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

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

OK, not so fast.

What’s got me going today is the topic of jobs. Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain, and the accusations flying around about his role in destroying (and creating) jobs with the blunt instrument of private capital, is everywhere in the news. Data-driven analyses of job trends are much harder to find than criticism of Romney, although this piece by Holman Jenkins in the Wall Street Journal is on point.

Anyone who’s been in the work world for more than a year knows what it is to fear his or her job is at risk. In a way we’re the lucky ones – we have jobs – but to be a private-sector employee is to live with uncertainty, to constantly worry if skills are up to date, your employer is financially viable, good recommendations are available, your personal network is bigger than you and your spouse/partner, gray hairs don’t show and so on. Being in a job today, in short, is no guarantee of having a job tomorrow.

Norma Clarke, a very wise woman who was VP of HR at the Open Software Foundation, once told me no one had the right to deny another person the basic dignity of a job.

Of course the comment above is out of context – we were having a discussion about a staffing problem – but her comment stuck with me, even if I don’t completely agree. I’ve been a manager, an employee and self-employed. I’ve worked for crazy people, lazy people, brilliant people and clueless people. I’ve worked with superb writers, designers and craftspeople, idiots-savant who were brilliant at certain things, entrepreneurs who were terrifying in their single-mindedness and manipulators whose malicious and selfish impulses nearly destroyed the workplace. Most of the people I’ve worked with and for have been decent, hardworking, intelligent and reasonable. But all of us – employers and employees alike – have always been at the mercy of the markets, the government and the inexorable march of technology. There is no guarantee of a job. There never has been.

Economists (Schumpeter is credited with coining the term) like to call one of the forces most affecting the average employee ‘creative destruction’. As Holman Jenkins points out in the WSJ today, it’s a continual process. What he doesn’t get to is what each of us can do to guard against becoming its victim.

In my fairly limited experience the only way to protect oneself from creative destruction is to keep moving. Constantly learn, retrain and expand your skills at every opportunity. Push for on-the-job training; read widely, take classes and go to networking events. Live as though every day is your first day on the job, and possibly your last day. Be prepared.

Back to where I don’t completely agree with Norma: carry your dignity within. We are not all, it turns out, afforded the dignity of a job or continuous employment. So don’t count on work to make you a whole person. Live with dignity and curiosity, and the job will come.

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: creativity, economy, jobs, Romney

Share/Save

Sounds quaint, doesn’t it?

And because I was a child of the 60s and 70s, we were encouraged to view women as equals, worthy of fair treatment in life and in the press. Strong, intelligent, capable and due the respect men automatically received. Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Germaine Greer fought for women’s rights. Steinem is still at it. While abstract arguments about the fair treatment of women may have advanced women’s causes – more women now graduate from college than men and more receive advanced professional degrees – real equality, and fair treatment, are still a fiction.

Especially in politics, and especially in the media’s treatment of women in politics.

What prompted this little trip into nostalgia and outrage is Newsweek’s treatment of Michele Bachman on this week’s cover.

Looks like a nut, doesn’t she?

Of course the article was written by a woman, Lois Romano (the magazine sports her flattering glamour shot) and the magazine is edited by a woman, Tina Brown. Bachman’s photo appears to be credited to Chris Buck (gender undetermined), but we’re checking that.

So here’s the outrage part: apparently we are supposed to believe that what’s been done to Bachman is ok, since it was done (largely) by women. After all, she’s a Tea Party nutcase, right?

But the journalists have put themselves into the story. Rather than presenting a neutral, normal picture with which to illustrate the story, they have chosen a photo because it makes Bachman look like a nutcase.

Bachman, of course, is not the only female politician to receive the madwoman/ fat girl treatment. Recall the many photos of Sarah Palin looking unhinged or impossibly coy (here’s a relatively benign snap that manages to make Palin look merely paranoid):

Of course Newsweek/The Daily Beast is not the only offender. Here’s Sonia Sotomayor looking like she needs a haircut:

And candidate Hilary Clinton looking a bit zaftig:

Political men, on the other hand, receive different treatment (especially if they are Democrats):

The candidate Barack Obama:

Former President Bill Clinton:

Harry Reid, looking thoughtful:

Sadly, things really haven’t changed much since the 70s. Sure, women are in the workplace (earning less than men, unless, of course, they are single and childless) and hold positions of political power (however, women are now only 17 percent of Congress – we lost seats after the most recent mid-term election.)

It remains true that women, especially when they seek positions of power, are suspect, and portrayed as edge cases. And heaven help them if they’re conservative.

It’s a story that’s getting really old. And as a trained journalist who works with the media every day, it’s never easy watching the wall between news reporting and creative writing blur.

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Journalism, Michelle Bachman, Portrayal of Women in the Media, Sarah Palin, Sonia Sotomayor

Share/Save

Man live-tweets Bin Laden operation – A Pakistani man live-tweeted the raid that killed Bin Laden – the most wanted terrorist in the world. As he strangely heard the noise of a helicopter above him he started tweeting about what he heard. Quickly, he gained 14,000 followers. He continued to blog about the noises that he was hearing and became the first to document the operation. This goes to show the power of 140 characters.

Android phones will have video chat capabilities – Google recently revealed that it is adding video chat capabilities to the Android phone. This will allow users to chat from their phones, computers or tablets – however these capabilities are only available if you have an Android 2.3 version – it also requires 3G, 4G or a WiFi connection. Is this about time or right on time?

Julian Assange says Facebook is a way for the government to spy on you – WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange recently was interviewed by Russia Today. During the interview he called Facebook “the most appalling spy machine that has ever been invented.” Harsh words, but he does have some reasoning behind it. While the government doesn’t run Facebook, they do have access to the database of information that people willingly make public. What do you think – is he just talking crazy?

