Tiger Should Go With His "New Hugh" Persona

Now that the stories about Tiger Woods have descended from "marital woes" to "all out sex/party maniac," I think Tiger needs a new strategy:

Tiger should go full-steam ahead and plant his flag as "the new Hugh Hefner," or in my shorthand (trademark pending), "The New Hugh."

I'm serious here.



Hugh Hefner has made a bloody fortune screwing beautiful women and leading the party life. But he's ooollllddd. I can't believe he's still going strong, supposedly.

Hugh ain't gonna last forever. We need a new role model, a new Adonis to do all the things we dream about: Tiger.

He's incredibly handsome.

He's incredibly rich.

He's one of the greatest athletes in the world.

He's one of the greatest commercial pitchmen in the world.

He's perfect.

Go for it, my man.  Stock your mega-yacht Privacy with hot-and-cold running hotties, Cristal and pate, enjoy it and cash in on it.

You have nothing left to lose.

The Ugly Truth About Tiger Woods and All His Enablers

So it turns out that Tiger Woods has been a carousing, hard partying guy, both as a bachelor and as a married man. In essence, this doesn't surprise me one bit -- in fact, it makes a lot more sense than the partial stories that were coming out the first week about his "transgressions." I believe that one of the unexplored tensions in our society is the tamping down and frowning upon mens' natural desires for the attention of women.

What does stun me is all the media and sponsor handwringing and clucking that has ensued now that the stories about Tiger's wild party life have burst into the open. Where were you, golf media, when Tiger had a bottle of Cristal in one hand and a babe on each arm? Were you partying along with him? Were you up in your rooms playing Nintendo? Or were you just flat out clueless?

And sponsors, starting with Accenture: you mean to tell me that you didn't check out Tiger's behavior before or while you employed him? You didn't do any due diligence to find out if the image you were buying was real? And you want me to trust you (Accenture) with my corporate consulting work?

It seems clear to me that the media, sponsors and the PGA tour all turned a blind eye toward Tiger's behavior, for one good 'ol fashioned reason: money. The man has made billions for all the parties above, boosting ratings and selling soap. He was their cash cow, their golden goose. To call him on his behavior would have been commercial suicide.

I understand that too. But spare me the holier-than-thou statements now generally along the lines of "we didn't know" or "he doesn't represent the right image for us." Puh-leeze. How about "we knew all along but we didn't say anything, so we share the blame for this unfortunate situation, and we'll do a better job next time."

PS -- And then there's his wife, Elin Nordegren. She knew before she married Tiger that he was a major ladies man, yet she jumped on the gravy train as well. Here's People mag, via the NY Daily News:

Nordegren's friends tell People she knew about Woods' extracurricular activities but that he promised before their marriage that he would change.

"Elin had talked to other golfers and their wives about Tiger's wild parties," a friend told the magazine. "When she asked Tiger about it, he said he would stop doing it. And she believed him. But he never did."

Tiger Woods Caught With His Pants Down, But He Keeps His Guard Up

Uh-oh. It turns out that where there was Thanksgiving Day smoke, there was definitely fire. Tiger Woods has been caught red-handed being a philandering adulterer. Goodbye pristine reputation, maybe goodbye marriage.

But is it goodbye golf game and goodbye endorsements? No and probably not.

Woods issued another statement today, this time saying he "let my family down and I regret those transgressions." [Full text of Tiger Woods' statement here.]

But just as Tiger redefined golf, he may be in the process of redefining celebrity scandal-mongering. His statement goes on to say:

No matter how intense curiosity about public figures can be, there is an important and deep principle at stake which is the right to some simple, human measure of privacy... Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn't have to mean public confessions.

That's right. He hasn't been accused of using performance-enhancing drugs, betting on the game, animal cruelty or physical violence. Those are the types of things that derail sports careers.

He's one of the world's sexiest men, he probably had and has woman propositioning him constantly, and he took some of them up on it, even after he was married. That makes him a fool and a cad, but that's all. No evidence yet that he paid for it, a la Eliot Spitzer, who after all was an elected official, and a sanctimonious one at that. Unless this saga goes into one of the above-mentioned areas, I think it tarnishes him but doesn't really afffect his public life.

