In my blog of February 10, I was both intrigued and skeptical about the“ Pepsi Refresh” initiative. Intrigued, because it represented everything that an ideal interactive campaign can be – “creative, innovative, highly engaging and very popular, while building on the brand in a fun and social way.” Skeptical, because Pepsi was to grant large sums of money ($5,000 to $250,000) to charities (within selected categories) based on a populous vote of “friends and peers.” Critical thought as to urgency or evaluation of need, did not come into play.

Still, my skepticism faded rather rapidly as Pepsi came up with another angle within its campaign — its “Do Good for the Gulf” Refresh campaign, which has awarded 32 grants each month worth $1.3 million. Now Pepsi has invited consumers to submit ideas that could “refresh the communities of the Gulf states,” through July 16 and has pledged another $1.3 million. Starting August 2, consumers can vote on the ideas they like best. Finalists will be announced on September 2, and grants will be awarded on September 22.

For big brands to spend money on major causes is not new. Nor is it new for big brands or companies to get behind a disaster and offer funds and equipment as needed. If it is also somewhat self-serving, and is based on an ulterior marketing motive, so be it. Still, marketers would do well to note how well the Pepsi’s Refresh campaign worked in that it has empowered the consumer and rallied the public-at-large to come up with ideas in support of a disaster, in this case, the Gulf Oil disaster.

It’s a fine line to cross, however, and can be seen as opportunistic.

In this case, Pepsi has gained recognition for outstanding corporate social responsibility (CSR). It has earned it in a substantive way, for the Refresh Project has given more than $7 million in the first five months of the year and expects to invest at least $20 million in worthy causes.

And it has raised a populous conscientiousness as to charities. How does that get rewarded?

Treasure the journalists, for as former WSJ.com reporter Jason Fry recently commentated, digital media may very well be the end of  journalism as we know it today.

Whereas that may sound somewhat dramatic, you have only to look at the digital media site that Fry mentions, Demand Media, as well as other similar ones like Associated Content or AOL’s Seed — the so called “content mills” or “content farms” — so nicknamed for the large volume of content that they churn out, based on a set of algorithms of popular search queries.

On such sites, topics are usually selected by low-paid freelancers who, because the economics of these sites’ business model that don’t allow time for several rounds of edits, fact-checking or further investigative reporting, write in a one-draft style, written with the intent to lure, as well as satisfy advertisers.

And now comes another entry in this arena, Yahoo’s new blog dubbed The Upshot.  In an interview with The New York Times, James A. Pitaro, vice president of Yahoo Media, said that their newly launched news blog, will create content “in response to audience insight” aggregated from Yahoo search and popular search queries, to guide its reporting and writing on national affairs, politics and the media.

Where is the validity of the news if  subjects are only selected to attract eyeballs and sell ads?

In contrast, journalism, to date, has been about not just informing readers and listeners, but also about illuminating something for readers, giving them a perspective that might trigger new thoughts and opinions.  I am speaking about the professional journalist — the ones who are passionate in the pursuit of a story who, by the very nature of their profession, understand how to research a story, are relentless in their hunt for facts and substance and who are able to organize their thoughts in a way that actual “tells” the story in a comprehensible way.

Demand Media has issued strong protest about being called a “content farm” and bristles at criticism of their editorial content.

Maybe both sides deserve consideration.   Maybe the word that is new and arbitrary here is “content,” which gets confused with news, but is not news.  And the “farm” or “mill” parts refer to mass content, or quantity versus “investigating reporting” quality.  Maybe digital media is about advertorials without a new labeling system.

So, for now, “content mill or farm” may fit, until new terms are found and adopted to separate digital media from journalism as we know it.

Look, advertising has always been the life blood of most news generating publishers, online or not, but the traditional wall erected to separate editorial and advertising has got to keep standing to allow for independent reporting.

But in light of digital media sites being so hot and rich, (Demand Media generated more than $200 million in revenue in 2009, and is now planning an initial public offering) that wall may very well come “a-tumbling down.”

Special guest post by Chris Paine. Chris directed “Who Killed the Electric Car?” His next film, “Revenge of the Electric Car” is set for release 2011.  Currently, he is working on two projects related to the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. http://www.facebook.com/revengeoftheelectriccar http://www.facebook.com/chris.paine

Exxon Valdez veteran marine toxicologist and author Riki Ott (“Not One Drop”) laid out some disturbing comparisons of the two oil disasters during our recent shoot in Louisiana.

BP is using the same playbook Exxon used on us in Alaska.  It’s all about minimizing liability and damages in court. So right off the bat, BP is underestimating how much is spilling, understating harm to the environment, claiming  dispersants are “safe” and “not toxic” to marine life, and putting workers at risk because BP doesn’t want to supply respirators. BP says it will pay all “legitimate” claims, but what this means is ’see you in court.’ Same old story with Exxon.

Here are a few examples:

1). Broken Promises:  The oil industry makes false promises to get permits:

-Exxon: Promise: Double hull tankers and advanced vessel tracking so ‘not one drop’ of oil would spill in Alaska.  Actuality: Single hull tanker grounds, destroying pristine ecosystem and fishing industry for decades.

-BP:  Promise: State of the art drilling platforms with fail-safe safety procedures. Actuality: Multiple reckless decisions lead to massive oil spill threatening wide destruction of Gulf ecosystem, fishing  and tourism.

2). Manipulate Government Regulations

-Exxon:  Manipulate government regulatory bodies to receive multiple exemptions. Examples: A) Take advantage of OSHA exemptions for colds and flus to mask chemical poisonings of cleanup workers  B) Convince EPA and Coast Guard to rubber stamp contingency plans like using low grade “mill pond” buoys instead of “ocean grade” buoys. C)   Circumvent vastly variable effectiveness  of dispersants for different oil grades by persuading EPA to create one “compromise” effectiveness rating D) Convince EPA to sign off on toxicologist reports for dispersants that have only  been tested on older animals, not juveniles.

-BP: Examples A-D above still apply.

3). Spiller in Charge

The oil polluter becomes a ‘super state’ in charge of running response and cleanup. America leaves spiller in charge of cleanup. The Coast Guard sides with industry.

-Exxon:  USCG signed off on “miles of beaches” treated. USCG backed up Exxon’s control of images.

-BP: Signs of similar activity.

4). Under-Reporting Spill:

-Exxon:   In Alaska, Exxon reported up to 3 times less oil spilt then estimated by independent experts.

-BP:  IN Gulf, BP at first estimated  its spill at 1000 barrels of crude oil per day, then increased it to 5000 once researchers said it was at least this much. Now independent researchers using satellite images estimate as much as  70,000 barrels a day.

5). Under-Reporting  Cleanup

-Exxon: Said that it recovered 10 to 12% of oil on beaches in Prince William Sound but this was based on its own underreported spill size. When you take actual spill size into account, Exxon actually only cleaned up about 4%.   Eyewitnesses reported as much of 80% of recovered “oil” as being water in the last of three tankers that off-loaded “oil” from the stricken Exxon Valdez.

-BP:  Initially claimed to be recovering 20% of spill with its first siphon but this was based on inaccurate flow meter data . Later estimates for recovered oil per day are considerably lower

6).  Minimize public perception of impact

- Exxon: immediately put a flight restriction over area to prevent photography. It also required cleanup crews and workers not to talk to media or take photographs

-BP:  Many reports of similar measures. Dispersants used to prevent visible oil slick. Massive messaging effort to minimize public and government reaction.

7). Sick wildlife

-Exxon.  Ecosystem collapsed 4 years after Exxon Valdez spill.  Pink Salmon eventually recovered but Herring fishery utterly collapsed and 15 of 24 species have not recovered 21 years later

-BP:  Effect of oil and dispersants still unknown — and NOAA has not yet initiated comprehensive ecosystem studies despite vast extent of oiled estuaries and marshes.

8). Sick Communities

-Exxon.   Medical and social trauma caused by collapse of fishing industry never anticipated or compensated.   Domestic violence, divorce, suicide, drugs, and depression rates due to financial stress and cultural dislocation were at historic highs for 20 years with PTSD as high as 99% increases.

