It took a long ten months — from the time that Mayor Bloomberg proposed his plan to ban large sugary drinks of 32 oz. from restaurants, movie theaters and other establishments, ostensibly to curtail obesity, to NY’s State Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling’s verdict, which came down yesterday invalidating the proposed law, calling it “arbitrary and capricious.”

What? We cannot do the simple math? In my blog of June 1, “…Size Matters,” I argued that if we could not buy a 32oz. soda, we could just get two 16 oz. ones, obesity be damned. Our choice. Not Mayor Bloomberg’s.

It is absolutely incredible that the proposed plan was taken seriously in the first place; incredible that it got so far as to have businesses such as Dunkin Donuts, hand out information cards to its customers in preparation of having to comply with the potential upcoming law; incredible that it wasted the time of lawmakers, judges, city clerks and, of course, Judge Tingling’s; and incredible that this nonsense might have become a law today.

Just imagine all that would have been accomplished in that time, had the focus been on what really would impact healthy eating. A law could have been proposed and implemented by now for public schools to get healthier lunch menus; for public education and community centers to dig deeper into needy neighborhoods that do not otherwise have access to health seminars and dietary information; for restaurants to list calorie counts of dishes they serve, no matter how upscale they may be; for movie theaters to do likewise with their snacks (if they don’t do so already); and for public health centers and clinics to re-double their efforts to promote healthy diets.

It’s a clear case of a misguided personal quest to leave a legacy of healthier New Yorkers. A personal quest at the cost of businesses’ profits, of sending a message to the obese community that cutting out large sodas is an easy answer to loosing weight and of mocking the real causes of obesity — health issues that go far deeper than soda.

It gets worse…It seems like he had all loose ends tied up to support his plan. He had the city’s mayor-controlled health board approve the ban last fall, improperly sidestepped the city council’s legislative authority, and had a new city study released the day before the law was to go into effect that showed that neighborhoods with the greatest obesity, also consumed the most sugary drinks.
Unfortunately, the city’s chief lawyer plans an appeal. More waste of time; much ado over nothing…

Somebody was asleep at the virtual wheel…

So Tesla finally did produce the vehicle logs that ostensibly contradict the New York Times’ reporter John Broder’s recent account of a test drive road trip he took, driving Tesla’s electronic car Model S, which resulted in a scathing negative review in that publication. But there was a lag of three days, which allowed for the rancorous back-and-forth to continue and escalate, pitting one of the nation’s most influential newspaper against one of the most successful entrepreneurs.

To begin with Tesla’s CEO Musk’s knee jerk response to the negative review was ill conceived. His blistering response in a blog post vociferously countered Broder’s account and said that data pulled from the Model S’s onboard computer would more clearly account for what really happened.

But no data was released to support that blog statement until three days later.

Apparently, for those who did not follow the public rants that erupted surrounding a bad review of the car, there are discrepancies in the nature of the trip as to how fully charged the car was at the outset, whether or not the car deviated from the planned route and took a detour and at what temperature the car was held – all directly responsible for the car’s performance.

This is clearly a case where data and PR intersect. One would think it critical for a communication team to create a scenario where success can happen, and have plans and precautions in place should there be a hiccup in the process — especially so when you have the Goliath of a newspaper covering the trip. As such, it would seem tantamount to success of any road trip to be able to follow it in real time, know where it is going at all times, keep aware of dashboard data in real time and act upon it. Minimally, the car was surely tracked via its GPS and at least that could have showed them any deviation from the agreed upon course, allowing the communication team to react as it happened.

What is puzzling is that Tesla’s communication team and engineers had several phone conversations with Broder throughout his trip. So how is it that they could not track the trip’s progress and counsel the driver of the vehicle in real time as to detours, charging and temperature gage, all directly impacting outcomes? And why was Musk not counseled as to his call with Broder last Friday, before the article appeared online, in which he offered regrets about the outcome of the test drive? Really? What regrets?

Or what about this one? According to Musk, “When I first heard about what could at best be described as irregularities in Broder’s behavior during the test drive, I called to apologize for any inconvenience that he may have suffered and sought to put my concerns to rest, hoping that he had simply made honest mistakes. That was not the case.” Apologized for any inconveniences?? Irregularities in Broder’s behavior not tractable in real time???

It would seem that this could have been easily course-corrected if someone was sharp at the virtual wheel. Opinions of what happened are flying, with even the NYT’s blog refuting every single point made by Tesla. Maybe the result will be a David and Goliath story, where the NY Times (Goliath) will not recant and where Musk’s (David) electronic data will not lie. With the difference being that the marketing disaster of Tesla’s own making is a misstep that may find “David” at the wrong end of the stick.

Hard to combat missteps…

The shady individual who put up a faux press release on PRWeb about Google acquiring ICOA, the “neutral host” broadband wi-fi provider, for $400 million, got away with it long enough for several news organizations, now red-faced, to have picked up the fake news release and distributed it.  Also, long enough for a short-lived, but significant bump (a fivefold increase), in ICOA stock and for someone to pocket the profits before the stock plummeted again very quickly upon discovery.

In the wake of it all, ICOA said the story was a hoax, Google declined to comment, several high profile news publishers got egg on their faces, among them Associated Press, TechCrunch and The Washington Post — publications that ran the story and later had to issue retractions and PRWeb was forced to issue a mea culpa of sorts, an embarrassing apology after posting false news.

Curiously, PRWeb’s parent company, Vocus, called it “identity theft.”  I am not sure I get that, other than using this to declare innocence of any wrongdoing in posting this.  According to them, “Even with reasonable safeguards identity theft occurs, on occasion, across all of the major wire services. Maybe I am naïve, but it’s news to me…

It looks more like a financial crime than anything else.  In reviewing the release, there were clear signs of fraud within it, for not only did it lack details, it was pretty unbelievable that Google would purchase a penny-stock company with a total market cap of less than $1 million, for $400 million.  Somebody profited off bogus news, which was probably written in the first place by the person who had schemed to profit from it, and get away with it.  According to a Buzzfeed follow-up report, that somebody could have earned six digits’ worth of easy profits.

Incredulous how everybody could get it wrong.  Whatever happened to fact checking a story?

The PR industry needs to question as to who bears the responsibility for this – journalists or a service such as PRWeb?  To me it has always been journalists.  A PR service can offer the platform for posting releases, but it is the journalist in the end, who needs to vet the story.  After all, it has always been, and will always remain so, for them to check out – “from whose mouth the story comes.” In other words, the source…Their very credibility depends on it.

Two lessons can be learnt from this: not everything posted is an unvarnished truth and good journalism requires an investment of time.

What ever happened to the journalist’s nose for truth in news?

Amidst all the moment-by-moment political news, polls and candidates’ latest remarks, statements, speeches, there appeared in the Chicago Tribune a vapid news tidbit that focused on a statement on the Allstate Blog that said, “obese Americans are hurting the fuel efficiency of vehicles, contributing to more than 1 billion gallons of fuel wasted each year.”

