iPad Name Equals Apple PR Blunder

Early indications are that Apple made a mistake using the term iPad to name its newest product (an eBook-reader).

The Apple iPad (photo courtesy of iLounge)

Within minutes of the official disclosure of the iPad name, the first negative missives began to hit the Internet, equating the term “pad” within iPad to a feminine hygiene napkin.

Soon the term iTampon began appearing on Twitter, with many tweets chastising Apple’s public relations and marketing department for not contemplating that at least some women might be offended with the iPad name. Other tweets provided indecorous comparisons between a feminine pad, the iPad and a tampon — hence, the emergence of the mocking, farcical term: iTampon.

In fact, by 4:30 p.m. (PST), iTampon had supplanted iPad in microblog posts on Twitter and had become the No. 2 “Currently Trending” term on Twitter (according to Tweetstats).

Look, it’s bad enough that my wife makes me buy feminine hygiene products for her and our girls at the grocery store. But iPad?!?! Are you kidding me?

I’m surprised someone inside of Apple’s distortion reality field didn’t stand up and say,

“Steve, ya know, half of the potential customers for this product might think of a sanitary napkin when they hear the name iPad.”

But maybe that’s just me. Am I off base here or not?

I think not. I’m convinced Apple made a major PR faux pas with the iPad name, a real marketing blunder.

That’s why I’m giving Apple a “Sad Betty Award” for launching this new product as the iPad.

Last thought. Expect the late night hosts to start joking about the iPad as early as tonight, but no later than tomorrow for sure!

Hoping for the best: AIG and transparency

As of today, nearly $200 billion from tax-payers’ money has been given out to AIG in order to save them from a financial crisis.

 In October last year we learned that in return, some of its executives went on a $440,000 retreat to a luxurious resort and spa.  At the time, and after reading those headlines I wondered how their public relations department was going to handle such a communicational crisis.

A couple of months have passed by, and we now find that AIG is giving out $165 million in bonuses.  Now I start wondering if there is such thing as a PR department at AIG!

Why is it that nobody told AIG that after misusing bailout money the first time they were not supposed to do it again? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results, and AIG is doing it again!

After a flood of news, comments expressed by top government officials, and even comedian Stephen Colbert asking for a mob against top executives at AIG, I ask myself: what could AIG do different.

In my eyes the answer is simple yet difficult: Transparency. AIG and its communications team have to come out and tell the American public what their plans are for those billions and billions of dollars. If they proceed to misuse bailout money over again, they will in turn have even more negative coverage by the media, and even worse government regulation.

Americans are not asking for a “tweet” for every single penny AIG spends. Americans are expecting honesty and trustworthiness from a company that is surviving on their tax money.

AIG’s communications team has to step up and do something about this. As experts they ought to give their top executives crisis communication and prevention training.

With transparency, AIG will not only regain some of its lost public image or sympathy, it will be able to regain the trust of investors and the government.

AIG has to be accountable for its actions, and then, maybe then it will be able to emerge clean out of this whole mess.

The ball is now on AIG’s side, and we hope they make the right move this time…

CNBC: Enjoying the Media Attention?

Love the network, or hate it, CNBC is riding high right now from what some may call ‘negative publicity.’ What I saw as the start to the war of words against CNBC, came from a rant by Jon Stewart, the host of the highly popular show called, “The Daily Show.” Stewart had another rant aimed at one of CNBC’s most famous hosts, Jim Cramer, with a follow up here, ultimately leading to a show (that probably raked in the ratings) when the two faced off on Stewart’s show.

All of this focus on CNBC has me wondering about one of the most profound questions effecting the PR industry, with opinions varying depending on who you ask: Is all press good press?

If I worked for CNBC my answer would be a resolute YES! Why? Even on Stewart’s own show, which is to be a humorous look at the days news (even though more often than not, they delve into very serious questions–often from a left-leaning perspective–and aren’t afraid to shy away from the tough questions to its guests), he showed video footage of the coverage his rant about Cramer received.

And since then, the New York Times published an article about how CNBC is thriving right now, not the least of which is because of the attention its been receiving from other media. From the article, “Whether the attention is positive or negative, it is certain that this tumultuous financial season is CNBC’s reason for being. One month shy of its 20th anniversary, CNBC is being jokingly called “the recession network” within the halls of its headquarters in New Jersey.” The article goes on to say “CNBC is a boon to NBC Universal’s bottom line; it has posted record profits for at least the last three years, and Mr. Hoffman says the first quarter of 2009 has been ‘very strong’ for the network.”

