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

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