-BP.  Hospitalized oil clean up workers.  Already signs of severe financial stress amongst unemployed fisherman just recovering from Hurricanes Katrina/Rita.  Cleanup workers facing illness without proper protection.

9). Minimize liability, Write off legal costs

-Exxon.   Exxon appeals $5 billion punitive fine for 20 years until claim to reduced to $507 million – about 10% of original claims. Legal fees become a business expense, written off against revenue from taxpayers.

BP: ‘We will pay all legitimate claims’.  “Translation?” says Ott, “See you in court.”

It’s downright unthinkable and puzzling that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, of all people, wouldn’t think through potential consequences before taking action.  Unless, of course, he has a different agenda…

In the recent profile published by the magazine, titled “The Runaway General,” McChrystal disparaged administration officials, mocking Vice President Joseph Biden and criticizing special envoy for Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke and U.S. Ambassador to Kabul Karl Eikenberry, with whom McChrystal is supposed to carry out U.S. policy, potentially fracturing the unified front that Obama has sought to build for the war and the international coalition.

Oops…

Was this blatant naïveté on the part of McChrystal to simply speak off the cuff and blast the administration or just flawed judgment?  Apparently McChrystal, who spent much of his military career in the world of special operations, didn’t have as much experience dealing with the media, as did other top commanders, such as Gen. David H. Petraeus.  Still, he had “handlers” –civilian press aides assigned to him by the US military.

According to a report in The Washington Post, his now-resigned civilian press aide, Duncan Boothby said that, “he was heavily involved in arranging access for journalist Michael Hastings to McChrystal and his staff, so that Hastings could write the profile.”  Was Boothby aware of the bent that the story was to take?  Did he research the magazine and the reporter? Did he take steps to veer the story in such a way as to forestall any potential damaging results from the interview?  Was the reporter given too much access to McChrystal and his “anonymous” aides, with too little control? Did Boothby media train McChrystal at all?  Were McChrystal and his aides not aware of the administration’s policy that military officers must respect civilian leadership and keep their advice and views private?

Something doesn’t make sense…

It gets more dumbfounding.  Both Boothby and McChrystal fact-checked the story.  What did they read and approve? Did McChrystal intentionally speak out against the administration and choose a popular publication as a platform in which to vent?  If so, poor judgment, that triggered a public spectacle (or circus) with consequences that were easily predictable – a very public firing — reminiscent of the firing of General Douglas MacArthur, who played a prominent role in the Pacific theater during World War II and who was fired for insubordination by President Truman.

McChrystal issued an apology yesterday saying that,  “It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened.” How about that old adage, “think before you speak? “

Poor judgment, indeed.  Sometimes — “It is all a matter of judgment”

Ambush marketing — think of it as gate crashing, as in you want to get into a Lakers game without a ticket or go to a party without an invitation.  That’s what took place at the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.

Here’s what occurred…  Two women, with three dozen or so more in the background, all sporting the distinctive Dutch orange, are believed to have led an “ambush marketing” stunt on behalf of a Dutch beer brand, Bavaria, during the Denmark-Netherlands match on Monday.  In other words, the Bavaria beer people were caught red-handed promoting a beer without paying for sponsorship, basically stepping heavily on the toes of sponsor Anheuser-Busch’s Budweiser, who had spent a hefty sum for that privilege.

So they got their due. FIFA, the soccer governing body, caught the culprits as they tried to take advantage of the Game’s global publicity for their brand and confiscated their passports before releasing them on bail.  Although this is not the first run-in with FIFA (2006 World Cup in Germany) Bavaria is, of course, incensed. In a company statement, they protested, “the orange dresses don’t have a big brand name logo” and added that “thousands of fans at the game were wearing the dresses, which were sold with eight-packs of beer.” The company declined to say whether the two fans arrested had been employed by the company.

Ambush marketing is one of the oldest and most devilish marketing games around, breaking entry laws and overstepping ethical standards’ boundaries.  And yet big brands use ambush marketing to gain publicity that money can’t buy. It is akin to passing “go” without paying dues and getting in front of the line.

Brands choose high visibility events that present a world stage to them. As example, in the Sydney Olympics, the slogan for the games was “Share the Spirit.” Qantas airlines adopted a slogan “The Spirit of Australia” despite the fact that Ansett Air was the official airline sponsor. In the Barcelona Olympic Games, Michael Jordan (sponsored by Nike) covered the Reebok sign on his gear while accepting his gold medal for USA basketball. Nike also sponsored the press conference for the “Dream Team” even though Reebok was their official sponsor.

Ambush marketing is no more than creating a clever stunt to grab momentary attention. The lure for marketers is the immediate brand visibility, a notoriety of sorts, but the consequences can potentially be worse than the gain – that of being “hauled into a court of law” or being publicly and negatively discussed or derided in the on and offline media.

But it is prolific…

It is either a brilliant marketing ploy calculated to boost the giant liquor company’s sales or a spontaneous lucky streak for Smirnoff.  Or not — for the popularity of the ‘Bros Icing Bros’ game, which originated on college campuses and quickly spread virally via all social media channels, may very well cast a shadow on Smirnoff’s public image and its stance on responsible drinking.

Although Smirnoff has denied that this might be a company-mounted marketing scheme, the jury is still out, considering that the winner clearly is the liquor giant itself and that it has remained largely silent. The game has also triggered sales of Smirnoff Ice drinks within demographics that probably never even heard about the sugary ice malt beverage.

The rules of the game, which had a murky start somewhere in either Florida or Vermont, are explicit on the web: a ‘bro’ hands a friend (or ‘bro) a Smirnoff Ice and he (most participants have been men) “has to drink it on one knee, all at once — unless he is carrying a bottle himself, in which case the ‘attacker’ must drink both bottles.” The listed rules include: “You cannot refuse an Ice.  If you refuse to drink the Ice you are instantly excommunicated and shunned and thus can never Ice another bro or be iced. If you are Iced by a fellow bro you can Ice block.  When presented with an Ice, you pull out an Ice of your own and reverse the Ice on your bro. The ultimate ice insult…”

The mercurial spread of ‘Bros Icing Bros’ from the Web to living rooms and offices around the country seems bizarre, when you consider that it has gone way past college fraternities and now includes young professionals and minor celebrities such as the rapper Coolio, the actor Dustin Diamond and members of the rock band The National.  According to the New York Times, there is even a campaign online that aims to Ice Ashton Kutcher, who often serves as a kind of Kevin Bacon of Web memes, linking disparate areas of the Internet in fewer than six degrees.

Here’s the rub…If it is a social media trend that sparked spontaneously, the game will play out virally until the next ‘thing’ comes along, that is, unless Smirnoff finds ways to disavow the game.

However, it can also end abruptly if the young ‘Bros” get a sense that they have been co-opted by the brand for its own purposes, that they’re being used, in fact, to market a drink that, by all accounts, they really don’t like. But this will surely come back to “bite” the Smirnoff brand.

It’s every company’s dream to have sales rocket through the perennial roof without spending for a marketing campaign.  But this is about a game that extols uncontrolled drinking, with one particular product, with the potential of youths of questionable drinking age, participating.

It raises doubts…

A Smirnoff company statement says, “We never want under-age ‘icing’ and we always want responsible drinking.” Well, that’s good. But if, in fact, Smirnoff had nothing to do with initiating the game, how about taking a stronger stance to distance the company from all the ‘Icing’?

Not happening as yet.  Sales are good.

The British should be familiar with parodies.  After all they invented the form…

BP is ripe for mocking, as witnessed by the launch of the faux BP Twitter account, @BPGlobalPR,  which already has outdistanced BP’s real Twitter stream, attracting nearly 60,000 followers, compared to the company’s 7,000 followers.

While it is true that the company’s real twitter account @BP_America offers continued updates about actions taken toward a solution of the international calamity, no one buys that the effort alone is commendable.  And yet, in reading and watching all the hyperbole that the company puts out, all the gaffes made by its CEO and all the meager attempts at “talking” to a public through full page ads in the NY Times, daily, the company continues to exude a righteous behavior that is irritating and obnoxious, as well as arrogant and disdainful – certainly not characteristics that can endear a company to its many publics.