Time Magazine also got into the mix talking about the networks recent stance as the anti-Obama network, standing behind Wall Street, and not as most papers appear to be sympathizing with the folks who have been affected by what many have called the poor decision making by Wall Street. Regardless of your stance on this issue (which is a post for an entirely different blog :-), CNBC appears to be the big winner in all of this.

For me, the answer to the question depends on what the “press” is about–so in that sense, I don’t believe all press is good press.

I’d love to hear your take on the CNBC debate and/or your thoughts on whether or not you agree with the statement: “No press is bad press.”

On-the-Record? Yes, Always! And it Cuts Both Ways!

A few weeks ago I was at the monthly luncheon of the Utah County Chapter of the PRSA listening to Derek Garduno (a former Politis Communications employee), address the audience. (Derek’s currently the Communications Manager for the Utah Jazz.)

During his presentation, Derek shared a truism I had taught him years before when he was fresh out of college. Specifically,

“You’re always on-the-record.”

For those of you not trained in public relations or journalism, on-the-record is a term used by reporters and journalists that means that what you are saying (or doing) is fair game to be reported and can end up in the evening news, in tomorrow morning’s paper or in someone’s blog that’s getting posted in the next two minutes.

Sometimes it’s possible to go off-the-record to provide selected and trusted journalists with information - typically for contextual, background purposes - and not be quoted in a story.

However, not everyone can be trusted (journalists included).

So as a rule, we advise our clients and employees to simply adapt the attitude that you’re always on-the-record when speaking to a journalist, even if a reporter agrees that something is “off-the-record.” That way you play it safe and minimize the risk of getting burned by an unscrupulous and/or overzealous journalist.

So that’s the background. Now for the juicy parts of what happened earlier today and why I’m writing this specific post.

= = = = = = = = = =

In summary, after apparently not getting the help/information he wanted from a Toronto, Canada-based tech PR/marketing specialist, David George-Cosh (tech reporter with the National Post) went off on a phone call with said PR specialist.

At roughly 1 p.m. (EST) April Dunford, the PR specialist, posted the following on her Twitter account (@AprilDunford):

Reporter to me”When the media calls you, you jump, OK!?” Why, when you called me and I’m not selling? Newspapers will get what they deserve

[NOTE: Not counting the red text, this is exactly how the tweet appeared.]

Then began what can only be called a very public (and embarrassing) digital breakdown on the part of reporter George-Cosh, with the reporter dropping F-bombs onto Twitter directed at Dunford, and getting upset because of what she posted onto Twitter. (His Twitter handle is @sirdavid.)

Interestingly, Dunford did NOT disclose George-Cosh’s identity in her original tweet. It was apparently only after he repeatedly attacked her on Twitter that Dunford disclosed who the reporter was: George-Cosh.

For the record, if you look up George-Cosh’s Twitter account, it is (as of 9:30 p.m. EST) totally locked up with all of his updates “protected.” His blog also seems to be down: http://strangehold.com/blog/. His bio on the NP.com page is also missing.

However, you can read the blow-by-blow description here on Ian Capstick’s MediaStyle blog.

Learning a Lesson from a Twitter-based Têtê à Têtê Tornado

What’s the takeaway from all of this? It’s simple: You’re always on the record.

And in today’s Me Media world where literally anyone can become (and probably is) their own publisher, you have to be really careful about what you say and do when you’re around anyone.

And the higher profile you have (like being a tech reporter for one of the leading media outlets in Canada), the greater the likelihood your conduct will come under public scrutiny - and ridicule.

In other words, there is no such thing as off-the-record!

= = = = = = = = = =

UPDATE: At 6:18 p.m. (EST) today, the Editor of the National Post published the following apology on the NP’s Website:

“We hold — and will continue to hold — all our reporters to a higher standard in how they address anyone, in any forum.

The TechCrunch Manifesto

The PR/Journo — Sharks and Jets — fight just went another round thanks to everybody’s favorite tech blogger Michael Arrington. Michael is no newcomer to slamming down the PR industry. The problem with this back and forth, I believe, is that it’s more about egos than actually fixing a problem — and that’s on both sides of this little war 2.0.

No one likes to be told what they’re doing is wrong, that’s a fact. And changing the behavior of an industry takes a lot more than a vicious, embarrassing blog post by a journalist/blogger. While it seems cliche to say, the only thing constant these days is change. We are all learning, both on the PR side and the journalist side. The lines have blurred, however, because there are a lot of bloggers who get the online media tools a lot better than some journalists and therefore become a very visible, vocal minority for the journalism field.

