At a recent dinner party, the conversation at our table of eight, centered politely on the introductory question — “what do you do” — and went slowly around the table to each guest. When it was my turn and told that I am in public relations and marketing, my dinner partner to the left, a dentist, probed further as to what that really means and exactly what do I really do. By the time dessert came around, I had given him a detailed rundown of all the tools and strategies the we, PR professionals, employ to impact marketplace perceptions and changed behaviors. It didn’t make a dent. He was still at it when dessert came around and, in total defeat and exasperation, I made a lame excuse and left the table.

That scene is familiar enough to many of my colleagues, for it has repeated itself far more than not, over decades. It’s not that we cannot define our profession clearly enough, (although maybe, that too) but rather that a large swath of the public-at-large does not have a clue about what we do past that despised buzz word description — “spin doctors.” Still, we have to recognize that this has resonated with the public — and therefore stuck.

It is way overdue to “unstick it,” and the industry’s foremost association, the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) is leading this charge with its new campaign aptly named, Public Relations Defined. The effort is seeking to be inclusive and will solicit suggestions from the public along with public relations professionals, academics and students on its website: prdefinition.prsa.org, using a crowd-sourcing model.

The re-definition is timely enough considering that the last “official” definition of our industry was back in 1982, when PRSA defined it as “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.” A bit gray, I think, but just consider, almost 30 years ago…

Clearly, individually and collectively, PR professionals have recognized the profound changes in the dynamics of communication in the 21st Century — worlds away from communication strategies employed in the 20th Century — and have re-defined it themselves, using new descriptors for new tactics, such as buzz marketing, social media, new media,digital marketing, earned media, etc.

Stuart Elliot said it best in his NY Times column, when commenting on PRSA’s new effort to re-define Public Relations, “the Internet and social media like blogs, Facebook and Twitter have transformed the relationship between the members of the public and those communicating with them. A process that for decades went one way — from the top down, usually as a monologue — now goes two ways, and is typically a conversation.”

PR professionals understand this, of course. In a world where consumers get engaged and enraged with corporate blunders (BP, prime example) sometimes even before their PR chiefs can unfurl their PR crisis plan, the rules of the game have changed, and therefore calls for a new definition.

And then again, it may not be about a definition at all.

Taken literally, PR is, and has always been, a service defined as relating to the public, whether for a corporation, an organization, an association, a charity or a government entity. The dynamic change is that now the public can relate back…

Hopefully, the outcome of the inclusive nature of the PRSA’s effort will produce a strong and resonant definition, one that will put an end to the misguided “spin” perception of PR.

Pianist Daniel Pollack, in rehearsal prior to concert

Not in the habit of turning our blog into something of a travelogue I, however, could not resist to comment on the country I am presently in — Kazakhstan, a country of both storied and anecdotal history.

Other than business news about oil, minerals and such, not much news about this country reaches outside Central Asian cultures, making our trip to this remote land — just a single mountain range away from Northern China and on the eastern side of the Himalayas, and with the steppes of Tibet just south of its borders — an exhaustive and fascinating adventure. This country even boasts the largest portion of the old historic (and romanticized by in movies) Silk Road, upon whose treacherous mountain paths fearless European traders bravely traveled, risking their lives to reap new riches from the Far East. Today’s Kazakhstan’s 15 million inhabitants, 60% Kazakhs, 30% Russians and 10% assorted ethnic cultures that include, in large part, Koreans, live side-by-side in a country the size of all of Western Europe or of the whole eastern half of the US.

But, even though little-known, that’s the stuff relegated to geography and history experts…

I, on the other hand, was fascinated by something else… Native Kazakhs, for the most part, don’t speak nor understand their native tongue, a Turkic-based language, Kazakh, but rather speak Russian, based on the Soviet rule of 70+ years. The Kazakh language is mostly relegated to the hinterlands since these regions were of little interest to the Soviets. For now, not much attempt is made to reinstate that language. On the other hand, the Russians attempt to learn Kazakh as a hedge for their future, based on their present minority status. And the Koreans here, have never spoken Korean, do not speak nor attempt to speak Kazakh, and view Russian as their native tongue.

Amid all this babble, the broadcast media reports in both languages, on different stations, of course, for different peoples, who are not seen as different at all in this country, but all as just Kazakhs.

Pollack trying out an old traditional instrument

I am here accompanying my concert pianist husband, Daniel Pollack, who was invited to perform the opening concert of a newly established American New Music Center in the former capital, Almaty, a city of 1.5 million. By the reaction of the public to an American pianist, I found yet another reason why that old “cliche” about music being a universal language holds true. It’s a language without words, but a language just the same. It’s a connectivity that embraces people on an emotional level, and through it, diffuses differences.

The Kazakhs held their own concert as part of the opening of the 5th Almaty International Piano Competition, (held every three years), which was a celebratory performance by proud-full youths performing on old instruments developed by their nomad ancestors, from the days of Gengis Khan and his vast Mongol Empire (that overran this vast area by 1300). These instruments have little to do with any traditional western instruments for their sounds replicate nature’s sounds, including — yes, galloping horses. The legend goes that the sounds of these instruments were meant to relate tales of the nomads’ everyday lives as they traveled the steppes of Central Asia. The energy of the youths’ ensemble of 50-60 performers, their relentless rhythmic force and drive, ended the concert in a roar.

The Kazakhs, who are as colorful as their history, are finding a way to retain the old, while adapting to the new. How great is that?

A great among the “Greatest Generation,” as Tom Brokaw coined the WW II generation, former CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Andy Rooney will be missed. His death, although expected at 92 and in poor health, has the sense that something important has passed, beyond the person. The WSJ capsuled it best saying, “Andy Rooney was America’s bemused uncle, spouting homespun wisdom weekly at the end of “60 Minutes,” a soupcon of topical relief after the news magazine’s harder-hitting segments.”

Often described as curmudgeonly, cantankerous, gruff, grouchy, irascible, he became, none-the less, a homespun philosopher that became America’s “everyman.” He touched a chord in America’s heart, across three-plus decades.

You could attribute this to the fact that Rooney entered television in its “heyday” when America was glued to the box, hungry for entertainment following the dark years of World War II. He started out as a writer for the likes of Arthur Godfrey, Victor Borge, Herb Shriner, Sam Levenson and Garry Moore – legends in TV history that sadly no longer resonant with today’s generation. Rooney’s early “everyman” essays made their debut in 1962, when then CBS News correspondent Harry Reasoner, first narrated a series of his essays.