Apparently, the home and auto insurer teamed up with Cars.com to document the struggle between fuel efficiency and passenger weight.  Really? Why?

Maybe it was in light of the federal government pushing automakers for greater fuel efficiency and Allstate and Cars.com wanted to insert themselves into the mix and subsequent conversations.  They came up with a document that pointed out that between 1960 and 2002, 1 billion gallons of gasoline could be attributed to the weight gain of motorists in passenger vehicles. They cited a 2010 article by Consumer Reports for the extra gas needed. However, translated, that means that less than 1 percent of the total fuel used by passenger vehicles, annually.

Never mind that the government had stated that it expected automakers to achieve fuel efficiency through “the use of advanced technologies” and weight loss was not mentioned as a means to achieve that goal.

I can only guess that their statement that, “Americans keep gaining weight, and cars are losing it,” was only made to be clever or something, and ill-conceived at that. And it continued, “It’s a seesaw battle that’s making it difficult to realize the gains expected by a big push for lighter, more fuel-efficient cars.”  (They got this from a U.S. Energy Department document that reported that, an extra 100 pounds in your vehicle could reduce your miles per gallon by up to 2 percent.)

That the American population is getting more and more obese year by year is a sad fact that needs attention from the medical community.  But certainly not from an insurance company, that teamed up with an online car retailer, to pinpoint blame for fuel inefficiencies, on a growing 30% of the US population, rather than focus on automakers’ innovation deficiencies. Maybe it suited their “who-knows-what” agenda.

As to the Chicago Tribune, it must have been a slow news day. Otherwise what is the point of bringing this up as news?

Hey, it was a Monday…

The global edition of the NYT had a story yesterday on the latest PR stunt to allegedly support the nature-preservation efforts of Vladimir Putin.  This one had him flying, rather hang-gliding (motorized) in sync with flying cranes, geared at re-introducing Siberian cranes into the wild. Sounds fine until reported that the cranes had been a set up and were flown in for the “event.”  Previously he had been shown placing a satellite transmitter collar on what appeared to be a wild Siberian tiger, who in reality was heavily sedated as was the case with the wild polar bear in 2010. Maybe good photo ops for Putin, but the Russian public was not impressed.

Funny, but deceptive anyway…

Maybe Putin being Putin got away with it, but Nokia got caught when last week’s news reported that Nokia had demoed their latest technology – the new Lumia 920 smartphone with optical image stabilization (OIS) technology for shaky hands.  But in this transparent world the company got caught red-handed when sharp-eyed bloggers watching the ad caught the reflection in the window of the cameraman in a white van, using a professional camera to record the entire event. It turns out the video was not shot at all with the Lumia 920 by Nokia’s own admission, since the technology is in pre-production.  Moreover the company admitted to using misleading marketing materials for a new line of phones

Once a dominant force in the mobile phone market, it has been hit hard by competition, most notably Apple, Samsung and others.  But surely deception is the wrong road to take to regain market share.  What is most puzzling is why Nokia thought that they could get away with it.  Maybe 15 years ago they could, when neither bloggers nor the 24/7 social media conversations were around, but today? What were they thinking?  Did they cave in to shareholders demands? Was competition the driver? Was it a coincidence that Nokia’s introduction followed a move by Samsung in August to show off its own Windows 8 phone and that Apple’s upcoming introduction of its next iPhone is happening this week?

Apology accepted, but faking video and photos from a camera is not cool. Nokia got a well-deserved black eye for this one. The deception has dinged its credibility.

And besides Putin and Nokia there was another tidbit in the news that is apropos to deception. Apparently L’Oreal’s Lancôme USA subsidiary, markets their pricey anti-wrinkle cream product as “boosting the activity of genes and stimulating the production of youth proteins.”  Wait a minute, what’s wrong with that?  In a rare rebuke to a major cosmetics maker, the FDA says that if it affects the way the human body works, it would need to be classified as a drug, which would need FDA approval.

Shucks.

The newly minted “America Wants You” campaign is very reminiscent of WWII’s campaign “Uncle Sam Wants You,” — of some 70+ years ago. This time around it is a corporate call to arms – rather than a military one.

It is a call for a unified effort to rectify a catastrophic situation for the 800,000 veterans who are presently unemployed, 30 percent of them between the ages 18 to 34, a much higher per capita rate than the general population.  It is also a call for Corporate America to sit up and take note that this situation will be exacerbated, as the draw down from Afghanistan continues.

The situation is abysmal.  There is no question that our vets are owed and it’s not about “the other guy” doing something about it.  It’s not a partisan issue. It is an American issue, with everyone doing his/her part.

Happily there are several programs, both private and public, whether state or federal, that are taking shape to shake up Corporate America. But whereas some programs are moving forward quietly and diligently to tackle the issue, one in particular, the PR campaign “America Wants You,” is making more noise than others, largely because they have enlisted actor Chris O’Donnell of NCIS: Los Angeles and Batman fame.  In a video released this week, O’Donnell implores those who “sit in corner offices” to think about the 800,000 unemployed veterans first, when making hiring decisions.

A private sector initiative, this campaign is led by three retired private-sector executives from Los Angeles who have partnered with CareerBuilder and Southwestern Energy for the effort.  America Wants You, CEO John Pike, a veteran who is a former president of Paramount Network Television, says it is time for corporations to do their part.  The non-partisan organization apparently puts their money where their “mouth” is and took out a full-page advertisement in the Wall Street Journal to reach its target audience.

It will not be easy for Corporate America to step up to this challenge, one that is becoming more clamorous daily. For one thing, the transition from military to corporate life cannot possibly be an easy road for any vet.  For another, some of the youngest veterans simply have never been a part of the workforce, for many joined the military right out of high school with the hope that the military will offer training that might be needed in the workforce.  And for those who may still serve in the National Guard and Reserves, it might even be more difficult, for employers will be wary of hiring them, cautious that these could be deployed again at any given time.

Still, all these arguments fall short, when one considers the underlying issue, which needs to remain steadfast — we owe them.

Many programs advocating for veteran employment offer grants, private or public, as compensation for training or hiring a vet.  In some cases, a state even offers to pay the wages of an employed vet for six months as an incentive to the employer.  Federal programs offer tax credits or other benefits.

But it should not be about benefits.  It should be about “giving back” to those men and women who voluntarily put themselves in harm’s way to protect us.  It therefore becomes a moral obligation.

After all, it is the American way, and it needs to prevail.

Public Relations, although a century old as a discipline, and one in which businesses spend billions of dollars each year, has been, to date, a most misunderstood and often maligned profession, largely because the public at large is not clear on what public relations actually is, what practitioners actually do and who actually benefits from its services and how.

