Tag: public relations strategy

Facebook officially goes to Washington

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Since at least 2009, Facebook has kept an office here in Your Nation’s Capital, but the company became an official part of the DC community this week when their PR consultant got caught trying to recruit bloggers to write anti-Google stories.

As consulting snafus go, this is pretty mild – especially when a reading of the original emails suggests that the PR consultant was not doing anything wrong, underhanded, or illegal.  This isn’t Jack Bonner’s “contractors” cooking up fake letters, it’s a PR person recruiting someone to sign an op-ed – in other words, exactly what they are paid to do.

The problem is they asked the wrong person.  Sure, Chris Soghoian lists himself as a “security and privacy” researcher.  But the name of his blog is “Slight Paranoia.”  That’s the type of blogger who asks questions about why you’re barking up his tree and encouraging him to take a public stance against Google.

The situation highlights how  trying to wage public affairs battles anonymously can backfire.  Clearly, Facebook wanted to sling mud without getting their hands dirty.  But they had a legitimate point about Google and privacy.  Google collects an enormous amount of information on people, many times without users understanding how they are sending that information.  People have had beefs with Facebook on privacy, but the information you put out on Facebook is information you actively put on the internet; if the world suddenly knows you like My Little Pony and Elmer’s Glue it’s because you signed up for a Facebook account and clicked “like” on those pages, you sick, pathetic degenerate.

Facebook isn’t the only big player going after Google; both MicroSoft and AT&T have put big money into public policy campaigns taking shots at everything from privacy to intellectual property.

Like those other companies and many others in all kinds of industries, though, Facebook figured out that the government’s activities could impact their business.  Because they tried (through their PR agent) to get too cute, Facebook’s message on privacy is obscured because of a tactical misstep.

Welcome to Washington.

Small is huge nowadays

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Two seemingly unrelated pieces of patriotism struck me as oddly similar this week.  The first was, obviously, the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.  The second was the not-quite-safe-for-work homage to George Washington from cartoonist Brad Neely.

Neely’s work is kind of out there, but for those who share his sense of humor it’s spot on.  (A sample line: “And we danced, like those people in the hyper-tight light of fried chicken commercials!”  Seriously, what does that even mean?)  Even with limited exposure in venues like Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim, Neely’s two or three minute videos are especially suited to a YouTube audience.

Obviously, the Navy SEALS who took down bin Laden crafted a much more significant piece of work on Sunday.  Their achievement, though, was a reflection of a changing military environment just as Neely’s videos reflect a changing media environment.

The major military conflicts to stop terrorism after September 11 targeted nations – specifically, Afghanistan and Iraq.  The plan was to smoke out terrorists by pressuring state sponsors of terrorism.  We found that the strength of our armored columns had limited effectiveness confronting the independent contractors who made up Al Qaeda’s network.  We could contain the snake, but we couldn’t do the one thing we set out to do.

It’s significant, then, that the bin Laden kill mission was set up by intelligence and espionage, and executed by a couple dozen elite servicemen.  There was no invasion of Pakistan, simply a precise action focused on a single piece of property within the country.  One can’t help but suspect that had our leaders not announced the mission’s success, the rest of the world might never have known bin Laden was dead.

A small, elite unit was all it took to snuff out the world’s leading terrorist.  George Washington (who crossed the Delaware for a surprise attack) would be proud.

Whew, that was close!

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

A little over a week ago, President Obama launched his relection bid the way he announced his first campaign – with a YouTube video.  The video highlighted campaign volunteers in an effort to stress the grassroots nature of his campaign (which will still of course be run from the White House).  This continued on the Organizing for America blog, which has done little else but highlight volunteers re-enlisting.

But while they were getting the band back together on a mission from God, Washington, D.C. was breaking out with shutdown fever.  Congress and the President didn’t reach a budget deal until late into the evening on Friday, and OFA was nowhere to be found.

For Republicans, the President apparently could not have announced at a better time.  With OFA focused on the re-election campaign, there was no one beating the bushes for grassroots action in the week leading up to the deadline deal.  Just as Republicans have been wasting the buzz around Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity video, OFA sacrificed a chance to score major points.

As the deadline for a shutdown grew nearer, well-timed pressure on wavering GOP lawmakers might have helped the Democrats come out of the first budget battle a bit stronger than they did.  As the Obama 2012 campaign kicked off, OFA lost focus.

The Republicans should be prepared to fight a little harder during the next budget battle, because chances OFA won’t miss the opportunity again..

Obama’s Libya speech and 2012 vulnerability

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

In his speech Monday night, President Obama set out to answer questions about the kinetic military actions in Libya, over a week after air strikes started.  The President has been nearly universally criticized for this delay.  More troubling for his political operation is the fact that the speech had to answer questions, rather than frame the need for the mission.