But that’s the stuff that biographies are made up of… There’s something deeper here…

With his death, there is a passing of a certain style, one that has the courage to speak his mind, spoof at life, laugh at the way things are, accept that it is OK to be Scrooge-like, and take joy in offering crabby, but realistic, perspectives with no regard as to how it “rings” with the public. Take these examples: Rooney once proposed National Wastebasket Day in honor of its inventor, spoke about the incomprehensibility of road maps, wash-and-wear shirts “that you can wash but not wear,” the uselessness of keys and locks, and of the outsize cereal boxes that contained very little cereal. He observed that “there are more beauty parlors than there are beauties” and that “if dogs could talk, it would take a lot of the fun out of owning one.”

This “stuff” is usually relegated to comedians who take pleasure in shock value entertainment. But Rooney was no entertainer. He was on “60 Minutes” for goodness sake, arguably the most respected TV news program of all time. He simply had a connection with viewers, giving them another perspective on mundane everyday things. And his public nodded as he spoke — and sensed that he spoke to them –individually.

Even though his last “essay” was as recent as October 2, his style will most likely not happen again. It can’t, in a divided America with too many varying heartbeats, beating to different drummers, who will no longer “nod” in unison.

Negative publicity is akin to touching a hot stove. Once you experience it, and sustain damaging “burns”, you will surely find the means to avoid the risk.

American International Group Inc. (AIG) should know, considering that their “burn” – a damaged company reputation, resulting from their role in the financial crisis of ’09 and compounded by their acceptance of $130 billion government bailout to survive, almost left them in ruins.

So how does one insure against getting “burned” again? That depends. If it’s the stove, just don’t touch again. If it’s your company reputation, insurance, of course, a new kind…

Based on AIG’s damaging experience, and under the mantra of wanting to help others manage a similar “storm” that the company had undergone, AIG launched a new type of insurance coverage called “ReputationGuard,” created after discussions with insurance clients and brokers indicated that a potential market for the product existed. AIG says it launched it to help companies offset the cost of bringing in outside experts when a public relations crisis hits. The new insurance will pay for policyholders to seek the counsel of two particular crisis-communications firms, Burson-Marsteller and Porter Novelli –even before a possible crisis becomes public.

This insurance is, of course, a new profit center for the property-casualty unit of AIG – Chartis. Not such an altruistic move after all. But its very presence in the marketplace speaks mounds for the recognition that company reputation risk is a top concern in the C-Suite.

And with that, PR counselors seem to have inched their way, finally, into that C-Suite, alongside with legal and financial counsel.

Still, the Chartis policy is not all encompassing. For one thing, it is primarily a crisis communication policy, to be tapped for just that. For another, the policy doesn’t specify what sort of crisis would trigger the coverage and it is rather loosely designed to cover a broad range of potential public-relations problems. And for another, as all public relations professionals know, it is far better for a public relations firm to be on board with a company to ward off a potential crisis, than to jump in after one happens.

Cost? Well that’s also not clear. According to Tracie Grella, president of Chartis’ Professional Liability unit, some small companies with a crisis-communication preparedness plan could see premiums of about $10,000 annually. Ouch. Just premiums, no counsel…

But I welcome its presence, anyway. PR folks are now closer to warming up their seat at the boardroom table and staying there.

UPDATE

It takes a village, in this case tens of millions inside the village, to pitch in and help.  It is, and has always been, the American Way – you know, helping to “pull someone up by their bootstraps” type of thing.  We have a history of that.  When disasters, as in hurricanes, foreclosures, terrorist threats, or others strike, it is the people in our big USA “village” that come to the rescue in whatever personal way they can — with blankets, food, money, simple ingenuity or maybe just an extra shoulder on which to lean.

But the present joblessness calamity in our country has triggered no such response to date.  It has left both Washington and Corporate America divided, dumbfounded, frozen and bent on playing the “blame game.”

But then — along comes Howard Schultz, Starbucks Corp.’s CEO who said, “Right now we can’t wait for Washington… Businesses and business leaders have to recognize that we have a shared responsibility in trying to make a difference.”

And there you have it.  Starbucks, with its “Create Jobs USA program” initiative, just jumpstarted the “American Way” and is roping in masses of people to support it…

Starbucks is pinning its hopes on customers who may be willing to part with $5 or more, when they stop in for their morning cup of “Joe.”  Maybe it sounds like not much, but just do the math — $5 times millions of people who visit its nearly 7,000 company-owned U.S. stores each day!  And the reward — a red, white and blue wristband that says “Indivisible.”

Smart… part of that ‘ole spirit.

The facts: Seattle-based coffee chain is collaborating with the Opportunity Finance Network, a nonprofit that works with nearly 200-community development financial institutions to provide loans to small businesses and community groups. Starbucks says 100 percent of the donations will go toward loans for firms and organizations that can add jobs or stem job losses.

It’s not the first time that Schultz has addressed the nation’s economic woes. In August, he sent more than 200,000 Starbucks employees a memo urging them to do what they can to help business through hard times. After that, he hosted a national telephone forum, bought full-page ads in two major newspapers and started a website, Upwardspiral2011.org.

Schultz says he feels personal responsibility to do something to stimulate the U.S. economy.  Are you listening now, Corporate America?

Sure, Starbucks is growing and will gain by hiring about 200 people a day in the U.S. as it remodels thousands of stores and adds another 200 locations next year. But the key word is hiring, when others take the cautionary road and stay the course.

It may take a village to make a final difference, but it takes a leader to carve out the path. Let’s face it. We need more Schultzes!  I know where I will drink my coffee tomorrow morning, and happily part with $5.  Want to join me for coffee?

Two embarrassing and damaging gaffes over the past 48 hours could have been avoided had the companies involved adhered to that old adage: “think before you speak” or a variation of it, as in “think before you do.”

Stumble 1.
JCPenney had the distinction to make Anderson Cooper’s “Ridiculist” list on CNN on Thursday night. Their new “back to school” product, a t-shirt that reads “I’m too pretty to do homework so my brother has to do it for me” was launched and instantly produced a massive raucous. Besides Anderson’s piece, Twitter and the blogosphere lit up with added ridicule and protests. Moreover, the biggest ire came from the bloggers who decried the “sexism” innuendo –, “girls need only to look pretty, while boys should do the work. Ouch!

Although the product was aimed to attract the attention of girls 7-16, and meant to be “hilariously cute and trendy,” JCPenney managed to enrage their buyer, the Moms. How could they not have foretold that? Did anyone at JC Penney consider how wearing such a t-shirt would go down in school?

The vociferous outrage got the company to issue an apology, but only as an afterthought. A spokesperson for the company told ABCNews.com, “We’re reaching out to our customers who are unhappy to apologize and to let them know that the T-shirt is no longer available.”

Personally, I think that the sexism argument went a bit too far, but there it was. It left its dent on the company as to poor judgment and put up a red flag for Moms in terms of subsequent school shopping.

