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.

Chicken's good for the body/Chicken's good for the mind (PREP13)

Was Dan Cathy wise to publicize controversial personal beliefs that had absolutely nothing to do with delicious chicken?  If you believe in the whole "no such thing as bad press" cliche, then yeah, it was.  Chick-fil-a received a whirlwind of national media attention for the comments.  But, being a part of "Team Reality" I would definitely say that Mr. Cathy was quite unwise to voice such beliefs.  It created an absolute PR monster that will not be forgotten for a very long time.  It even spawned THIS poor guy's entire personal downfall: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/29/remember-the-guy-who-got-fired-for-posting-a-video-berating-a-chick-fil-a-employee-he-says-his-familys-living-on-food-stamps/

If I had been advising Mr. Cathy, I would have given him these simple words: "Keep your mouth SHUT."  This has nothing to do with chicken.  You may be a Christian, and that is completely fine.  But you are the CEO of a multi-million dollar business.  Voicing personal opinions will have a gigantic backlash for said business's public opinion.  Seriously, Dan, check (or chick, wackawacka) your opinions at the door and shut the hell up.  BUT, this is 2015...  Good one, Dan.

"My foot tastes just like chicken!" - Dan Cathy, 2012.

Scorestreak 525 (PREP12)

No matter what the intention is, the killing of innocent civilians is never a PR success story.  Toscano was right to be so aggressive in defending the overall idea and purpose of drones.  It was the only way to counter the negative perception of drones.  Use more drones, lose less soldiers.  Simple math that everyone can do.

But the car crash comparison?  That's a hell of a stretch.  Car crashes are accidents.  A missile strike on a group of human beings?  Not quite the same thing, Mike.  We don't talk about banning cars because cars are a necessity in today's society, and we train and license people to use them.  Drones aren't exactly the same thing.  Comparing the two is an absolute horrible argument and made Toscano look foolish.

I'm all for justifying the use of drones and I agree with the general idea of drones and the purpose they serve.  Fighting forest fires and finding missing persons, who wouldn't agree to that?  Focusing on those aspects, rather than trying to fight with bogus car crash statistics, is what I would have presented to the general public when defending the use of drones.

Oops.  Sorry, Michael.  *remotely piloted vehicles.

The Silver Tongue of Goldman Sachs (PREP11)

Rudy Ruettiger.  David.  The 300 Spartans.  The 2007 New York Giants.  Everyone loves a good underdog story.  Everyone loves when the little guy rises up and thwarts his oppressors.  That's what Greg Smith seemingly did to Goldman Sachs after working for them for over a decade.  But was he REALLY an underdog, though?  Was he REALLY oppressed?  I don't know about you, but I think I could handle some oppression for the six figures he was getting.  The initial feeling is "good for him" because it is so easy to side with the little guy.  But airing out your dirty laundry the day you leave the company?  That's pretty cold.  It also makes Smith come off as intensely bitter.  I love the idea of peeling back the curtain and revealing the truth to the public, but, perhaps Smith should have been more tactful in his actions.

I think Goldman Sachs could have responded more gracefully.  It seemed like a weak attempt at a rebuttal mixed with an even weaker attempt at promising a solution to the issues at hand.  Smith was in full-on attack mode and when it comes down to defending themselves, Goldman Sachs laid an egg.  One man's words smacked an entire company in the face and rocked them.  Goldman Sachs limped away to lick its wounds and Smith cashed in on a book deal.  You're a gigantic powerhouse, Goldman Sachs.  Try harder next time.

You Actually Can't Ketchum All (PREP10)

"Hey!  I've got an idea!  We'll invite a bunch of opinionated, snobby food bloggers to come eat at a five-star restaurant.  We'll promise them a gourmet meal prepared by a celebrity chef!  BUT... We'll give them highly processed, sodium drenched frozen meals, instead!  Everyone loves a good bait-and-switch commercial!  No one will EEEEEVR be pissed about being lied to and fed something nowhere near the quality of what they were promised!"

