By Julie McKinney, on February 1st, 2012
Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation, the breast cancer research fundraising giant that proudly places its pink label on everything from yogurt lids to blenders, is in hiding today.
 News outlets and social media sites are buzzing about the breast cancer awareness group’s decision, announced yesterday, to stop providing funds to Planned Parenthood centers for breast cancer examinations and other breast health services. The organization says funding was pulled because of new criteria that forbid it from funding any organization under government investigation. The investigation, led by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla), is examining whether Planned Parenthood uses public money to fund abortions.
Nineteen Planned Parenthood programs are funded by the Komen Foundation, according to the Planned Parenthood website. These programs provide women with breast health education, screenings and referrals for mammograms. Planned Parenthood statistics in an Associated Press story reveal that Komen grants funded nearly 170,000 breast exams over the past five years.
Tweets, blog posts and Facebook rants are pouring in by the second about Komen’s decision to pull the funding. Overwhelmingly negative emotions are being directed at the organization on these platforms. At the same time, Komen remains mum on Twitter and was late to the game on Facebook. The issue isn’t addressed on its homepage, and a statement is nowhere to be found in the media center.
While it seems Komen executives may be doing selective media interviews, the organization’s general public silence leaves the impression it is hiding from all the commenters who are taking the story viral. The online community is emphatic on the resulting conclusion – politics played a role here.
In deep contrast to Komen’s response, Planned Parenthood has put the controversy front and center on its website. The site, and its partnering websites, share a response to Komen cutting funds. The organization went beyond just responding to the news. It included personal stories from breast cancer survivors into its response, who may not be alive without Planned Parenthood’s screenings. This personal touch drives home the importance of breast cancer screenings for everyone, something that Komen is denying women through its denied funds to Planned Parenthood.
Whether you agree or disagree with how Komen handles money, and even if you don’t support all of Planned Parenthoods services, one thing is clear when examining this from a communications standpoint: When you’re under fire, frequent, open communication is critical. Politically driven or not, Susan G. Komen for the Cure made this decision itself. It should have had a plan in place for a more aggressive response, and we should be hearing more from them now. Given prior history, the damage from its mishandling of the communication will likely be long lasting.
By Lori Russo, on January 19th, 2012
“Brooklyn hippster [sic] Lana Del Rey had one of the worst outings in SNL history last night — booked on the strength of her TWO SONG web EP, the least-experienced musical guest in the show’s history…”
Nick Denton, head of the popular gossip website Gawker, received an email on January 15 containing the above critique of Saturday Night Live’s booking of Ms. Del Rey. Normally this sort of reader feedback might be noted by the site’s editors and simply deleted.
In this case, the result was far different. The email was posted prominently on Gawker’s home page for its hundreds of thousands of readers to see. Why? Perhaps it was because the email’s author was none other than NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams, one of the most recognizable personalities on the same network that airs SNL.
According to the Washington Post, Denton shared the email with Gawker’s editor, A.J. Daulerio, purely for the purpose of providing a heads-up about the opinions of “influential readers.” Daulerio turned around and posted it to the site in the spirit of “radical transparency.”
As you can imagine, NBC’s PR team moved quickly in asking Gawker to take down the post. As you might also imagine, Gawker just as quickly declined. Why? Because there is no such thing as off the record.
In the aftermath, I asked a number of journalists and PR professionals how they define “off the record.” Not surprisingly, they all had different answers. My favorite came from writer Lance Thompson, who said, “’Off the record’ is like a dead microphone. The situation could conceivably exist, but never when you’re speaking.” Or writing, in Brian Williams’ case.
Because the definition of “off the record” is at least unclear, certainly misunderstood and definitely not legally enforceable, why not adhere to a far simpler concept? If you can’t say it for attribution, then probably you shouldn’t say it at all. Otherwise, anything that is said in the company of a journalist is fair game. Full stop. If you don’t want to see it in print, on the web or on television, bite your lip. It’s painful, but far less so than the painful lesson one journalist learned the hard way.
What do you think? Was Brian Williams right to expect an email between friends would remain private? Was Gawker right to publish it?
By Peter V. Stanton, on December 16th, 2011
 That scold rings loudly in my ears. It came almost daily from Sister John the Baptist, my first grade teacher at St. Matthew’s School in Baltimore as she herded her charges into rows of two for the march to the cafeteria. All these years later, I can see her stern glare and ominous habit as she patrolled the line for miscreants who had the temerity to whisper “I need to pee” or something similar.
That memory came rushing back to me as I heard the news of the National Transportation Safety Board’s recommendation that all mobile phone use in cars be banned. NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman may be the second coming of Sister John, barking to all within earshot “No Talking!” She followed this with a comment in an interview that she knew the ban would be unpopular, but that this was not about a popularity contest. Well that’s certainly clear. A nag like this likely had a tough time in high school and is getting her revenge on the popular kids now.