Stumble 2.
Groupon, a company that’s in registration to go public and thus forbidden by the SEC from pumping up the company stock in advance of an IPO, had a hard time staying quiet this week. In case you did not follow the story, the intrigue sounds much like a thriller. First the VP of Communications resigns abruptly on Wednesday for unknown reasons. Then, instead of staying quiet when some negative news about the company and its earnings was reported in the media, Groupon’s CEO Andrew Mason, chose to send an internal memo to employees defending the company against “insane accusations,” which then got mysteriously leaked to the popular tech blog AllThingsD. Now Groupon really took a hit with negative news.

But the kicker was when Groupon’s corporate communications firm got involved and asked a reporter to call them back to discuss their negative take. And then the reporter printed the conversation. So much for quiet…

You do not want to be Groupon at the moment, no matter what it’s valuation is purported to be. According to SEC’s most recent update to its rules, calling journalists and urging them to read leaked CEO letters is not permitted. But PR people should know that, without needing to read the “rules.”

Wouldn’t it be nice to somehow be able to “erase the board” and just do it all over again, very differently this time around?

Most would have titled this blog the “ultimate PR stunt” but truly it would be an insult to the Public Relations community to suggest that PR had anything to do with it.

The pinnacle of poor judgment was recently exhibited by an Australian laundry detergent brand, Vanish NapiSan, in their attempt to become the official detergent of the White House. Yes, believe it. Literally.

The company created a video for President Obama, hoping that in light of the stock market woes of this week, perhaps the President would actually consider the deal –
$27.3 million to sponsor the White House for five years. Just imagine a huge banner over the White House with the laundry detergent brand boldly displayed.

Incredulous.

Now — clearly they had no hope whatsoever that this would ever become a reality. So why do it? To grab attention, stand out from the crowd, generate buzz and grow brand awareness — all the right stuff with the wrong tactic. They did get the buzz, though. Yes, the video is doing very well indeed virally, mostly because of the ridiculousness of the premise.

And I am guilty of aiding and abetting in this comedy… By writing about it, I am giving this campaign credence. Couldn’t help it. The foolhardiness of it was the lure.

But what did the company actually hope to get or achieve? What message was it supposed to send? That the company has “chutzpah” or gall? It certainly did not intend to endear consumers or trigger trial, with hopes of adoption as to its product.

I recognize that all this is but a blip in the greater marketing landscape. But there is a lesson to be learnt here that comedy for comedy’s sake without a message or take away may have worked back in the 80′s and before, but now in this world of interactivity, it will not work even as a stunt that will never be realized.

As everyone in the industry knows, using comedy is an easy way to make a brand more relatable to consumers. It helps the brand stand out from the crowd. Taco Bell is a great example of this. This company uses comedy through its Twitter handle to engage with customers, helping them to stand out from their competitors. Delta, among a slew of companies, also stands, likewise engaging conversations that trigger customer loyalty.

There’s no argument that stunts can attract, if only for a nanosecond. But a $27.3 million campaign needs to go past the first “WOW and attract something more lasting.

Like — maybe customers?

They say mistakes are often the cost of learning what not to do…

But sometimes the price of those mistakes are simply too steep. Such was the case with the Gap when it rolled out its new logo design last October. It received a very public outcry of protests that flooded the Internet with derisions, mockeries, parodies as well as amateur re-design suggestions. It cost the company two years of work in developing the new logo, oodles of money for its retraction as well as damage control, not to speak of a solid dent in reputation and loyal customer base.

The lesson learnt at that time had little to do with the logo itself and everything to do with the manner in which the new logo was introduced — autocratic and not inclusive. In short, they misjudged their 2010 customer. In my blog of October 12, 2010, and similarly in a blog about the Starbucks logo change, I posed the question as to who owns a brand — the company or its customers?

The answer became very clear, very quickly…

So now in mid-2011, and in the face of poor quarterly profit showings, the Gap is happily changing course, with a new focus on Millennials – the more than 60 million 18-to-35-year olds in the United States, about 20 percent of the population, according to the recent census. This is a sharp shift in focus for a company that had traditionally lured a wide audience with neutral workplace basics, classic denim and bright scarves. The clothes, however lost their allure in recent years. Still, anyone under 30 has most likely never worn Gap jeans and it could either be an uphill battle to unseat that generation from its favorites such as Abercrombie & Fitch Co., American Eagle Outfitters Inc., Aeropostale Inc. and Urban Outfitters Inc. or prove to be a lucrative untapped market.

But this time around, the Gap’s campaign seems to be heading in the right direction, making engagement a key component of its new campaign roll out.

The focus is on interactivity, inclusivity and transparency — much valued elements by this generation. Videos showing “real” stories of how Gap clothing is designed and manufactured in their redesigned “start-up look” LA design studio, will be released on blogs and social media websites, making them available to influential bloggers and other social media mavens. The videos will appear on websites frequented by the young crowd such as Daily Candy, Hulu, Pandora and Rolling Stone. Even the traditional aspects of the campaign have social, digital tweaks in that Gap’s new print ads will feature real-live people dressed in Gap clothes found on the street, in places from NY and Texas to Manchester, England and Nakameguro, Japan, for they will direct people to the online videos.

But the Gap is not above using some time-honored lures, as in feeding people. Taco trucks will be parked in front of stores in major U.S. cities, some with celebrity chefs on board who will create gourmet concoctions at cheap prices and offer free food to anyone wearing Gap clothing, And yes, the photographer will be waiting to take their pictures of anyone wearing Gap clothing for the Gap’s Facebook and Twitter pages.

Clearly, Millenials will decide for themselves if the Gap is to become a cool brand once again. But wouldn’t it be cool for the marketing “poster child” of 2010 to now roll out a marketing template for engagement that other manufacturers could adopt as their own?

It’s always true that a good idea bears repeating…

I know this through first hand experience…

Trying to edit or add content to Wikipedia’s arcane style and coding can be, at the very least, challenging and enormously time consuming, enough cause to stay away thereafter.

And that’s the reason why the better part of half of the active contributors are under 22 years of age and that most of its content has become skewed toward geek topics, featuring more articles on technology, science fiction and military history, than on the humanities and social sciences.

There is no question that in its first decade Wikipedia’s crowdsourced platform has successfully captivated and engaged masses of people. Just consider that it is now ranked as the fifth most-visited site in the world and yet, of the 400 million users who visit the site every month, according to Wikipedia’s own estimates, only 0.02-0.03 percent of visitors actively contribute to articles. Its stated vision, “Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge,” has yet to be achieved.

So what have been the barriers for participation?

