Newspapers can right the wrongs. A journalist gets a call from an angry member of the public or a whistleblower (usually because the person hasn't received "justice" from an organization or government agency) and the battle is under way.
Sometimes, no, check that, most times these stories engage public relations professionals.
Case in point with today's Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez (one of my favs). His column focused on a homeless vet who found a wad of cash (nearly $1,000), turned it in to authorities (LA's bus agency) and was hoping to claim it after the 30-day waiting period.
Of course, these stories only appear because things didn't go according to plan or logic.
The actual bus agency policy, as Lopez found out, does not return found money to the finder if no one else claims it. Lopez, who has a special place for homeless (remember "The Soloist"?), pursued this story with the intent of helping the homeless vet. Had he been on a mission to discredit the bus agency, this story could have turned out a lot worse for the agency.
Lopez' pursuits eventually took him to Marc Littman, a PR pro in the executive offices of the bus agency. Littman is a true veteran of managing many significant stories at one of the nation's largest transit agencies. In this case, Littman apparently realized this story needs his boss' attention.
As one might imagine, public agency policies occasionally defy logic. (I know, I worked a public agency). If what Lopez wrote was true, the reasons behind the found-cash/don't return policy were right up there is the head-scratching stratosphere.
Whether through PR counsel or his own calculations, the bus agency CEO did the right thing. He returned the found money to the homeless vet and vowed to change the policy because it didn't make sense to not reward honesty.
PR pros know this was the right choice. They would almost universally have counseled this decision in this direction.
However, the story also points to another issue at the bus agency: Internal communications. Again, if Lopez was on a mission, he really could have blasted the bus agency for not making sure their employees know policy. A front-line customer service representative thought the original policy was to give the money back to the finder. Hopefully, the communications staff at the bus agency will make sure the word on the new policy is clearly articulated, reaches all critical staff and is clearly understood by all who deal with the public.
Showing posts with label Los Angeles Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Los Angeles Times. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Just like Nevada's water
When we launched the "California Friendly(r)" campaign at Metropolitan Water District a few years ago, we emphasized that we were "not like Las Vegas" and going to extremes to save water.
Of course, it helps when you are not in a drought and don't have to shout "warning" in your message.
Back then (was it only 2003?), we considered those extremes to be the "cash for grass" rebates offered by the Southern Nevada Water Authority, giving homeowners money for ripping up their lawns forever. Southern Nevada provides the water to Las Vegas, and was being forced at the turn of the century to deal with massive residential growth and limited water supplies.
To us at MWD, we felt our California Friendly approach was, well, more friendly. Through advertising, public relations and media relations efforts, we were successful in convincing consumers that they did not have to sacrifice beauty in their landscapes to save water.
Through this persuasion technique, we appeared to have removed the "punitive" stigma associated with water conservation - that consumers were "losing" something. The old "xeriscape" image was still haunting us - one that promoted rock gardens, ghastly looking stick bushes and cacti. California Friendly provided a nice comeback, a very positive new image. Even Sunset magazine approved!
In Las Vegas, we reasoned back then, homeowners were losing in the transition from lush landscapes to bare-looking desert layouts. We proudly, but quietly, told ourselves that we didn't need to do that in Southern California. We could still reduce large sums of water used for irrigation - and keep our landscapes looking beautiful.
The plan worked in a non-drought period. Consumers liked the "soft-sell" approach and we began to see major changes in behavior. More "California Friendly" plants - either native ones or low-water-using non-natives - were selling well at retail nurseries. Rebates for smart water controllers were flying out the door. Major homebuilders used our California Friendly designs at their models. California Friendly was even featured as part of an "Extreme Makeover Home Edition" episode.
Fast forward to today. California's drought is in the third year, reservoirs are dangerously low, court restrictions won't allow us to get all the water that is rightfully ours from the north and mandatory restrictions are in place in cities through Southern California.
And now, this. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power announced Monday a "cash for grass" rebate program.
So much for the friendly approach. Good thing we didn't boast too loudly at MWD.
Although the LADWP's press release emphasizes the replacement program wants to keep landscapes looking lush in the city, it will be interesting to see how consumers respond. Will they tear out just a couple of square feet of lawn? If someone rips out their entire front lawn and put in nothing but natives, will they suffer the same backlash and inter-governmental turmoil that families suffered in Glendale? (The water department encouraged it, but the code enforcement folks took a family to court). Or, will they run out of money like MWD did recently for its artificial turf replacement rebate program?