Further, I really like that he shot back at the media mongrels who are demanding more information and confessionals. Tough. If you want information, go dig it out. He owes you absolutely nothing.

Tiger Woods Takes the Right Media Relations Tack

As the Tiger Woods car accident story was becoming known and starting to be covered in the media, my other half passed along an article talking about "what Tiger should do," and suggesting that I weigh in. In the moment, I have to say that I had a hard time forming a strategy, partly due to Thanksgiving overload and partly because I was at a loss as to what I would recommend.

In the meantime, on Sunday, Tiger released a statement that, I thought, hit all the right notes.

Here's the statement:

As you all know, I had a single-car accident earlier this week, and sustained some injuries. I have some cuts, bruising and right now I'm pretty sore.

This situation is my fault, and it's obviously embarrassing to my family and me. I'm human and I'm not perfect. I will certainly make sure this doesn't happen again.

This is a private matter and I want to keep it that way. Although I understand there is curiosity, the many false, unfounded and malicious rumors that are currently circulating about my family and me are irresponsible.

The only person responsible for the accident is me. My wife, Elin, acted courageously when she saw I was hurt and in trouble. She was the first person to help me. Any other assertion is absolutely false.

This incident has been stressful and very difficult for Elin, our family and me. I appreciate all the concern and well wishes that we have received. But, I would also ask for some understanding that my family and I deserve some privacy no matter how intrusive some people can be.

Here's what I like about the statement and the strategy it implies:

1. He gives some helpful details at the beginning


2. He shifts the story back to its core -- a single-car accident, mostly on private property, minor injuries, my fault. He went on the offense instead of playing defense.


3. He clearly states and repeats that he wants his privacy, as would any of us, famous or not, in such a case involving a minor accident.


4. He praises his wife, signaling a united front with her.

The fact is, none of us -- the general public, his fans, the police or the media -- really needs more information about this situation. I think the police acted irresponsibly in showing up at his house twice for an interview, thereby giving TV a fresh shot to air, when they could have called on the phone and been told whether or not he would speak to them. It looked to me like the cops were seeing this case as a possible gravy train rather than focusing on doing their jobs.

Is Tiger having an affair? Was his wife whacking him with a golf club as he ran out of the house and jumped in his car? Who knows? If you care, go to TMZ.com and get your fill.

Here's a blessedly sane media story with the headline "Tiger doesn't owe us an explanation."

PR Rule #1: It's About the Message, Not About the Methods

Generally speaking, it's a bad sign when your PR strategy becomes the story, rather than the messages you are trying to send.

And so it was today, when the New York Times ran five nearly identical pictures on its front page of Obama giving health care reform interviews on five Sunday talk shows, accompanying a story about the PR strategy. This follows other recent stories about Obama's PR offensive, which once again obscures any messages he is trying to get across.

The New York Times cleverly pointed out [and showed in pictures] that Obama didn't even move from his seat for the interviews, which were obviously done back-to-back in a fancy White House room. The same backdrop, down the potted plant, appears in all the pictures. Can't you guys even get that right?

This isn't like those Hollywood star interviews, where the out-of-town reporters all get five minutes with the star hyping a new movie. In those cases, the poster for the movie is always the background -- get it? In this case, maybe you could have held the interviews in the White House health clinic at least. Sheesh.

I continue to be amazed at how poorly the Obama communications team has handled the health care reform issue. They let the opposition build up steam and credibility, while doing a poor job building their own momentum and credibility. Granted, the president has communications tools that far outstrip the opposition, so they can still rally from behind, but to me as a comms professional, the message I get is this: they're amateurs.

What the heck is U-verse? AT&T doesn't make it easy to find out.

I've been planning an upgrade of the TV set-up in my house, and have started to research the options. It is almost a full-time job.

On the hardware side, the options are pretty straight forward -- HD or not, 720 or 1080, LCD (cheaper) or LED (much more expensive).

But on the content side -- that's another story. And not just which channels to get -- it's how to get them. You can get free TV (digital signal only), all sorts of cable packages, all sorts of satellite packages, and even TV from the phone company. If you have AT&T phone service, then the phone company's offering is called U-verse.

But what, exactly, is U-verse?