For starters, in its present state, Wikipedia deters content creation and editing by those who are best qualified to do so — the educators, who spend more time criticizing it, (usually for some minor error as in a typo), than engaging in it. If it is to serve this generation much like the Encyclopedia Britannica did the many generations that came before us, it needs to attract a new generation of knowledgeable editors that become comfortable with how to cite sources, provide references, validate the information they are adding and understand shortcuts that can be taken to provide an internal link in lieu of using the full html address for a forwarded article.

The good news is that it is now being addressed with the launch of a pilot project by the Wikimedia Foundation that includes several public policy initiatives on university campuses. Basically the initiatives will ask Professors at public policy programs in universities in the US to participate by first asking their students to better some existing articles and eventually include knowledge of navigating the Wikipedia as to edits and content creation in college curriculums. The Foundation plans to form Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors and Wikipedia Online Ambassadors who will help train these new Wikipedians. There will also be a Wikipedia Teaching Fellowship program to accompany the Public Policy Initiative programs.

In the end it’s like everything else. With training and mentoring in place, a new generation of editors should blossom and Wikipedia will finally achieve the status that once belonged to the venerable Britannica Encyclopedia. However, it is poised to reach the billions that the older encyclopedia never even envisioned.

The missing link has always been knowledge and willingness to adapt. With the expected batch of new editors resulting from the mentoring and training programs. Wikipedia’s founding vision of “freely sharing in the sum of all knowledge” can finally be achieved.

There is something to be said about the choice of words, or put differently, the art of wordsmithing.

The full page ‘sorry’ ads taken out in the major British newspapers by Rupert Murdoch over the weekend, certainly seem inconsequential in light of the calamitous series of consequences that resulted from the illegal practice of phone hacking employed, approved and accepted as normal policy by Murdoch’s top level journalists and editors. For goodness sake, laws were broken and private and public lives were exposed, hurt or damaged, political favors were encouraged,sought and won — all in the pursuit of scooped news.

Sorry? Just doesn’t do it.

The resignations are piling up by the hour and just Sunday it included, of all people, the head of Scotland Yard. The unfolding story of intrigue and back room deals has embroiled politicians, police and, in essence, brought into question the very ethics of the UK media industry. Trust in journalism has been chipped, or tainted…

And you get a ‘sorry’? It just won’t do.

‘Sorry’ described as apologetic in the Thesaurus, is too flippant a word in this case. You say sorry when you bump into someone in the mall or when you spill something during a meal or if you forget the wine for a hostess. Nobody cares right now if Murdoch is sorry. It’s too late for that, for the incredulous story has spiraled out of control. It is akin to the example of running a red light while driving and inadvertently killing someone. What does one say to the family, ‘sorry’?

A ‘sorry’ won’t rehire the 600 employees who lost their jobs on the spot with the closing of the 168-year old tabloid. A ‘sorry’ won’t hide the collusion of politicians and police who silently acquiesced or participated with the phone hacking scheming. A ‘sorry’ won’t save those senior executives and editors who stumbled and mumbled in the immediate aftermath something about “not knowing anything” or “not having anything to do with such policies,” — those same ones that were arrested over the last few days and carted away,

In Murdoch’s own words in the ad, an apology is not enough. So what is?

Immediate indignation might have served him better. Murdoch would have done well to invoke President Truman’s favorite line, “The buck stops here” instead of offering a ‘sorry.’ He could have said, instead, that he takes full responsibility for whatever policies were set by his executives, for whatever practices were implemented under those policies, for the little oversight that allowed and perpetuated the illegal behaviors, for the damages that these caused and that he will personally ‘promise’ (a better word than ‘sorry’) that the ethics of journalism will be reset at all his publications with strict checks and balances in place.

A ‘sorry’ is too meaningless to save his Empire. Maybe nothing will. Time will tell.

This tweet showed up recently: “The Uni of Iowa is offering a $37K scholarship to its b-schl fr the bst tweet by a prspctive MBA student.”

Strange to see this from an academic institution… It makes the “de rigueur” misspellings that are so intrinsic to the Twitter format seem OK.

Still, if the University of Iowa’s Tippie College of Business wanted to break through the clutter and get attention from potential business school candidates, it certainly got what it wanted, for this tweet went viral with a whirlwind velocity. Why not? Seems an easy and quick way to vie for a full scholarship. Even business publications were all over this including Bloomberg, Business Insider and BusinessWeek blog, as well as the French publication Atlantico, albeit the latter promptly declared that this would attract mediocrity rather than motivated students.

Not necessarily.

It will also attract savvy students wishing to compete on a creative level rather than just on their background information. It also fits in very well with Tippie’s need to get more aggressive in finding students to fill their school’s full-time MBA program, considering that they only had only 307 applicants. Moreover, it keys in with the school’s admissions officers’ increased curiosity in knowing a candidate’s social media voice in addition to their academic achievements.

It’s a creative pioneering gesture to interest applicants through a medium that really belongs to that generation. But the required tweet to compete for the $37K is in addition to the regular application form and resumes, not instead of, and that seems to dull the ”newness” of it all. So, armed with all the traditional information required, except for the usual 800 to 900-word essay, just how much weight will the tweet carry when it comes to in winning the scholarship?

There is something that I do not quite get…. I am thinking of all those spelling bees that kids try so hard to win over their early years, only to have a college give permission to misspell as a lure to apply.

It’s a clever attention grabber, but a stunt none-the-less, one that does not seem to be on message for an institution of higher learning…or is it “hier lrning.”

Spirit Airlines jumped on Weiner-gate faster than most, with their well-known marketing prowess. From the same company that targeted Arnold Schwarzenegger a couple of weeks ago, they promoted, this time around, a Weiner Sale that is “Too Hard to Resist,” with the text of the offer reading, “Hurry to book now, before this sale gets hacked.” Tasteless? Definitely, but somehow irresistible and in line for a company who’s president/CEO once shoved himself in an overhead bin to defend his company’s carry-on charges.

And then there was Jon Stewart, with his spoof on his purported “best friend” (college roommate). And then Letterman and Craig Ferguson took off, elongating the tale and at some point, after a few more comics took their turns, the laughs cooled off and the ridiculousness of it all set in.

Curiously enough, the media circus itself sobered up and some even took offense at the ongoing tasteless battering of Weiner.

Still, repercussions from the comic frenzy continued. For example, in the wake of the Weiner scandal, actor Alec Baldwin might now seriously consider running for mayor of New York City in 2013 when it was Congressman Weiner that had been considered as the Democrats’ frontrunner. And Eliot Spitzer, who embarrassingly enough always gets asked for commentary on political figures involved in shocking sex scandals for obvious reasons, said he sympathizes with Rep. Anthony Weiner — naturally.