Now it’s time for the PRobecast PR Power Ranking – which is when we go around the room and pick the story that we think ranks the highest PR-wise – meaning any aspects of PR could be the reasoning behind the pick. Is it the story itself, good data that was used, what’s getting the most pickup, was it a good PR move the company made, etc.

This week’s winner is the live-tweeting of the Bin Laden operation story. This just shows how social media has become such a significant factor into our every day lives. Social media allows people to become self-publishers, and while most people will never get recognition from their tweets – in this instance, it let a regular guy be the first to document one of the biggest events in history.

What story do you think should have won?

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: Android, Bin Laden, Facebook, Google, Julian Assange, Twitter, video chat

Share/Save

Image Courtesy of PBS.org

The Obama administration is now backing legislation that would protect the personal data of internet users which, in my humblest opinion, is a step in the right direction from last year’s call for voluntary codes of conduct for advertisers and data companies.

Of course, said advertisers and data aggregators will whine and complain until they’re blue in the face, defending their more or less shady practices as integral to giving internet users a relevant advertising experience – which is somewhat true if you’ve accepted the fact that the advertising is going to be there anyway.

However, a recent shopping experience has inspired me to question whether or not these advertising experiences are truly relevant. I don’t normally wear a watch (or any jewelry) but while leafing through a magazine last week I spotted a totally rad all-black Swatch and, being the nostalgic child of the 80’s and victim of consumer culture that I am, I decided that I must have it for my birthday – which is in a few days (feel free to send gifts via paypal). It has come to my attention that all week I’ve been seeing advertisements for the exact same Swatch I ordered and a few other ones that I had looked at. How is that a relevant advertising experience if I’ve already bought the item?

Totally Rad!

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind advertising and tracking so much while I’m shopping, the aggregators have recommended very cool t-shirt websites on more than one occasion, but I’ve always felt that the key aspect of this (and myriad other issues) is choice – consumers should have the option of whether or not they want their information available to advertisers – and apparently Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz feels the same way as the commission has proposed a ‘do not track’ option.

“We don’t think tracking is per se bad at all,” said Leibowitz. “We just think that consumers should be able to opt out of tracking. … You should have the right not to be followed around if you don’t want to be followed around.”

For those of you who despise tracking and can’t wait for legislation to pass (if it passes), apparently the new Internet Explorer 9 from Microsoft has an anti-tracking feature but a recent article from Computing UK suggests that it may be flawed.

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: Advertising, Federal Trade Commission, Internet Explorer 9, Jon Leibowitz, Microsoft, Obama administration, Swatch

Share/Save

Apple announced on February 15 that it would be starting a new subscription service for publishers to sell the electronic versions of their magazines and newspapers on mobile devices such as the  iPad through Apple’s online app store. However, publishers will be forced to offer their lowest subscription rates and Apple will be taking a 30% cut of every subscription sold, like they did with songs purchased from the iTunes store.

Apparently, Google launched a rival service the very next day that features an alternative payment model that offers more flexibility, while requiring a smaller (10%) share of publisher revenue.

What are your thoughts on this? Do the new services offered by Apple and/or Google violate anti-trust laws?

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: Anti-Trust, Apple, Google

According to DailyTech.com, Speak2Tweet was developed over the weekend – allowing Egyptians to hear tweets and leave tweets by calling a specific telephone number – no internet necessary. Messages are tweeted with the hashtag Egypt (#egypt).

I know there are plenty of ways to communicate without using the internet, especially in a time of great strife for a country, but to have something that has become so basic be stripped so easily is atrocious. It also makes a bold statement – the internet is a powerful force that can not only connect you to the word but also connect and unite people for a common cause. Kudos to Google for finding a work-around, and doing it so quickly to boot.

What do you think of Speak2Tweet – was it necessary?

Share on Facebook

Share/Save

According to a report from the Associated Press, it was social media like Facebook that has helped the Tunisian people to organize protests and break the barriers of fear and silence that have been keeping their emotions bottled up for so long.  “Video-sharing sites like YouTube and Daily Motion are banned in Tunisia, where newspapers are tightly censured, but Facebook abounds and videos posted there are quickly spread around.”

Once again we are witnessing the power of social media and how it can be so much more than just a means of sharing the agonizing minutiae of our everyday lives with the rest of the world…

Share on Facebook

Share/Save

Zuckerberg is the latest recipient of the award, whose criteria isn’t academic but rather based on the person, idea, group of people or object that “for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year.”

Well, it’s about time (pun intended)! Over the past five years, social media has had a profound effect on… well, just about everything. Facebook is to VHS what Myspace is to Beta, and they can now boast to having at least a half-billion members around the world, sharing thoughts, pictures and staying in touch in real-time.

However, social media isn’t just for complaining, letting people know you’re about to take a shower, which restaurant you’re eating at or posting incriminating pictures of you and your friends/family. Social media has become an incredibly powerful tool that can be a more effective instrument of social change than diplomacy or weaponry.

Whether we like it or not, social change is going to occur all over the world, for better or worse, and social media is now a mass medium. I would have been a bit more satisfied if Social Media itself had won the award, like the computer did in 1982 but nevertheless, I salute you Mr. Zuckerberg.

Meanwhile, millions of Apple Fanboys and Fangirls will almost certainly be whining about how Person of the Year should be Steve Jobs, who has still never won the award.

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: Facebook, Man of the year, Mark Zuckerberg, Social Media, Time Magazine

Share/Save