Zeno Group Blog

As we all digest the very sad news of the death of Senator Ted Kennedy, I feel there is some irony and injustice in his death. He was the champion of health care reform and led the charge for a long while for universal health. He knew the importance of good health care. The irony is despite the excellent health care he had access to from the Federal program and through his own family wealth, the current health care treatments could not save his life.

This is important to recognize as we grapple with health care reform. We must make sure that research dollars for new treatments are preserved and access to experimental drugs becomes a little easier. Yes it’s absolutely important for all Americans to have access to basic health care and current treatments, but let us all not forget that we must still keep working to find new therapies for all those illneses that do not have cures or for patients where the current treatments fail them. Only once we have these discoveries and treatments will we truly have universal health care.

It’s been interesting to watch the debate over the stimulus package – the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – play out in the media this week. One thing has been made abundantly clear: if you let others define your position, you lose. If not the overall debate, you certainly lose the battle for the media advantage.

While the legislation was being debated in the House, the administration was seemingly more focused on bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle than on convincing the public. While it’s valid to question whether media bias had a role in driving the focus on bipartisanship, at the end of the day, the Obama administration and Democrats on the Hill must take the lead in communicating the advantages of their legislation – and ensure their message reaches the American people.

Based on the flurry of network and cable interviews over the past 24 hours, it appears the administration has realized their error and recalibrated their message, along with their messengers. In an interview on Tuesday, Anderson Cooper asked the president on AC360 whether he’s “lost the message.” President Obama said no. Whether that is or isn’t the case remains to be seen.

I was struck recently regarding the similarities between the just completed presidential campaign and election and how PR agencies participate in competitive new business assignments. During an election and a pitch for new business, there are bold visions and differences in approach. Chemistry is important: Do I like the candidate? Do we share the same values? Can I imaging working with the team? There are promises and emotion. There is energy and hard work. After the election and the new business win, there are congratulations and smiles. As the work begins to take shape, there is a move towards a core program (likely included in every one of the agency pitches.) And the broad vision is tailored to the more immediate situation and getting the job done.

The Technology of Politics

Last Saturday, my colleague Alex and I had the opportunity to attend the Election 2008 conference at the University of Southern California. The two panels we sat in on were entitled “Challenges for the New Administration and the Two Parties: POLITICO Editors and Reporters Look to the Future” and “Technology in Politics: How Campaigns Use the Internet to Talk to Voters.” Though the first was extremely interesting from a political perspective, the latter (and its focus on digital media) is what interested me most.

Over the past year, it was evident that online technology and social media played an integral role in the 2008 Presidential election, with some even claiming that the Internet won Barack Obama the election. Though I don’t personally agree with that bold claim, Obama’s use of the Internet and social media to mobilize and directly connect with supporters certainly helped.

What Obama Did Right

During the 2008 Election, Obama used social media in ways no other candidate ever has. Obama had a Facebook fan page with more than 3.2 million fans (Michelle also has her very own fan page), and a Facebook application with 164,551 subscribers. He had a MySpace page with more than 1 million friends. He even created his own social network, MyBarackObama.com. Some 3.2 million supporters donated to the Obama campaign through an excellent, well-maintained Web site. He had a Twitter account and tweeted frequently, ultimately becoming the single most followed entity on Twitter. His campaign launched an iPhone application (something that panelist Becki Donatelli admitted the McCain campaign was quite jealous of). He even announced his pick of Vice President via text message. Yes, now President-elect Barack Obama has made social media part of his everyday life (even post-election, when he took his weekly address online.)

It is clearly evident that times are changing – not only in Presidential campaigning, but in our overall media consumption habits as well. I credit Obama for thinking a few steps ahead of the rest, being the first Presidential candidate to launch a truly integrated campaign (and get it right). As one of the panelists on the above mentioned Election 2008 technology panel stated – Obama didn’t invent the technology; he simply perfected it.

What McCain Missed

Though some attribute McCain’s loss to his lack of engagement with technology, personally I don’t think it was his lack of using the technology (he did, after all, have a Facebook fan page, a MySpace page, and a Twitter account, to name a few); it was more a matter of his objective (which, unlike Obama seemed to be a means to an end instead an end itself). We heard it in nearly every public speech and interview made – “McCain has the experience” – and along with his experience in office, he also has more experience campaigning, even being directly involved in the 2000 race for the Republican Presidential nomination against George W. Bush. Though he lost the race, he did learn a lot about campaigning in the process, taking those lessons and applying them to the race in 2008. However, McCain seemed to have taken the wrong lesson out of 2000, focusing more on the end result (ie, media relations and generating positive press coverage) and not enough on connecting directly with supporters.

Obama, on the other hand, brought excitement to the grassroots approach. To him, it was important to go straight to the people, not the media, and the Internet served as a key player in helping him do so.

Will TV ads (and traditional media) become obsolete?

