Stunt Bad for Marketing

BRANDWEEK did a follow-up story the other day about the infamous stunt pulled by Cartoon Network to promote its Aqua Teen Hunger Force. The pub wanted to see what impact, if any, the bomb hoax had on the business of guerrilla marketing.

Early reports after the Jan. 31 hysteria had many speculating marketers would seer clear of this big-bang/small bucks school of buzz building. After all, Cartoon Network gm/evp Jim Samples resigned; parent company Turner Broadcasting and guerrilla agency Interference agreed to pay $1 million in compensation to Massachusetts and another $1 million to support federal homeland security.

"The smarter clients I spoke to [realized] that a $2 million fine equals $120 million in publicity," said Peter Shankman, president of New York-based pr/marketing agency The Geek Factory. "They said, 'Just get the damn permits first!'"

Drew Neisser, president of the New York integrated marketing agency Renegade Marketing, said the incident "really heightened awareness of nontraditional marketing. The irony was people were saying, 'I want that.'"

The stunt and subsequent negative publicity may very well have created some short-term gains and heightened awareness of the power of guerrilla marketing. But it pissed off an entire city and touched a nerve with politicos. I still contend it was incredibly stupid considering post-9/11 America.

Several months after circuit boards with LED lights in the shape of a Mooninite caused the closing of major subway lines and roadways in Boston, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. co-wrote and introduced the "Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007." The bill will amend the federal criminal code to include a number of new clauses meant to up the ante on wasting government resources. Provisions in the bill would allow the government to take civil action against parties involved in perceived hoaxes if they fail to "promptly and reasonably inform one or more parties... of the actual nature of the activity" once they learn about investigative action taking place. In the case of Boston, this means that everyone involved could be sued for not immediately informing the police of the campaign upon receiving news of the emergency reaction.

Talk about making an impact on the guerrilla marketing world. Not exactly what Interference had in mind I bet.

Bad Behavior = PR Problems

We have yet another example of bad personal behavior influencing business decision. Chris Albrecht resigned as chairman and CEO of HBO, parent company Time Warner (TW) said, three days after he was arrested and charged with assaulting his girlfriend outside MGM Grand Casino in Las Vegas.

HBO's Chris Albrecht was arrested Sunday on suspicion of assault. (Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Via Associated Press)

AdWeek has the story.

Sources say TW had become increasingly concerned about the distraction Albrecht's PR nightmare was causing especially after a Los Angeles Times report Wednesday citing allegations in 1991 Albrecht had been involved in a physical altercation with a female employee at HBO, which was forced to pay a $400,000 settlement.

On Tuesday, TW chairman Richard Parsons said the company would "monitor this situation closely." On Wednesday, he changed sentiments.

"(TW president and COO) Jeff Bewkes and I believe that this is the right decision for the company," Parsons said, commenting on Albrecht's departure.

It's a classic example of inappropriate or illegal behavior by executives creating a crisis for a company. The way Time Warner handled the situation leaves me wondering if they had a crisis communications plan in place or if they were shooting from the hip. The story in yesterday's Los Angeles Times about the $400,000 payoff means HBO knew Albrecht had issues. He allegedly choked a subordinate during a confrontation in her office. That should have them ample warning to prepare for his next violent outburst. In this case, their best crisis communications planning probably should have involved an intervention and mandatory treatment.

The amount of fall-out HBO and Time Warner will suffer is still up in the air. AdWeek contends it will invite questions about HBO's viability. Those questions have already been raised though as HBO tries to rekindle the passion of viewers who still miss Sex and the City and Six Feet Under. It won't get any better as The Sopranos ends its run next month and a slew of new series starts up.

Stay tuned.

Corporate Citizenship: Influencing Consumer Behavior

Consumers are sending a message to corporate America - "do good, be sincere and you'll earn our trust and our business." Companies are apparently getting the message.

The New York Times reported yesterday that many companies are changing from traditional golf retreats to spending a day doing community service.

"We quickly got past the idea of a ropes course or golf outing; we really wanted something where we could give to one of the communities where we do business," said Samuel D. Walker, chief legal officer for Molson Coors. As a result, the 11-member executive team spent a full day of their Las Vegas meeting this year helping build a house under the tutelage of Habitat for Humanity.