In the words of a tweeter, “The engineers (may) be busy but PR (folks) are (in) hiding.”

And so, while BP’s PR advisors seem to be AWOL, people turn to mocking.

It’s a real circus out there.

Twitterers are tweeting about the now “extinct mermaids” to the “sharks getting entangled in oil geysers” to changing the word catastrophe and agreeing to call it a “whoopsie daisy.”  The faux account has sold “BP cares” T-shirts with the profits from the sales going to the nonprofit Gulf Restoration Network. Apparently its humorous blasts have been re-tweeted by everyone from filmmaker Michael Moore to singer Michelle Branch.  And then there were preposterous headlines made by Kevin Costner and numerous TV appearances by Bill Nye, the Science Guy, the children’s show host who is apparently now an authority on the issue.

Apparently the faux twitter account’s fictional character “Terry” who has steadfastly remained in character, weakened and fell out of character when asked as to why this effort, to which he answered, “Companies screw up and then they hire folks like me to come in to make it look like they’re doing something while they figure out how to make money again.”

Well, there you have it – the public mocking of a company…

The curious thing is that according to a dialogue that Ad Age had with BP spokesman Toby Odone, he said that, “he wasn’t aware of any attempts by the company to have the feed taken down.” In playing the role of a real BP spokesman, the bogus one took the opposite stance – the one that the real BP should have taken in the first place by saying, “I’ve heard rumors of fake BP PR accounts, and I assure you if we find out who is in charge of them, we will annihilate them.” In further mocking the company, he added, “BP is doing everything we can to save our reputation and hopefully salvage some oil out of all this.”

Here’s advice for BP: hire the faux twitter account owner for advice as to next moves or push your PR folks out of hiding and make them unleash a PR campaign that is based on critical thought and one that is substantive…

In a poll taken by CBS’ Political Hotsheet’s Peter Maer in his post titled, “White House: Stop Marketing Unhealthy Foods To Kids,” the question was asked of readers as to whether or not they would support restrictions on marketing unhealthy foods to children in order to combat obesity.  Out of 12,630 submitted votes to date, a shocking 89% said no they would not, while 9% said yes, with 2% not sure.

And this in light that almost one-third of U.S. children are at least overweight, and about 17 percent, obese.

If this random poll is any benchmark, childhood obesity is not high on anybody’s list, except that is, First Lady Michelle Obama, who has made this issue her signature piece similar to Nancy Reagan’s campaign against drug use.

And just in time, for in the absence of federal mandates to push changes in the marketing of junk food to kids, it will take a “bully pulpit” to rally consumers toward embracing healthy eating and disavowing hawkish marketing directly to kids of junk foods.

Michelle Obama is leading such a campaign.  Much like Michelle Obama appealed to the community at large when she planted an organic garden on the South Lawn of the White House which spurred many to have home gardens of their own, especially during the economic crunch of ’09 (see blog of July 14, ’09, titled Michelle Obama and Gardening…,) she is now asking communities to take charge in helping combat childhood obesity.

A Task Force on Childhood Obesity, spearheaded by Obama, which was set up to review this urgent issue, wants junk food makers and their marketers to “go on what amounts to an advertising diet.” It also came up with a more practical idea, a pocketbook approach to keep people from buying unhealthy foods by potentially imposing state and local sales taxes on less healthy products.

That’s good and fine, but for the campaign to really make an impact, it will take the FCC to step in. However, per the comments of the FCC Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz, “A regulatory approach is certainly not where we want to start” — there’s not too much chance of this happening in the future.

According to Ms. Obama, it should become a crusade for all to adopt.  In her words,  “No one gets off the hook on this one from governments to schools, corporations to non-profits all the way down to families sitting around their dinner table.”

Much like the Green movement unleashed decades ago resulted in consumers preferring to support and do business with companies that portray an environmental concern and social conscience, so too can there be a groundswell behind companies that market healthy food products directly to children and promote healthy eating.  For example, wouldn’t it be great if it suddenly became “cool” to market healthy food products with kids’ favorite media characters?

Marketers take note, after all, it’s about children…

As if the oil spill catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, with the potential of a global calamity of unimagined proportions, is not enough of a disaster for BP corporate, the company’s well recognized “Beyond Petroleum” campaign, launched almost 10 years ago, has come back to bite it.

The “beyond petroleum” campaign, which positioned the company as “transcending the oil sector” and as being innovative, progressive and environmentally responsible and performance-driven, now seems more of an empty marketing ploy than a true descriptor of a company on a mission.

It has the stench of public deception.

It is not BP’s first petroleum mess and PR disaster that it has wrestled with, proving that being environmentally responsible has to go beyond a marketing tag line. In 2006, it was disclosed that BP’s Prudhoe Bay pipeline, which supplies 8% of U.S oil production, was corroded and leaking — for many years because nobody inspected it. It is interesting to note John Kenney’s wry comment at that time in The New York Times, “The company that claims to be ‘beyond petroleum’ shut down a pipeline that serves up 400,000 barrels of oil a day. Maybe Coca-Cola’s new line should be, ‘It’s good for your teeth.’”

This time around, according to BP PLC Chairman Lamar McKay, “no preparations for such an accident were made because it was unforeseeable, and seemed inconceivable, that equipment in place to avert an oil-well blowout, would fail,” referring to a valve mechanism sitting on top of the oil well nearly a mile down in the ocean, which failed to shut in the malfunction. Reports surfaced that it had forgone a $500,000 “acoustic trigger” shut-off device required of offshore oil wells operating near Norway and Brazil.  Apparently, this valve is the last line of defense against oil spurting out of the earth, but it didn’t seem to warrant another half-million expense.

Wouldn’t an environmentally concerned company have a plan ready for the “inconceivable” even if it was “unforeseeable” and include a plan that addresses the “last line of defense” as well?  As Kenney commented back in 2006, “If BP hadn’t been so “holier than thou” in its marketing during the last few years, I doubt that it would be getting hammered right now — at least to this extent. “

Speaking of history repeating itself…

Creating a glorified company image through marketing tag lines, without a genuine effort to become what it says, will always backfire.  Far better to take the cautious track and first make a genuine attempt to engage the public in a debate or a corporate rallying cry to change the paradigm – before you preach to the world what you cannot, or have not intention to, uphold.

In an ironic twist, BP was recently named as a finalist for a federal award honoring offshore oil companies displaying “outstanding safety and pollution prevention.”

Retiring the “Beyond Petroleum” posturing, has been urged before and considered, but rejected to date.  Now is a good time…

Who would have thought? You are in a mall, walking by a Macy’s store and oops! You get an alert on your smart phone that Macy’s has a special discount for you if you walk in, right now.  Or, you are driving approximately 10 blocks from Taco Bell, and there goes off that alert again – this time with an offer from Taco Bell that’s well worth a stop, rather than the one you had planned on – that coffee shop across the street. It gets better.  If you walk into a store often enough, you will be able to click as you enter on the smart phone location and immediately get on a customer loyalty program, enabling you to add points for future purchases, much like frequent flyer programs with miles.

Of course, you have to be a location app user.

If this sounds futuristic, it’s not. It’s here. Apparently all this was made possible by Foursquare, the location-based social network that introduced a free analytics tool and dashboard last month, giving business owners access to a range of information and statistics about visitors to their establishments.

Innovative marketers have managed to figure out how to maximize this into win-win situations. Just consider — Pepsico and the likes, sell more products, stores get more traffic and the consumer gets special offers geared to his/her likes and tastes.  And there’s another convenience soon to come.  As companies start to turn Foursquare (or other custom location applications) into a virtual loyalty-card program that offers customers discounts or other rewards for shopping, consumers get to toss all those customer loyalty cards that stuff up wallets and use smart phones as a simple replacement for it all.

Savvy businesses like Starbucks, Tasti-D-Lite, Macy’s and Pepsi, are using information reaped from smart phones that can signal someone’s location, to get live information about when and where people are shopping, track store traffic and note when their most loyal customers visit and market to them accordingly.