Any large-scale water conservation program is complicated and requires well-thought-out strategies. Consumers want to save water, but they also want to do it in a way that is easy - very easy. MWD's research showed that consumers simply want to be told where to go, and what to buy. ("Go to Home Depot, look for this plant or that sprinkler nozzle.") Step-by-step videos are needed, in some cases. There will be many questions, like is it better that I install artificial turf or take advantage of the "cash for grass" rebate?
And since we're speaking about how best to save water, how many of you would go the extremes that Los Angeles Times reporter Susan Carpenter went through to recycle her "gray water" at home?
If prior experience tells us anything, it will take a multi-faceted program to induce consumers to participate in this and future rebate programs to save water. For starters, there is still a large percentage of people who simply don't believe there is a drought, or believe that water is theirs for the taking and shouldn't be restricted.
LADWP has and will need to take several steps. Penalty rates will begin to have an affect on those who don't conserve.
Keep the information flowing. For starters, look at Southern Nevada's Web site to get some ideas on how to make it easy for consumers and to answer their questions. Bewaterwise.com remains one of the most comprehensive sites for water conservation information.
We're two days into mandatory restrictions in Los Angeles, and several days or months into it at other cities in CA. Will permanent changes occur? Or, once the drought is over, will consumers revert to water-wasting ways?
Check back at the end of summer. Or, perhaps, next year at this time if we have a really bad winter.
Of course, it helps when you are not in a drought and don't have to shout "warning" in your message.
Back then (was it only 2003?), we considered those extremes to be the "cash for grass" rebates offered by the Southern Nevada Water Authority, giving homeowners money for ripping up their lawns forever. Southern Nevada provides the water to Las Vegas, and was being forced at the turn of the century to deal with massive residential growth and limited water supplies.
To us at MWD, we felt our California Friendly approach was, well, more friendly. Through advertising, public relations and media relations efforts, we were successful in convincing consumers that they did not have to sacrifice beauty in their landscapes to save water.
Through this persuasion technique, we appeared to have removed the "punitive" stigma associated with water conservation - that consumers were "losing" something. The old "xeriscape" image was still haunting us - one that promoted rock gardens, ghastly looking stick bushes and cacti. California Friendly provided a nice comeback, a very positive new image. Even Sunset magazine approved!
In Las Vegas, we reasoned back then, homeowners were losing in the transition from lush landscapes to bare-looking desert layouts. We proudly, but quietly, told ourselves that we didn't need to do that in Southern California. We could still reduce large sums of water used for irrigation - and keep our landscapes looking beautiful.
The plan worked in a non-drought period. Consumers liked the "soft-sell" approach and we began to see major changes in behavior. More "California Friendly" plants - either native ones or low-water-using non-natives - were selling well at retail nurseries. Rebates for smart water controllers were flying out the door. Major homebuilders used our California Friendly designs at their models. California Friendly was even featured as part of an "Extreme Makeover Home Edition" episode.
Fast forward to today. California's drought is in the third year, reservoirs are dangerously low, court restrictions won't allow us to get all the water that is rightfully ours from the north and mandatory restrictions are in place in cities through Southern California.
And now, this. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power announced Monday a "cash for grass" rebate program.
So much for the friendly approach. Good thing we didn't boast too loudly at MWD.
Although the LADWP's press release emphasizes the replacement program wants to keep landscapes looking lush in the city, it will be interesting to see how consumers respond. Will they tear out just a couple of square feet of lawn? If someone rips out their entire front lawn and put in nothing but natives, will they suffer the same backlash and inter-governmental turmoil that families suffered in Glendale? (The water department encouraged it, but the code enforcement folks took a family to court). Or, will they run out of money like MWD did recently for its artificial turf replacement rebate program?
Any large-scale water conservation program is complicated and requires well-thought-out strategies. Consumers want to save water, but they also want to do it in a way that is easy - very easy. MWD's research showed that consumers simply want to be told where to go, and what to buy. ("Go to Home Depot, look for this plant or that sprinkler nozzle.") Step-by-step videos are needed, in some cases. There will be many questions, like is it better that I install artificial turf or take advantage of the "cash for grass" rebate?
And since we're speaking about how best to save water, how many of you would go the extremes that Los Angeles Times reporter Susan Carpenter went through to recycle her "gray water" at home?
If prior experience tells us anything, it will take a multi-faceted program to induce consumers to participate in this and future rebate programs to save water. For starters, there is still a large percentage of people who simply don't believe there is a drought, or believe that water is theirs for the taking and shouldn't be restricted.
LADWP has and will need to take several steps. Penalty rates will begin to have an affect on those who don't conserve.
Keep the information flowing. For starters, look at Southern Nevada's Web site to get some ideas on how to make it easy for consumers and to answer their questions. Bewaterwise.com remains one of the most comprehensive sites for water conservation information.