And that is why I delighted in the fact that the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) engendered a dialogue and debate about what is PR by launching a new campaign to re-define Public Relations last November.

In my blog dated November 22, titled “Re-Defining PR in the 21^st Century,” I commented on the timeliness of the re-definition campaign, considering that the last definition was written by PRSA back in 1982 and that, in the ensuing 30 years, a seismic evolution has taken place in the industry.  What was largely perceived at its start a century ago as a media relations-based discipline, has evolved to include responsibilities for a complex mix of online and offline stakeholders’ engagement, reputation management, corporate social responsibilities, thought leadership and digital marketing services, among a slew of other communication avenues.

Clearly the 30-year old definition that reads, “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other” sounds a bit lame today. To be fair, PRSA has made two attempts at defining public relations in the past 10 years.  But nothing happened past the willingness to try…

So the latest good news is that, after soliciting suggestions from the public, along with public relations professionals, academics and students on its website: prdefinition.prsa.org, using a crowd-sourcing model, followed by an evaluation of over 1,000 submissions along with online comments and blog posts, PRSA will announce a winner on February 27^th.  All get to vote for the three final definition choices when you Click here to cast your vote, now open from Feb. 13 through Feb. 26.

Whether aptly timed for Awards Season or the timeliness was just happenstance, PR professionals are just as eager to see what will be the final definitive definition as any awards program.

And the “nominations” are:

• Public relations is the management function of researching, communicating and collaborating with publics to build mutually beneficial relationships.
• Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.
• Public relations is the strategic process of engagement between organizations and publics to achieve mutual understanding and realize goals.

What is missing here? Personally, I don’t get this “mutually beneficial relationship” line, which is found in two of the three finalists definition.  Nor do I get the third one with its “mutual understanding” part.  Nor am I too big a fan of leading a de facto definition with “management function of researching, etc.”  However, I do think that “strategic process of engagement between organizations and publics” has merit and is on target.

Look, defining an entire industry is no easy undertaking, especially when it’s one as wide-ranging and often imprecise as that of public relations.  But I would focus on the fact that we are counselors first and foremost — and that our profession is responsible for helping businesses navigate the many avenues of communication that can prove treacherous, protecting a company’s reputation, brands and assets from negative commentary or perceptions; for leading communication strategies that embrace new and expanded audiences; for evaluating economic factors that can impact a company’s business and executing plans to outthink the competition; and for staying ahead of the curve in this digital age.

Actually, it may take a paragraph…

It seems that the “formerly” meek actually “did inherit the earth” in 2011 – in part, of course.

It’s now old, but still current news that the “formerly” meek rose up and grabbed the political reins with varying successes in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and then spread to Yemen and certainly Syria, (which is in the thick of it right now), not to speak of the growling that has arisen in Russia.

But another kind of “formerly meek” moved right in here, at home, in the form of OWS and claimed to be the 99% group of America. It eventually made such a national din, that the movement escalated and spread virally. I guess it’s a numbers game by now. 99% is really overwhelming.

Getting consensus from a large cross section of the 99% does have some surprising problems. While the ever-escalating mainstream and online media interest and coverage was enthusiastically welcomed by the movement, the emerging Occupy Wall Street PR is not, according to the very person who played a role in igniting the initial protests, Adbusters Editor-in-Chief Kalle Lasn, who says that “the OWS doesn’t want PR — the term or concept is tarnishing its brand.”

Really? What brand? What message? There are so many of them, 99% being only one core economic message that has resonated as a “headline“ but is in need of more substantiation. It would seem a natural evolution for the next step of OWS to have a clear-cut purpose of “what happens next” or “where does it go from here” or “what does the end game look like?”

Two sites have emerged, initiated and produced by PR and advertising specialists; 1. a well-meaning attempt by Workhouse PR to editorialize the movement and compile OWS-related coverage and content (art, music, film, graphic design) on a specially created site, OWSPR.com, and 2. Occupy.com designed by David Sauvage, a freelance commercial director who worked on the crowdsourced TV ad for OWS, which is coming soon.

Lasn’s point of view that these sites have “lost a little of the purity of the movement and that this is “not what this movement is about” and “that the word PR demeans what human beings really do” — sounds altruistic, ivory tower-like academic and is totally detrimental to the movement’s root beginnings. A movement for the sake of itself is going to stay just – a movement.

The PR discipline is the best medium to amplify and defend the 99% message refrain and move it toward fulfilling its purpose. Keeping people engaged is a good thing and the sites are clearly meant as extensions of the protest. But the 99% have to want change to happen. Otherwise why bother?

Let 2012 be the year, when the profound changes initiated in 2011, solidify.

Happy New Year and Peace To All!

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.

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?

Caryn Eaves

Caryn Eaves oversees and provides strategic direction to the Tournament President and Executive Committee, in-house public relations department and its agency-of-record for public relations counsel. She has been instrumental in launching marketing and promotional events designed to heighten the Tournament of Roses worldwide interest including an award-winning website and the lively media announcements that have become a key aspect of the Rose Parade. Eaves also oversees the writing and publication of all media materials and serves as an official media spokesperson for the Tournament of Roses. In addition, she is the staff liaison for many of the Tournament’s volunteer committees that incorporate public relations aspects including Queen and Court and Television & Radio.

Q. What role does PR play in the shaping of the Tournament of Roses Parade brand?

A. Public Relations has everything to do with the Tournament of Roses brand. The festival actually began in 1890 as a public relations tool to lure visitors from the mid-West to visit Pasadena and purchase property. The newly settled Midwestern transplants used the parade as a means to show the world that they had roses blooming in January while their friends were frozen in their homes.

Today, the brand has taken on a life of its own. It is a world-renowned festival known as the largest New Year’s Day parade. Watching it has become an annual tradition for many American families. The main public relations tactics used today are focused on protecting the brand and working to keep it evolving and remain relevant to today’s audiences.

Q.  The Rose Parade has developed a sizeable international following over the past few decades, what are some key differences in the role that PR plays when dealing with the influx of international media interested in sharing the the New Year’s Day tradition with an international audience?

A. Aside from language and geographical barriers, working with international media is not much different than working with the domestic media. As most outlets are, international media outlets are interested in their local angle. Members of the media from Asian countries generally like to focus on entries with Asian angles just as Latin-American media focus on the entries with a Latin-American angle. We do our best to accommodate every request, but sometimes the best tactic is to provide our list of entries with press contacts and let the media choose what is most interesting to them.

Q. While the Parade has always been a social experience, the rise of social media has added a new layer to the experience. How has the Tournament of Roses leveraged social media to improve the viewer experience?

A. The Tournament of Roses has many moving arms. The association is made up of 935 volunteer members divided in 31 committees each responsible for a certain piece of the festival. We have a small support staff, which the PR department is a part of. An organization with so many moving arms is difficult to mobilize into one joint effort, but we have managed to create a social presence for both the Rose Parade and Rose Bowl Game. We’ve found that fans of the Rose Parade and Game use the social media venues as a place to create a community and share memories. Social media helps create dialog between our fans and brings out the brand’s evangelists.