I was intrigued by U-verse and so decided to research it to see if it was right for us. First, I went into an AT&T store in the neighborhood. Bad idea. Take a number, have a seat, and wait your turn to have a sales rep (who's handling everything from iPhone to Blackberry to U-verse) talk to you. OK, I'll call AT&T and surf the web.

At this point, I still didn't know what U-verse was. With the other options, it's pretty obvious -- it's in the name. But U-verse is some made up corporate brand, and it's not like there's a generic category that's obvious.

Finally, when I reached a rep on the phone, I got the basics: it's a fiber-optic signal that comes to a box in your house and then that box distributes the signal wirelessly to boxes attached to your TVs, using Internet Protocol, or IP.

Wow -- wireless IPTV. Very modern.

But I wondered -- how's the signal? How's the picture? How do people like it?

Again, it was a research project. It took a few attempts at phrasing my question to Google before typing in "quality of U-verse service" and getting some answers. The basic answer: it's OK, not great. And it's complicated to set up.

So there you have the answer to "what the heck is U-verse?" But my questions for AT&T are just starting: such as, why isn't it obvious in your materials how the technology works? How come I can't see a demo of a typical installation? Why haven't you attempted to allay my concerns about how a wireless signal is going to travel around my two-story house? (I'm not the only target customer who lives in one, you know)

So I decided to write a blog post about this because this is not as much a technology problem as a marketing communications problem.

Bottom line: I'm probably going to stay away from U-verse because of these unanswered questions and stick with a better understood alternative, either cable or satellite.

Obama is Blowing the Health Care PR Battle

I’m stunned by the amateur approach of Obama and his White House team to the PR aspects of health care insurance reform. While the opponents of the plan have done a masterful job of ginning up opposition to change, the White House has been caught napping and clueless.

I kept waiting to see if the Obama team was just waiting for the right time to roll out its effort, but now that the news is that the White House is “firing back” at critics, it’s obvious that they went to Plan B because they didn’t have a Plan A.

Where, for example, is the Mile High Stadium version of a health care reform rally?

Where are the heart-rending stories from ordinary citizens who will be helped by the plan?

Where is the demonization of the huge interests who are opposed to reform?

Where is the one-pager that describes to the average citizen what the benefits of the plan are?

Why is it that even I, an informed and highly educated citizen, can’t tell you a thing about what’s in it for me and my family?

This last point is the reason why these wingnut shouters at Congressional town hall meetings are having so much success — because the absence of a common understand of “what’s in it for me” has created a vacuum and an opportunity to create a fear of “what I have to lose.”

It’s too late now to fundamentally change the game. The best the Obama people and supporters of reform can hope for is that the screamers will hit the limit of their effectiveness and that the Democratic majorities in Congress will deliver an acceptable reform bill.

Does Obama Need a Hail-Mary PR Pass on Health Care Reform?

Back from Vegas, where the famously in-touch Vegas taxi drivers were 100% against Obama's health care plan. Why? Who the hell knows. Probably because the right wingnuts on talk radio are tearing it down.

But there's a serious grain of reality in these man-on-the-street insights. Eight months ago, Obama's PR machine had created a feel-good climate in which you would not have heard a Vegas taxi driver disparaging the President-elect. Now, everyone's a critic. Why? Because, in my opinion, the Obama people haven't done as good a PR job as they could and should selling this health care plan to the American people.

This should be a no-brainer -- the facts are on their side. But Obama seems unable to close the deal. In this case, he seems incapable of clearly articulating in plain, clear and compelling lanugage how this plan will reform the health care system so more Americans get better and cheaper care.

I'm not clear on the politics of the situation -- maybe he knows that the Democratic majorities will give him a good enough bill to sign and so he doesn't need public opinion to be on his side. But I can't see where appearing weak and defensive on this critical issue could serve either his current cause or future causes.

Maybe the guy is human after all.

Silicon Valley PR Gets the New York Times Treatment

I was out on holiday for most of last week and so missed the opportunity to offer some timely insights into the glorious coverage of Silicon Valley PR in the New York Times on Saturday, July 4 (an aside -- why does our industry get coverage only on national holidays and other B-list days?).

