When Social Media can't fix things

Companies are getting better at countering Internet-led attacks of products. But what about everything and everyone else?

Taco Bell is a great recent example for how a company has learned how to take swift, aggressive action to counter erroneous allegations about their product. The impact of social media and the speed by which rumors fly on the Internet have been widely felt. Companies are learning and realize they need to pull out the stops at the first sniff of problems.

Within hours and days of a lawsuit alleging Taco Bell's meat was more filler, the South of the Border crew hit hard and fast. Bold advertising proclaimed "Thank you for Suing Us." There were Facebook and YouTube postings. They bought keywords "taco," "bell" and "lawsuit" on search engines to ensure their official statement was the first link on Yahoo, Google and Bing.

The impact of all this won't really be known until April 20 when parent company, Yum, issues its next quarterly earnings. My guess: the episode will have little negative impact, and possibly positive financial impact. My prediction is that loyal Taco Bell customers decided to support the brand by eating more tacos.

But what about all the others who may not have the ability to respond?

And, what about the lingering impacts of items in cyberspace?

This week, two emailed videos many thought were long forgotten... resurfaced. The fact they "came back" means PR professionals can't relax.

In one, the video shows people putting their cell phones around a small clump of unpopped popcorn kernels. When people dial these cell phones, the kernels soon pop and popped corn falls around the phones. Within in this video are multiple clips of seemingly random groups of people - including what looks like a group of Japaneses-speaking young adults - all performing the same "test." The implication, of course, is that cell phones emit dangerous radio waves powerful enough to make popcorn pop.

The other video has two clips of cruise ships in rough waters. One is an interior shot of passengers and crew being pushed back and forth, chairs and tables sliding around and more havoc. The other is an exterior shot of a cruise ship being tossed around in a very stormy sea. Both videos are attached to an email that says, essentially, 'watch ships being tossed by the tsunami.' The implication being that the tsunami generated by the recent Japan quake caused these ships to run into trouble.

Trouble is: both emails are misleading. The popcorn-cell phone video was a marketing ploy by a company that sells wireless headsets. This was "uncovered" by CNN and others...back in 2008.

The cruise ship videos? One was from a cyclone off of New Zealand and the other from a serious storm off the coast of Majorca in the Mediterranean. Both incidents occurred in 2008.

A certain percentage of the population will believe emails like these because they are sent from friends. They will simply accept them on face value. Some may try to do a little digging, like through Snopes.com and Urbanlegend.com. But, really, who has the time for that? If they are seemingly "innocent" items, why bother digging?

But for cell phone manufacturers and cruise ship operators, these lingering videos can be troubling. Cell phone manufacturers seem to continually be forced to answer questions about the potential health impacts of their products.

Like a bad penny that keeps turning up, videos and emails simply don't go away. In spite of our best efforts, bad information can come back at anytime. They can inflame sensibilities, provide more "proof" to people who believe cell phones create health issues, cause people to rethink that next cruise and so on.

PR professionals know they can't relax. So, what are the strategies for "old" viral? Consider these options and questions:

1. Do nothing, particularly if the time frame is more than four years from original to recent occurence. In this case, you are playing the percentages. The "new" audience to these videos and viral emails is much smaller than the one who saw it originally. Sure, this is a gamble. But it's also known as risk calculation. (Talk to the insurance folks in your company). How much time and money should your company/client devote to squashing old emails and videos? If you choose to combat these, what are the risks of creating more unwanted attention? How much time do you spend to figure out the demographics of the "new" audience? Are they mostly older than 45 or under 20? The older age group will tend to be more skeptical.
   
2. Did it reach Facebook? If an old video is making the rounds just via email, it's not really a threat. But if it's being posted on FB, now it's a threat and requires some level of response. Don't overdo it. First see if ambassadors can act on your behalf with their FB friends - and tell them to "read this" for the truth. "This" being the link to your original official video or statement.
3. Is it a weed? One definition of viral means how long this "weed" lives and bothers you. Weeds will die either because of a lack of water, you yank it or spray it with weed-killer. On the Internet, "yanking" usually means lobbying YouTube to pull a video. Typically, YouTube will yank a video in copyright infringement cases, but it can have an immediate impact. "Weed-killer" is your assertive, aggressive social media/media relations/advertising counter-attack. Or, you can simply go silent and hope this weed dies for lack of attention.
   

Just remember: Even weeds have seeds.

M, M&A, SC and G

Some initials for you: Maui. Mergers and Acquisitions. USC and Green.