We are definitely looking further into additional social media offerings and looking to our audiences to see what they prefer. If no one is
interested in watching a live webstream with no commentary, we won’t put effort into producing an additional broadcast when the ones provided by KTLA and our other broadcasters make our audiences perfectly happy.

Q. The Rose Parade began as a promotional effort by Pasadena’s distinguished Valley Hunt Club to promote Southern California’s mild climate at a time of the year when a large portion of the country is experiencing winter weather. Nearly 123 years later, what message does the Rose Parade communicate today?

A. The Rose Parade is annually seen as message of hope and new beginnings. Even through difficult times of war and economic crisis, when it was questioned whether the Rose Parade would be seen as a waste of roses and flowers, the parade was never cancelled. Instead of being seen as a frivolity, the public sees the Rose Parade as a symbol of hope and community.

Adam Carolla, recapped it nicely for us… “When you watch the Rose Parade, it really makes you think all is good in the world. There are different cultures, different colors, different religions, different ethnicities, different EVERYTHIHNGS, but everyone is just marching together to celebrate. The jets are flying overhead, the bands are playing, and everyone is decked out and looks good. It’s always a spectacular day. The streets are clean, there’s no graffiti and you think, ‘Yes! The Rose Parade! This is our country. This is what we do.’”

The Rose Parade is a major, world-wide festival organized by volunteers. Each float is decorated by volunteers. Communities get together to raise money for their floats or to send their bands to Pasadena. It is truly a symbol of people working together for a common cause.

From a commercial standpoint, the Rose Parade provides corporate sponsors a united and positive message to align their brand to.

Q. The 2012 Rose Parade is scheduled for January 2nd, due to The Tournament of Roses policy of never holding the Parade on a Sunday. Are there any challenges in terms of keeping interest in the Rose Parade in those years when it does not occur on New Year’s Day?

A. Most businesses also close on the second when January first is on a Sunday. It isn’t as difficult to move the Parade over as one would
think. From a positive standpoint, viewers are not as likely to be up late celebrating the New Year the night before and we may have a larger early morning audience. The extra day also provides more time for decorating floats.

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.

Chris Hosford

Hosford began his career in journalism where he worked as a newspaper and magazine editor for more than 10 years. He then was “seduced by the dark side”, as his former auto journalist colleagues teased him, and joined Hill and Knowlton to provide support and counsel to his first client, Mazda. Now, with more than 25 years in public relations, including stints at two top ten PR agencies and two automakers, he couldn’t be happier working for Hyundai. He says that taking a brand from one that was the butt of late night comics jokes to one that today is frequently mentioned in the same breath with other top auto makers has been the most fun job he’s ever had. Exhausting, but fun.

Q: The past two years have been challenging times for the automotive industry, to say the least. Can you point to new strategies that were implemented during that time that impacted Hyundai to stay above board during these years of turmoil?

A: Our strong move into digital media has been critical in our success. While it has increased the workload, it has been vital not just in our efforts to reach more journalists and, ultimately, consumers but it has been and continues to be a great learning lab for all our staff. And, it is not just a great way to speak to the media and consumers, but also a great way to listen. However, with all that is new in our business, we can never forget that the basics — great writing, great relationships and great vision. These remain the keystones of everything we do.

While also not a new strategy, the close collaboration with our AOR Ketchum continues to be a source of strength for our overall efforts. And, let’s not forget — a VERY good sense of humor!

Q: Hyundai’s Super Bowl ad was funny and quirky. Considering that social media did much to extend the impact of many Super Bowl ads pre-, during- and post- game, did Hyundai’s corporate communications strategies create programs to tie in with the ad or was it designed as a stand alone one-time exposure?

A: At Hyundai we can’t imagine an effort today that would “stand alone.” Everything we do has to operate on multiple levels over weeks, months, sometimes years. In the case of advertising PR, our efforts soon will be further enhanced as we move into a new building where all the PR and Marketing team members will be on the same floor and, literally, right next to each other. We believe collaboration, not antagonism, with marketing is a must for success today.

In regards to speaking with the media about our advertising, a very important part of our communications efforts is to demonstrate how Hyundai in the U.S. has turned into a leader in the auto industry. We utilize some of our advertising efforts, such as those in the Super Bowl and the Academy Awards to demonstrate how dynamic the brand is becoming. Be it an eye-catching ad on the Super Bowl or selling more 40 mpg vehicles than anyone else in the industry, everything we do is designed to help consumers see Hyundai as a great brand to do business with.

Q: Hyundai has been a big player in the “hybrid” car space, and in particular, its Sonata Hybrid is significantly different from other hybrids. Is the adoption rate of such cars in general changing in pace and if so, what factors can you point to that are significant?

A: The leadership that Hyundai is beginning to assert in the auto industry can clearly be seen in the Sonata Hybrid and our company’s approach to hybrid vehicles. We were the first in the hybrid market with lithium-ion polymer batteries, where the light weight and small size of these batteries is critical to improving performance while reducing weight.

We were the first company to optimize a hybrid for highway, not city, driving. Why? Because research, including that from the federal government, showed that the average driver spends 57% of her time on the highway. We wanted the hybrid benefit to be available to the consumer on roads where they spent the majority of their time.

The question we ask in designing, engineering and selling every vehicle is: what does the customer want? It is that point of view that informs our actions and approaches in PR, just as in all other parts of the company.

Q: Hyundai has several well-established niche audiences for its products. Can you briefly discuss their separate influencers and program ideas that have attracted those influencers over and above product media relations? For example: is social media being tapped as an engagement platform and, if so, can you briefly describe tactics used to trigger conversations?

A: While Hyundai does work in several niches, it has grown into the 6th largest automaker in the U.S. and the 5th largest car company in the world. Like every major vehicle manufacturer, niche products are an important part of our portfolio of products. What we’ve observed is that no matter the niche, people want to buy a vehicle from a company they trust and respect, one that they know will stand behind their products.

Our PR efforts are always focused in helping the media and consumers see various aspects of those characteristics. Whether it is protecting an owner’s investment by providing a luxury car like the Hyundai Equus that has an unsurpassed residual value in its class or a sports car like the race-winning Genesis Coupe, the overt messages may be different but underlying those we always come back to trust, respect and safety and security. We’re still smaller than some of our competitors, so we have to be sure every messages ties back to simple key values all our customers understand and want, regardless of the niche the vehicle may occupy.

That said, we do spent significant time preparing for every product launch focusing on the most appropriate audiences and seeking the best media outlets to reach them. In that regard, we view social media as simply another branch of media and target it from that aspect. Not so long ago, media such as Facebook and Twitter were called “new media.” Today, that is old thinking. Social media are an integral part of the media and are always part of every launch plan we write and execute. The question is never “if” it is “which.”