Of course, you have to want to be tracked and it’s good to remember that being a member of the likes of Foursquare is a proactive choice. But while it was fun and games just to check out who is sitting in the cafe across the street to find friends to meet up with spontaneously, so much information about you, presents a whole new scenario.

It is not only friends who are looking for you now, rather marketers, who are following your moves…

This may cause a momentary shudder (as in Big Brother Is Watching YOU, right out of George Orwell’s book, 1984), but my guess is that in 2010, it is the accepted reality — more so, if you get such advantages as loyalty points, discounts and free sodas.

It may just be that if Big Brother is, in fact watching, it no longer matters…

Wearing my PR marketing hat while reading today’s New York Times’ article by Leslie Kaufman headlined, “At 40, Earth Day Is Now Big Business,” I found that the position taken by Denis Hayes (the national coordinator of the first Earth Day and who is again returning 40 years later to organize this year’s activities), regarding how Earth Day had turned into a marketing platform for selling products and services, totally out of whack. Hayes said, “This ridiculous perverted marketing has cheapened the concept of what is really green,” and goes on to dramatically say, “It is tragic.”

Perverted marketing?  Tragic?  Not really. Opportunistic, yes, but that’s the good side of Corporate America – doing what it does best, but with a capitalistic bent, and jumping on the bandwagon of what seems a worthy and popular cause and — well OK, making a profit in doing so.

In part, Corporate America is actually responsible for supporting the original intent of Earth Day back in 1970 – to raise awareness of the urgent need to save our resources and stop the pollution of the planet — by developing services and products that are green and bringing them to the marketplace. The very marketers that Hayes criticized so harshly, the ones that saw an opportunity of maximizing Earth Day as a marketing platform, are also those that have been responsible for the rise of eco-consumerism, albeit as a by-product benefit.

So I say to the many pioneers of the environmental movement that find that eco-consumerism detracts from Earth Day’s original intent – think again. In part, it is continuing the job that the pioneers intended and spreading it far wider than bullhorn demonstrations ever could dream of.

Just consider what has happened over the forty years that ensued since that first Earth Day, back in 1970, when Mayor John V. Lindsay of New York City addressed a crowd of tens of thousands in Union Square, amidst an atmosphere that The New York Times then likened to a “secular revival meeting.” Forty years ago, only environmental activists thought about re-cycling or land fill poisons or polluted fisheries.  Now, before consumers buy, they check labels as to what “poison” might be in cleaning products, think “organic” before buying produce and use recyclable containers where possible, just to mention a few habits that have crept into our norm. We are becoming a society of eco-consumerists, and we have Corporate America to thank for its leadership in environmental innovation, as well as in getting customers to care, and then buy.

So I thank FAO Schwartz for its Greenzys penguin toy that, as an “ardent supporter of recycling, reusing and reducing waste” serves as a good role model for kids, and also Bahama Umbrella for its specially designed umbrella, with a drain so that water “can be stored, reused and recycled,” and the Gray Line, for its “Earth Week” package of day trips to green spots, as well as the many more companies that are turning us into an eco-consumerist society.

It’s become a partnership between environmental activists and Corporate America.  One needs the other for the good of all.

In recent news, there were updates on three of my blog topics of the last six months that caused me to have three “feel-good” moments.  And so, I thought I would share them, in descending order, with the most recent one first.

On April 8, 2010, writing in my blog headlined, “The Added Costs Of Flying,” I took exception with Spirit Airlines’ plan to start charging passengers for carry-on bags at a $45 per clip. I argued that it would certainly send a better message to the flying public for airlines to have the courage to simply raise their air ticket prices (notwithstanding price war games), rather than have a barrage of fees for once-free amenities that would total a ticket price hike anyway — but without the “smoke and mirrors.”  I voiced concern that this might spur on other airlines to follow suit.

The update: According to an AP article reported by Harry R. Weber, “Six Democratic senators want to hit U.S. airlines with a tax if they charge passengers for their carry-on bags.” The senators hoped that this move would deter other airlines from following Spirit Airlines’ lead. We need to wait as to whether or not this gains traction to win support in Congress, but how wonderful is it for senators to take a stand on behalf of consumers?

On March 11, 2010, I debated in my blog headlined, “A Furious Debate Heats Up As The National Enquirer Reaches For The Gold,” the worthiness of The National Enquirer as a candidate for a Pulitzer Prize, even though it actually qualified for that prestigious prize for having been the first to “out” the John Edwards story all the way through his denials of the affair and of fathering a child out of wedlock.

The update: Happily its entry did not win which, in my opinion, left the prestigious and legendary journalism, untainted.  But history was made anyway, and in a positive way, with the win of a cartoonist for SFGate.com, the online arm of the San Francisco Chronicle, and an investigative journalist at ProPublica who won Pulitzer Prizes for their work.  Although there was a previous wining online entry, Politifact, a database project of the St. Petersburg Times in Florida, this is the first time any online-only publication has won an award for editorial content.

Last November 4, 2009, I wrote in my blog headlined, The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Is On The Prowl Again, that the FTC was not amused that credit rating companies were using the mandated free credit reports as a lure for charging a monthly service fee that alert subscribers to important changes in their credit status.  Apparently “free” was not actually free.  Still, although the FTC, at that time, countered with warnings as well as ads about their warnings, they did little else to prevent consumers from getting “bilked” by would-be free sites.

The update: According to a Sacramento Bee report, “To crack down on misleading advertising, the Federal Trade Commission is requiring companies offering “free credit reports” to state clearly that there’s only one authorized site to get them: AnnualCreditReport.com. The new rules, a mostly overlooked piece of last year’s massive credit-card reform bill, are aimed at deceptive radio, TV and online ads that hook consumers with catchy jingles and promises of “free” credit reports.

Good change is in the air…

When will it end?

First, back when, they took away the complementary meals and replaced them with a for-purchase array of soggy sandwiches and salads prepared well ahead of departure.  Next came extra rows of seats, leaving anyone over 5 feet tall in a squished position for the duration of the flight. Then came per-baggage fees, which resulted in added carry on bags for cost saving, causing a ruckus on board as travelers wrestled to garner the ever-decreasing storage space in overhead compartments.

And now, under the sales tagline of ‘Bring Less; Pay Less’, Spirit Airlines is planning a new charge — $45 per carry-on bag.

But wait.  That’s not as bad as it can get.

UK-based budget airline Ryan Airlines, is charging to go to the toilet.  Yes, that’s right, they have installed slots in their cabin toilets that require passengers to insert either a pound coin, or a one-euro coin to use the toilets.  At that cost, many may opt to “hold it” (on short trips, that is) and wait for a land toilet upon arrival.

Moreover, Ryan Airlines is considering, but has not yet implemented, a “fat tax” for overweight passengers. From a messaging point of view, one thing is for overweight passengers to voluntarily buy two seats in order to fit, and yet another, is to be taxed for their fat.

OK, this does not mean that other airlines will follow with these desperate moves as they search for more revenue, but hey, it’s out there so, who knows?  Case in point is that charging for checked baggage quickly became the accepted norm, so why not carry-on bags?

In the end, disgruntled passengers may result in more empty seats, clearly far more costly than the price of sandwiches and checked luggage, so it’s in the airlines’ interest to “sit up and listen.”

One airline is exemplary in that regard. Southwest Airlines should be commended for not descending into this madness, while still achieving growth. Southwest’s policy of ‘bags fly free’ has apparently not dented their bottom line. According to an AP report, Southwest Airlines passenger revenue per available seat mile rose 22 percent from last year, while the carrier’s occupancy rate rose 3.7 percentage points to 81 percent.

There is a lot to be said for that airline’s long-term commitment to a strategy of compelling customer relations and a personality in the marketplace that customers find interesting and engaging, which adds up to “happy and loyal passengers.”

C’mon airlines. The sales gimmick of piecing together costs to make ends meet is slick and the intent is transparent to all air passengers — for they too, can add…

Southwest gets it.  It’s about passenger satisfaction and engagement and finding creative means to make ends meet, rather than nickel and diming passengers.  It can be the real differentiator, impacting an airline’s bottom line far more effectively than silly add-on costs.