The recent hype around Obama’s use of online and social technologies makes this question seem more real then ever – will TV ads become obsolete in future elections, being replaced solely by online initiatives? While some think yes, a few of the panelists surfaced an interesting perspective – offline ads help drive people online.

Take a look at the sheer numbers – TV ads are not becoming irrelevant anytime soon, and candidates are still focusing heavily on paid advertising (in addition to his online initiatives, Obama also bought half-hour primetime segments on CBS and NBC less than a week before the general election, for example). TV ads may be diminishing in importance, but it will be a long time before they completely go away. However, the panelists pointed out that now, we are seeing more of an online/offline plan. Online and social technology and traditional media serve completely different purposes – the Internet is used to activate the base and raise funds, then the money raised is being used to get people sitting at home on their couches to go online. It is now vital to synchronize both and integrate into one solid campaign.

Looking ahead to 2012/16

During the conference, one panelist made the bold claim that by 2016, campaigns will no longer exist in brick and mortar buildings; instead, they will exist solely online. Though traditional advertising will still play a dire role in campaigns, social media will become increasingly important to candidates seeking election as it becomes more mainstream. Due to both advances in technology and a growing number of media outlets for people to choose from, it will become vital for candidates to have a short, buttoned-up message.

Moving forward, Presidential candidates won’t be the only ones to use social media in campaigns; candidates at the local level will begin to jump on board as well. Campaigning via social media is cheaper, more effective, and easier to mobilize a core group of constituents to act.

Last, technological advances like TiVo and XM Radio have empowered consumers to choose what information they want to receive. Often, the casual constituent (or as Joel Benenson calls them, the “Up-for-Grabs” voter) doesn’t hear political messages via TV and radio ads; they hear about them through YouTube videos or e-mails and SMS videos forwarded by their friends. It is now important for candidates to broadcast their message across as many different channels, in as many different ways as possible to reach that casual constituent.

Anyone who has spent any time reading blogs, news sites and forums knows how often the conversations on these sites degrade into name-calling, insults, accusations, and generally uncivil discourse. The cause of this incivility is widely written and pondered about; I personally believe that the combination of anonymity and the platform provided by the Internet causes people to ignore the decency “filters” they use in everyday life. Real-life social settings carry the threat of repercussion or scorn by your peers if one says something distasteful – not so on the Internet.

I spoke to Jonathan Martin of Politico.com about this at the Politico 2008 Election Conference last Saturday and he mentioned that the Politico editorial staff was confronting this exact issue. As the political fervor increased during the 2008 election, the quality of the comments on Politico’s blogs dropped sharply; readers started attacking the candidates, impugning the writers, and insulting each other’s intelligence. The editors were left wondering; what balance should they strike between allowing the community members to speak their minds and preserving the civility of the conversations.

Politico is not the only publisher facing this issue. Sites have taken various steps to combat the problem: some have banned posting of comments, some require registration and identity confirmation (on the hope that writers will be more civil if it can be tied back to them), and some, like Politico, have no restrictions and let people write what they will. The decision to restrict commenting is especially difficult for journalistic sites, since they exist to disseminate information and foster discussion – not to stifle it.

However, this problem also presents an issue for any company that provides an online forum for its customers. Are you a technology company with an online support forum, a social networking site, or a blog? How do you decide what should be allowed and what “crosses the line”. What do you do when someone writes something negative about your company, in a negative tone (as opposed to a legitimate negative review/experience)? Do you remove it and risk being attacked for censoring criticism, or do you leave it up and allow the quality of the forum to degrade.

There are no simple answers to any of these questions, and the best way to protect yourself and your company from an awkward situation or public relations crisis is to formulate a comprehensive policy before the issues arise. Create a registration process and lay out exactly what you expect from forum members; continually monitor the forums and moderate comments or posts that violate the decency rules; and finally, apply the rules fairly and firmly across the entire community – this consistency will help reinforce the standards across the community and protect you from being accused of censoring posts later on.

As for Politico; they have decided, after much internal debate, to leave the comments unmoderated.

What a thrill it is to arrive at work today in Zeno’s Chicago office with a historic stage literally behind my back. Tonight Sen. Barack Obama will address the nation from Chicago’s Grant Park (as seen here from our office windows) and if the polls are correct, he will do so as the next President of the United States.

The New York Times has provided a viewing guide for tonight’s returns. If things break Obama’s way early in Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana and Florida, Election Day will be devoid of the late-night drama of eight years ago. For news junkies, the battle for the White House shares the spotlight with the battle between the networks to be the first to (correctly) call the winner. With a number of political Web sites also serving as primary sources of information, the networks will be pressed to make an early call while avoiding the mistakes of 2000.

If you haven’t cast your vote already, make sure your voice is heard. And once you’ve made your choice, sit back and enjoy the show.