Frankly, Ms. Hershman trivialized the issue and exposed her foolishness with her comment. We are far beyond questions of popularity in the discussion of cell phone use in cars. We are talking about a vital technology that has advanced to the point where people depend upon the ability to reach out to family, advise them of whereabouts when encountering delays, engage in commerce and do the thousand other things that comprise daily life in a modern society. Besides, does anyone reject the reality that manufacturers and service providers are keenly focused on safety and developing all manner of hands free devices and applications that reduce the potential for driver distraction.
Ms. Hershman used the “D” word repeatedly in her argument in favor of the ban. What she failed to discuss was whether her ban would eliminate driver distractions that by her calculus should be considered every bit as dangerous as mobile devices. Here’s one example.
On my daily commute from Baltimore to Washington, I drive a stretch of highway that has (I counted) 17 signs within the space of one mile. Among these are an overhead electronic message board which requires that drivers take their eyes off the road, look up and read three lines of type that often include abbreviations that require you to pause and think about what is meant. A little further in this corridor is a radar activated speed sign that flashes your speed as you approach. This requires that you take your eyes off the traffic in front of you, glance at the flashing numbers, look down at your dashboard, discern which of the large dials is the speedometer and not the tachometer, check your speed against the sign and then return your eyes to the road ahead. All that takes a few seconds, perhaps, but certainly enough time to create the potential for an accident. The remainder of the signs advise of construction related detours, exit names and numbers, mileage to upcoming destinations and more.
Will all those distractions be eliminated as well?
While we are at it, what about the radio? Must that be ripped out along with your iPod? What about your kids’ back seat video system that is controlled from the front seat? Chuck that in the garbage too and then be distracted by the wailing and gnashing of teeth emanating from the child seats in back. But truly, we have not even begun.
Rip out the heater and the AC. Adjusting the temperature, pressing the right buttons, setting the fan speed dials and directing the vents is inherently dangerous and definitely distracting. Would Ms. Hershman advise that “This is not about a popularity contest. If you sweat and stink that is far better than risking an accident.”
But wait, there’s more. What about those seat adjustments? Dare not get uncomfortable and reach down to adjust your position or give yourself a little more legroom. If you do, you are not paying attention, Mister. (Another favorite scold of Sister John’s.) Take out the blinker switches, the wiper arms and the headlight buttons too. If it gets dark and you need to take your eyes off the road to turn on the headlamps, then you should ask yourself whether you should be out after dark at all.
If you think this rant borders on the ridiculous, then check out the recommendation of Baltimore County State Delegate Dana Stein. He took up the Hershman challenge immediately recommending that it be a crime – a CRIME – if someone is eating, drinking or smoking in the car. Since those activities would in the eyes of the law constitute distractions, drivers would be guilty of the crime of Distracted Driving. He has a bill he plans to introduce to accomplish just that!
No one argues in favor of texting while driving and that is not the point here. Far from it. That would be like suggesting that it is OK to read a newspaper while driving, something I actually have observed during my daily commute. But if we are at the stage in our society of criminalizing anything and everything, we have gone way beyond the point of reason.
How about a stepped up anti-texting public education campaign? These have proven effective in the past. According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, well-designed fully integrated public education campaigns have been demonstrated to reduce smoking among young people by as much as 40 percent. A 2010 study in The Lancet found that mass media anti-tobacco campaigns are associated with a decline in youth starting to smoke and an increase in the number of adult smokers who quit.
And what about distracted policing? Are we really ready to start taking our cops away from true crime prevention so they can pursue people for talking in their cars? I can tell the cops the location of an open air drug market I drive past on a regular basis. They seem already too distracted to tackle that one.
We can and should accept that we live in a modern society in which technology plays a vital role. That technology includes the ability to communicate in ways that actually increase our safety, enhance our ability to “See Something and Say Something” or respond to the Amber Alerts that are so frequently posted on those overhead message boards even if we do so from our cars. Hands-free technology is fast becoming ubiquitous and it will only get better over time. Let’s work on better education and awareness and less government intrusion.
And Ms. Hershman can yell “No Talking” all she wants. Sister John the Baptist did it better.
By Kristen Dennis, on November 17th, 2011
It may be no surprise to industry experts that government departments are notoriously behind the social media curve in comparison with private organizations. In fact, Congress and the media have “dinged” agencies for their lack of social media participation. At least one rationale for the criticism is likely the fact that social media platforms are inherently a way for the government to be transparent and proactive in communicating their policies, decisions and actions to the American people.
Because these decisions and actions so often have an effect on our livelihoods, it’s natural for the community to be interested in their rationale, their impact on the economy, and their implications for the future.