Associated Press

Almost a year ago, on April 17 of ’09, in my blog titled, Bringing Brands Down Without A Safety Net… I wrote about Domino’s nightmare customer-generated video, showing disgusting and filthy antics from a server in preparing a pizza.  The video exploded virally on YouTube, causing unspeakable damage to the 50-year old reputation of the company.  As it turns out, the story had a happy ending, with Domino’s ultimate brand pivot — as they reformulated recipes and opened up a first-ever transparency communication on social networks.

Now it’s food giant, Nestlé’s turn to battle social media wars, as Greenpeace-backed environmental activists used social media in the last two weeks, to attack Nestlé over its purchase of palm oil for use in their KitKat candy bars and other products.  As reported by Emily Steel of the Wall Street Journal, the protestors “have swamped Nestle’s Facebook page with negative comments, used Twitter as a loud speaker and, posted a negative video on YouTube.
The activists claim that, “Nestlé is contributing to the destruction of Indonesia’s rain forest, potentially fueling global warming and endangering orangutans.”  Yet according to Nestle, only 1.25% of all the palm oil Nestlé used last year was from the Indonesian firm.

Not much chance that Nestlé will be responsible for destroying any rain forest in the near future.  Clearly much ado over nothing, but that’s not the point.  It’s out there, regardless.

Look, attacks on brands by individuals or consumer groups are not new. The “genie is out of the bottle” and there is no stuffing it back in anymore.  Companies will have to live with the fact that social media has offered all those who wish, a speaker’s platform with a “mega-bullhorn,” giving credence to all, without thought as to “from whose mouth it cometh.” Social media channels have enabled the volume to be turned up and the speed to quicken as to damaging rhetoric, leaving brands exposed and naked, with little recourse how to halt the onslaught.

Nestle’s contemporary dilemma has elicited various responses from professionals.  Some have suggested that Nestlé should temporarily shut down its Facebook page. Some have suggested they should cut down any two-way communications for now. Others have encouraged the company to post changes that will abate the protests, which it did, but the din continues. Nestlé itself had asked YouTube to take down the videos, but unfortunately only after the videos had spread virally beyond control.

I would offer that preparedness might be the answer. It always was so, but traditionally crises plans were more geared to accidents, product failures, whistle blowers or general company disasters, such as manufacturing delays.  A crisis communication plan clearly should include social media “attacks” from consumer groups, replete with a multi-media planned response approach.

I would add that a policy of ongoing transparency, coupled with daily interaction and consumer engagement can, with any luck, catch a disgruntled comment that can get an immediate response, well before it spirals out of control.  May be time consuming to do, but necessary…

The Army had it right – Be Prepared.

Our agency opened its doors on March 25^th 1985. It’s been a quarter of a century, today. It’s our day…

We are privileged to have been a witness to some of the most accelerated changes in history — moments that occurred from 1985, the year of our founding, to today — moments in time that have impacted not only history, but the PR consciousness and subsequently changed the ‘way it was’ from that ‘moment’ forward.  Recognizing this, we set out to put it all into some perspective to crystallize these impactful moments.

Our choice of 25 PR Defining Moments, over our 25 years, is capsulated in the video below.

We sought out ideas for our list from our colleagues, PR professionals and journalists, asking them to submit their ideas.  The criteria for inclusion was that the ‘moment in time’ over the last quarter of a century, had to have found its place in history or altered the way we live our lives, and also had to have impacted change within the context of public relations.  The ‘moments’ submitted could have influenced a lifestyle change, unfurled a technology that would change the way we lead our everyday lives, spotlighted a news happening through an inadvertent camera shot, or changed a political order or the societal landscape.

What we got was astounding, way more than 25…

So we chose our moments, from the many, and listed them in random order, so that we would be free to include ‘moments’ that fit our criteria, rather than be limited to the year in which they occurred.

If you wish, please let us know about ‘your moment’ that is not on our list via: Twitter @PollackPRMktg with a #25PR hashtag, comment on the blog, or email to info@ppmgcorp.com.

• Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
• The Televised Car Chase
• September 11, 2001
• The Cola Wars of the 1980s
• US Airways Flight 1549
• Fall of the Berlin Wall
• War Time Coverage
• Demi Moore’s Cover for Vanity Fair
• Real-Time Communication
• Barack Obama’s Social Media Election Campaign of 2008
• Dan Rather Exits As News Anchor
• First Dot Com Web Domain
• Debut of Roger & Me
• Gen-Y Changes the Playing Field
• Demise of Seattle News Institution
• The Rise of Pundits
• The Oprah “Effect”
• Reality Television
• Mosaic Browser Introduction
• Entertainment As News
• Product Craze
• Death of Princess Diana Media Implications
• Faux News Scandal
• First Blog Post
• You!

According to Richard Branson, founder of Virgin America, the long-standing marketing credo that “there’s no such thing as bad publicity” is being put to the test by a new marketing tactic for the airline.   According to a Wall Street Journal article headlined, “Airline Floats Trial Balloon With ‘Fly Girl’ Reality Show,” the airline is producing a new reality show featuring five of its female flight attendants bickering, partying, and worrying about their love lives while living together in a sumptuous ‘crash pad.’ The airline is clearly hoping that the publicity and viewership it will garner will boost airline revenues from its loosing streak that it has been on since its launch in 2007.

According to Porter Gale, vice president of marketing of the San Francisco-based carrier, “the TV series will have an amplifier effect and we will get exposure, press and buzz,” while Virgin America spokeswoman Abby Lunardini said the series, “is definitely a calculated risk.”

I agree with Abby’s comment. The show is somewhat outmoded. Making it a “girlie show” in light of the nation’s 100,000 male flight attendants and 33% of the nearly 500 at Virgin America alone, seems to be a branding disconnect.  Moreover flight attendants have evolved long ago from the image of “stewardesses” who were required to wear girdles, submit to weigh-ins and quit if they married or became pregnant. Having flight attendants portrayed as party girls in search of fun and adventure is out of sync with the edginess that even the high-flying Branson has infused in the brand.  It’s downright old fashioned and, if anything, it goes against his personal branded image.

Moreover, picking out “IFBs,” or in-flight boyfriends, as seen in the ‘Fly Girl’ Reality Show, is so not real, nor cool in 2010.   It is insulting to the professional women who are not the 20s something selected as actors depicting what is perceived as “life up in the air.”

Totally disagree with Branson.  There is nothing “good” about bad publicity.  It can damage a brand’s image and impact consumers’ opinions of a company or product and can certainly be held up for ridicule, as I think Fly Girl will.  If the reality show accomplishes anything at all, it will produce the negative publicity that Branson embraces, but certainly not net loyalty or increased revenues.

Anyone remember the 1967 novel “Coffee, Tea or Me”?  Here it is again, this time around as a reality show.

It’s really a matter of “the little engine that could…”

Nobody is surprised that The National Enquirer was the first to “out” the John Edwards story all the way through his denials of the affair and of fathering a child out of wedlock.  That’s what they do best.  It’s their mantra to stake out celebrities and hang around long enough to reap some seamy scoop.  It’s about having a single-minded focus that requires patience and also major resources.

So, incredulous as we all are, the infamous tabloid newspaper is vying for the most prestigious journalism prize — the Pulitzer Prize.  What is even more startling is that the publication actually “qualifies” for the Pulitzer’s category of “breaking news.”  In effect, the tabloid upstaged the venerable publications such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, all veterans of Pulitzer Prize awards.  It’s really not surprising. While these mainstream publications were putting their resources against following the financial markets, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the legislative news, respectively, the Enquirer was sniffing around for a good scandal that would eventually first take down a presidential candidate and then a potential vice presidential candidate, then being considered by the entering Obama administration.

The debate as to whether or not the tabloid qualifies was taken up by Newsweek, which asked some of its journalists whether fitting into a category of the Pulitzer Prize alone, constitutes eligibility for a prize. There were varying levels of support. Steve Tuttle, senior writer first said, “Hell, yes.” Tony Dokoupil, staff writer said, “A juicy read, yes, but where’s the journalistic value—at least as defined by Pulitzer?” Jessica Bennett, senior writer, said, “Paying for sources is shady. It’s “tabloidy.” It’s not good journalistic practice.”