Imagine – a simple matter of a miss-key on Twitter, results in laying bare (pardon the pun) of personal habits and preferences, exposing personal moral digressions to an unforgiving public.

Miss-key or not, it is a gross lapse in judgment to even consider the use of a medium that is meant for public consumption in the first place. Political figures, by the nature of their chosen paths, give up a certain right to behaviors that can be seen as inappropriate to the “political image” that got them elected in the first place. They are held up to a far greater public moral compass than the ordinary man in the street.

It doesn’t take a trained political PR guru to understand that the greatest sin from the perspective of the public was not the miss-keyed Twitter moment, but rather not being truthful at the moment of crisis. It is a flaw in judgment which should not have happened, given the PR training he must have received on the way to becoming an elected official. He could have joked about it, made some attempt at “Oops, I did not mean to put it out there” (another pun intended) or any other type of Mea Culpa. But to blatantly lie about “questionable certitude” is such a PR 101 lesson – that it becomes incredulous. Where were his advisors?

Message to remember – social media is very social indeed, as opposed to private media.

Suddenly it matters. Finally, the Made-in-America label has become entwined with national pride, domestic job growth, fine quality production and is slowly turning around decades-old perceptions that anything made in Italy or France, the powerhouse countries of design, are not necessarily “must haves.”

It’s a slow growth pattern, but definitely on track for a change as seen by a survey of affluent consumers conducted this year by American Express Publishing and the Harrison Group, a luxury research firm. According to the survey, 75% said they like brands made in America, only up by 5% from 2008, but significant in its rising curve. The more noteworthy news is that 65% of those surveyed said they do try to buy U.S.-made products whenever possible, a strong indicator that some change is brewing.

Companies that have catered more to the mid-market consumers have always appealed to patriotism much more than luxury brands, as seen by such companies as Levi Strauss with its “Wild West” origins focus, and Chrysler’s “Imported from Detroit,” a reminder of that company’s American roots. It is only recently that affluent consumers have sat up and noticed that Made-in-America can have positive economic consequences all around.

Clearly one has to factor in that not just patriotism has triggered this change, although that too, but the fact that China’s labor costs have increased, leading to higher pricing and that its manufacturing quality has in recent years come under fire. Another factor is that celebrity folks have stepped up to drive this change, such as the luxury fashion line, the Row, from Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen, which manufactures most of its clothes in America’s biggest cities. The brand got a boost from the likes of First Lady Michelle Obama and actress Julianne Moore who favor the brand, as well as with critics.

The Made-in-America label is actually more about manufacturing than design, as in the case of American fashion designer, Polo Ralph Lauren and Coach, Inc, the largest U.S. luxury handbag maker, whose goods are made outside the country. Not so with Brooks Brothers, a company that designs and manufactures solely in the US, as does the luxury brand, Tiffany.

Look, I don’t expect any affluent person to trade in their Ferregamo shoes or Prada purses anytime soon, but I do believe that the mystique of buying foreign fashion labels for its own reputable sake, has been knocked down a couple of notches and that the world economic and political climate is right for Made-in-America to have a fighting chance at competing.

Turning perceptions around has always been the hard part. PR and marketing teams of such companies have the current opportunity to jump on the bandwagon and unleash messages that resonate emotionally with the public — messages that focus on buying American because, in a small way, in one niche of the economy, individually and collectively, all can make a difference.

Within the political arena negative campaigns are commonplace, even expected and accepted. It seems to be the norm to engage political gurus in stealth tactics to “uncover” opponents’ weaknesses or momentary ethical lapses. But short of the political arena where all is “game,” the days when smear campaigns actually work are over, given this transparent world.

Facebook got a whiff of that today…

What left Facebook red-faced, is the big buzz that ensued over the story that broke about the “clandestine” way it went about to clobber Google about privacy issues. It secretly hired a top notch public relations firm “to pitch anti-Google stories to newspapers, urging them to investigate claims that Google was invading people’s privacy” according to the Daily Beast.

Apparently two ex-broadcasting “stars”, now working for the PR firm, had been very busy indeed, packaging a negative story, concocting some of it and, even offering to help an influential blogger write a Google-bashing op-ed, promising to get it placed in major mainstream media outlets. And all this, without revealing the identity of its client. And to what purpose, the public good?

When the claims proved largely untrue or at the very least exaggerated, the blogger blew the whistle and the whole incident became an embarrassing PR fiasco resulting in temporary dings to the otherwise “trustworthy” reputation of Facebook and the stellar reputation of the PR firm, Burson Marstellar who, over its 58-year history, has represented blue-chip corporate clients . This whole incident underscored the rivalry between Facebook and Google, as they go confronting each other over Internet users’ time and advertisers’ budgets.

Look, tomorrow this incident will be yesterday’s news. Both Facebook and Burson Marstellar have issued statements that although purposely vague, do have semblances of apologies. This whole matter will have been but a “blip,” or hiccup, but it has left some questions about the crossing of ethical lines according to the Public Relations Society of America’s ethical conduct policies.

PR professionals fiercely guard their reputation with the media as trusted sources and for good reasons. This transparent world of ours will not bear any infringements on that trust. Public relations should not be used as a weapon to destroy competition, rather should be forthright in communicating an organization’s contribution to the well-being of society, whether through products or services the consumer can use or want, or contribute to the public good in terms of laws, regulations, environmental concerns or social interests.

If this sounds altruistic, it’s not, for it is the norm for the code of conduct within the PR industry.

You gotta admit it was a great story – a good tax day story, but the “news” skipped in and out so quickly that most just blinked – and missed it.  But certainly not the PR community…

The story, which first appeared on a fake General Electric site and then published by the Associated Press (AP), claimed that General Electric (GE) will be “gifting its entire 2010 tax refund, worth $3.2 Billion, to the US Treasury on April 18, Tax Day, and will furthermore adopt a host of new policies that secure its position as a leader in corporate social responsibility.”

How great is that! Unfortunately, it turned out to be a hoax, although a very clever one indeed.  I am sure that GE was not amused.   The hoax turned out to be the work of Yes Lab, an incubator for ideas that dovetail with the Yes Men’s stunts, generally triggered by activist organizations that pay Yes Lab to develop pranks that can affect public debate with a particular target in mind.

It took but 35 minutes for AP to withdraw the hoax press release. They issued a mea culpa and the “case” was ostensibly closed.

But it certainly had a ripple effect in the journalism community. Traditionally we put more trust in mainstream journalists than any other media content providers, for their mantra, as we have understood it for years, is to publish well-vetted stories and not be so easily duped by pranksters, activists or unfounded information. They are counted on to do a better job at checking out sources.