The American public is used to a certain script for military actions, even if they aren’t warned in advance.  Just after the initial strike, the President appears on television, sitting at his desk in the Oval Office.  He reassures, he provides reasons for the action, he presents both strength and a desire for peace.  Though subordinates give further updates in the ensuing days, weeks, or months, the President makes the initial announcement.  Obama did none of this, in what seems like an attempt to downplay the current conflict.  Instead, it looks like he cribbed his messaging strategy from a young Kevin Bacon:

You can’t nonchalantly drop bombs on other countries.  That’s the type of thing people talk about – and without the President’s authoritative explanation, the conversation could go in any direction.  Polls show that America is ready to get behind their President and support the Libyan mission – but the public is also understandably wary about taking on too much responsibility.  A five minute speech at the outset could have answered many questions before they were even asked.

Taken with some other patterns that have developed within his presidency, though, this may prove troubling for Obama’s reelection.

Flippant remarks – from Slurpees to salmon – have a way of eclipsing the content of his speeches.  His rhetoric on regulations and Iraq have a way of mimicking his opponents.  Tasking Congress to construct legislative packages from health care to financial reform previously looked like a strategy that allowed the President to set a broad policy direction without having to answer for the peculiarities of the specific legislation.    Many of these seemed like great strategies at the time.  In light of Libya, was the President getting too much credit?

“Looking Presidential” should be a major advantage to an incumbent.  Distraction from major issues in favor of likability isn’t usually bad, either.  But distractions can cross the line and the President loses control of his image and his agenda.

The mishandled messaging of the Libyan situation may be an isolated incident, but it may be a harbinger for a very disappointing 2012 for the Obama camp.

Beck vs. O’Keefe

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Glenn Beck was almost immediate in his criticism of James O’Keefe’s latest video adventure, and the media is picking up on it this week:

“The problem with this whole thing is does James O’Keefe have enough credibility to continue to do” undercover video journalism? Beck asked his listeners. That kind of journalism, he said, is “just really not something that you necessarily want to get into.

Beck, of course, is a media trailblazer himself, who rose to national prominence through his revolutionary and original radio program.  He created a similarly original television program and online magazine.

With others from the right falling all over each other with admiration for O’Keefe’s NPR sting, Beck stands out as a rare dissenting voice.

But more than that, O’Keefe’s brand of activist journalism is simply more interesting than Beck’s platitudes from behind a microphone.  For months, critics have been crowing about Beck’s flagging ratings.  O’Keefe is a threat to Beck from a pure business standpoint.

After all, if you were Fox News, what would be more likely to get ratings – Glenn Beck’s chalkboard with notes about the GDP or James O’Keefe sending someone with a hidden camera into a government office?

Results don’t lie

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

My latest post over at Pundit League talks about the Obama White House’s attempt to shift the focus on budget debates from the money to the benefits.  This month, they’re talking about education as a sacred cow; future budget battles are sure to treat other programs similarly.  As difficult as budgets are, it’s still a tough sell to cut back on government programs everyone is used to.

But what if those programs, for lack of a better-refined and focus-group-tested term, suck?  That reality may be the best arrow in any small government Robin Hood’s quiver.

The Heritage Foundation points out that a boom in education spending has not bought higher performance in America’s public schools.  Thomas Sowell made a similar point this week, when he wrote about the allegedly ecologically friendly policies of urban liberals in San Francisco pricing low- and middle-class blacks out of the city.  Private unions – who represent workers who actually have to worry about their jobs – are concerned that the EPA would cause layoffs from companies forced to spend extra complying with extraneous regulations.

For each of these programs and others like them, there’s always talk about the benefits.  But as Speaker Boehner said this week, “Talk is cheap.”

Getting O’Keefed is more than just a camera trick

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

James O’Keefe will be lauded on the right this week for forcing the resignation of NPR’s CEO; you’ll hear talk about how creative and bold he is to go undercover with hidden cameras to expose left-wing organizations in their own words.  It actually isn’t that simple, though:  O’Keefe does more than simple hide cameras and wait for people to say dumb things.  This week, for example, O’Keefe released his initial video on Tuesday – the one where a former NPR staffer demonstrates outright hostility toward tea partiers and the conservative movement.  It appeared to be a basic case of organizational media bias, though it could have been explained away as a donor relations executive saying whatever he could to raise a donation.

Then came the second video yesterday – where another NPR official discusses ways to “hide” donations from a fictional Muslim Brotherhood front group.  This is much more damning; and combined with the other one creates the perception of a trend.  At the very least, it kept a one-day story going for multiple days.