The key to the debate seems to be money.  Did the tabloid make it clear as to whether they paid for sources? “When you pay people for information, the information itself often becomes distorted,” said Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, though she said she supported its Pulitzer entry.

I am puzzled by the mixed reactions.  I get the sense that mainstream journalists are fencesitting in their willingness to support the tabloid’s entry into their own coveted world of Pulitzer Prize winners.

Look, the story was, in effect,  breaking news and, in particular, news that sells.  (Who of us have not sneaked a peek into one of these tabloids, turning pages to check out the latest gossips while waiting in a supermarket line?)  Don’t get me wrong.  It is not the focus on sex sandals that has me incensed.   The issue is not whether this Edwards breaking news scoop qualifies, but rather whether it should be the only qualifying element for the coveted prize. The Pulitzer Prize has stood for the very embodiment of excellence in journalism – a distinguished example of reporting that has raised the bar since its founding in the latter years of the 19th century by Joseph Pulitzer, and the National Enquirer’s very entry, sullies the distinguished prize.

Obviously, by aiming for the journalistic “gold,” the sensational tabloid is searching for a semblance of journalistic respectability. It is now even considering opening a Washington D.C. bureau to look for more dirt among politicians.

The jury is still out. The winners will be announced April 12.  But my vote is in.  No.

Image courtesy of politico.com.

It took 18 months, hundreds of billions of dollars in Federal loans and a Gallup poll that found consumer confidence in financial institutions at the lowest level since the poll began asking the question 34 years ago, to have banks get into gear and do something about their much-tarnished public image. Apparently the wheels turn slowly with financial institutions…

Here’s how it went: financial institutions continued their staid and true messages of stability and longevity for the first few months of the financial crisis; this was followed by “no message is the best message,” clearly a stance that never works; then messages slowly evolved into a defensive blame game, which quickly turned around into rounds of apologies; and now, finally, recognition seeped in that something needs to be done about re-building public trust of their industry.

It took 18 months and the public remained indignant.  Just consider the arrogance of it all…

According to Nathaniel Popper’s report in the LA Times, some banks are now forging new ground in connecting to the public. The surge in marketing has taken banks into uncharacteristic new territories. Bank of America has staffers responding to customer complaints via Twitter; banks such as Citigroup and Bank of America are having their respective CEOs trotted out to make personal appearances at individual bank branches; uplifting ad campaigns are launched such as Citigroup’s, in which CEO, Vikram Pandit says, “It’s clear that we made some mistakes coming into this environment, and we have to acknowledge that.”  Bank of America has actually moved away from same old traditional ways by adding a new website that centers on public perception of the bank, rather than products or services.

But nothing has really begun to pierce the intense public anger.

Although the recent moves reflect a recognition that a different approach is needed to contend with the public’s ongoing outcry, I project it to be a long road ahead.  For example, just last week in my blog of February 24, titled Chase Bank – The Latest Poster Child For Customer Service Ills, I noted that customers calling the Chase #800 number were getting the same old run around, without change, in their search for a solution to their query.  Announcing management, operations and staff changes, as did Citibank and Bank of America, is not sending any message.  It is simply news and not likely to tweak up the trust factor until the news evolves into a positive result.

Public Relations counselors would do well to encourage financial institutions to take a page out of the original Community Reinvestment Act passed in 1977 (which requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits) and become active in neighborhoods in which they do business, where they would be seen as partners in rebuilding communities. They could also send a strong message of “caring for a community” by taking an active interest in community education; behave as leaders in the communities by partaking in city councils; and become conversant with customers on social media networks. Investing resources into such a program would “buy” them the much-needed trust — sooner than later.

As a direct example, the Los Angeles Unified School District is in deep financial trouble.  Just today it announced a 4,000-teacher/staff/administrator layoff. The implications to the future of education of children are disturbing.  Would it not be a great slot for any of the bigger banks to fill?  What a hero the bank would be…

I have to add that I take exception to the quote in the LA Times report of CEO of Financial Marketing Solutions, Tim Pannell saying, “We need some really genuine, believable pathos — look you in the eye and say, ‘We acknowledge the troubles, we understand maybe we could have done things differently’.”

Pathos may make everyone feel better, but actual customer engagement will effect a change.

You do not want to be Chase Bank these days.

It has just suffered a public humiliation by a single customer whose several requests for negotiating overdraft fees went unanswered by Chase and who, despairing at the lack of response, resorted to waging a YouTube war against Chase’s customer service — or better yet, lack thereof.  In a You Tube video (watch below) Chase was called – evil.

It’s the classic tale of David winning over Goliath, a real vindication for all of us who have, at some point, been rendered completely helpless in trying to solve a need or problem whether banking, retail, warranty or other, via an 800 number, that then asks us to punch in number after number only to get more and more recorded messages that finally leads us to a “thank you for calling, goodbye,” message, without ever solving the problem in the first place.  Or, if lucky, you can leave a message for a supervisor knowing full well that chances of a return call are about the same as becoming famous overnight.

Chase can take an example from companies on the edge of consumer trends that have begun to equate social media with customer service. Those companies ‘get’ that today’s customers view social media as a communication tool for dealing directly with a company’s customer service and have created a platform for dealing with each, in real time.

But it’s not only about Chase.  Southwest got hit recently when film director Kevin Smith tweeted that the airline kicked him off a plane because he was too fat, a photo of which subsequently landed in the mainstream print and broadcast media.  Happily for Southwest, its blog, Nuts for Southwest, addressed the news story giving it a social media bullhorn in which to respond.  But the company did have to publicly apologize.

Clearly, a well-oiled company’s social media effort like Ford’s, does not wait for ignored customers to vent, offering a platform for interaction where the customer can get heard.  In other words, they have “invested” in online conversations with their customers.  Ford also understands that social media is threading its way through not only marketing and sales, but also through research and development and, most importantly in this case, customer service departments.

And then there is Comcast that “invested” in online live chats with a Comcast service representative allowing for an open forum, as well as its online community forum, where customers can get answers from fellow Comcast customers and moderators.

Another company that understands this is Best Buy.  In my blog of July 8, 2009 titled, “Sales, Service And Twitter, An Ideal Threesome” I wrote about Best Buy’s Twelpforce, which was launched on July 19, 2009 with a 500 person sales team that was to engage with consumers by Twittering away, entering into 140-character conversations with those who are both consumed with consumer electronics as well as those who needed answers to product uses or other questions. Best Buy had basically made a “pay forward” move, which now, eight months later, has the service humming away with happy customers.

The Chase video is yet another example of how social media has put the power to undo companies’ reputations in the hands of customers. Not bothering about customer care today is akin to loosing loyal customers tomorrow.  It takes people to react to people…

Recorded messages and 800 numbers are so yesterday.

The story of why a now ex-New York Times business reporter succumbed to plagiarism goes beyond “accidental plagiarism,” as Zachery Kouwe, a 31-year-old business reporter that writes The Times’ Deal Book called it. The public counts on a professional journalist to know better than to lift somebody else’s words and use them as his/her own, more so when it comes from a reporter of the venerable and trusted New York Times.

Anyway, as we all know from the media’s outrage, Kouwe read the signs really well and “resigned” just before he got shown the “door.”

Kouwe’s quite public exit from the Times, certainly rang a warning bell, not only to journalists but to casual bloggers as well, to take note that the driving need to fill uncountable blogs with millions of words, has created a culture of acceptable re-purposing, re-hashing and re-telling of the news from every which angle, in other words, a culture where ‘accidental plagiarism’ can easily happen.

The incident has certainly caused a moment of reflection, forcing a re-evaluation of what is being said, and in whose words it is being said, and for what purpose. I bet every blogger will go back and do some checking…

But what is not acceptable is Kouwe’s comment in an interview with The Observer in reference to the accusation that he had plagiarized in which he said, “I was in complete shock,” and “I was as surprised as anyone that this was occurring.” His lame excuse — that he writes approximately 7,000 words every week for the blog and for the paper and that given the mounds of reporting he does, something is bound to fall through the cracks as he peruses press releases, earnings reports and court documents for his reporting. Which goes directly to my point of the desperate need to fill blogs with whatever…

Here is the funniest mea culpa I have ever heard. A professional journalist that can actually say, “I thought it was my own stuff,” and “it somehow slipped in there.”