Why it was not vetted before publishing could have something to do with what a “feel good” story it actually was. Immelt’s quote in the hoax release, “we want the public to know that we’ve heard them, and that we know many Americans are going through tough times,” should have been the red flag for journalists snatching up this story as quickly as they did as to its authenticity, since it certainly seemed out of character both for Immelt and GE.

Just look at what a 35-minute lapse in validating a story can impact – investor’s angst and the manipulation of stocks, not to speak of GE’s scramble to disclaim the fake “do-good” quotes.

Oh well, the whole story did seem too good to be true…

Judgment is that strange word that needs a “poor” or a “good” in front of it to make sense and really be descriptive of the word. Still, either can be subjective. What some consider poor judgment might be seen differently by others and vice versa.

But along comes a judgment call that creates such a tempest as in Go Daddy’s CEO Bob Parsons’ most recent elephant killing expedition in Africa, that the word “poor” in front of that particular judgment call does not apply, for Parson’s “poor” judgment in this case has been brought to another level.

As if killing an elephant “for the good of the hungry villagers,” according to Parsons was not enough, he had to produce a graphic video and then later rant in the face of fierce criticism about “how right he was to do the hunting and killing” and that most critics know in “their hearts that he was right to do it” — for the ‘cause’.

So how exactly did Parsons and his team expect this to go down? Did they not consider the consequences of an arrogant middle-aged American stepping in to help villagers, not with funds, nor education, nor farming tools and skills, but by actually doing the killing? Worse, apparently, it’s not the first such expedition, for according to Parsons he goes each year to Zimbabwe to hunt problem elephants. But this year, it was videoed — and to what purpose exactly?

If some advisor in Parsons’ team concocted this idea as a publicity gimmick, they need to be looking for another job. If Parsons himself wanted this, then he needs to surround himself with reputation managers who can see poor judgment in the making and have the wherewithal to dissuade and persuade him from taking such actions. If Parsons just likes to hunt, a good advice would be to do it very, very privately indeed and forget about attaching some “good cause” to his actions.

Or, as his Entrepreneur interview which took place before the “hunt” clearly shows, if he revels in courting controversy, let him also recognize that as a CEO of a billion dollar company, he cannot take on the persona of a renegade who defies responsibilities to his stakeholders as well as public opinion.

Parsons should have taken note of his own quote in that interview when he said, “You need to know exactly where you stand in a business at all times. Measure everything, because everything that is measured and watched, improves.”

Too late for PR crises experts to work their magic on this one…

There is that old “no-brainer”… Judgment calls come before actions taken — with considerations given to potential consequences from all angles.

Hello!

This very provocative consideration was posed by none other than Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, in an article in the NYT’s Sunday magazine section on March 10. Although published a little more than a week ago, the article titled, “All the Aggregation That’s Fit to Aggregate” offers enough thought provoking discussion points about whether or not Media and journalism are really synonymous, to trigger many more such conversations.

Keller’s point that, “we in Media have transcended earthbound activities like reporting, writing or picture-taking and created an abstraction — a derivative — called Media, in which we invest our attention and esteem,” is well taken, albeit likely to be perceived, by a great swath of consumers of news, as an old- fashioned point of view. Especially so, when he goes on to say that, “our fascination with capital-M Media is so disengaged from what really matters.” His point as to what matters, is that it is still the credentialed journalists that cover history-in-the-making, while others indulge in “the orgy of self-reference (which) is so indiscriminate, so trivializing.”

Keller supports that point with the observation that “some once-serious news outlets give pride of place not to stories they think important but to stories that are “trending” on Twitter — the “American Idol”-ization of news. And we have bestowed our highest honor — market valuation — not on those who labor over the making of original journalism, but on aggregation.”

Keller has little respect for aggregated media, which used to be called “plagiarized” media, but which now has become the “new normal” media — whose whole existence is to regurgitate what someone else already did. However, the reality is that news aggregation is actually a necessary outcome of the radical explosion of information of the past decade and news aggregators have become the best means for the average consumer of information to be able to reasonably digest even a fraction of this explosion.

From Keller’s vantage point, that as caretaker of some of the world’s best news “originators,” it is clearly an affront to have their work repurposed and repackaged. Moreover, since aggregators fall under the new “normaI” category they have often dumped journalists into the “old” media category rather than the well-deserved elevated category of “originators of news.” Aggregators are now generally positioned on equal par with those that travel the world, under difficult circumstances, to garner the news. In other words, in becoming a new news medium, aggregators have garnered undue respect, which seemingly continues to rankle the likes of Keller. Just consider as to what you hear more often, “Oh, I just read it on the HuffPost,” or, “just saw it in the Washington Post,” for example.

I offer a different perspective, however. The real objection that I have is not about the aggregation of news in general, but rather that aggregators get to choose the news that fits interests relevant to each one’s “seeming or expressed” preference, profile or demographic, and therefore limit the exposure to the gamut of news. I prefer to be the decider of what news I consume and therefore will continue to take the time to peruse favorite publications and then individually decide, on a moment-by-moment basis, what news I wish to consume.

Anyway, the times are a-changing. Since we live in a society where price very often is akin to value, I think that the NYT is playing it smart by throwing up a pay wall for receiving the news online, which is about to happen. You get what you pay for, right?

With the disastrous and colliding events taking place in Japan continuing to eclipse all other considerations and rendering everything not related to such devastation meaningless, I took a moment to reflect on a top-scoring slogan that came to mind, used not so long ago for AT&T’s long distance phone service — “reach out and touch someone.”

How far our communication systems have evolved was starkly evident during the recent Tsunami disaster when phone communication systems crashed all around and when it took a different medium than phone systems, as in social media — to “reach out and touch someone.”

According to The Telegraph, “mobile carriers over the weekend were limiting voice calls on Japanese networks with NTT DoCoMo limiting up to 80 percent of the voice calls in Tokyo and elsewhere.”

As such, the swiftness with which services such as Google’s “person finder” were organized in response to the earthquake, as well as the services of Twitter, Skype, Facebook, Google (News Alert) and Mixi, (Japan’s most popular social networking site), which miraculously worked well throughout the emergency, remains a matter of wonderment. It was primarily through these services that information about friends and relatives seeped through, domestically and internationally, and that the “lucky” relatives were reunited.

Just consider the Tsunami of 2004 that hit Indonesia and its surroundings. The power to connect people directly was in its infancy and the search for survivors was still mostly relegated to phone communication systems, which at best offered intermittent connections. Also many Londoners discovered during the July 2007 terrorist incidents that mobile phone networks were unable to cope, as hundreds of thousands of customers tried to call or send a text at the same time. As to the Haiti earthquake of 2010, with most having little or no Internet access, social media only partly made up for the lack of information coming from the affected area, with CNN playing the largest role.