Fear not: The bureaucracy is listening and social media engagement is increasing.
As an example, the Department of Veterans Affairs released its new social media policy, establishing a path forward and encouraging VA offices to practice clear and transparent communication to Veterans and their communities. This is a significant advance in thinking about the value and importance of social media. It was furthered recently when Brandon Friedman, VA’s Director of New Media, along with several other members of leading government agencies, participated in a panel discussion entitled, “Can the Department of Defense Realize the Full Power of Social Media?” The panel reassessed DOD’s social media status one year after the release of a policy that opened the Pentagon’s doors to several sites, including Facebook and Twitter, that had previously been blocked.
As a Communications contractor working with VA, I found the discussion very interesting. While, as the panel agreed, the government has certainly made progress in social media participation, several unique circumstances should be addressed to maximize value, minimize risk and make even further progress.
To begin, a greater emphasis is needed on educating and training staff on social media practices to increase transparency. This would include heightening awareness and propensity for “over sharing.” One panelist said it best: “No one wants to do a bad job.” This particularly stuck in my mind, because social media can be so engaging as to cause you to lose your way, and in turn, your effectiveness. Likewise, although social media serve as a means for quickly challenging negative comments, in government agencies, information security remains a paramount priority. Participants in social media activity must always ensure that private information continues to be safeguarded when relaying information to the public.
The relative importance of social media in the hierarchy of communication within government agencies also continues to be an issue. Social media initiatives should be a proactive effort, but are often relegated to the backburner in a sea of seemingly more pressing demands. Often, agencies do not have personnel solely dedicated to social media, so metric tracking and leadership buy-in are difficult to achieve and maintain.
The panel noted the issue was not that the social media efforts thus far were “incorrect, but incomplete.” While one of the benefits of social media is access to data that can be presented to departmental leadership (Facebook fan numbers, Twitter followers, blog subscribers, etc.), it can also turn into a drawback. If multiple staffers are communicating on internal efforts, but the social media office is not aware of these individual accounts, it becomes difficult to track activity and bring accurate measures of success to the fore. It also becomes nearly impossible to ensure team members are following a consistent social media policy or responding to media requests in the correct manner.
But isn’t social media about sharing and establishing networks within and outside of your teams? As agencies grapple with this fundamental conundrum, they must strive to strike a balance between communicating and regulating.
While government agencies have certainly made great strides in social media participation, the effort is still relatively new. Public affairs teams need to work with information offices to marry social media and security to address some very valid concerns. If agencies are going to advance into the future of information sharing, social media participation will need to be an integral piece of the long-term plan. Moving forward with a solid social media plan ultimately will establish a strong and secure voice for organizations across the virtual space.
By Meredith Pratt, on October 26th, 2011
 This week, Stanton Communications, Inc., welcomes our partners from ECP Global and IPAN, to Washington, D.C. These two international public relations consortia have a full schedule of discussions, presentations and more all focused on the importance and power of independence in the public relations industry. Over the course of the three-day meeting, our colleagues will hear from David Jensen, an international communications consultant who has worked with and for some of the largest and smallest PR firms in the world, as well as in senior positions with Boeing, GE, Raytheon and others. David will discuss PR networks, their inherent value and distinction compared to the global holding companies. A panel of top-tier journalists featuring lead reporters from AP Broadcast, NPR Digital and USA Today will talk about the changing face of journalism in the digital age and its implications for cross-border communications. Samuel Mok, an international business consultant, will patch in from Beijing to discuss doing business in China and the opportunities for network growth there. And Dr. Sherri Jeffe, a renowned political analyst, media commentator and professor of public policy at the University of Southern California, will present her views on political communications here and abroad.
Throughout the meetings, team members from Stanton Communications will be providing real-time updates on Twitter. We welcome you to follow the hashtag #SCIGlobal for live news, particularly during Friday morning’s media panel. Following the meetings, keep an eye out for news here on The Strategy Room blog. We would love to hear your feedback and opinions.
ECP Global Communications and IPAN strive to meet twice each year in the home countries of member firms. In May, the groups convened in Dubrovnik, Croatia, for a strategic meeting on ways to strengthen the alliance and advance a 10-year strategic plan dubbed ECP 2020. Stanton Communications, Inc., has been a member of ECP Global Communications for nearly 10 years and now chairs the consortium. During that time, the alliance has enabled our firm to serve premier clients around the globe with programs originating both here in the U.S. and abroad. Partner firms in Great Britain, France, Italy, Turkey, Germany, Switzerland and Canada, have offered guidance and worked on behalf of our clients on important projects and issues. We truly benefit from the alliance and are proud to be a part of a team of professionals singularly dedicated to client service excellence. For more information about ECP or IPAN, visit www.ecpglobal.com and www.ipan.biz.
See you on Twitter.
|
|