A discussion that has still not been put to rest: Are bloggers journalists? The answer, I think is yes, but it depends. Do I consider TechCrunch journalists, sure, they report the news in a timely fashion, while they are subjective, that’s why I read blogs, and that’s the difference between a blog and a newspaper. But the heart of story finding and reporting are both present in blogs. I like working with bloggers, they usually are more down to earth, and more open to building a relationship. But, this latest tirade by Arrington leads me to question my stance on whether I can/should lump bloggers in with journalists.

Arrington’s antics include the announcement that his tech news site, TechCrunch, will no longer honor NDAs and embargoes. Wow! Talk about killing a fly with an axe. This is really too bad, because it creates a couple problems for journalists, PR peeps and companies trying to get coverage:

• TechCrunch is a huge site, and has a tremendous following. How many PR peeps or companies will think twice before offering TechCrunch exclusives.
• TechCrunch’s stance gives the journos a bad image. Let’s be honest, NDAs have been broken, but to outright say that one will give his/her word and then break it, come on! There are a lot of good journalists who are willing to honor these agreements because it’s good for them, their publication and their readers.
• Trust is a huge part of the relationship between PR peeps, companies and journalists. Throwing that out will create a very chaotic, back-stabbing environment and no one will prosper — not TechCrunch, not anybody.

Sure, we can all do a better job.

But I think this response is ridiculous. I understand Michael’s frustration. How about on the PR side? When a blogger or journalist breaks an embargo, we look bad too, and it hurts our relationships as well. But taking the low road is always wrong. Honestly, I’d rather a reporter tell me “no, I won’t honor embargoes,” and show some integrity, than to lie about it.

This is a problem to which I don’t know if there is a simple solution. I can’t control what other PR peeps do any better than Michael can control how well his competitors enforce embargoes. But I do know that this is a foolish stance to take. I think the bigger company has the bigger responsibility. I also think this needs to be an ongoing discussion, PR folks obviously benefit from the media, and if I’m doing my job right, the media benefits from what I’m doing — whether I pitch the story, or just put the facts and info out there to be found.

Here’re what others in the industry have said about the No Embargo Manifesto:

Fantastic, thanks a lot. Besides being dishonest and douchebaggy in a purely human sense, it is basically a Hobbesian rebellion against the social contract and industry norms that we all follow for our own good. If everyone keeps the embargo, everybody–including the reader–wins. If one publication, acting in self interest, breaks embargoes as a matter of policy, everybody loses, including the rebelling publication.

~Kyle Monson, Web Editor at PC Mag

And this,

But in this bruising contest, TechCrunch clearly does not dominate, based on its size, as it did with the easier press release exclusives. In the new environment, in fact, tiny little voices that are accurate and insightful have just as much impact.

So, my takeaway from Arrington’s rant could be boiled down to three words: “GIVE ME EXCLUSIVES!”

~Kara Swisher, BoomTown

Michael is definitely outspoken, and while I don’t agree with his choice to blatantly violate embargoes, I do think savvy PR minds should weigh in.

What are your thoughts?

PR Gaffe Gives Nike Black Eye

When is the winner of a race not the winner of a race? Simple: When other racers don’t know what’s happening with all of the other racers or teams during a race.

Clear as mud? Let’s be more specific.

As I wrote yesterday on the SOAR Communications blog (see “Fastest Runner Finally ‘Wins’ Nike Women’s Marathon“), Arien O’Connell (photo above) posted the fastest time in this past Sunday’s race in San Francisco. However, because O’Connell didn’t start the race with the elite runners some 20 minutes before the 20,000 other runners, O’Connell’s time of 2:55:11 didn’t put her on the winner’s podium or give her the winner’s prizes.

Not fair. Maybe. But them’s the rules, both Nike’s and those of USA Track and Field. And for good reasons.

You always have at least two competitors in a race - other racers and yourself. Truth be told, the strategies and tactics that go into running a race don’t always mean running flat out from start to finish. In fact, sometimes the person who wins is she who has the best plan going into the race or he to adapts the best to the unfolding drama on the course.

Unfortunately, for Nike, few people outside of competitive/professional runners realize such strategies and/or rules exist.

Nevertheless, Nike could have had all of the runners start at the same time - apparently that’s their plan for next year’s Nike Women’s Marathon.

But this year, after word got out that O’Connell’s fastest time didn’t win the Nike Women’s Marathon all heck broke loose. Hundreds of comments, most negative toward Nike, were attached to online stories and blog posts.

Brian Solis of FutureWorks fame wrote an impressive blog post providing good background on the race (his wife and mom ran in the marathon), and then he appropriately lambasted Nike for dropping the PR ball in this instance.