Back from Maui and ready for some major PR work and news this week. Hawaii is still a great place, but its dependency on travel and tourism can create turmoil for some of my PR colleagues. Just as hotels and resort properties seemed to have withstood the global recession, now another global event will force another major change in strategy. Some hotels rely heavily on Japanese tourists while others focus on the U.S. market. The devastation in Japan is predicted to create a significant drop in tourists from that country to the islands. Now, resort properties dependent on Japan will begin to focus on other markets - which could lead to some fierce competition.

This was Spring Break time for Hawaii, and I was glad to see many friends taking their families there. Yet, there are signs of lingering trouble. When I last visited Maui in 2006, all the shops at Whaler's Village in Kaanapali were full. Last week, there were many empty ones. The fabulous Ritz Carlton at Kapalua, like many HI resorts, is in default. With higher fuel prices, the question is: When will Hawaii catch a break?

In case you missed it, Ruder Finn acquired The Rogers Group last week. Good news: They report no layoffs. Ruder Finn actually says it's hiring in SFO to bolster its West Coast operations.

The Rogers Group was probably ripe for a sale. The firm lost my friend and a great leader in Lynn Doll when she suddenly passed away last August. She was a driving force behind the firms' steady growth and success. CA budget woes didn't help, and the state was not renewing some contracts, including a large one for the firm.

Ruder Finn has long tried to be a strong presence on the West Coast, with many starts and stops. It had previously tried to build business organically. Now, it appears, RF has the ability to create growth through acquisition and bring in a well-known and very capable leader such as Ron Rogers. Aside from the normal M&A issues, it will be interesting to see if there will be new directions for Ruder Finn/West. Public affairs joins technology?

USC
Don't miss a great, free program this Thursday at the University of Southern California. The annual "Kenneth Owler Smith" Symposium, named after one of our great PR leaders from Southern California, will feature a discussion about the changing relationships between PR and journalism. More information here.

Green PR
A great program is coming to LA on May 16 - Sustainability Communications. This still-growing practice area of Public Relations is now creating new posts, new challenges and changing faster than social media. A very affordable event. Click here for more details.

When the CEO goes hunting

Will the GoDaddy brand suffer because their CEO shot an elephant?

Right now, the social media networks are alive with calls for anyone with a GoDaddy domain to yank them because of this. A competitor is jumping on the bandwagon to try to gain marketshare.

What's surprising is the lack of mainstream news coverage of this - (at this hour). It probably will perk up, soon.

So, it remains to be seen if this incident will hit GoDaddy in the pocketbook, immediately and in the long term.

So far, GoDaddy.com has not issued any statement about this. If history is any indication, this story will get bigger and force a response from GoDaddy.

-----
April 1, 8 a.m PST UPDATE: The story has broken open. Parsons is defending his actions in interviews, such as here.
-----

For those who are discovering Bob Parsons videos for the first time, this one may be shocking. But, this is who he is. His image - bravado, take life by the horns (sorry, had to use it), live life to its fullest - is already defined, particularly by the brand of his company and the videos he stars in for the company.

But what is more shocking is how seemingly out of touch Mr. Parsons is with regard to the impact of his conduct away from the office. There are plenty of CEOs who like to hunt. Ted Turner's image only improved when he went out on hunting trips, or in later years for building up a herd of bison on his sprawling ranches (bison raised for their meat, mind you). Dick Cheney's image faltered when he went hunting.

But, elephants? In 2011?

Regardless of the facts or claims about the impact of elephants in certain areas of the world (overpopulation, etc.) and regardless of the fact that Parsons' video points out that the killing was necessary to keep a village from starving, and regardless that the entire elephant ended up feeding more than the local village...it was an elephant.

Does Parsons need to go on the offensive to explain all the "pros" for this, um - in his view - justified killing? Perhaps. He may have a slight opportunity here to crusade about the issue of problem elephants. (But I wouldn't use the word "problem.")

However, the real question is why a CEO of a leading brand like GoDaddy thought there would be NO consequences from killing an elephant. I'm sure there would be little or no repercussions had he killed a deer or elk. Killing an elephant begins to cross over into a different realm. Think: documentaries about killing dolphins.

True, this was the second year in a row for this kind of expedition for Mr. Parsons. There were no apparent repercussions the first time - but now the video is out for his second one. Lesson: Don't be fooled that a lack of reaction in the first instance doesn't mean there won't be screaming the second time.

The point here is this: At any level of rational thinking - killing an elephant and then boasting about it with a video is bound to prompt a significant percentage of customers to switch domain providers. That is a reasonable calculation to make before boarding the plane to Africa. This is bound to make some potential customers more carefully examine their choices. It may cause some employees to resign. There may be lasting impacts to the brand and the bottom line. What the CEO does in private life, as we all know, has direct impact on his or her company.