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="111" caption="Miller"][/caption]

Young Times tech reporter Claire Cain Miller discovered the latest it-girl in Sili Valley PR, Brooke Hammerling, who, the story asserts, is at the forefront of a new trend because she is as keen on pitching influential bloggers and other industry leaders as she is on pitching the professional journalists in the mainstream media.

Holy Reporter's Notebook, Batman -- stop the digital presses!

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="252" caption="Hammerling"]
[/caption]

Among Miller's other "findings" in this 3,000-word stemwinder:

• That Ms. Hammerling is, among other things, obsequious to a fault, folding her strategic tent at the merest assertion of a different idea from her A-list client


• "In the new world of social media, P.R. people must know hundreds of writers, bloggers and Twitter users instead of having six top reporters on speed dial."


• "Despite all these new channels, it’s still essential to know which mainstream publications to approach. If a start-up is seeking venture funding or new engineers ... PR still looks to The San Jose Mercury News, VentureWire or TechCrunch to get the word out."


• “She drops names like a boat anchor, so shamelessly, but at the same time, it’s, ‘Larry, Larry,’ and I think she’s lying and then I get on the phone and it’s Larry Ellison. She got him on the cellphone; I didn’t,” says a journalist who did not want to be identified.

OK -- enough having fun at Miller and Hammerling's expense. What are my takeaways?

Ticketmaster Tries to Solve a Big Problem With a Little PR Push

One of the most important lessons of crisis communications is that most crises are not communications problems, they're operational problems. Communications can help in many ways to diffuse a crisis and calm people down, but if the operational issue at the heart of the problem isn't addressed, no amount of PR spin is going to distract interested parties from that fact.

This, is a nutshell, is my fan-level reaction to Ticketmaster's new PR ploy involving its captive reseller program, TicketsNow. Ticketmaster had a big problem earlier this year when it was caught transferring ticket seekers from the original ticket onsale screen to the TicketsNow resale screen, where the same tickets that had just gone on sale were now supposedly only available for huge markups on TicketsNow.

Chevron Rebuts '60 Minutes' With Its Own Video

Chevron got grilled on "60 Minutes" a couple of weeks ago for its alleged contamination of the Amazon rain forest in Ecuador. If you're huge oil company, that's definitely par for the course. Causing environment damage? Check. Getting caught? Check. Getting unfavorable treatment on 60 Minutes? Check.

This is the pattern that major multi-nationals have been subjected to for decades. And without a doubt, many of them have been absolutely as guilty as charged. This isn't a blog post applauding a cover-up or making excuses for corporate pollution.

But this is a blog about media relations and managing public perception, and we call 'em as we see 'em. So we have to say that Chevron's aggressive move to combat the 60 Minutes piece by producing its own video was a good move.

From the Times story:

Gene Randall, a former CNN correspondent, spent about five months on the project, which was posted on the Internet in April, three weeks before the “60 Minutes” report was shown on May 3.“Chevron hired me to tell its side of the story,” he said. “That’s what I did.”

That's how you do it, folks. You don't sit back and wait and then react. You go on the offense and present your side of the story, whether it is through an expensive media like network-quality video or by printing up flyers.

Did You Know that Evite Sucks?

By now, pretty much everyone on the Internet has gotten or sent an Evite, those ubiquitous, slightly annoying online invitations to everything from weddings to barbacues.

I don't care much for Evite, but I don't hate it. It's an online system, it has some cool features that weren't available pre-Internet, and it does what it's supposed to do, which is invite people to an event and track who said yes and no.

But there are apparently many other, better online invitation sites out there, including Socializr. But until today, I had never heard about them, nor did I care. Online invitations are not a big part of my life.

I heard about the alternatives from an article I happened to be reading about Jonathan Abrams, the founder of Socializr and before that, Friendster. He, uh, feels very strongly about the evils of Evite and the superiority of his and other services.

But until today, I had never heard of them! No one invited me to an event using his service. There was little buzz in the wider world about these alternatives.

And this is the point: Abrams is spending a lot of time railing about Evite when he should be spending his time promoting the virtues of Socializr! That's real PR. Yes, I finally heard about Socializr today and will check it out. But I still don't know a lot about what makes it superior to Evite. That's where Abrams is really missing an opportunity.

PR lesson: you may draw attention by picking a fight, but you don't build a business that way. People want to know what you offer them to solve problems and make their lives better or easier, not just what you are NOT.