The story also quoted Alan Ranzer, executive director of Impact 4 Good, an organization that matches corporate groups with volunteer opportunities.

"We really are getting a lot more calls. It's something companies are picking up on for multiple reasons. They see value in it for image purposes. Consumers are out there looking for companies that care and that goes a long way."

There's evidence to back it up too.

The 2004 Cone Corporate Citizenship Study found that 86 percent of American consumers who responded said they were 'somewhat likely' to 'very likely' to switch to a brand associated with a cause, if product price and quality were on par.

GolinHarris conducts a national survey every year, Corporate Citizenship Gets Down to Business: Doing Well by Doing Good. The survey 2006 revealed:

Good corporate citizenship can impact business results by stimulating Americans to be loyal, passionate and frequent business advocates and committed customers to brands that have earned their trust and support.

The following companies rated highest on the GolinHarris Corporate Citizenship Index:

• Ben & Jerry's
• Target
• Patagonia
• SC Johnson
• Gerber
• Southwest Airlines
• Johnson & Johnson
• The Body Shop
• UPS
• 3M
• Honda
• Campbell soup
• Quaker
• Kimberly-Clark
• Harley-Davidson

It all boils down to sincerity and active particpation. We advice our clients not to just write a check. Write the check AND donate your employees' time to make a difference in the commuinities where they do business.

DVR Owners and Political Communications

I was catching up on reading last week's issue of PR Week when I was surprised by the results of a poll by The Benenson Strategy Group. The firm works with many Democratic candidates, the DCCC, the DSCC, the AFL-CIO and corporate clients like Verizon and Proctor & Gamble. The firm's principal, Joel Benenson, lead the internal polling for Clinton-Gore in 1996.

From what I can gather, the survey was commissioned by MSHC Partners, a direct mail and Internet advertising firm that works with Democratic candidates like Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Chris Dodd and groups like NARAL, the Sierra Club and even the South Dakota Democratic Party.

The survey sampled 1,128 registered and unregistered voters both with and without DVR's to understand their habits and what it means for political campaigns. No surprise with a couple of the numbers.

• 60 percent of ads on recorded television are skipped by DVR users
• 50 percent of programming on TV is viewed in recorded form by DVR users

However, these next numbers left me a bit perplexed.

• 44 percent of DVR owners say TV ads are their most important source of political news
• 46 percent of non-DVR users say TV ads are their most important source of political news

Isn't that a tad bizarre? Sixty percent of DVR users say they aren't watching the ads, but they still use those ads as their main source of political news?

Since the survey was commissioned by a firm with a vested interest in the outcome, I question what this really means. MSHC has a lot to gain by convincing poltical candidates that direct mail and Internet is the way to go.

"What we found in this study is that this new technology does have an
impact on how voters get their information and while television still
remains the most influential source of information, as DVR ownership grows
it will become less efficient," said Hal Malchow, president of MSHC
Partners. "Cable television, with its hundreds of channels has also made it
increasingly difficult to reach the entire electorate, compared to the days
of dominance by three major networks. Between DVRs and cable television,
political ads are losing their punch."

Thoughts anyone?

Is PR just propaganda?

A video I ran across on YouTube is drawing my ire today. According to the video's talking head, PR firms and practioners are inherently evil because we exist. The video features John Stauber of PR Watch trivializing PR efforts as nothing more than propaganda and labeling PR professionals as media and public opinion manipulators, and perception managers.

I was ticked off at first blush. But upon writing those words "media and public opinion manipulators, and perception managers," I realized... he's right. However, I won't concede that PR is propaganda, nor are we fiendish masters of evil-doing. We're in business to help business.

Our industry traces its roots to the turn of the twentieth century during the time of industrialization. PR was coined to describe a field established to promote a positive image of companies in an effort to increase their success. It's really that simple.

The basic premise of PR is that people act on their own perception of the facts. Those perceptions lead to behaviors - behaviors which can be affected. I'll give you one example. In the 1940s, approximately 70 percent of adults smoked. It was portrayed as glamorous and sexy. Fast forward to today's message that smoking will kill you. Adult smoking is down to about 21 percent. Smoking's perception changed, thus behaviors were dramatically altered. And let me tell you, it didn't happen without a lot of PR work by the CDC, American Cancer Association, American Heart Association, American Lung Association and the like.

Was that PR effort so dastardly?