Permanently Preoccupied (PREP4)

To be quite honest, I don’t think the Occupy movement was very successful. I will always remember the PR failures of the movement rather than any success it may have had. From 4chan’s “Anonymous” taking their Guy Fawkes masks to Occupy movements and creating a hate machine to radio shows sending producers to the Occupy camps to stir up trouble for a radio stunt, there was just too much to laugh at than to take seriously. Having no face of the movement, if only to let people know the actual goal, was the worst decision of all the bad decisions made, and it eventually caused the movement to be seen as a fruitless endeavor.

If I’m running the movement, my first action is to let everyone know the point of marching through Wall Street. I explain what we want changed and how we plan on forcing the change to come about. That was the thing that OWS got wrong; no one ever had a clear picture as to what the hell was the end game in all of this. Maybe the movement itself never had a true grasp on what it really wanted, and that caused it to implode. Having a face or a spokesperson to be the PR person of the movement and be able to ‘rally the troops’ is what the movement desperately lacked, and I really don’t understand how it never appointed anyone to be that person at any point. That should have been one of the first decisions made. You have a leader, and you have goals that are centralized and set in stone. It’s that simple. But OWS got it wrong and, ultimately, failed to achieve the kind of success it could, and should have had.

I'm The Slime, Frank Zappa (PREP3)

The attacks made against the makers of “pink slime” were completely unfair. It was a safely produced and used product with actual value to its consumers. But, because it had a “weird name” it was slandered and crucified on the internet. Because of the strange nickname and the misconceptions spawned from it being called slime, it caused 650 people to become unemployed. That gross misuse of semantics is incredibly unfair and unwarranted.

If I’m Beef Products, I immediately begin an aggressive campaign to disprove the claims against pink slime and provide factual evidence of its usefulness. The best way to fight false accusations is with proof, and they have plenty of it. Statistics will always trump word-twisting food bloggers. Explain the name, explain how silly it is, explain that it isn’t actually slime, and explain why it is used and how it is actually helpful.

Google vs. Facebook > Mayweather vs. Pacquiao (PREP2)

In all honesty, Burson never should have taken on such a daunting task of trying to destroy Google’s name without giving the name of the company trying to bring it down. The risk was just too high for the reward, especially when you have to keep your source anonymous. It just doesn’t work out and it alienates whomever you try to do your business with. It doesn’t promote trust, which was absolutely the key in getting this entire venture off the ground. Burson shot themselves in the foot from the word “go.”

Should a public relations client always be identified? Well, by not identifying oneself, that constitutes as lying, right? Especially when attacking another company. It’s just good PR to be truthful to the public in every way possible. But should you hide your identity or your client’s identity when attacking their competition? It’s a smear campaign between two businesses, so is that really the pertinent question to be asked? You’re a billion dollar company, is this really going to get you over that hump? It was just an unnecessary endeavor that backfired badly for everyone. Except Google.

Ronnie James Dior (PREP1)

There really were no other options for the Dior company. The comments made were outrageously damning for the company and they did what they had to do: Fire Galiano and publicly sever all ties. This is the only PR option that Dior had and they did it flawlessly. Had Dior not taken such a strong stance, it would have brought an incredibly negative light to the company’s public image. They would have been seen as protecting Galiano and, likely, seen as a company that actually agrees with the comments he made.

Galiano gave the House of Dior no choice, and I agree with the one they made. What Galiano said in general was awful, and what he said to those two women was absolutely heinous. No matter what Galiano does to try to improve his own public image, he will still be seen as an anti-semitic, awful human being by the rest of the world, including myself. Galiano dug his own grave and deserved nothing less, and I commend the House of Dior for their actions on the matter.

Kobe Bean Bryant (PREP17)

Kobe Bryant deals with off court mishaps with the same grace that he deals with them ON the court.  He is a cerebral technician of the game of basketball, equipped with a sixth sense of knowing what's ahead of him before anyone else does.  Sometimes in the real world, this sixth sense malfunctions and he quickly has to regroup and pick up the pieces.  Much like the "sexual assault" case, Kobe quickly regained his composure and cleaned up his mess with a great amount of humility.  He owned up to his mistake and, I believe, genuinely apologized.  Most athletes, and people, these days who get into this kind of trouble put out a press release with a non-apology-apology, moreso apologizing for people being upset by what they did rather than apologizing for what they did wrong.  Not Kobe, though.  Kobe owned it, and fixed it.  That's what we want out of our stars and our athletes.  Make your mistake like the imperfect being you are, but definitely admit that you did it.

If I'm Kobe's sponsor, I'm in a tough position.  I have every right to be upset and consider dropping him.  He's in a bad light right now.  But, because Kobe has the intelligence to get out in front of the storm, you may have to see the forest for the trees and realize Kobe's faults are human and can be overcome by your company.  But that's a tough call to make.  But, if he can do everything to rebuild his image and then some, you have to take that into account.

NBA fines, however, are completely confusing.  Latrell Spreewell was once fined $250,000 by the New York Knicks for failure to report a broken hand.  The Lakers slapped Vladimir Radmanovic with a $500,000 fine for separating his shoulder while snowboarding.  Mark Cuban has been fined $250k numerous times for criticizing NBA officiating.  To be honest, NBA fines are a crock and one hundred percent bogus.  But, in this case, you're Kobe Bryant.  You're never going to notice that you've lost $100 thousand.  You make that in one quarter of a preseason game.  It potentially saves you money in the long term to just bite your tongue and take the fine than to fight it and come off as contradictory.

Starstruck for Starbuck's (PREP16)

I can't say I agree with the decision to not be upfront with the viewer about the Starbuck's partnership.  Add in the fact that it was never mentioned before the interview itself, and it shows that the viewer is looked upon and treated like a mindless sheep, expected to sit quietly as they're told what to think and purchase.  It's very demeaning and insults the intelligence of the viewer.  Not exactly a great PR move.

If I'm the PR advisor for MSNBC, I would definitely advise that the company make mention of the sponsorship before the interview, as to hopefully quell any notions of company bias.  It shows respect for the viewer, and gives them the opportunity to make an informed decision to continue watching the segment or change the channel, thus giving them the power.  If I'm the Starbuck's advisor, I would do the same thing.  Advise that it be acknowledged in the interview that your company is an MSNBC sponsor.  Again, it dispels bias and is, simply, good PR.

Don't lie to your viewers with a smug grin on your face while sipping a coffee cup, logo prominently facing the camera.  It's that easy.

The Twagic Case of Kenny Cole (PREP14)

Twitter sure is a devastating medium to those without the wherewithal to foresee terrible backlash against their badly timed pun filled materialistic advertising.  Kenneth Cole is a prime example of when someone tries to use a real-world dilemma to plug their product.  This has, literally, NEVER worked out for anyone not wanting to put a bad taste in anyone's mouth and it has, literally, NEVER helped to sell anything.  EVER.  If I'm advising Cole, I'd advise him to stay the hell away from Twitter in general.  This never ends well for anyone too dense to understand how words can fuel fires.

Stay the hell away from anything "real-world" altogether.  Advertise your damn product.  That's all you have to do.  Don't try to be a comedian.  There are millions of accounts that have that market pretty well curbed.  If your product is worth buying, let it sell itself.  Thinking outside the box is great and all, but you are not smart enough to understand that joking about legitimate issues is a red flag and doesn't sell anything.  Hire someone to do it for you and delete the Twitter app.