Honestly, that's how I imagine that ConAgra meeting going.  I really have no idea what Ketchum was thinking when they were approached with this idea and had no problem going forward.  How someone with Ketchum didn't see this idea on paper and tell ConAgra "your idea is stupid" is beyond me.

Sure, this idea has worked in the past.  We've seen the commercials where someone is taken into a restaurant and given pizza or soup and loved it, and then the staff comes out and tells them they just ate DiGiorno's or whatever.  But the reason those commercials worked is that those were simple, everyday people, not pretentious mommy bloggers who attack big companies every day.  Those every day people weren't promised five-star meals prepared by chefs they've seen on television.  They just walked into a regular place for a regular meal.  THAT is where ConAgra and Ketchum really dropped the ball.  You can't bring in volatile personalities and set up grandiose expectations, and not expect massive backlash when you completely yank the rug out from under them.

Ketchum and ConAgra should have stuck with the same formula as those before them.  Regular people, regular locations, regular food.  If it isn't broken...

Overheard In A Wawa Parking Lot (PREP9)

I remember this incident vividly.  The first time I had heard of the Wawa convenience store chain was during my first trip to Pennsylvania to participate in a wrestling seminar and compete on a few shows in the Philadelphia area.  I got lost around Upper Darby, PA and went into a Wawa store to ask for directions.  Cool place, awesome sandwiches.  Mitt made a solid choice.

So when I first heard about this in passing, it piqued my interest because of the mention of the Wawa store.  I remember shaking my head once the full details came out.  I've always been one to want to hear the most accurate story.  Not some biased jibberish, twisted to help one's own cause despite being completely inaccurate.  They broke the cardinal rule.  Never lie.  This fiasco caused me to place MSNBC right alongside CNN in my personal "don't bother watching this garbage for any legitimate news" list.  Might be harsh, but...well, fool me once.

If I'm Andre Mitchell, I report what is actually there.  I don't bother trying to paint Romney as some wide-eyed child seeing a color wheel for the first time.  I don't bother being ignorant enough to think that the truth can't easily come out about a situation in 2012.  I don't bother putting my political beliefs into my piece.  If I'm Andrea Mitchell, I use the opportunity to report facts and I use the opportunity to make a genuinely interesting piece about Romney's larger point about "government waste and the more efficient methods of private sector industry."  If I'm Andrea Mitchell, I'm more concerned with my own personal code of ethics and journalistic accuracy than worrying about whether or not my piece will help the campaign of my political party's opponent.  But I'm not Andrea Mitchell...

But, hey.  It helped Wawa a lot, and that's pretty cool.  Wawa deserved the good press.

Leave Me Where I Am, I'm Only Sleeping (PREP8)

Simply put, Sleepy's fell asleep at the job on this one.  Regardless of the research methods, the "results" are just plain boring and inconsequential.  A MONUMENTAL time difference of eleven minutes warrants a New York Times article?  Seriously?  I feel as though the person who pulled the trigger on this need-to-know information is the type to be glued to SportsCenter when we find out what LeBron James had for lunch on his day off.

This study was pointless.  These results were pointless.  This whole thing was pointless.  So, logically, LET'S GO TO THE TIMES.  I'd give myself a concussion if I face-palmed any harder.  Again, I don't buy into the "bad press is still good press" logic.  Your company being run by dunces is now the public image.  In the words of Miami Heat kid... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qEsTXVj57M

The Times absolutely should have run this.  In the joke section.  With a disclaimer.  "Sorry for wasting your time, go make fun of Sleepy's on Twitter."  Sometimes it's nice of large-scale publications like the Times to make us aware of dense companies like Sleepy's so they can be mocked mercilessly with witty hashtags and banter.