Q: As a longtime corporate communications automotive expert, what would you have done differently, given the recall exposure that Toyota received last year? What counsel would you have given their PR department?

A: In a crisis no one bats 100%. That fact is part of the nature of a crisis. So, it is easy to criticize from the outside and Toyota has taken a lot of hits in terms of its communications regarding the crisis over the last year.

Unlike others, I think that on balance they did a superb job. They got their message points down early and stuck to those. They didn’t blame the customer, which would have been easy to do so. They didn’t expect the problem would disappear in a few days and dug in for the long haul. They put up with brutal and unfair criticism in Congress and stayed calm, if not completely unshaken. They let an appropriate amount of time pass and then used all communications channels to remind their customers that Toyota had always been a brand they could trust and that they still were.

Could they have used a more dynamic, sympathetic top spokesperson? I think so, but you work with the cards you are dealt. Last month their sales rose 45% and they remain one of the toughest competitors in the auto space. Given the severity of the crisis and the enormous amount of unavoidable negative coverage, such a rapid recovery is remarkable.

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…

Tomi Holt

Tomi Holt has been director of communications for Jelly Belly Candy Company since last year. She ran a boutique agency in the Bay Area specializing in food and health for two decades and also worked in advertising for Young & Rubicam and Glamour magazine.

Q: With a very high level of brand awareness among consumers already in place, how does Jelly Belly continue to build brand relationships with its consumers in today’s competitive candy marketplace?

A: Our position is that style and good taste are eternal. Delivering on the promise of a surprisingly authentic flavor of Jelly Belly is our primary mission. We receive thousands of suggestions for new flavors from consumers, whether through post, email and social media and we welcome them all. However it’s not only the enjoyment of the eating experience. We are in the business of putting smiles on the faces of our consumers. The memories of pleasurable times, the creativity in flavor innovation, the brilliant colors are all areas that inspire participation and celebration.

We also look for new ways for consumers to have fun with Jelly Belly beans. We offer public tours and develop new ideas to use our product. Currently the marketing department is running a cupcake decorating promotion, which we announced through the trade and blogosphere. Also, we are out in the marketplace with a mobile tour and a series of sponsorships.  While we enjoy wonderful brand awareness, we are not content leaving it at that. We are still a small company, although we enjoy a large image. That means we leave no stone unturned. We actively reach out through the media, web, events, retail promotions and social media. By keeping the strategy squarely focused on what we do best, and having responsive media relations, we generate a good deal of buzz.

Q: Much like Kleenex has become synonymous for any brand of tissue, the Jelly Belly brand name has become synonymous with “Jelly Belly Beans” candy. How has PR/Marketing strategy adjusted to keep the Jelly Belly brand name from becoming “genericized?”

A: Our trademark attorneys just got a shiver down their backs with this question. We actively protect the brand name, even to the point of notifying media outlets when they have it wrong. Beyond that, a key PR strategy is to focus on innovation in flavor development. If you’re the first or only candy maker to figure out how to make an acai berry flavor, for example, then it’s an opportunity to position the brand as innovative and trend setting. We have a steady stream of new flavors that provides fodder for publicity.

Keeping the brand name at the forefront is also organic to everything we do. We print the Jelly Belly name on every bean–that’s about 15 billion beans – so consumers are assured they have an authentic Jelly Belly bean in hand. We use every avenue at our disposal to tell the story. We have produced a trade newsletter for more than two decades to share knowledge on quality candy making, point-of-purchase tips and retailing. For consumers our public tours are important environments for key messaging. When 700,000 visitors a year leave our facilities, they know it takes 7 to 21 days to make a Jelly Belly bean, a surprising fact to many.

Q: From a PR perspective, what factors are key drivers of consumer demand for Jelly Belly candy?

A: We hope it is love at first bite. When those of us who work for the company mention Jelly Belly, a common thing happens. People will smile and tell us what their favorite flavor is, and/or which one they don’t like. Sometimes they suggest a flavor they would like us to try, or one they wish we would ditch. We are dedicated to the largest variety of flavors in the world, and each is developed to deliver a unique taste. We play on the natural curiosity about “what will they think of next.”

Jelly Belly is not your average bag of beans. It is our mission to make the highest quality confection and maintain the highest quality standards in our business practices. That translates to stellar customer service and timely response to consumers.  We believe every interaction is an opportunity to make a new fan, even if they start out being upset. We are charged with a simple philosophy: “if there’s an issue or a problem, don’t just fix the problem, but make it better than before the issue arose.”

Q: Jelly Belly has “hung its hat” on its palate pleasing variety of natural flavors.  What is Jelly Belly’s approach to building brand loyalty in instances where consumers have not, or are not immediately able to sample the product?

A: The company is committed to active media outreach, responsiveness and high value media relations. From this office, we issue news on everything new, and not only Jelly Belly beans. Recently we launched a mellocreme candy called Peas & Carrots that brought us excellent coverage. At the very least, media want to try something new, whether they report on it or not each time.

The advent of tours opened whole new vistas for travel media outlets, which are excellent environments for telling our story in a full and interesting way. I also believe in collaborating with others who have a mutual interest and can carry our message further. That may take the form of building good relations with trade associations, working with PR teams assigned to trade shows, and supporting creative retailers with their own local media efforts. I agree with President Reagan when he said, “There’s no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn’t mind who gets the credit.”

Q: How did the connection between President Reagan and Jelly Belly come about? How did Jelly Belly maximize this stellar endorsement?

A: Our company began shipping mini jelly beans to Governor Reagan, around 1967 when he was in Sacramento. We learned from a colleague in the candy business that he was trying to give up pipe smoking and was eating the Jelly Belly beans we made. The company was very small then, and never attempted to seek an “endorsement” or to advertise the connection. Insiders in Sacramento knew about the Jelly Belly beans and the Governor sent a letter of thanks to the company saying he could hardly start a meeting without passing around the Jelly Belly beans.

It wasn’t until Ronald Reagan’s second attempt at the presidential race that the media noticed he was eating our Jelly Belly beans on the campaign trail. The San Jose Mercury News broke the story that those jelly beans came from a small Bay Area manufacturer, and the next thing Herm Rowland, our owner, knew was that Ronald Reagan won the election and was headed for his first inauguration. Suddenly the media wanted to know more about our company. The story went wildfire through the media with virtually every major outlet, including international media, reporting on the president and his affinity for Jelly Belly beans. The company made exclusive White House jars for the president to give as gifts.

While Herm Rowland agreed to comment on the news stories, the company did not advertise or promote the connection with the White House. The media coverage did more for the brand than any of those efforts would have done, and President Reagan’s personal charm and diplomacy were apparently extended through his gifts of Jelly Belly beans.