At a moment in time, when we are overcome with the destructive force that Mother Nature inflicted on Japan, with as yet unknown consequences affecting global economies and impacting market needs worldwide, there is still something meaningful to reflect on – the continued ingenuity of man, to find the means, with which to “reach out and touch someone.”

It’s that human element that we can count on most…

Taco Bell is now really over the top in employing defensive tactics to counter that Alabama lawsuit that claims an independent test of the fast food chain’s beef filling was actually only 35% beef, which begs the question as to what’s in the rest of the 65%.  In fact, this subject has been invaluable material for late night pundits in the last week, who ranted and joked at the company’s expense – as an example: the head writer for the Letterman show chuckled, “we’re all finally going to find out where the Taco Bell Chihuahua went.”

Given the ongoing merciless dialogue, one can only wonder at the choices that the fast food chain made in going on the offensive with an ad blitz to counterattack the claims, taking out full page ads in newspapers across the country featuring a headline that read, “Thank you for suing us” in big, bold letters.

Really?  I don’t get the purpose.  Apparently, the somewhat sarcastic shock tactic was meant as an attention grabber to set the record straight as to the “real” story about the beef ingredients of the filling, which the ads claimed are “88% beef and 12% Secret Recipe.”  I got confused with the math because the ads went on to claim that, “ours is 100% beef USDA inspected, “with water and spices added that bring the mixture’s beef quotient down to 88%.” That’s the 12%  “secret recipe?”

Unlike McDonald’s who has always marketed their “secret recipe” and Coke’s well-known “secret sauce,” this is the first we hear of Taco Bell’s “secret recipe.”

Anyway it did not convince.

Taco Bell’s next try was to shore up its reputation with the launch of a “Talk” campaign which sounds like a right move, meant to engage and reassure taco lovers.  Except that the campaign features Taco Bell’s own employees, restaurant managers and franchisees.

Not convincing. What would employees say other than sing the company’s line?

I would suggest to Taco Bell that, rather than using ads (or controlled media) to counterattack questionable claims, consider a PR solution and turn to stellar examples such as:

• Domino’s Pizza playbook, and the tactics used when responding to its own PR fiasco when a video surfaced on YouTube showing disgusting and filthy antics from a server. Domino’s response was a bold campaign showing open frankness in conversations, all over the social networks, with a “mea culpa” and aiming to do better – all of which netted the company an almost 12% increase in sales in the third quarter of 2010.
• Toyota’s crisis book with the Prius, when it was accused of safety issues.  Toyota retained an independent third party study to prove whether or not the car was in fact safe and was cleared of all safety suspicions involving that car.

Most credible would be for Taco Bell to retain a third-party independent testing lab to come up with its own conclusions.  And should the beef come up short, stop the misguided claims and embark on a campaign that engages and reassures as to taste, price, convenience and health safety.  Surely taco lovers (including me) would be appreciative.  And should the beef indeed contain the 88% that they claim – problem solved.

I would caution that a bit of media training for its CEO would go a long way for the company’s reputation.  A video posted on YouTube has the CEO quoted, in defense of the company’s recipe as, “Taco Bell = 12 pounds of food for 3 dollars. I don’t care what’s in it, everything we eat is apparently gonna give us cancer and/or kill us anyway.”

I couldn’t help thinking, while watching last night’s Jeopardy game, the purpose of it all – other than unabashed PR for IBM’s four-year accomplishment and a ratings boost for Jeopardy.

Last night’s game had, true to format, three contestants — two of the smartest winners that ever played the game, winning millions on the show, Brad Rutter and Ken Jennings, and the third – a machine, IBM’s Watson, that debuted as a “contestant.”  OK, not the machine itself, which takes up the space of 10 refrigerators, but its avatar which, true to corporate form, looks like IBM’s own Smarter Planet logo, that is, the globe motif and “a swarm of particles — a single “leader” chased by the others — to spin around on the globe’s surface, indicating that Watson is thinking.”

Well, the result is formidable, but for Watson to show off on Jeopardy is a pure stunt – albeit, a brilliant one for IBM.  Taking the machine out of the lab and putting it to a test in front of millions of everyday viewers who could enjoy the wonderment of it all, makes us wonder what IBM was thinking when they pitted champions against a machine…

It wasn’t much fun to watch champion Ken Jennings squirm at having a machine beat his lightning-fast speed at buzzing in answers. Apparently champions get to the buzzer first more than 60% of the time, but Watson can sometimes push that buzz-in rate above 70% and with amazing accuracy.  Look, lowly mortals were not meant to outrun cars, out calculate calculators, or outrace avatars.  For that, humans have built their machines.

For IBM to chose Jeopardy as a try out for its innovation on which it spent almost four years and millions of dollars, researching and scanning a universe of knowledge into its capacious 15 trillion-byte memory for great literature, mathematical and scientific formulas, the name of every pope and Best Actress Oscar winner, is pure silliness.

It’s not the first time that IBM has strutted out its display of artificial intelligence machines. The last stunt like this was when another IBM supercomputer called Deep Blue beat Russian grandmaster Garry Kasparov at a chess game.  Noticed that interest in chess tournaments have been spiraling down?  Maybe Trebec should start looking at where public interest in trivia is heading after this.  If a machine can beat champions at their own prowess, why amass knowledge of trivia? If you can’t get even get a crack at one-third of the clues, what’s the point of being there?

Jennings said it best. “I don’t think we want to outsource our thinking to any machine.  I don’t remember phone numbers anymore because my cellphone does, can’t figure out what time of day it is by looking at the sun, but thinking and recall and analysis – these things are too central. Yes, machines save us effort; dangerous, backbreaking tasks are now performed by robots; algorithms predict and feed our musical tastes; computers fly planes and predator, drones. But there is a point at where convenience ends and laziness begins. We’re freeing up a great deal of mental space – for what?”

If you can answer any question with a keystroke, it’s no fun to be a know-it-all when everyone else is, too.

No wonder we seem worried that machines might take over.

Happily post-Jeopardy, Watson is leaving the game show arena and moving into healthcare.  It is now being prepped for its next step and being fed electronic medical records, doctors’ notes, patient histories, symptoms, the USP Pharmacopeia and such.

It will have no humans to slug against, only systems…

The anticipation surrounding the Super Bowl ad rollouts, is rivaling that of the game itself, for smart marketers have unleashed the ad buzz weeks ahead of the game, with multi-week contests and teasers, extending their exposure of ad expenditures of up to $3 million for prime Super Bowl, well past just the traditional one-time showing during the game.

The trigger is the Super Bowl, but the power to engage before, during and past the game, is the Super “Social” Bowl — a marketer’s dream .

Harnessing emerging venues definitely amortizes costs and in, and of itself, almost rationalizes the significant expenditure for major companies, a point that I am sure is not lost on those CFOs who rant relentlessly about ROI and the Super Bowl ads.