Bonus PR lesson: Great names rule! Evite is a great name. It tells you what it is, it's like an e-invitation, it's an Evite. What the hell is a "Socializr," and did I spell it right? Simplify, dude, and come up with a better name!

Online Media Echo Chamber Tries and Convicts Domino's

I'm skeptical about the supposedly major damage done to the Domino's brand by a gross YouTube video a couple of its employees made showing them sneezing on a sandwich and doing other inappropriate food-handling things (you can search for the video online if you want).

Soon after the video hit YouTube and started to make the rounds, Domino's responded with its own video apology, and they posted apologies on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.

Still, online communications pundits seem to believe that the company didn't do enough, fast enough, to combat this incident and that the video and their response had "damaged" the brand.

You know a story like this is peaking when the New York Times weighs in, and so they did, saying,

In just a few days, Domino’s reputation was damaged.

The proof of brand damage? Found online, of course:

The perception of its quality among consumers went from positive to negative since Monday, according to the research firm YouGov, which holds online surveys of about 1,000 consumers every day regarding hundreds of brands.

An online survey? Is that a joke?

Two observations: Domino's pizza is terrible: cheese and tomato sauce on cardboard. It's hard to imagine that their brand's "quality" image was materially harmed by a sophomoric (obviously) online video. And how many of Domino's core customers are tracking the brand online? I didn't do any man-on-the-street interviews, but I doubt that the "average" Domino's customer cares what is being said about the company online.

Even as powerful as the online world can be at times, it's still only a tiny fraction of the real world. My advice is to keep that in mind, and in perspective.

Great PR Move by the Obamas

According to New York magazine, the Obamas are redecorating their private quarters in the White House using only their own money. They made $4.2 million in 2007, so they can afford the couple hundred thou such a redesign is likely to cost.

The government has an allotment of $100,000 per new prez for redecorating, but they aren't using that, nor are they tapping the privately funded White House Historical Association, nor are they getting private donors to foot the bill. Just paying for it out of pocket like the rest of us.

This is a very, very classy and smart PR move. At a time of economic crisis and with an opposition that has nothing to offer except character assassination, taking this one off the table is a great move.

New Name for AIG is Putting Lipstick on a Pig

Last week, a Senator helpfully suggested to the CEO of AIG that the company consider changing its name, and the CEO said that was in the works. Sure enough, this week the company took down the AIG nameplate from its lower Manhattan office, replacing it with the name "American International." The company would also like to be known by its new name, AIU Holdings Inc.

Will this help those parts of the business that are distant from the financial services division and its ill-fated activities in destroying our economy? Maybe. But I hope that consumers and other buyers of insurance know that when their broker recommends a policy from AIU, they are doing business with the notorious-but-renamed AIG.

As for a "rebranding," I doubt that this company will emerge unscathed from this  economic calamity to gain much benefit from a cosmetic name change. Talk about toxic -- AIG has managed to make its name and business radioactive.

It will take a lot more than a PR makeover to save whatever is left of AIG.

When in Doubt, Say "How Dare You!"

A spokesperson has to have a lot of tricks up his or her sleeve -- you never know what the interviewer is going to say or ask, but you've always got to have some sort of answer ready.

Faux indignation is a good one to have, though hopefully it's not something you have to use a lot. For instance:

Question: Isn't it true that your company's shoddy toys kill millions of children in China every year?"

Answer: "I'm not going to even dignify that with an answer."

Effect: giving an answer, but not answering the question or addressing the charges.

Today's little lesson comes courtesy of Ari Fleisher, the onetime Bush Administration mouthpiece. Below is the Youtube of Fleisher on MSNBC's Hardball, but here's the passage in question:

Matthews: We suffered the worst domestic calamity [9/11] on your watch, if we get into who's watch was good, you guys blew it."

Fleisher: "How dare you. If we get attacked again, are you going to say we got attacked on Barack Obama's watch?"

Blagojevich PR Blitz is a Laughable Farce

With imbeciles like Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich using media relations tactics to try to influence the outcome of his impeachment trial, PR gets another black eye.

Yes, there are many times when you should go on the offensive, make yourself available to the press, and try to sway public opinion
to your cause. In fact, it's really the heart of PR.