Remember: Companies like Nike sponsor and/or produce events like marathons for very specific corporate goals. In the case of this marathon, I believe the three main purposes of the race were to A) raise money for cancer research, B) celebrate female athletes and “average” runners, and C) promote Nike.

Several days after the race, Nike backtracked (kind of) and named O’Connell “a” winner in the race. Not THE winner - A winner. She also got the same prize package as THE winner.

And as mentioned above, Nike also announced it will NOT have separate start times for elite runners and the rest of the pack in next year’s contest.

At the end of the day, these were the correct steps for Nike to take. But my heck, what a mistake by Nike and its marketing & PR teams to not honor O’Connell on race day.

If such an event had NEVER occurred before (a non-elite runner’s results surpassing those of a top elite finisher), that would be one thing.

But literally days before the running of the Nike Women’s Marathon a similar result had occurred with the Chicago Marathon when the fourth best time was posted by a non-elite runner. Except in this instance, Wesley Korir did NOT receive the $15,000 in prize money awarded to the 4th place finisher.

How did Nike not know this? And even if they didn’t know this had happened, how is it that a company dedicated to sport and celebrating the competitive nature of the human spirit didn’t immediately step forward and declare to the world,

“Wow! Look what happened. We’re so excited by Arien’s best time finish, we’re going to award her a prize package identical to the ‘official’ 1st Place finisher!”

Then everyone would have joined in celebrating with O’Connell and Nike, instead of decrying the company’s lack of fair play and its corporate callousness.

Nike gets a “Sad Betty” Award in my book, even if they did the right thing eventually.

They just didn’t “Do It” from the get-go, and that’s the problem.

Media Relations Rules #2 and #3

This really seems to be a busy day for PR/media relations goof ups. Rule and tips number two and three come courtesy of the Utah Democratic Party.

Rule #2

Always double check your facts, in fact, for something that could go national, triple check your facts. The Utah Democratic Party thought it would be a good idea to attack Gov. Palin for her affiliation with a supposed anti-Mormon religion. The rub here: the religion is not, in fact, anti-Mormon, and she hasn’t gone to the church in about five years. Come on! We’ve got to do better than this, these are amateur, semi-pro mistakes!

[Link to KSL story and link to official news release from the Utah Democratic Party]

This gaffe leads me to media relations rule #3.

Rule #3

Always have the person you are quoting in a release or statement or media brief, whatever, review his or her quotes. This seems like a hassle sometimes, but trust me, it will pay off in the end in a variety of ways.

The Chairman of the Utah Democratic Party told the Salt Lake Tribune that he hadn’t seen the news release that was sent out by the Party. Really?! Maybe the Utah Dems need to go find a new director of communications.

I really hope this isn’t the future of the PR industry, if it is, we’re all in trouble!

Blogs vs Traditional Journalism: Are Lines Being Blurred?

According to some bloggers,and traditional media/journalists the Associated Press (AP) is trying to change it’s style.

If the new AP boss in Washington has his way, gone are the days were journalistic writing stays objective and covers both sides of an issue, and new are the days where emotive language and first person writing become the norm.

My first response after reading this news was that true journalistic integrity will be ruined if personal feelings, which many already speculate are clouding good media judgement, interfere with an accurate portrayal of the news. However, after reading a separate article from Ragan’s Daily Headlines it became clear that a lot of bloggers were up in arms about the announcement, which made me wonder why. (more…)

Deseret News Cuts 34 Positions as Ad Revenues Fall 32%

The Deseret News (the daily newspaper started more than 150 years ago by Brigham Young), has eliminated 34 editorial positions in a cost-cutting move following a 32 percent in advertising revenues since January 2008.

According to Paul Beebe’s story in today’s Salt Lake Tribune (the cross-town and cultural rival of the DNews), the Deseret News had had 200 journalists on its staff, which was pared down through layoffs, buyouts and attrition.

As part of the cutbacks, the DNews will no longer publish a separate edition in Utah County, arguably the most conservative county in the state that bears the nickname of “Happy Valley.” The paper will, however, continue to staff a pared back bureau in Utah County (currently based in Orem near the top of the so-called “diagonal,” the stretch of 1200 North that drops into Provo from the plot of land housing University Mall).

The DNews has, however, closed is bureau in Washington, D.C. It will also do away with its standalone business section, which will be moved into its “first” or A section of the paper.

(more…)

Are you a flack or a flak?

I’ve often wondered the origin of this nickname for PR pros, well look no further, you can read the answer here.

So are you a ‘flack’ or a ‘flak’? (post your answers in the comments section)

[Photo courtesy: Journal of Combat Missions]