When I wrote my first press release for the company about three years into the Reagan presidency, I was told you can’t mention the president or the White House.  That was an interesting challenge. The company’s primary goal was to be respectful of the Office of the President, which sounds quaint in today’s world. The secondary goal was for consumers to love Jelly Belly beans for their good taste, not because they were a novelty preferred by a famous person. Another quaint notion that has stood the test of time, is that we now make more than fifteen times the number of Jelly Belly beans that were consumed during the early years of the Reagan administration.

By the reelection campaign for his second term we commissioned a portrait of the president made from thousands of Jelly Belly beans and that portrait went on display at our tour center in California in 1989. Again we did not advertise it, but allowed word of mouth to take a natural course. Some years later we donated a similar Jelly Belly portrait to the Reagan Library where it hangs today.

When President Reagan passed away we were amazed to see average Americans spontaneously leaving bags of Jelly Belly beans at memorial sites. Several major news outlets called wanting to know how we intended to capitalize on this, and we were appalled. Very quickly we managed to get our message across that our respect for the person, his legacy, his family and his memory meant we would not be issuing a special package or promote our brand in this way. The decision not to claim an endorsement on the basis of the connection to the president allowed us to side step what could have been very negative and crass coverage in the media.

This year, some forty-five years later, we have placed the first advertisement honoring the Reagan Centennial Celebration and Reagan Foundation. The company sponsored the kick off to the Centennial year with the entry of a float in the 2011 Rose Parade, which was awarded the National Trophy by the Tournament of Roses. Throughout this Centennial year we expect to give away a half million Jelly Belly samples with information attached about the life of the president. If there’s a lesson for all of us in this, it’s that good taste and style are eternal.

Jim Barry

Jim Barry, “The Digital Answer Man” is media spokesperson for the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA). He has appeared on countless radio and television programs and webcasts educating people about consumer electronics technology and products. He is the former editor of Video magazine and a 30-year veteran of consumer, trade and custom magazine publishing. During that time he has been an award-winning editor, writer and reporter, the president and CEO of a multi-million dollar corporate division, and the publisher of several consumer and business magazines.

Q: Having attended the recent 2011 Consumer Electronic Show (CES) as spokesperson for its producer, the Consumer Electronic Association’s (CEA), can you comment on whether there is optimism in the air or any anticipated increased consumer confidence in the overall economy?

A: Yes, there was tremendous optimism in the air at the 2011 International CES – a positive aura that had been missing in recent years, making it for me one of the best shows in my 30-plus years attending.

The optimism was reflected in the attendance — over 140,000 including more than 30,000 international visitors — but even more telling, I think, it was in the energy and buzz – the positive vibe emanating from exhibitors and attendees alike.

CES is all about Innovation, and 2010’s sales were led by innovative new product categories, including tablet computers, e-books, and smartphones. These and other electronic products led the way to an estimated six percent sales increase last year, a tremendous turnaround from 2009’s six percent drop.

To be sure there are still significant issues with the overall economy, but if CES is any barometer the innovation on display may well represent the leading edge of an overall economic recovery.

Q: Can you point to any one innovation in the next generation of consumer technology innovations seen at CES, maybe in their infancy, that you think will impact both the economy and consumer lifestyles?

A: As always there were some 20,000 new products introduced at this year’s CES – new technologies that will soon impact everyone’s life were everywhere, so it’s difficult to choose one. Nevertheless, one nascent technology that’s been germinating at the last few shows and started to bloom this year is what I call “no-touch screens.”  The success of the Microsoft Xbox Kinect’s motion, video and sound sensor is a precursor of more “gesture controllers” for TVs and other devices. Stay tuned.

Q: You spend much time talking to the media in order to educate on consumer electronic technologies.  What are the top tech news or trends that consumers should look for in 2011?

A: This year should be the year of the touch-screen tablet computer. After the spectacular debut of the iPad last year, as many as 80 competitors will be on the market in 2011 for consumers to choose from.

But will they embrace tablets other than iPad? That’s the big question. Touch-screen tablets have been around for a decade or so and went nowhere as a consumer product pre iPad. Now there are many choices at a variety of prices for the space between smartphones and netbooks. Gentlemen start your tablets!

Q: Can you comment on what is imminent in the 3D-TV market? Is rapid consumer adoption an issue?

A: By some measures 3D has a spectacular debut year in 2010 with over a million sets sold, but the hype at last year’s CES and inflated projections from some quarters led to the perception that 3D hadn’t done very well. But if you look at the decade-long adoption curves of other major video advances — including color TV and HDTV — you’ll see that 3D is off to a pretty good start. Nevertheless it has challenges those other technologies didn’t including the glasses which currently are expensive and non-compatible among brands. At this year’s CES we saw two solutions: inexpensive “passive” glasses and even some “glasses-less” 3D.  When the latter gets perfected, watch for 3D to take off.

Q:  The CEA 2010 Sustainability Report highlighted the tremendous progress the consumer electronic industry has made in its green initiatives.   Is there a star among these?

A: CES isn’t just the biggest trade show in North America; it’s the “greenest” having been voted that by Trade Show Executive Magazine in 2009. This award is a mirrors a consumer electronics industry that has embraced green technology and good environmental practices. Manufacturers, retailers and CEA alike are working to educate consumers (www.mygreenelectronics.org) and to make products more readily recyclable and dramatically more energy efficient across the board.

One terrific example is TV. The now ubiquitous flat-panel displays are much more energy efficient than the old CRTs, and the typical 42-inch set uses no more electricity in a year than two standard light bulbs.

Don Spetner

Don Spetner is Executive Vice President, Corporate Affairs, for Korn/Ferry International (NYSE: KFY).  He oversees strategic corporate initiatives including the formation of new products and solutions, the monetization of Korn/Ferry’s intellectual property and the integration of additional investments.  Mr. Spetner also serves as a search consultant in Korn/Ferry’s Corporate Affairs practice.  He joined Korn/Ferry in 2000 as SVP, Chief Marketing Officer.

Q: The proverbial “PR seat at the table” has remained aspirational for the most part to date.  What progress do you see in 2011 for that to move toward a norm?

A: There has never been a better time in history than right now for PR to gain a seat in the boardroom.  As the power of advertising and traditional marketing recedes, there is a growing demand for the ability to distill, package and distribute information – and these are all core skills of the public relations profession.

The dramatic change in the way information is distributed and accessed plays right in to the sweet spot of communications professionals.  Smart PR people are leading this charge in major organizations, and that trend should continue.

Q: You have been recently chosen by PRSA-LA as the “PR Professional of the Year.”  Considering that you have been on both, the corporate side of public relations and the agency side, are there any major differences that your dual experiences have given you that impact considerations for selecting executive leaders for each category?  Any particular character traits that play a role?