Social or not, it still all starts with old-fashioned TV spots, but spots so designed to draw in an audience through its humor, focus on causes, or creative story line, ones that trigger social media conversations. It’s by no means the first year that the Super “Social” Bowl is tapped, but it certainly seems to be the year social networking charges onto the field.

Whether pre-game, during game, or post game, the social-media maneuvers taking place this year seem to play into a two-pronged universal strategy: to leverage the investment and key into consumer behavior. In terms of leveraging, it will be interesting to see who is truly able to capitalize on their Super Bowl venture. There are companies that are already standing out from the crowd such as (among others), the integrated strategy that Teleflora has with their mobile apps; E-trade’s creative concepts in utilizing their wisecracking baby character to interact with sports commentators and anchors; Audi’s first use of the hashtag on its major TV spot during the games’ first break, hoping to have viewers interact and spark conversations on Twitter during the game. Volkswagen, armed with research that TV viewers go online to check out sports-news sites during the Super Bowl broadcast, plans to respond by doing a takeover of ESPN’s mobile site during the game. Others are showing outtakes from their popular commercials on YouTube and are advertising on YouTube during the days before the Bowl. Still others, like Budweiser, are tying in TV “tease” commercials with ads on Facebook pages.

As to consumer behaviors, a recent survey from Lightspeed Research estimated that nearly two-thirds of viewers aged 18 to 34 who plan to watch the Super Bowl, also plan to make use of a smartphone. Of those with a smartphone, 59% will be sending emails or text messages about the game, 18% will be checking out ads online from their phones, and 18% will visit advertiser websites. And, according to the survey, almost a third, or 32%, will be posting comments about the game on a social network.

The Super “Social” Bowl will surely set an all time record for the fusion of social media with broadcast media, broadcast events and live events everywhere in the communications and advertising industry. Super Bowl or not, marketers should take note…

Wal-Mart played it smart recently, when it keyed into the First Lady’s passion about fighting childhood obesity with its commitment to improve the affordability and health qualities of the food it sells.  According to The Washington Post, Michelle Obama, who participated in the company’s press conference, said that Wal-Mart‘s effort is “a huge victory for folks all across this country” and said it has the “potential to transform the marketplace.”

According to reports, Wal-Mart’s commitment includes working with food suppliers to reduce sodium, sugars, and trans fat in certain products by 2015; developing its own seal to help consumers identify healthier products; and addressing hunger by opening Wal-Mart stores in the nation’s “food deserts,” defined as building stores in underserved areas — and increase its charitable donations to nutrition programs.

No one can argue with that.  Wal-Mart played it smart because it now has a glowing endorsement from the White House and smart, because this will clearly help the company’s aspiration to gain in stature as a forward-thinking company that is taking the lead in offering healthy affordable foods.  If that does not ring true to its reputation to date, you cannot blame it for taking valiant steps at a turnaround and employ its vast economies of scale to a host of hot-button social issues, such as environmental and sustainability — and now food.

If, in the process, the company got a PR bonanza through the wide mainstream media coverage that followed its announcement, then that’s smart, too.

But questions remain.

In writing for CivilEats.org Anna Lappé questions Wal-Mart’s promises and reminds that corporate driven, non-binding promises like these are endemic in the food industry PR playbook. Michele Simon author of Appetite for Profit, reminds that other food companies have made similar promises (Pepsi, Kraft) and received their own PR bonanza with good press, but have done very little to actually improve the health qualities of their products and that, historically, there is little accountability over time when the changes are supposed to be made.

Their cynicism is not unfounded.  The timing of Wal-Mart’s promise to develop its own front-of-package seal apparently preempts the work already underway at the Institutes of Medicine and FDA to “establish research-based criteria for such packaging and create regulations for the entire industry, with real oversight.”  Also, the so-called food deserts where Wal-Mart plans to build more stores because the is “a dearth of grocery stores selling fresh produce in rural and underserved urban areas,” surely fits into their expansion strategy.

Still, if Wal-Mart’s promise is based on a self-serving corporate agenda, yet promises to reduce and bring to the forefront the troubling social cause of obesity, what could be wrong with that?

In today’s world of crowdsourcing and outspoken self-proclaimed critics, the answer may very well be that it is simply another chicken and egg story.  Some will say the company, while others will point out that the customer is always “king.”

Take the Gap saga, as an example.  In my blog of October 12, 2010, I posed the same question when the company acquiesced to a consumer outcry against its new logo roll out – an outcry that flooded the Internet with derisions, mockeries, parodies, causing the company to retract their new logo. Never mind that the new logo was designed based on two years of market research with costly development costs.  A knee-jerk reaction at best…

Now it’s Starbucks’ turn to roll out a new logo on its 40^th anniversary and, to the chagrin of its loyal customers, the new green logo is essentially Starbucks’ representation of its old logo’s female siren, but without the company name or ‘coffee’.  Actually, it is kudos to Starbucks that they have evolved to the level of recognition where a name is unnecessary such as several well-known companies, including Apple, Inc. (AAPL.O) and Nike, Inc (NKE.N), which have long used only symbols to represent their brands.

Much like the Gap roll out, self-described Starbucks fanatics were not impressed and, among hundreds of comments on Starbucks’ website, called for the company’s name to be put back into the logo.  There is an OMG reaction to the change and the resulting negative buzz, although not as frenzied as with Gap to date, is building in fury.  As an example, from infuriated customers we hear comments such as, “I think it’s nuts,’ and “What’s it going to be — the coffee formerly known as Starbucks?” or “At the rate the logo is evolving, it will soon be nothing but an extreme close-up of the mermaid’s nose,” or  “Who’s the bonehead in your marketing department that removed the world-famous name of Starbucks Coffee from your new logo?”

What I don’t get is why customers bother, when their worries, if any, should be about taste or price changes. The on and offline media have certainly fueled the new uproar by headlining Starbucks’ new logo in major publications. The last two days must have been slow news days…

But what is more worrisome is the changing relationship between brand and customer. There is a growing sense that customers, regardless whether Gap, Starbucks, or other, feel they own the company to which they have given their loyalty – that it is theirs, because without them there is no company and, as such, corporate headquarters owe them the courtesy to consult them before changes occur.  The worry is that with the explosion of social media and real-time feedback, has given customers a platform from which to hold brands hostage to their whims of likes or dislikes.

The reality is that companies spend years on market research and money to fund it, research that nets new opportunities or roads to take.  Customers would do well to trust the companies that gave them the products that they adopted as theirs — and leave the driving of company growth – to the companies.

Unlike the Gap, Starbucks hasn’t budged. The logo stays so far…