But when losers like the Illinois governor use these tactics, they set the whole profession back a step.

Worse yet is the gullible media that readily provide airtime to this guy, telling themselves they are being "fair" and "balanced." Baloney! They're being used, pure and simple.

Real PR in this situation: resign quietly. Lick your wounds in private. Emerge as a do-gooder after a respectful period of reflection.

Jobs' Health Creates PR Nightmare for Apple

Apple announced Tuesday that Steve Jobs will not give his customary keynote address at Macworld in San Francisco next month and will be replaced by an Apple executive.

What was left unsaid was: why?



As Apple-watchers know, Jobs has had cancer and in his most recent appearance for Apple, looked thin and sort of gaunt. I don't know when was the last time he was seen in public in his regular life.

The question about the health of Steve Jobs isn't simply morbid celebrity watching. Jobs has been the dominant personality of his company and when prior reports about his health surfaced, scared investors knocked billion's off Apple's stock market valuation.

Let's say you're Apple PR. What do you do? Do you tell the world what's going on? Do you stick your head in the sand and make believe it's not happening? FWIW, Apple officially declined comment regarding Jobs' Macworld non-appearance. But that won't quell the speculation.

Think Differently to Keep Going in a Recession

We’re in a recession. If your business is going gangbusters, keep going! But if your business is softening or contracting, or if you’re afraid of that happening next year, you’ve got to think up some new ideas.

You know what they say: you can’t keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result.

My pal Doug Simon of D S Simon Productions, never one to sit back and wait, has announced an innovation that should at least spur you to think differently: “Financial Crisis PR Insurance.” Here’s how it works:

Clients pay a small insurance premium on top of the price for their Satellite Media Tour, corporate video, Internet Media Tour or other D S Simon service. On the project’s start date, the three-month low for the Dow Industrial Index is recorded. If at any point during the project the Dow falls 1,500 points below this recorded low, clients have the option to cancel their project, paying only the premium.

Says Simon:

“Marketers need to be more aggressive to avoid a major sales drop during the current economic turmoil,” said Douglas Simon, President & CEO of D S Simon Productions. “This insurance lets you plan marketing initiatives with the security of knowing that if the economic crisis widens, you can cancel the initiative without paying for it.”

Good Auto Industry PR Means More Than Flying Coach

So GM and Chrysler say they “get it” and that their CEOs won’t be flying in corporate jets when they return to DC this week for Round Two of begging/arm-twisting/cajoling/blackmailing Congress into forking over billions of dollars to their companies. (Ford hasn’t said yet what its CEO will do to get to Washington)

“We’ve gotten the message,” said GM spokesperson Tom Wilkinson.

Really? News reports out of Detroit suggest that so far, all they have “gotten” is that it would be beyond dumb to show up in Washington aboard three separate corporate jets, which cost about $20,000 each for a round-trip from the Motor City.

I’m not sure they’ve “gotten” the message that Congress and especially the public wants to see and hear a lot more from the Big Three than “give us the money or we’ll ef-up the country by going bankrupt.”

So I’m going to make believe for a moment that I’m sitting in a conference room at GM or Chrysler being asked to give my best PR advice on how to get the public on our side going into these hearings:

• Drive from Detroit to DC in Ford/GM/Chrysler cars or trucks!! This is the biggest no-brainer of all time.


• Get dealers, suppliers, union men and women, and multi-generation car owners to join your caravan.


• Drive through as many Congressional districts as you can on the way and stop once or twice in each to make note of the auto industry’s impact on that area.


• Send out PR info to Big Three dealers and other auto-related businesses across the country in every other Congressional district giving them talking points and simple PR guidance on how to get local coverage of the impact that the Big Three have in their town.


• Suspend all new car advertising — all of it! — for the 48 hours prior to the hearing, and replace it with heart-rending stories of Big Three employees, suppliers and car owners who would be hurt if the companies were to go under.


• When you get to Washington, have an awesome press conference on the steps of the Capitol with all your constituencies present, and make your case for the bailout, using as many personal stories as possible.

Oh, and one more thing: have an actual plausible plan that everyone can grasp about how you will use the money to stave off bankruptcy and get your companies back on the right track.