Erstwhile CEO Vivian Schiller didn’t make it to the second video; in the 48 hours between the releases she resigned.  Jon Stewart couldn’t believe NPR didn’t fight back.  But maybe NPR had been paying attention to O’Keefe’s history of takedowns.

ACORN didn’t collapse under the weight of a single video; O’Keefe released several over time to keep the issue alive through several news cycles.  The same happened with his expose of the teachers unions in New Jersey and other work his organization, Project Veritas, have undertaken.

Rather than try to bash O’Keefe’s reporting, NPR allies have been quick to decry the comments heard on the tapes.  That’s significant – not only do they recognize what what was said was bad, they know that there may be even more to come.

Deflecting an ambush

~ Jim Eltringham ~ 1 Comment

CPAC has always been fertile ground for hidden camera hijinks – like any gathering where like-minded people get together, the attendees tend to let their guard down and speak a little more openly among what they think are their fellow travelers on the right.  So it’s now surprise that Think Progress sent someone in with a camera, looking to get right-of-center people to say some dumb things.

Jesse Watters of Fox News was ready, though.  Check out this video:

In this confrontation, Watters isn’t just a clear winner.  He puts on a clinic on how to handle an unexpected question from a grassroots videographer:

1.  “A smile usually helps.”

Remember Bob Etheridge?  College-aged Republican activists hijacked the North Carolina Congressman with a video ambush last summer, only to have the Congressman rough them up and bark at them a little.  Etheridge couldn’t have looked more like a curmudgeon if he had used the term “dagnabbit” and told the neighborhood kids he was keeping their baseball.

Watters is the opposite, and clearly knows how to be on camera.  When the ambusher, Ben Armbruster, first accosts him, he demands, “Who are you?”  As soon as Watters understands the situation, he warms up, enthusiastically asking, “Is this an ambush?” and playing along to a point.  He jokes with Armbruster but is not openly hostile, understanding how that would look to the audience on the other side of the camera.

2.  Watters gives his answer – regardless of the question.

Even though CPAC is a political event, Watters is not a political figure.  He is a journalist, and as such clearly does not want to get into a discussion about media bias.  That’s why his redirected conversation about the technique of investigative journalism is smart.  Criticizing Armbruster’s equipment, technique, and line of questioning, Watters maintains a conversation that would make as much sense in a journalism department classroom as it does at CPAC (and perhaps more).

3.  “You’re hands are shaking…”

Watters puts down Armbruster frequently, but never the style of interview.  He tells Armbruster he isn’t conducting the interview correctly (“The question is very important.  I just don’t think you’re bringing it with that question”), insults his camera phone, points out that Armbruster looks nervous – but Watters smartly never once complains about having a camera shoved in his face.  In doing so, Watters avoids the hypocrisy of being an ambush journalists decrying ambush journalism – but more important, he avoids a David vs. Goliath media moment pitting Fox News against bloggers.

Because Watters has been on the other side of these questions, he knows exactly what it looks like – and he didn’t succumb to the line of “gotcha” questioning.  If Armbruster’s frustration wasn’t evident enough at the end of the video, his contrived and weak headline – “Jesse Waters Won’t Deny Fox ‘Makes Stuff Up’” – drives it home.   Maybe he should have tried to ambush someone who doesn’t ambush people for a living.

NFL Players getting off message

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

From the coverage of the worst All-Star Game of any of the major sports, the Pro-Bowl, comes this nugget from game MVP DeAngelo Hall:

MVP DeAngelo Hall had one of his team’s five interceptions and returned a fumble 34 yards for a touchdown to help the NFC match a Pro Bowl scoring record in a 55-41 victory over turnover-prone AFC. He gets a new Cadillac for his efforts.

“I was just about to buy another SUV,” the Redskins cornerback said, “so to come out here and grab one for free, I like that.”

Yes, he really did brag that he was thinking about buying “another SUV” – not a “new” SUV, but another, as in addition to whatever car or cars he currently has in his fleet.

Clearly, Hall is missing a either a sense of context or the spirit of brotherhood with his fellow union members (and possibly both).

Even the normally-overkilled Super Bowl coverage seems to be overshadowed by news that the NFL labor situation may devolve in the same type of players-versus-ownership animus that has cost significant playing time – and even championships – in each of the other sports over the past 20 years.  Matt Hasselbeck and Antonio Cromartie got into a much-hyped war of tweets over the potential lockout.  (The football world remains shocked that a member of the normally stoic and reserved New York Jets got into such a verbal spat with a fellow player.)

The NFL Player’s Association needs to get their members on the same page or risk losing the important PR war that comes with high-profile CBA negotiations.  One cornerback lashing out at the situation and another openly wondering how to arrange his fleet of cars won’t help it score points with fans.