I am coming out of the closet by disclosing my current day job: Public relations flack for a company that I won’t reveal because I’d like to keep my current day job. But I’ve been doing this long enough that I feel I can comment on the current Cindy Sheehan situation, which the press has coined a “PR Nightmare” for the President.
PR is basically a marketing function and marketing has two objectives. The first is drive sales (or votes and donations, if you’re in public affairs). The second is branding or establishing an identity for a company, candidate, cause, etc., and making sure the entity you represent is correctly and fairly represented in the media or the all-important “buzz” on the streets and water coolers of our country.
You obviously answer to your employer (or client). If you’re working for an obscure company competing with a Microsoft, Citigroup, ExxonMobil or similar giant, you’ll take any press that you can get. But if you work for one of those three companies or the President, your job changes a bit. Getting press isn’t the problem – the problem is making sure that company’s or person’s image is held in high regard and doesn’t change for the worse. Some things you won’t have control over (i.e. Raffi Palmeiro’s press person didn’t know their client was a basehead), which leads to crisis situations you need to manage. But for the most part, you need to ensure the dog is wagging the tail instead of vice versa.
When you represent a big company, celebrity or politician, there will be a core group of press and people who will hate you no matter what. While you need to monitor what’s being said about your employer or client, you are not under obligation to address or even acknowledge everything that is said about you. For example, last year documentary filmmaker Morgan Spurlock made “Super Size Me,” his odyssey about eating at McDonald’s for a solid month while watching his body fat rise and health diminish. He asked if someone from McDonald’s would answer his questions and be part of his movie.
McDonald’s declined, which was perceived as the company ducking the situation. But from a PR perspective, it was the correct response. The movie was obviously anti-McDonald’s and the company would have achieved nothing from participating. It could even be seen as giving the movie a tacit endorsement or acquiescing to its claim that McDonald’s makes you fat and sick. If you worked for Greenpeace and a publication called “Oil Refineries Rule!” contacted you for an interview you knew would be a hatchet job, would you participate? Probably not, because you knew you’d be setting yourself up for a fall.
With that long-winded background information, let’s turn back to Cindy Sheehan. I am heartbroken over her loss and agree that the administration’s negligence has turned Iraq into a completely avoidable quagmire. But there she is, camped near the President’s ranch, and not going anywhere until she gets her meeting with the President. Is this a “PR Nightmare?” I think Iraq is more of a nightmare, and the woman is more of what I would call a “situation.” She’s not hurting anyone (bothering anyone is another story), but August is a slow news time and the press is following her cause with a fervor that is surprising. So should the President meet her to stop this “PR Nightmare?”
I’m not going to go into all the facts of the case since they’ve been well documented everywhere else, so I’ll just go through the highlights here. Right-wing partisans have predictably gone on a character assassination against Ms. Sheehan, as they tend to do when someone has the nerve to disagree with them. These have ranged from accusing her of being a traitor to parroting anti-Israel and anti-American views often embraced by ultra-liberals like Michael Moore. It’s also true that the President already met her last year after terrorists murdered her son and the media attention is being partly bankrolled by True Majority, a public interest group that wants to decrease the Pentagon’s budget.
While I’m as weary of mudslinging as everyone else, I sincerely hope this woman is not being used by left-wing partisans who seem to have coached her, because every interview she gives is becoming increasingly political and less personal. The personal story is far more compelling and likely to get her the meeting she wants. Die-hard Republicans also accuse her of supporting the President and now being an anti-war activist, but so what? Look at the opinion polls – plenty of people have turned against the war lately.
So, putting on the PR hat again, would the President gain anything by meeting with Ms. Sheehan again? If I was on the president’s staff, here’s what I would recommend (Note: This is not the day job I was referring to earlier.)
I would suggest that the President meet with Ms. Sheehan, but set the agenda as much as possible. Have someone bring her in without warning and have it take place on the ranch where he’s in control. This way, if she is being coached, she doesn’t have time to prepare a diatribe. Have no more than one aide present. Keep the meeting short – 10 or 15 minutes. But most of all, stay personal and reassuring – something the President is quite good at. Focus on the loss of her son. Don’t discuss policy, or fit a war into a bigger picture of a war on terror because that is not appropriate here. Do one fast photo and then let her go. If she doesn’t leave the ranch, starts bashing his politics again, or is disrespectful she validates the kooky right-wing conspiracy theory and the President looks all the better.
The President’s staff would say there are PR risks here – you validate your enemy’s position, capitulate to their demands, look weak, etc. Those are valid. But you also nip the situation in the bud and prevent further escalation. If the press got tired of this woman after a few days, you could ignore it. But it’s not happening and you need to control the agenda again. One of the great things about America is that you have the right to ask the president of the country or a company whatever you want without getting thrown in jail. And looking at the President’s approval numbers, these are the sort of things he should be doing to improve his overall PR image.
More info:
How the Right Wing is Smearing Cindy Sheehan (left-wing site, but this is accurate): http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009
An Opposing View from Slate’s Chris Hitchens: http://slate.msn.com/id/2124500/
Abraham Lincoln’s Letter to Mrs. Bixby, whose sons died in battle during the Civil War (this letter was read in Saving Private Ryan) http://www.americancivilwar.info/pages/mrs_bixby_letter.asp
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment