Do As You Say And As You Do: Protecting A PR Agency's Reputation

In "An Ideal Husband," Oscar Wilde wrote: The only good thing to do with good advice is pass it on; it is never of any use to oneself.

Sometimes in the world of PR, this would seem to be the mentality we adhere to the most. We spend all day talking with clients about what we believe is the best route for them to take, giving justification after justification for that choice. We look at the situation from every angle possible before making a recommendation. Pros and cons are weighed. Audiences are examined. Every plan is crafted carefully, strategically shaped and efficiently executed.

A penny for our thoughts? Well, a little more than a penny, but we're always happy to share with you what we believe the best course of action is for your business.

Sometimes it appears that we listen too closely to Wilde's words and do not seem to examine issues that face our agency each day in the same manner we do our clients. We are so intent on providing the best possible course of action for them that we will miss out on our own good advice when it comes to how we shape the public's perception of the agency.

Edelman, the world's largest public relations agency in the world (disclosure: Edelman is a big competitor with my own agency, Burson-Marsteller), found itself in a bit of hot water this past week when it circulated a blog on how clients could capitalize on media coverage around Robin Williams' death. As a PR practitioner, I understand what their thought process was, but the quick posting, the sensitivity of the topic and the clearly universal respect the public had for Williams should have been red flags at every turn. Edelman ultimately apologized for the blog post, but the damage was already done. Media outlets and the public soundly condemned the post and Edelman took a beating in the press for a few days.

Couple that with a recent gaffe on the agency's refusal to pledge that it would not work with climate change deniers and Edelman needed a little bit of crisis communications work for itself. Its executives did not adhere to the same advice they provide clients on a daily basis. The internal processes that we urge clients to put in place fell by the wayside and Edelman ultimately took two black eyes in as many weeks.

And while any PR expert wants to catch these issues before they get out of hand, Edelman took the appropriate response and has formed a team to examine reputation management for the agency itself. Executives recognized the missteps they made and are working to correct the issues. Swallowing pride like this and admitting mistakes is a critical step when it comes to crisis management and likely one of the first that Edelman recommends to its own clients. 

I can attest that as an individual who works in an agency, we can easily to lose sight of what is best for it. Following the advice that you give to clients can seem like a no-brainer, but when work is moving a million miles an hour, it can be the first mentality to disappear. Most people probably would think of a PR agency as the last company that would need to work on its external communications strategy, but we are human, too, and make mistakes. 

At the end of the day, agencies must remember that just like we handle for our clients, our reputation management must be considered at all times too. We must employ the same process of of decision-making that we're paid to give to our clients. Otherwise, we lose the credibility we work so hard to develop in their eyes.

Robin Thicke Falls Victim to Twitter Trolls

I want to preface this post by saying that I don't like Robin Thicke. I think he is a colossal tool who wouldn't understand the concept of sexism if it repeatedly stomped on his balls - which wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for the human race. With my personal bias clearly stated and out of the way, let's all take a second to laugh at how inept he, his team, and VH1 are when it comes to social media.

I have outlined the potential perils of social media in the past, usually when it comes to Twitter chats. I am by no means a social media expert. I don't claim to be one. But anyone with even a lobotomized brain would know that hosting a Tweet chat with Robin Thicke would be like throwing a gazelle to a pack of lions and telling them to play nice.

So clearly the lack-of-brain-trust that pulled together the Tweet chat with the hashtag #AskThicke had something else in mind when they organized this. But, in a move that surprised absolutely nobody, their plans went awry when Twitter users flooded the Tweet chat with questions about Thicke's misogyny, future rape-baiting hits he has planned and generally what makes him such a clown. The team running the chat lost control within the first few minutes.

Some of the best Tweets:

• Is the creepy stalking thing a sick publicity stunt at your ex's expense, or just a thoughtless grab for attention and relevance?#AskThicke
• When you ask "I know you want it", one presumes you are talking about an STD? #askThicke
• What does it feel like to be an icon for sexism, predatory behaviour and sexual assault? #AskThicke

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Even though I have outlined some other fails on my blog before, I think that this one has to jump to the top of the list for "worst social media blunders ever."

The moral of the story is this: when you are planning any kind of social media activity, you must consider all of the potential ways it could get out of control. When you open these conversations up to the public, you run the risk of other parties taking charge of the situation. Carefully weigh whether or not the return from the activation is greater than the risk. If it is even close, identify a new strategy.

Stop Screwing Up Social Media - It's Just Not That Hard

"I know what will really inspire our brand ambassadors," said generic social media "expert" at large corporation. "We need to give them something that they can tag themselves with and declare their loyalty to our company in an effort to convert others to our services. What we need to do is give them a hashtag on Twitter!"

"Dead on!" replied slightly more junior social media "expert." "This way the people can simply send out a Tweet and all of those around them will see how dedicated they are to us and our community will grow!"

You know I would have thought that this conversation stopped taking place several years ago given how obvious it is that:

• It is a lazy comms strategy
• Personal testimony over Twitter is simply a one-time act - not likely to occur again outside the one time the hashtag is created
• Any brand that could have alienated its users at some point has now given control to those users by opening up the world of social media to the conversation

McDonalds screwed this one up pretty badly when it invited everyone to share their #McDStories (gee, wonder what could have possibly gone wrong with that one?). J.P. Morgan also blew it with their chat to #AskJPM a question, leading to a hilarious series of tweets asking how one goes about blowing up the global economy as effectively as J.P. Morgan helped do. Roger Goodell is no stranger to controversy with how the NFL has handled the lawsuits that former NFL players are bringing in droves that accuse the league of knowingly withholding information on the dangers of playing football, all while trying to add an additional regular season and playoff game to the mix for some more cash for the league. So maybe it wasn't the best idea to give fans (and players) an open forum to #AskCommish anything they thought was important.

#AskEmmert with the NCAA's embattled commissioner Mark Emmert was hijacked. So was #RedskinsPride - the Washington Redskins effort to combat Harry Reid's crusade to force the team to change its name. 

Even what should have been a safe #ILoveWalgreens hashtag was taken over by an unruly social media mob. If your neighborhood drug store isn't a sure bet, don't you think that that might be a sign?

These are all very high-profile businesses here that are really screwing up a comms tactic that isn't that hard. And the reason it isn't that hard is because you just don't do it. I can't think of any time, any brand, in any part of the world that wouldn't run the risk of getting taken over like those mentioned earlier.

I'm not saying don't engage with fans on social media. But the hashtag pride strategy needs to stop. Control the forum and you can help control the message. Send it into the wild and your Twitter hashtag will mutate into an uncontrollable beast.

The Birds Attack J.P. Morgan, Twitter Edition

Twitter, for better or for worse, has forever altered the way that humans connect with one another on a daily basis. It took the basic concept of the text message and changed it from a private conversation between two parties into a public platform for all to spread their opinions.

This, in turn, brought corporations into the social media fold as customers would be frequently tweeting away about what they loved and, more commonly, what they hated about about the brands. Twitter serves as an excellent medium for customer relationship management for brands: an opportunity to directly connect with unhappy customers to address their concerns and transform them into brand advocates. At least, that's what effective social media management looks like for a large brand.

But for some companies, consumers spit so much vitriol at them that no matter how much the brand communicates with them, its image cannot be fixed. This is where the strategy around how a company uses a tool like Twitter. Marketers and PR pros have to look carefully at a company's position in the eyes of the media, the consumers and its competitors to help dictate its social media strategy.

Clearly, J.P. Morgan missed the memo on this lesson. Right in the middle of its settlement negotiations with the US government over its role in the 2008 financial crisis (which ultimately resulted in a $13 billion settlement), the team at J.P. Morgan decided that this would be a good time to host a Twitter chat with its vice chairman, Jimmy Lee.

Call me crazy, but people don't seem to like banks very much since 2008, do they? And I don't exactly think that this is uncommon knowledge. So it should come as no surprise that thousands of individuals descended upon the Twitter chat's corpse like vultures and picked it apart so badly that J.P. Morgan ceased the chat right in the middle of it. But the damage was already done by the time they stopped it. They completely lost control of the situation.

J.P. Morgan, in its defense, isn't the first major brand to have a screwup like this. McDonalds experienced a similar crisis when it tried to start a chat with the hashtag "McDStories". It was quickly hijacked by various groups that used the social platform to bombard the brand with its grievances. Just like J.P. Morgan, McDonalds had to stop the chat almost immediately. The fact that J.P. Morgan committed the same exact social media sin after all of the negative whiplash that McDonalds saw from this makes it all the more embarrassing.

Customer relationship management is a tricky business. Don't engage with customers and they complain that you don't listen to them. Listen too closely and you just might not like what they have to hear.

But when it comes to brands like J.P. Morgan, giving consumers a vocal platform where many voices can drown out one may not be the best option. If the company's intention was really to target students in particular, as they claim, set up a series of seminars on college campuses and have local leaders appear there to speak with the students. While it may require slightly more money and time, it is in a situation that the company can control.

Twitter really has changed the way that we interact. But that changes means different things to different parties. Brands that want to communicate with their consumers or spread a message must closely examine the inherent risks that these changes have brought and weigh the benefits against them. Otherwise their carcasses will be picked clean by the flocks of tweeters above them.