A: We love candidates that have experience on both the agency and corporate side.  My own personal bias is toward candidates that grow up on the agency side for a number of reasons.  First, they learn to work quickly and under tight deadline pressure.  Second, they must learn a variety of tools, approaches and even different industries – this teaches versatility, flexibility and breadth of knowledge.  The best candidates then translate that training in to a corporate job where they master the dynamics of getting things done in a large, corporate organization.  This requires patience, strategy and superb people skills.

Q: There seems to have been a significant decline in confidence in corporate leaders, particularly at the CEO & Board of Directors level.  Can the economy be faulted for it, or are there other factors or examples in particular that can be attributed to this decline?

A: I think the core reason behind the loss of confidence in our leaders is the length and depth of the recent recession juxtaposed against the dramatic rise in CEO compensation.  When unemployment is  hovering near 10% and underemployment is rampant, it is difficult and disillusioning to contend with CEO pay packages in the tens of millions of dollars.

Q: Recently, we have seen the emergence of a new title in the corporate structure, that of Chief Technology Marketing Officer.  Can you comment on this?

A: It’s kind of ironic, but the phrase that best explains this phenomenon was coined in 1964 by Marshall McLuhan when he said “The medium is the message.”  The point is that technology has completely reshaped the media business and created strange and powerful new channels for communicating.  This has disrupted the traditional marketing process, and thus it makes sense for technology and marketing to be closely aligned in a job function today.

Q: What are the traits that you find necessary to become an influential thought leader?  Are leaders formed by nature or nurture?

A: Good thought leadership is all about vision and strategy, coupled with the ability to communicate clearly and concisely.  There are reams of data supporting both sides of the nature or nurture argument, but my own belief is that leaders are born and that it’s very difficult to coach or develop the innate skills that are required to step up into a leadership role.

I came across a “feel good” story that made sense, as my last blog of 2010.

The Christmas season is traditionally a time for giving.  Clearly annual corporate charitable donations are planned and, as such, happily millions of dollars are donated to worldwide needy causes such as hunger, poverty, aids and more.

But children’s playgrounds as a needy cause?

That’s right. Now companies such as Kraft Foods, MetLife, CVS and Dr Pepper/Snapple Group, have recognized a need, in face of plummeting local tax revenues that support schools, and are pitching in to build new school playgrounds or re-build the decaying ones – literally.  It’s not just about a check, although that too, but about thousands of employee volunteers (as is the case with Kraft) that are actually getting into the nitty-gritty of the construction work, such as putting together a climbing wall, shoveling gravel onto walking paths, spreading a mountain of mulch beneath play equipment, or sanding newly-constructed picnic tables.  Even Kraft’s chief executive, Irene Rosenfeld, pitched in with the actual building of 13 playgrounds.

There are others, of course. Dr Pepper/Snapple Group has pledged $15 million this month to build or fix 2,000 playgrounds over the next three years. The insurance business, clearly another good fit, joined in. Foresters, the Canadian life insurance provider, recently pledged $1.5 million to build 20 playgrounds in the United States and MetLife continues to regularly finance playgrounds to promote physical fitness.

It’s smart. The companies’ savvy marketers are picking up Michelle Obama’s lead in the fight against childhood obesity and with it, the need for children to exercise.  Moreover, with charitable cash in shorter supply, volunteers can take up the slack and companies get to add volunteerism and community engagement to their giving.

If providing play spaces is a winning cause for the food and beverage companies that have come under fire for high calorie snacks and drinks, so be it, for it is a win-win situation for all.  If the companies are embracing the playground as an opportunity to make their names better known – and better liked – locally and to encourage employees to volunteer in their communities, so be it.  And if companies sound self-serving and a bit smug in doing so, as when Foresters CEO, George Mohacsi, said, “…we get more bang for the buck when we build a playground,” that, too, can be forgiven.

If the melding of charity, philanthropy and marketing helps children, then I say – It’s the American way.

Happy New Year to all…

As part of our 25^th anniversary celebration, we invited 12 thoughts leaders from diverse industries to participate in our guest blog monthly series, which was posted on the 25th of every month. The blog posts covered a wide scope of topics that included forecasts and trends surrounding social media, business solutions, communications, among others. We present our guests’ thoughts, which in turn, might trigger other thoughts and ideas… –compiled by Noemi Pollack

The Transformation Decade Written by David Houle on January 25, 2010. David Houle, author of The Shift Age is one of the top futurists in the country and a much-sought after speaker. Houle spent more than 20 years in media and entertainment having worked at NBC, CBS and a member of the senior executive team that created and launched MTV, Nickelodeon, VH1 and CNN Headline News. “We are entering the first full decade of the Shift Age, even though it has already taken root in the last 4 years. This new age has launched incredible shift and upheaval already. This current Great Recession can only be fully understood when seen as the reorganizational recession between two ages, the Information Age and the Shift Age.” Read More–>

What’s So Social About Social Media? How Social Are You? Written by Jeffrey Gitomer on February 25, 2010.Jeffrey Gitomer, author of The Sales Bible and The Little Red Book of Selling and president of Charlotte-based BuyGitomer, gives seminars, runs annual sales meetings and conducts Internet training programs on selling and customer service. “Social media is fluid – it moves and changes daily. It’s text, audio, photo, and video. It’s every media and it’s every second. It’s current and it’s constant. Ever see a section of a website labeled “latest news” and when you click it, the last update is from 2004? Not good. The Internet is instant. Social media is instant. And you have to be ready to participate consistently, and in a meaningful way.”Read More–>

2 Letters Make All the Difference Written by Jay Baer on March 25, 2010. Jay Baer’s Convince & Convert social media blog is consistently ranked among the top business blogs. Founder of five companies, he’s a digital marketing pioneer that started online in 1994. He’s worked with more than 700 brands since then, including 25 of the Fortune 1000 (Nike, Pepsi, Sony, Cadbury, Conoco/Phillips, Procter & Gamble). “The difference between “selling” and “helping” is only two letters, but the gap is in reality, much larger. The best – and most effective – social media programs aren’t based on promotions and message distribution. Instead, they revolve around removing friction and uncertainty for potential or current customers.” Read More–>

Living Naked Written by Tom Searcy on April 25, 2010. Tom Searcy, co-author of “Whale Hunting: How to Land Big Sales and Transform Your Company”, author of “RFPs Suck!” and founder of Hunt Big Sales, is a sought after business solutions expert for small to mid-sized companies. “YouTube™, Flickr™, Digg™, Twitter™, Facebook™, LinkedIn™ and the rest of the usual suspects of the social media revolution are creating a naked world. Each touchpoint in the chain of your business is open for scrutiny and discussion. So what is your strategy?” Read More–>

