly got my attention.

I expected to hear Heins address all the concerns of Blackberry users like frequent “white screen of death” issues, latency and even my chief concern (since I am becoming kind of a nut about this stuff), Blackberry models having some of the highest radiation in the industry.

Instead, the headlines were that Heins believes no major changes were necessary, or as Bloomberg Businessweek put it, RIM is “Staying is the Course”.

Bloomberg’s Peter Burrows and Hugo Miller’s article essentially skewered Heins for this – and used a Blackberry buried in a grave to depict where they really thought RIM is headed. This is about the worst image a PR person wants to see, yet it was no great shock because Heins didn’t say the right things in his interviews. This is a shame because it was his golden opportunity to do so. A new CEO’s first public outing is the chance for him/her to state goals, address challenges, explain the way forward and, ideally, re-shape people’s perceptions.

Had I been on the public relations team counseling Heins I would have told him to accentuate the positive while acknowledging challenges. I’d have counseled him to state the big ones, which would give him a chance to explain the steps the company is taking to tackle problems. Everyone knows RIM has serious issues. It is ridiculous to try to hide them. The trick is to re-frame the discussion while addressing how problems are going to be fixed.

The old adage “honesty is the best policy” may sound a bit old fashioned, but when you are talking about a company like RIM, and the state it’s in, they would have been better served by being open and honest. Unfortunately it is too late for Heins’ public introduction.

Perhaps moving forward RIM will learn from its mistakes and carve out a better public relations outcome. To change perceptions they must publicly acknowledge the obvious – significant products are necessary not only to stave off Apple, but also to stay relevant in the mobile marketplace.

Maybe they’d even win back former customers like me.

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: RIM Blackberry Public Relations PR

Share/Save

Unlike (too) many of my posts, this will be mostly about PR – the PR nightmare resulting from the presidential candidates’ lack of transparency and foresight, and near-terminal indecision, with special attention to Mitt Romney’s PR fumbles.

The quick lesson: if you’re in a public role, either as a business leader or a politician, plan for the worst. PR people can help you: we’re natural-born catastrophizers. We see downside everywhere; it’s part of the job description. First we think of something positive about a client’s products, services and value proposition and then we turn around and attack those assumptions from all angles. It’s the only way to prepare for the tough questions inevitable from the press and, at some point, consumers.

Apparently Mitt Romney thought he was immune from catastrophe. Either that or his PR counsel didn’t worry enough about worst-case scenarios, especially with regard to timing of disclosure of details of his taxes, financial status and the disposition of his investments. Perhaps he was holding the story for the fall when the Democrats would certainly raise a challenge, and his PR counsel went along with it (which seems inexplicable). Whatever. The strategy failed. His own side attacked, making things much easier for the incumbent and making the GOP look like a pack of clowns.

As a mostly-private person I am on Romney’s side. I wouldn’t disclose that information. But he chose a public life, and with the choice comes a diminution of personal rights, especially the right to privacy. (That’s a whole separate subject with Google’s Monday announcement.)

It doesn’t matter that Gingrich soaked Freddie Mac for millions as an ‘historian’ or that John Kerry hides behind Teresa Heinz Kerry and tried to fool people and dodge taxes by berthing his (New Zealand built, for shame) boat in Newport, R.I. It doesn’t matter that the Kennedys built their fortune rum-running, or the Bushes through banking and oil. It doesn’t matter that Bill Clinton is cleaning up, post House impeachment and general running around, giving speeches. What matters is Romney was caught flat-footed, and it’s critical for a politician to be on the front foot, anticipating everything.

PR, properly strategized and executed, keeps you on the front foot. It helps you prepare for questions you don’t want to answer. It makes you consider a position from many points of view. No one is immune from catastrophe. Plan accordingly.

Share on Facebook

Share/Save

Our media love scaring us. Whatever the issue, even when the government, allied advocacy groups, and media, are correct about the problem and solution, they can’t help but send a message in such a way that terrifies the general populace into thinking if they don’t do what the “experts” think is best, they will die a slow and painful death.

The newest controversy is about anti-obesity ads targeting children. NPR focuses in on Georgia, a state with the second-highest obesity rate in the nation, where close to 1 million children reportedly obese. The ads show obese children ‘scared’ of what’s happening to them and why they’re fat. Those children are accompanied by graphic images of other fat children or horrible diseases one gets from obesity, such as hypertension. Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, which is spending $25 million on a five-year campaign to fight obesity, justified the scary tone it’s setting:

“It has to be harsh. If it’s not, nobody’s going to listen,” says Linda Matzigkeit, vice president of Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, the pediatric hospital running the campaign.

Rodney Lyn of Georgia State University’s Institute of Public Health disagrees with the tone of the campaign, saying,

“This campaign is more negative than positive…We know that stigmatization leads to lower self-esteem, potential depression. We know that kids will engage in physical activity less because they feel like they’re going to be embarrassed.”

Both of the individuals are correct. People are naturally lazy, and if they aren’t scared, they won’t do something because they ‘don’t have the time’ (read: interest) in taking care of their health. The result? Millions spent on healthcare that could be saved if they weren’t so fat. That said, Lyn is correct that the campaign is a scare tactic designed to make kids and parents feel if they don’t immediately take action, they will suffer drastically. The fear-mongering is not necessary to inform the public about the dangers of obesity: too much scaring could lead either to more psychological problems, or more visits to the Emergency Room that increase wait time and over exhaust doctors, when those problems could have been solved at home instead.

I personally side with Matzigkeit (names NOT to be tested on the spelling), and say there are times fear-mongering is a good thing. Having just returned from Israel, I can contrast the foods eaten and portion sizes (smaller, more fruits and veggies, more natural) there to America (processed, hormone-injected, larger, more salt) and I felt like I ate much healthier there than I do here. Given the difficulty then of getting people into good eating habits (myself included) is no doubt difficult, but scaring them to take actions that ultimately lower healthcare costs might work.

What do you think? Is it justified for government and advocacy groups to scare people into doing something if it makes a positive difference? Or should they try to educate people rationally and make them see why eating healthier is better, all without fear-mongering?

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: Advocacy group, Atlanta, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Georgia, NPR, Obesity, Public health, United States

Share/Save