Somehow? I think that most journalists know better than Mr. Kouwe that a cut and paste job is never acceptable. But I would advise bloggers who are not held to the same high standards of journalists, that they better slow down, think more as to what to write and maybe choose to write less — and stick to their own words.

Photo by Getty Images.

The first time that Pepsi elects to forgo its past 26 years of advertising on the Super Bowl and selects to spend $20 million for a massive multi-channel interactive social media campaign, it collides with the Annual Trust Barometer from Edelman PR, which reports that peer to peer trust has surprisingly waned in favor of more credible sources.  Not that, at first glance, one has anything to do with the other, except that just when viral marketing seems like a smart strategy, smarter than even Super Bowl advertising, the Trust Barometer’s survey results show that trust in friends and peers as credible sources has dropped by almost half, from 45% to 25%, in the last two years.

And the parameters of the Pepsi Refresh campaign is all about the populous votes of “friends and peers” who will decide as to which ideas or projects Pepsi should fund in grant money in six categories: health, arts and culture, food and shelter, the planet, the neighborhoods and education. It will be the people’s choice as to which of the 1000 ideas submitted are to receive grants that range from $5,000 to $250,000, figures not to be taken lightly.  And the criteria for voting is exactly — what?

How does that work?  “Oh this is cool, I think I will vote for this.” Click. Or, “My boyfriend is really into bands, so I think I will vote for that.” Click.  How about, “I’ll feel good if I vote for the local health clinic.” Click.  Some ideas submitted are more political as in “Help free healthcare clinic expand services to uninsured in rural Tennessee (TN).”  Click.  (I live in rural TN.)  Or I live in Kansas so I vote for, “Build a fitness center for all students in Hays, Kansas community.”

Click. Click. Click.  “And the check goes to…” Every month, Pepsi will award up to 32 grants to projects voted on by the most clicks.

By all accounts the “ Pepsi Refresh” initiative is everything that an ideal interactive campaign can be – creative, innovative, highly engaging and very popular, while building on the brand in a fun and social way.  But I venture to say that the challenge that Pepsi faces, and that other companies are bound to also face, as they delve deeper into social media’s ever-expanding communication opportunities is that at some point, critical thinking will matter.

Look, the “Pepsi Refresh” program should be nothing like an American Idol segment where voters root for the next star just because they “like.”  Nor should it be like clicking on “like” on a photo or comment on Facebook.  In creating a program that allows a populous vote to decide on grants, votes that can make a difference as to whether a school’s music program gets funded or whether an elder care facility expands its programs, Pepsi’s challenge is to go against the very fiber of social media’s whims, set a criteria upon which they can deliberate, and turn the populous vote into a credible one.

Failing that, it is but a game — one that is being played out with a lot of money, with no sense of fairness and with little trust in the voters’ selection.

Any serious and worthy projects submitted should not mistake it for anything else.

As if Toyota does not have enough troubles, along comes Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood…

Apparently, during testimony before a Congressional panel Secretary LaHood was asked as to what guidance he would give to Toyota owners affected by a series of recalls.  Not one to ever mince words, reminiscent of President Harry Truman’s folksy style, LaHood said, “If anybody owns one of these vehicles, stop driving it. And take it to a Toyota dealer.”

Feels like sound advice to me.  You better believe it that if my car had the possibility of brake troubles the only driving I would do is to the dealer.  Toyota itself has urged drivers of recalled cars to do so.

But unfortunately the media heard only three words –“stop driving it” and a PR storm erupted as those words, now out of context, ricocheted over the airwaves, print publications, news wires and Internet, unfurling an all around  “hissy fit.” Toyota expressed “dismay,” and the Chief of Staff at the White House, Rahm Emanuel, felt obliged to come to Mr. LaHood’s defense, saying that “the President thinks Ray’s been a great secretary,” and adding that “when the Secretary misspoke, he immediately realized he’d said it.”

Misspoke.  LaHood did try to modify his words, saying “What I said in there was obviously a misstatement,” adding that he meant to say, “If you own one of these cars, or if you’re in doubt, take it to the dealer.”

Sounds like semantics to me.  Same message, softer edges…

In any case, this has once again made the case for being scripted in the first place – and sticking to it.

Look, as communication professionals, we agonize about the possibility of a client breaking with carefully crafted messaging that is painstakingly dissected for any potential risks. In the case of LaHood, being in the position of transportation authority, the risk of going “off message” is that his words can further damage the already tarnished Toyota image with consumers and be “officially” seen, per his position, as escalating fears of safety causing even the White House to issue a statement of confidence in the Secretary.  But, damage done.  Backtracking rarely works.

Here’s my advice: change the old adage of “Think before you speak” to “Read before you speak.” Helps to stay on message…

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Today, the agency introduces a new channel on the corporate blog called “Digital Trenches,” which will feature tactical suggestions and guidance on trending digital communications and marketing topics including search optimization, social media, mobile marketing, online media and the blogosphere.

What a week!  Apple finally raised the curtain on its greatly anticipated new tablet, the iPad, sending the Internet aglow for 24 hours, only to have some public nonsense erupt about the use of the word “pad,” which could easily have been but a nonsensical blip, had it not made the front page of The New York Times on January 29; President Obama delivered a much anticipated State of the Union, which instantly flared national emotions, from pride to fury; an American icon turned up as Italian; a German car company unleashed a storm through its Green Police ad campaign; and finally, Toyota delivered an expensive “Mea Culpa.”

1 Blip: Could anyone ever have thought that the name of the new Apple tablet, iPad, would evoke awkward associations with feminine hygiene products? According to Michael Cronan, a naming consultant in Berkeley, Calif., whose company has helped come up with brand names like TiVo and Kindle, “many naming experiments show that women tend to reflexively relate words like “pad” and “flow” to bodily concerns.”

C’mon.  Apple’s marketing team must be incredulous.  Happily their response was no comment.

2 Blunders: McItaly and Green Police.  An American export icon turns Italian, and a German company brings up reminders of the Third Reich.  Unreal.  Along with apple pie, the golden arches of McDonalds are recognized internationally as very American indeed.  And, along comes McItaly, so named because it apparently will use only Italian ingredients.  When McDonalds showed up in Moscow in the early ’90, the company also used only Russian ingredients but it did not become McRussia.  Speaking of diluting what a brand stands for…. According to The Guardian’s Word of Mouth foodblog, Matthew Fort, the burgers are a “monstrous act of national betrayal.” Couldn’t agree more.

Audi’s misstep in picking an environmentally friendly name for their Super Bowl social media campaign, as in “Green Police,” without first checking it out, was a huge marketing blunder. Readily available research would have revealed that the name was used in Nazi Germany to refer to the German Order Police.  Whether or not consumers will know their history enough to connect the dots, does not justify such oversight. An apology is in order.  And also maybe a new marketing team that gets that research can forestall damage to a company’s image.

1 Headache: the $550 million operating cost headache for Toyota, as it recalled 5.6 million vehicles in the United States alone, swallowed production shutdowns and searched for fixes to have the problem go away, sooner than later.  However, much like the Johnson & Johnson Tylenol recall of the ‘80s, which left the company unscathed because of its strong and open responses, Toyota is doing what is right in an effort to keep the public trust. Its president has issued a Mea Culpa apology and company communiqués continue to update the public.

And finally the one word that is rarely heard, if at all, in political speeches — Decency. President Obama used this word in his State of the Union address, citing the, “fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people, that lives on.”  A word to be remembered…

Thank God it’s almost — Monday.

We introduce our first guest blogger of our new monthly series on the 25th of every month, in celebration of our 25th anniversary.

David Houle, author of The Shift Age is one of the top futurists in the country and a much-sought after speaker.  Houle spent more than 20 years in media and entertainment having worked at NBC, CBS and a member of the senior executive team that created and launched MTV, Nickelodeon, VH1 and CNN Headline News.