I am not an overly political person, but I am vexed (in a bipartisan way) with the way PR consultation is being positioned as an evil in the presidential campaign. Pieces in the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post which are gaining widespread readership flag PR as a critical turning point with the clear implication, “a turn to the dark side.” Now, there is a clear distinction between PR for corporations, organization and institutions versus political PR for partisan politics. But, care of the unprecedented coverage and attention being paid to this year’s campaign, that distinction is lost in the eyes of many consumers and the image of PR indelibly tied to the “spin” business of political communications.

From the Chicago Tribune: “But the reason Ayers is not a big deal in Chicago has to do with the Chicago Way, and the left fork of that road that has been bought and paid for by the Daley machine, subsidized by taxpayers who foot the bill for public relations contracts from City Hall.”

From the Washington Post: “An outside public relations expert hired under a $31,000 contract with the state Department of Natural Resources pitched the “upstart governor” as a crusader against Big Oil, a story line that Palin has adopted in her campaign as Sen. John McCain’s running mate. The contract was the only time the Palin administration hired an outside consultant to set up media interviews, a function performed in many states by government employees.”

Sixteen years ago, Bill Clinton changed the face of presidential campaigning not with a stirring speech, but with an appearance on the Arsenio Hall Show. Playing “Heartbreak Hotel” on saxaphone, Clinton rewrote the notion of how presidential candidates should portray themselves and earned credibility among young voters and African-Americans that helped him secure victory five months later.

Fast-forward to the present, and the buzz around Sarah Palin today is whether or not she’ll make an appearance on tonight’s “Saturday Night Live” political special. With the republican ticket in need of a game-changing moment, the opportunity to go toe-to-toe with her alter ego, Tina Fey, is one that Palin shouldn’t pass up.

As much as any battleground state, SNL has become a can’t-miss destination for presidential hopefuls. While we want our candidates to portray a certain level of dignity, we also like to see that they can take or deliver a joke. Barack Obama, John McCain and Mike Hucakbee have all embraced the opportunity to appear on the show. Huckabee being informed by the Weekend Update staff that there were no republican superdelegates was particularly comical.

The Fey impersonation has become fully intertwined with Palin’s identity. She’d be foolish not to embrace it at this stage. If she does, it could become her “Cinton on Sax” moment.

Much has been made about Sarah Palin and her media foibles of late.  The fact that she (apparently a decision forced on her by the campaign) has granted few interviews and no large scale media availability has only amplified the mis-steps in appearances she’s made.  It’s to the point where it’s very hard to tell where Sarah Palin leaves off and Tina Fey begins.

My sense is that this is less about Gov. Palin – although her verbal gymnastics make George Bush seem like Socrates – and more about John McCain.

Sen. McCain famously used to refer the mainstream media as his “base,” engaging them on his campaign bus on any issue under the sun until there was nothing left to discuss.  And when his campaign was foundering in 2007 (I saw him on a 6 a.m. Aclea to New York that summer with no entourage chatting up passengers while heading to Wall St. to plead for money) he was still following this “open source” approach.  It served his campaign well again during the primaries, but after securing the nomination the campaign gradually began to limit access and employed controlled media events.  And, sooner or later, the crowd that giveth, taketh away.  We have seen this magnified by a factor of ten with Gov. Palin.

The media lessons from this approach are straightforward: one, engage and engage and then engage some more, lest you let others shape your image; and two, manage the dialogue on your terms by relentlessly using all available outlets to tell your story.  By not trusting the path that won them the nomination and shifting their approach they narrowed their window of success and became more averse to a discourse on their ideas.

The failure of the campaign to follow this is evident today, both in polling data and their 100% negative advertising.  They have driven their message bus – the former Straight Talk Express – into a ditch and may not get it out.

As Congress was raking AIG’s executive team over the coals in an “oversight” hearing yesterday, it came to light that right after the federal government provided an $85 billion loan to bail out the company, AIG went ahead with an “incentive” trip for top sales guys. The cost (to shareholders, which now includes taxpayers) was $440,000 and included first class accommodations, spa treatments, and other excessively extravagant behavior.

You wonder if AIG management has intentionally decided to ignore the fact that executive benefits – from big bonuses to lavish perquisites to massive golden parachutes – have become the most obvious symbol of what is wrong with Wall Street firms. While defenders of these firms correctly argue that executive pay is hardly a significant cause of the current crisis, it’s an obvious and easy target for politicians and pundits.

Yet, as the market drop sucks $2 trillion out of American’s retirement savings, AIG has given their myriad critics – which include shareholders, advocacy groups, the White House, and especially the news media – a sharp stick with which to flog them even more. Perhaps they figure their reputation is so damaged it can’t get any worse.

That attitude won’t encourage AIG shareholders, policy holders and the taxpayers, and it certainly doesn’t play well with Washington regulators. Let’s hope this is just an extraordinary lack of political and public relations judgment by senior management in a time of crisis, and not a thumbing of their noses to the very people who must bear the burden of their poor corporate stewardship.