Kony 2012: It was everywhere – every news feed, every status update, every blog and publication and news outlet. In fact, if you haven’t heard of this phenomenon, I suggest you crawl out from the rock you’ve been living under and join the 21st century.

The ‘Kony 2012’ video was created by the organization Invisible Children to raise awareness about the atrocities committed by the Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony in an effort to help bring him to justice. The video was posted last week and received 100 million views in just six days, making ‘Kony 2012’ a bigger media sensation than Susan Boyle’s performance on ‘Britain’s Got Talent’.

The new epitome of viral video, ‘Kony 2012’ is not only a supremely compelling documentary, but also an incredibly interesting case study from a PR perspective. To start, the ubiquity of the video over the past week has been phenomenal. It spread through social media as well as traditional media outlets like nothing we’ve seen before. But how did it become such an event? It’s not as though Kony’s story is breaking news, and there have certainly been equally horrendous atrocities documented across the globe, but for some reason this particular video, among thousands of videos with similar content, really resonated with people. But again, why? What is it that makes a video become viral?

I have a somewhat cynical theory that relates the popularity of the Kony video to the Tom’s Shoes fad – it’s a great way for Americans to feel good about themselves while being trendy without actually having to really do anything. I suppose it’s a sad commentary on American lifestyle, but hey, it got the message out there.

Which brings me to my next point: yes, the video was a “clickable moment” and spurred countless donations and purchases. However, how much action will the video actually prompt? Will it actually help the cause? Will Joseph Kony be arrested and prosecuted based on the strides taken by Invisible Children? Unfortunately, its seems like due to poor PR on behalf of Invisible Children, the popularity of ‘Kony 2012’ could actually hinder efforts already underway. As soon as the video went viral so did the criticisms of Invisible Children’s background. Rumors circulated about the organization’s funding and leadership, and a great deal of controversy began to envelop the message they were trying to communicate. Only recently, one of the co-founders, Jason Russell was arrested under unseemly circumstances, which is, again, creating buzz and ink for ‘Kony 2012’ but doing nothing to help the cause.

This, in turn, illustrates one of the problems with receiving news through social media. It seems as though if the content is scandalous, shocking, or moving enough and there is sufficient hype around the story, people don’t really consider the source of the news. People tend to take in the information at face value without considering that there is no “gate keeper” or publisher or editor that makes judgment calls about the news we read. It is completely unfiltered and we are left to deem for ourselves what is valid information and what is not.

Overall, I think ‘Kony 2012’ delivers an important message about an important topic. It raises awareness about a serious global issue and was able to permeate the social web with unprecedented speed and reach. But the fact is, the public relations and personal issues of the Invisible Children may have hindered any positive attention that the viral video had attained for the cause. I’m still on the fence about whether the adage is true – is there really no such thing as bad press? All of the negative publicity may be keeping ‘Kony 2012’ in the news, but is it productive?

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: Invisible Children, Joseph Kony, Kony 2012, Social Media, Viral video

Share/Save

You see it almost every day on Twitter.

Journalists grumbling about PR people and how we’re apparently so annoying. They Tweet things like “the “spray and pray” PR pitches are arriving en masse this morning. Resistance appears futile.”

There are even some editors who’ve said on LinkedIn that female PR reps are especially annoying (true story!)
And now, an anonymous 35 year old PR executive apparently has it straight about all PR people.

Yes, Mr. Anonymous, we all send out crappy pitches and don’t do our research. None of us work hard to do our best for clients. At least, that is the scenario you have suggested.

But much of your rant is simply off base.

Okay, maybe some of us do open our notes with “hope all is well”.

Beyond that, however, some of us actually do try to ensure that we:
a) Don’t spam reporters
b) Only send news that is relevant to the editor we are approaching
c) Make the pitch as succinct as possible
d) Offer unique angles
e) Keep our story ideas fresh

Is there room for improvement? Yes. Always. But are we guilty of the PR crimes as charged by Mr. Anonymous? No, your honor, we are not.

But maybe you disagree? Let’s discuss.

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: PR Twitter Editor Journalist

Share/Save

Erik Sass asks that very question in Mediapost’s Social Graf blog. It was refreshing to read his post because rather than placing blame or expressing disbelief that such a PR disaster could occur, he gets right to the point of now that the damage is done, how can Susan G. Komen for the Cure recover? I also like how Sass keeps a clear eye on what everyone wants regardless of political affiliation, which is to stop breast cancer from killing people. Although this PR firestorm has brought some questionable fundraising practices to light, it’s undeniable that Komen has made a significant impact in the fight against breast cancer. I’ve seen a lot of Tweets, Facebook updates and blog posts stating that Komen has irretrievably damaged its brand by alienating both anti-abortion activists and Planned Parenthood supporters. Initially, I agreed with these sentiments, but now I think there’s almost always a chance for a brand to recover, and in the case of Komen, I’d like to see that happen as soon as possible so they can get back to what they do best.

Look at Toyota, for instance. They were in a publicity nightmare due to “unintended acceleration” resulting in deaths and injury, although what caused those incidents has yet to be determined. The company has taken a long term approach, using multiple marketing channels to communicate their commitment to solving the problem and to tell stories of loyal customers who are sticking with them. Komen should do the same. Refocus on their population. Tell true stories of Komen making a difference in people’s lives. Get that story out via mass media and social media channels. Repair the disconnect that seems to have occurred between Komen’s executive management and the grass roots supporters who are the lifeblood of the organization.

There are many people that Komen will never get back. Thankfully, other organizations in the fight against breast cancer can benefit from their contributions. But that doesn’t mean Komen can’t recover some of the people they’ve lost while still growing their organization through the countless number of people who unfortunately have been and will be impacted by breast cancer. As long as Komen stays on message with their core audience, there’s nothing to stop them from getting back on track and even going beyond what they’ve achieved already.

What do you think Susan G. Komen should do to repair the damaged brand?

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: Detroit Free Press, Komen, Mediapost, PR, Susan G. Komen for the Cure

Share/Save