This new decade, 2010-2020, will be known as the Transformation Decade. The definitions of transformation are several: the act or process of transforming, the state of being transformed, change in form, appearance, nature, or character.

Don’t those definitions feel like what has been already going on in your life and the world? Many of us have already been living in this state. Many of us have only recently felt the impending alterations, disruptions and reorganizations that have begun. Everything seems to be in a transforming state of shift.

We are entering the first full decade of the Shift Age, even though it has already taken root in the last 4 years. This new age has launched incredible shift and upheaval already. This current Great Recession can only be fully understood when seen as the reorganizational recession between two ages, the Information Age and the Shift Age. It is not unlike the recessions of the 1970s, which was the decade of transition between the Industrial and Information Ages. Almost everything is in a state of shift, in a state of being transformed.

To those that may think we are still in the Information Age let me ask you a question I often ask audiences: raise your hand if you don’t have enough information in your life? Of course no one raises their hand. Value, to some degree, is base upon scarcity. If there is too much information, it no longer has value. What will have value in the Shift Age and this new Transformation Decade is attention. The information you put your attention on is what becomes valuable. The question PR professionals must dynamically answer is how can you create attention that therefore creates value?

Think about all that is going on in your life and in the world. The way we communicate has and will continue to change in form, appearance (our gadgets are vastly different that even five years ago) and character (how many of you text or tweet regularly versus even three years ago). The shape of our relationships is changing. The shape of how we work, how we live and how and in what we travel are all changing. The economy and the workplace are changing and being reshaped.

In the next ten years there will be a level of transformation probably unmatched in human history. Just take a look at some disruptions that will transform the PR business:

• Humanity’s relationship to communication technology is rapidly changing and will bring on-going transformation socially, culturally and economically.
• Media will be completely different than it is today. We are only at the initial creative destruction phase of it now
• The workplace will be transformed as the place part becomes less and less relevant. Human beings will only need to be in the same place to collaborate, as work is increasingly defined as collaborative.
• The Internet and our rapid fire use of mobile digital devices to access it has created a pulsing, synaptic place of unprecedented interactivity that on a global scale is starting to feel like a global brain. It is a live, morphing place called the Neurosphere that is not only transforming us now, but could well be the technological model for a new level of human consciousness in 10-20 years. That is an evolutionary level of transformation. An evolution shift of transformative effect.. It may be hard for you to envision, but we are rapidly moving in that direction.

The list could go on and on as to what will be transformed. Take a snapshot look at your life now with all your relationships, ways of thinking, ways of living and ways of looking at the world I promise you that when you take the same snapshot in ten years you will astounded as to the transformation that will have occurred. The speed of change is now both constantly accelerating and environmental. It may feel uncomfortable as familiar things and ways of living are disintegrating. Transformation, to varying degrees, is always uncomfortable. We are and will be transformed in the next ten years.

We have entered the Transformation Decade.

On March 25, 1985, the agency opened its doors.  That will make us 25 years old in three months or, as we prefer, a quarter of a century old.  There is certain longevity in that phrase that astonishes…

Just consider the ride we have taken in our business over our first 25 years: when we opened our doors we had computers, but no internet, no email, no cell phones; we were in the analog age and would move to the digital age only a decade later; it would be another decade before social media would enter our consciousness: and then, at a very quickened pace, the whole communication landscape changed with the advent of digital marketing and, of course, Twitter.

We have plans to celebrate the whole year through, not with a lot of hoopla, but with reflection on how the communications world looked 25 years ago, maybe 15, 10, or 5, and then marvel at what a different world it has become through our “electronic connectedness,” which has accelerated the speed of change.

Our plans are to celebrate not just with reflection, but also to consider some forward-thinking communication means that can lead the path to smoother adoption of change, by corporations – globally.

We also see this milestone anniversary as an opportunity to give back to the community in which we do business.  But really give back — in labor and love.  As such, each agency professional will get an opportunity to work an 8-hour day at the charity of their choice and, in return, the agency will offer a donation to each charity.

It is also a time to compile lists of 25 this or that, invite 12 guest bloggers to give us their thoughts on whatever is on their minds on the 25th of every month and post videos offering concepts and ideas that incorporate evolving communication trends or needs, also on the 25th of every month.

So to kick off our celebration look for our first guest blogger, futurist David Houle and author of the “Shift Age,” with an entry on the 25th of January.

Also join us in compiling a list of the 25 most defining moments in PR/media history since 1985. So to kick off the list, here are my first two choices:

September 11, 2001

Never before in the modern era has there been such a massive, immediate, public demand for ‘real time information’.  Broadcast media could not keep up with the outpouring of information emanating from the devastation that ensued and the “ticker” on the bottom of the screen became a permanent addition to most news channels.  The demand for real-time information no doubt raised the level of public demand and consumption and  undoubtedly opened yet another door for the arrival of social media.

The Cola Wars of the 1980s and 90’s

Pepsi and Coke went head to head in a fight for consumer brand loyalty.  They were successful in staking their ground and dividing the country into two groups of cola drinkers (Pepsi drinkers and Coke drinkers).  This was significant because it set the stage for other brands to really infuse themselves into the lifestyle of consumers in a way that had not been done so effectively until then.  The wars became less about the soda and more about the image with which consumers chose to align themselves.  Simply put, it brought branding to a new level of engagement.

Now I only need 22 more to complete the list, in time to publish it on the 25^th of March.  Can you help with your ideas of what would really fit?  Readers can submit ideas: via Twitter @PollackPRMktg with a #25PR hashtag, comment on the blog, or email to info@ppmgcorp.com.

I suspect it will be hard to pick which ones matter the most, for given the choice, the list would extend way past the number 25.

But that’s not the point.  It’s about being 25, on the 25^th, and compiling, lists of 25…

If you have ever sat through a tedious afternoon in a time-share sales presentation, just so that you could take advantage of the offer that came with it — a free weekend stay in Vegas or Reno, you will get the concept that is about to be launched by FreeAllMusic. This recycled version is about watching a 15-30 second video advertisement to get a free downloadable song of your choice.

That’s it! Spend 15 seconds to save 99¢ for a song download.  Doesn’t sound like much of a deal at first glance.

Still, when you consider that the company is testing offers of 15 to 20 free downloads per month, five per user session, it probably adds up to a compiled album of your choice — for free. Moreover, the site, which began as a test version a week ago and plans to open to the public within January, will allow the downloaded songs to be copied and shared, unencumbered by digital rights management restrictions.

Sounds great, that is, until Richard Nailling, chief executive of FreeAllMusic, got caught in print with negative messaging, saying that the service hopes to draw “casual pirates who, for whatever reason, are not paying for music,” and added, “we have made this process easier than stealing.”

Really? Look pirating, stealing or free sharing of songs, has been around for a long time and this site is not about to police that, curtail it or grab pirates’ attention.  The thrill of pirating has always been about bucking the law.

Here’s what I would recommend for the CEO to focus on, in his pre-launch quotes:

Speak about the win-win situation in which advertisers can’t get ‘TiVoed’ out; users get the songs they want; and record labels get paid for the free songs by advertisers.  Speak about the two major labels that have already signed up and the six advertisers who are on board for the site’s debut this month, including Coca-Cola, Warner Bros, Zappos.com, etc.

Comment on the empowerment of the user as an “influencer,” for the new site will encourage them to post the details on their Facebook profiles and Twitter streams. And articulate to advertisers how this will extend virally into social networks like Facebook, for friends who opt to download the same song, must first also watch the same ad.

And then consider the odd side effect.  Actually watching an ad, can open up a whole new vista for the TiVo generation, which has never known the entertainment value of some of the TV commercials that had a profound effect on our culture in the 40’s through the 70’s and beyond — ads that to this day remain icons.

The 15-second forced viewing, may force advertisers, to rekindle creativity, to tell a story that engages viewers and binds them with the brand.  Advertisers just got lucky — and all for the love of music.

No need to help pirates go straight.  Just a need to get good messaging out.