We're two days into mandatory restrictions in Los Angeles, and several days or months into it at other cities in CA. Will permanent changes occur? Or, once the drought is over, will consumers revert to water-wasting ways?
Check back at the end of summer. Or, perhaps, next year at this time if we have a really bad winter.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Cities without newspapers and other predictions
The predictions are becoming more frequent. See a recent blog post by former newspaper reporter TJ Sullivan who picks up a story from a former high-ranking newspaper editor.
And more bad news keeps hitting the newspaper world in Southern California, and across the nation. My old paper, the Daily News, is barely recognizable. Pulitzer winning reporters and veterans continue to leave the LA Times. More job cuts are coming. The NY Times board eliminates dividends.
Which brings up the continuing question - where is this going? There are many predictions, so I'll try one. The investigative, in-depth journalism will rest with a few surviving papers, like the WSJ and NY Times, and with a few magazines like Newsweek. (Case in point: Newsweek did an outstanding piece of in-depth reporting last year about the shooting death of a gay student in Oxnard - right in the LA Times' backyard.)
However, for the most part, these in-depth pieces will be stories of a national or international concern. The frequency of true, in-depth local and regional reporting at other papers, including the LA Times, will be less.
What is unknown is how the public will really react when local coverage goes away or is substantially reduced. Will they notice the difference, the lack of perspective, the "bringing to your doorstep" news that you truly need to know? Will the public understand that the "breaking news" they received online one night or on the 11 p.m. local TV station report is really not"old news" by morning when the newspaper gives us more details, more depth and more perspective? Too many times have I heard someone say "Oh, I already saw that" when they pick up a discarded LA Times or NY Times at a Starbucks. They "saw" the story the day before online, but all the were looking at now was what appeared to be a "stale" headline in print. How can in-depth newspaper reporting be so easily discarded?
Unfortunately, filling the gap will be local TV stations, talk radio and folks like TMZ and Perez Hilton. Prurient, entertainment news for water cooler gossip rules the day. Do I really need to see amateur news gatherers filming "octomom" walking out of her van as she goes to the hospital to see her babies? Even the occasionally good in-depth reporting by some TV stations during sweeps is fading.
Meanwhile, news gathering sites, like CNN.com and MSNBC.com, will give us the "tidbits" we apparently need to convince us "we're in touch."
The shift continues. Where will it go?
And more bad news keeps hitting the newspaper world in Southern California, and across the nation. My old paper, the Daily News, is barely recognizable. Pulitzer winning reporters and veterans continue to leave the LA Times. More job cuts are coming. The NY Times board eliminates dividends.
Which brings up the continuing question - where is this going? There are many predictions, so I'll try one. The investigative, in-depth journalism will rest with a few surviving papers, like the WSJ and NY Times, and with a few magazines like Newsweek. (Case in point: Newsweek did an outstanding piece of in-depth reporting last year about the shooting death of a gay student in Oxnard - right in the LA Times' backyard.)
However, for the most part, these in-depth pieces will be stories of a national or international concern. The frequency of true, in-depth local and regional reporting at other papers, including the LA Times, will be less.
What is unknown is how the public will really react when local coverage goes away or is substantially reduced. Will they notice the difference, the lack of perspective, the "bringing to your doorstep" news that you truly need to know? Will the public understand that the "breaking news" they received online one night or on the 11 p.m. local TV station report is really not"old news" by morning when the newspaper gives us more details, more depth and more perspective? Too many times have I heard someone say "Oh, I already saw that" when they pick up a discarded LA Times or NY Times at a Starbucks. They "saw" the story the day before online, but all the were looking at now was what appeared to be a "stale" headline in print. How can in-depth newspaper reporting be so easily discarded?
Unfortunately, filling the gap will be local TV stations, talk radio and folks like TMZ and Perez Hilton. Prurient, entertainment news for water cooler gossip rules the day. Do I really need to see amateur news gatherers filming "octomom" walking out of her van as she goes to the hospital to see her babies? Even the occasionally good in-depth reporting by some TV stations during sweeps is fading.
Meanwhile, news gathering sites, like CNN.com and MSNBC.com, will give us the "tidbits" we apparently need to convince us "we're in touch."
The shift continues. Where will it go?
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Babies, Breakfast and Brevity
What a couple of days in LA and the country.
