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?

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!

Bad week for both trust and transparency…

Just take a look at last week’s Facebook privacy leaks, when all of the top 10 apps on Facebook were leaking. It turns out that user IDs of six of the most popular apps, were leaked to advertising networks included FarmVille, Mafia Wars, and several card and puzzle games. According to Facebook, it knew nothing about it, and put the blame on the games’ publisher, Zynga who was doing the selling.

It’s not the first time that Facebook’s face has turned red…

It happened last May when the WSJ discovered that Facebook was leaking user IDs through its ad sales on the site. Facebook corrected that problem, albeit too late, of course, for some users. Apparently they never thought to see if its app publishers were leaking or selling the same information, leading us to the Zynga debacle of this week.  What will be the next thing that Facebook discovers?

Each chip dings users’ trust.

And then there was Google that admitted, also last week, that its Street View cars, scooped up emails and passwords from Wi Fi networks as they cruised around. The company is “mortified,” and has implemented changes, but maybe not quite as “mortified” as the people who trusted Google not to snoop in the first place.  According to Google they initially collected only “fragmentary” data, but the true extent of the Wi-Fi snooping was only uncovered recently by regulators outside of Google, in some cases looking into possible criminal charges.

How many dings does it take to lose trust?  Most cheating spouses usually only get one…

As to transparency, one has only to look at the non-transparent Wikileaks, the self-proclaimed whistle-blower’s web site, to know that transparency works both ways.  Under the guise of freedom of information, the site has now released two “troves” of classified military records, an earlier one on the Afghan conflict and the recent one on Iraq, causing vast damage without any attempt at substantiation.  The founder, Julian Assange, now a hunted man, has not found it necessary to reveal who is funding the organization, friend or foe, for what political cause, the source of their information, the process of evaluation as to what to publish, or even to what purpose. So much for transparency…

Transparency needs trust and trust demands transparency. It’s the measure of it that cannot quite be trusted, as in “to what extent is a company transparent?”  Clearly it’s a marketer’s choice as to what information is transparent and what is not, what is made public and what remains within corporate walls. But once parameters are established, transparency is all about consistency and how it is communicated, a formula that will surely elevate trust.

Classified military material, on the other hand, is an antonym to transparency and should remain outside of such a discussion…

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.”

Following is the next video in a series celebrating The Pollack PR Marketing Group’s 25th Anniversary:

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”

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…

The next video by The Pollack PR Marketing Group as part of our monthly 25th anniversary celebration:

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…

The fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989 not only paved the way for German re-unification, but also broke the devastating communication barrier that had been in place since 1961 and led the way for what would soon be the opening up of communications with the entire Eastern bloc.

->Back to 25 PR Defining Moments

->View the Complete List

The fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989 not only paved the way for German re-unification, but also broke the devastating communication barrier that had been in place since 1961 and led the way for what would soon be the opening up of communications with the entire Eastern bloc.

->Back to 25 PR Defining Moments

->View the Complete List

From the fax machine through instant global satellite communication, the velocity of real-time information has made a tremendous impact on consumer consumption of information, historically unparalleled. Distance is no longer a barrier to communication.

->Back to 25 PR Defining Moments

->View the Complete List

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.

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.