How Not To Market on Facebook Written by Kathleen Kaufman on May 25, 2010. Kathleen Kaufman is the author of environmental fiction and an inner city educator. She is well known in the social media community as a Facebook influencer and entertaining blogger. She can be found on her publisher’s website, The Way Things Are Publications.” “Facebook marketing is a dirty word. No one wants to feel like they’re friends with a person who is trying to sell them a product, be it a book or a copyedit. The most successful Facebookers, the ones who have converted their page into actualized business, are not marketing, rather they are participating.” Read More–>

Linking PR to Business Results Written by Paul Holmes on June 25, 2010. Paul Holmes is editor and publisher of The Holmes Report, which provides knowledge and insight to public relations professionals, and manages the SABRE Awards, recognizing Superior Achievement in Branding & Reputation. “I believe PR is uniquely positioned to create brand advocates. It is hard for me to imagine an ad campaign that would make me more likely to recommend a product to others, but there are plenty of PR campaigns that have done this: communicating a commitment to CSR, linking products with causes, special events that touch people directly.” Read More–>

A Business Journalist on PR: Business is a Human Story Written by James Flanigan on July 25, 2010. James Flanigan is a business columnist for The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and other publications and has covered national and international business and economics for 46 years. “I didn’t write and declined offers of interviews because reporting is not stenography and interviews, even with CEOs, and they do not necessarily a story make. The point is that business is a human story and the most important quality a company can convey in any PR campaign is integrity.” Read More–>

The Need For Speed Written by Michael Pranikoff on August 25, 2010.Michael Pranikoff, is Global Director of Emerging Media at PR Newswire. Prior to joining PR Newswire, Michael worked for MacNeil / Lehrer Productions which produces the PBS NewsHour. “Communications professionals today must be empowered to communicate quickly. In order to do that, we must earn the trust of the corporation.” Read More–>

Unsettled Times for Journalism and Public Relations Written by Geneva Overholser on September 25, 2010. Geneva Overholser is director of the U.S.C. Annenberg School of Journalism.  She is former editor of the Des Moines Register, ombudsman for the Washington Post and editorial board member of the New York Times. “Those who partner with others, link to others, aggregate the material of others, concentrate on what they alone can do best and point their news consumers to those who can offer them the rest – that’s what’s coming. Those who participate and collaborate are likeliest to thrive.” Read More–>

The Next 25 Years (If We Do It Right, Now) Written by Kathy Cripps on October 25, 2010. Kathy Cripps is president of the Council of Public Relations Firms, the U. S. employer-based trade association. Kathy worked with multinational public relations firms and had her own firm for many years; she and the Council are strong advocates for PR firms and the value they bring to clients around the globe. “While the continued economic uncertainty has led to slower-than-hoped-for industry growth, public relations is more relevant and integrated than ever.” Read More–>

Pssst, Did You Know Most Word of Mouth is Offline, Not on Social Media? Written by Ed Keller on November 25, 2010.Ed Keller, CEO of the Keller Fay Group, a specialist market research firm focused exclusively on word of mouth marketing.  He is a Board member and past President of the Board of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA), and a board member of the Advertising Research Foundation, among others. Keller speaks frequently to business audiences about word of mouth marketing, and is quoted frequently in the trade press. “Marketing success in the 21st century requires new approaches.  But just because the pace of technological innovation is often dizzying, don’t overlook the power of basic human connections to drive your brand success.” Read More–>

How the ‘New Citizen’ Consumes News Written by Amy S. Mitchell on December 23, 2010. Amy S. Mitchell, Deputy Director for the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) is involved in all as pects of the PEJ, with a primary focus on designing, managing new projects and in writing the Project’s in-depth research reports. Ms. Mitchell, who has been with the Project since its inception in 1997, speaks frequently to groups ranging from journalists of all types to press relation professionals to heads of various organizations. “The social component in the flow of information today – the sharing, passing along and adding to reports – leads to another critical concept for all information providers in that they have much less control over what happens to information once it is released. Understanding information in the 21st Century means understanding, the ‘new citizen’, the function news plays in our lives and the multiple types of audience & content.” Read More–>

‘Tis the season to say thanks and, pat downs and virtual scanners notwithstanding, it would behoove all of us to include the TSA among the many things for which we are grateful.  TSA’s efforts at keeping us safe in the skies, deserve our thanks…

The public outcry is nonsense.  It is emotionally driven and without any rational thought behind it.  Just consider what any traveler would reply, when asked whether their own privacy issue would trump taking security risks. C’mon, would anyone want to chance having another Christmas bomber, or shoe bomber or some other murderous-thinking terrorist on board when flying?  Isn’t a pat down or a step into the virtual scanner worth taking, in order to fend off a risk?

And yet, the outcry has reached such proportions that it’s now got Washington involved, with both sides of the political aisle jumping on board saying the TSA has gone too far with their new airport security measures. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, when asked on Sunday’s CBS’ “Face the Nation” if she would submit to one of the new pat-downs gave a somewhat stammered answer,  “Not if I could avoid it. No. I mean, who would?” Even the Homeland Security chairman called for the TSA to ‘Reconsider’ pat downs…

The popular Drudge Report has been leading the charge in escalating the outcry with screaming headlines that have escalated the public’s ire.  First it was, “TSA Warns: Submit Or Pay.”  This was followed with “Former Gov. Ventura Will No Longer Fly Due to Abuse He’s Endured at Hands of TSA” and “Tears After Rough Skirt Search,” “Airports Consider Call To Ditch TSA,” and finally a bit of humor with, “Will Turkey Day Fliers Cry Foul?”

TSA deserves all this, for they anticipated none of it.

It is a classic case of naïveté that a program was rolled out without a carefully planned public information campaign behind it. For instance, as a first, a well-orchestrated PR plan could have informed the public, well in advance, of the radiation statistics of the virtual scanner — that it is ten times less than an ordinary lung X-ray.  That would have assuaged unwarranted fears and minimized the need for the alternative tactic of so-called “humiliating” pat downs. Second, pat downs could have been explained as necessary, citing that terrorists are getting more creative about what they do to hide explosives in crazy things — like underwear. There could have been videos planned, showing what to expect in pat downs, and that “groping” is not the intent. Third, the TSA airport staff should have received “pat down” sensitivity training to avoid the impression of “groping” and thus have better managed the patted-down public’s expectations of the experience.

The momentum is building for a “National Opt-Out day” — meaning passengers should refuse the new virtual body scanners in use at airports around the country and opt out of that procedure.  It is a shame that TSA did not get their act together in time for the biggest travel day of the year, the day before Thanksgiving.  All too late…  Damage done.

Happily TSA Administrator John Pistole said, “the ingenuity and determination of terrorists trying to bring down an airplane rules out changes in screening policies that have been assailed by some passengers as an invasion of privacy.”

Here’s my message: Get over it and get scanned or patted down, for I personally don’t want to have an opt-outer or non-patted down person get on my plane.  Would you?

And THANK YOU, John Pistole for not being dissuaded from keeping us safe….