First we find our dear friends and public relations masters Joann Killeen and Michael Furtney hired to represent the mother who had eight babies and facing intense scrutiny for having fertility treatments. Joann and Mike are seasoned pros and know how to treat this one with the highest ethical standards. Joann is the former leader of the Public Relations Society of America and Mike has represented many large national and international companies. Both are Accredited in Public Relations and are PRSA Fellows, significant achievements that distinguish their skill, expertise and professional ethics. In addition, they are professors at Los Angeles area universities. If we're lucky, we may get to hear more about Joann's and Mike's handling of this story in November at the international conference of PRSA.
What the news media and others often forget is that there are other sides to the story. The poor mother has not had the chance to speak, but plenty of others have taken their shots at her. So, it is entirely logical for this family to bring on board seasoned communicators who can help bring some balance to the discussions.
This drama unfolded at the same time the Los Angeles Times announced further layoffs and a consolidation of its section. Receiving the most attention was the elimination of the separate California section, which used to be the "local" and "Metro" section. Reaction has been loud across several sectors.
And, today, Feb. 3, 2009, we saw a great public relations effort unfold with the added potential of capturing a telling glimpse into the state of our country. I speak, of course, about the "Grand Slam" free breakfast giveaway at Denny's. Like many of us, I ventured out in the morning hours to take advantage of a free breakfast. With an ample supply of milk and Honey Nut Cheerios at home, I ventured out mostly because I was curious.
What would I find?
As I guessed and as news stations reported this evening, there were long lines across the country. All day long. Long lines.
But there was more to the story.
These were not folks who liked pancakes, sausage and eggs over-easy delivered to them in minutes with a smile, and free coffee refills. No. The majority of people I saw and spoke to were in need of a break. In well-worn clothes and tattered shoes, they resembled some of the folks I come across at homeless shelters and food pantries. They are surviving on the edge. Barely employed or recently laid off. A free meal meant they could extend by a day their measly offerings at home.
So, here we were. A great opportunity for some enterprising city desk editor or assignment editor at a local TV station to capture a great story. An incredible human interest story. But for reasons that escape me, the story came and went with barely a notice.
Was it because news editors didn't want to give a free promotion to Denny's? Well, that's silly when you consider the steady flow of features we read and see of actors promoting their next movie. Or, as I suspect, have we lost so many well-trained, veteran newsmen and newswomen to budget cuts that this story simply wasn't on anyone's radar?
First we find our dear friends and public relations masters Joann Killeen and Michael Furtney hired to represent the mother who had eight babies and facing intense scrutiny for having fertility treatments. Joann and Mike are seasoned pros and know how to treat this one with the highest ethical standards. Joann is the former leader of the Public Relations Society of America and Mike has represented many large national and international companies. Both are Accredited in Public Relations and are PRSA Fellows, significant achievements that distinguish their skill, expertise and professional ethics. In addition, they are professors at Los Angeles area universities. If we're lucky, we may get to hear more about Joann's and Mike's handling of this story in November at the international conference of PRSA.
What the news media and others often forget is that there are other sides to the story. The poor mother has not had the chance to speak, but plenty of others have taken their shots at her. So, it is entirely logical for this family to bring on board seasoned communicators who can help bring some balance to the discussions.
This drama unfolded at the same time the Los Angeles Times announced further layoffs and a consolidation of its section. Receiving the most attention was the elimination of the separate California section, which used to be the "local" and "Metro" section. Reaction has been loud across several sectors.
And, today, Feb. 3, 2009, we saw a great public relations effort unfold with the added potential of capturing a telling glimpse into the state of our country. I speak, of course, about the "Grand Slam" free breakfast giveaway at Denny's. Like many of us, I ventured out in the morning hours to take advantage of a free breakfast. With an ample supply of milk and Honey Nut Cheerios at home, I ventured out mostly because I was curious.
What would I find?
As I guessed and as news stations reported this evening, there were long lines across the country. All day long. Long lines.
But there was more to the story.
These were not folks who liked pancakes, sausage and eggs over-easy delivered to them in minutes with a smile, and free coffee refills. No. The majority of people I saw and spoke to were in need of a break. In well-worn clothes and tattered shoes, they resembled some of the folks I come across at homeless shelters and food pantries. They are surviving on the edge. Barely employed or recently laid off. A free meal meant they could extend by a day their measly offerings at home.
So, here we were. A great opportunity for some enterprising city desk editor or assignment editor at a local TV station to capture a great story. An incredible human interest story. But for reasons that escape me, the story came and went with barely a notice.
Was it because news editors didn't want to give a free promotion to Denny's? Well, that's silly when you consider the steady flow of features we read and see of actors promoting their next movie. Or, as I suspect, have we lost so many well-trained, veteran newsmen and newswomen to budget cuts that this story simply wasn't on anyone's radar?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)