No, really. The Times should have laughed in Sleepy's faces and told them to go home.  This was a waste of everyone's time.  I honestly cannot imagine why the NYT decided it would be a good idea to run this garbage piece.  Now that they've published the article, people will assume the NYT agrees with the totally 100% accurate and not questionable research results.  Being associate with this is just a bad move on their part.  Someone goofed badly.

Nancy (Has No) Grace (PREP 7)

I want to preface this prep by saying that I despise Nancy Grace with every fiber of my being.  Nancy Grace is a glorified shock jock with a television time slot.  She is a despicable human being and disgrace to the term "journalist."  I truly believe that she is the reason mainstream media is held in such a negative regard in America.  She is an ignorant, hateful person who preys on innocent people in bad situations for ratings.  She SHOULD be relegated to writing click-bait stories on a tabloid website with a 1999 GeoCities type of layout.  But, alas, she has a primetime TV slot so she can spew her slanderous trash all about.  God bless America.

The Duke situation is a prime example of just how awful Nancy Grace is.  For years, she destroyed the public image of the team and the school itself, despite their innocence.  As a former professional wrestler, I also often recall the Chris Benoit incident she so adamantly covered.  In 2007, WWE wrestler Chris Benoit murdered his family and killed himself in what Grace and other ignorant journalists claimed was a fit of "roid rage."  To further her "point" Grace decided to cite other wrestler related steroid deaths, which weren't "steroid deaths" at all.  Johnny Grunge was a guy that I worked with in the past and unfortunately passed away due to complications of sleep apnea in 2006.  Grace cited Johnny's death in her Benoit/steroid reports.  When presented with the true cause of death, she brushed it off and denied believing it to be true, saying "that's basically snoring, and, you know, not breathing for a few seconds periodically through the night.  You don't die of sleep apnea." (Awake In America).  Thinking about her blatant disregard for facts and outright disrespect pisses me off and I hate this woman to no end.

But, hey, I guess this is all why HLN shrugged their shoulders at her.  She's doing her job, right?  Making headlines, pissing people off, drawing in the mindless viewers, making the big wigs more money.  No harm to our wallets, no foul, right?  I guess so.  I guess that's the point of business, but I think it's bullshit.

http://awakeinamerica.info/2007/top-news/how-to-contact-cnn-nancy-grace-comment-about-apnea/
http://awakeinamerica.info/2007/top-news/2007-nancy-grace/

McCellan's McCurbstomp (PREP6)

Being a true professional in this day and age is difficult.  But you would think a presidential press secretary would have that quality perfected.  Guess not.  McCellan turned his back on his boss, you know, the President of the United States.  Bravo, sir, you have just placed yourself on a billion watch lists. (Kidding...Maybe...)

What was McCellan thinking?  He could just do what he want without remorse or ramifications?  That people wouldn't perceive him as a disloyal worm and blacklist him for life?  Telling the truth is a noble thing and all, but there's a time and place to do it.  But a memoir while Bush was STILL IN OFFICE?  I cannot face-palm any harder.  I honestly cannot understand how this man had this job being THIS brainless.

Scott McCellan and Ethics are not tag-team partners, that much is for sure.

Fleishman-Hillard Backtracks Backcheck? (PREP5)

Yikes. Backcheck really screwed themselves in this matter.  They came away looking immensely unprofessional and offensive.  Death is no laughing matter.  Murder is no laughing matter.  ANY time should be considered "too soon" in ANY case.  It is especially outrageous when you make a poor attempt to tie your product into a situation by implying that nothing of the sort would have happened if the landlord used your product.  That's.... That's just absurd... It is so disgustingly tacky.  I've never been one to buy into the whole "bad press is still good press" and this case solidifies that feeling.

I think Fleishman-Hillard did a good job of acting quickly to right the wrongs of their client.  But the execution?  Eeeeeh... It felt as if they were apologizing for the wrong reasons.  A kind of "sorry you got offended" type of apology doesn't exactly feel like an apology... The wording just seemed insincere and I feel as though they took two steps back and zero steps forward.