Update: In the NY Times interview, Parsons sees this act actually increasing sales for GoDaddy. He is perhaps bolstered by the nearly 300 "likes" on his video?

Were any of these possibilities considered before (a) the expedition was organized and (b) the video was posted? They should have been - especially for a brand that tries to appeal to a broad cross section of the world.

It could be that Mr. Parsons and GoDaddy felt that since they have "crossed the line" (i.e. using sex to sell their website) before, and only saw revenues go up, nothing will be different this time.

However, think about the core customer base for GoDaddy. I can only imagine the average customer is young, Internet-savvy, perhaps more males than females. (Which is why they can put sexy models on their website to sell domains). Yet, my hunch is that this audience probably favors humanitarian causes, save the planet stuff, etc. Elephants fall into these categories.

Is this an Internet crisis? Not now, but it could be soon. This story will likely continue to unfold and will be interesting to see how GoDaddy responds.

The pyschology of water

On Wednesday, March 30, California Governor Jerry Brown is expected to declare the state's drought over.

And with this declaration, so goes a piece of leverage effectively used by water districts and others with a stake in California's water future.

Is it political leverage? Or, should officials simply be commended for take advantage of the tools in front of them?

Indeed, it seems logical to end the drought declaration in California. We have record snow pack and rainfall. Our reservoirs are brimming. Yet, as any scientist will tell you, one good year doesn't mean a true drought is over.

Some environmental groups and others opposed to proposed massive water projects and the bonds needed to finance them have been critical of how a politician, like our former Governor, used the word "drought" to sway opinion.

Yes, a scary word like "drought" does have impact. It gets people's attention. So, why not use it to your advantage? As a public relations or communications professional, you must tap into the concerns of the public, know what's on their mind and figure how best to make them pay attention to your issue and your arguments.

That is why we conduct polls and other research. That is why certain water bonds and measures win voter approval and some do not. This is how campaigns are conducted to get people to make changes in their lifestyle to save water.

It's no different from a candidate or an elected official using polling to determine what matters most to the public, then "speaking" directly at them about it. President Reagan was a master of polling to get legislation passed.

If you are not from California, it would seem rational to assume that a majority of Californians would approve financial efforts to keep our state's plumbing working. California is an economic powerhouse because of our massive water delivery systems. The fixes now on the table are to correct environmental impacts, prepare for climate change and prepare ourselves for the population growth we know is coming. About every 30 years, the state builds massive water projects. The last one was completed in the 1960s, so we're overdue.

Logical, right?

Guess again. Right up there with immigration and labor unions, water is a topic of angst and emotion in California. The debate, therefore, gets as muddy as the Sacramento River after a rainstorm.

Hence, the need to use key words to wage a campaign. Like the word, "drought."

Drought is simple to understand. It's also scary. And, it comes with pain (water rationing) and stark visual images (dry, cracked lake beds).

When I was managing a communications team at the Metropolitan Water District, we were about to launch a new water conservation campaign. I told my bosses that we had an advantage, a "leg up" on this effort because of all the recent stories about water shortages (the previous "dry" period before our latest drought).

The public, I said, was ready for our campaign because water was "top of mind." Our research showed this. So, I said, now that we had the public's attention, our chance for success was vastly improved. The public was already "primed" for our messages.

It would be much harder had we launched a water conservation campaign when it was raining, or water was not in the news. The public would be concerned with other pressing issues. It would take a strong "preliminary" effort to get water back in the news and, thus, "top of mind" for our audience to have them pay attention and listen to the "ask" we were about to make.

One California water bond many years ago was successful because they tapped into people's heightened concern - at the time - for the environment and, in particular, our famous coastlines. Part of the bond money would go for restoring wetlands, protecting coastlines, and such, while also providing millions for state and local water projects. Adding beneficiaries other than water projects was important because research showed overwhelming concern for the coastline, wetlands and parks.

Taking advantage of the public's current concerns, or to utilize existing conditions - like a drought - to help your campaign or issue is common practice.

So, now that the drought is over, what will water districts and water bond proponents use to win the hearts and minds? The public is probably "over" the drought. One less thing to worry about, right?. Today, they (we) remain concerned with, what, higher gas prices and food prices? Taxes? Personal safety? Education?

Yes, it will remain: "about the money." A bad economy postponed the last big water bond...to this year. So, what is the "leverage" to be used?