April 18, 2008 2:19 pm : Comments 000
When a company is coming under fire from the public and media, you can count on their related official statements sounding anything but meaningful or spontaneous. Such statements are often perfunctory at best and clearly written with kid gloves snuggly fitted on the committee of writers’ hands. As a result, the issued statement is invariably bland, sweepingly broad, and peppered with enough “PR-speak” so that it doesn’t say very much at all. Example:
Reporter: “How can the company justify paying 300 times book value to acquire a failing company owned by the CEO’s son-in-law?”
Spokesperson: “NEWCO is proud of its corporate governance practices and its commitment to increasing shareholder value. We look forward to expanding the NEWCO brand through this merger of equals.”
Ok, so maybe I’ve crafted more than a few statements in PR-speak myself.
That said, how incredibly liberating to come across a corporate comment in the newspaper that not only speaks directly to the issue, but does so with real gusto…a statement that puts the inquiring reporter in his place and publicly questions his news judgment….a statement where the spokesperson stops being a shiny, happy person for a millisecond to say what he or she is really thinking.
Surprisingly, such a statement was issued by none other than CBS News. In response to a question about the embattled Katie Couric possibly – but not definitely – but, let’s face it, increasingly likely – “barring a change” – possibility of quitting as the anchor of “CBS Evening News”, CBS issued the following statement to the New York Post:
“We think readers are extraordinarily bored with this infantile and nasty pilling on… and will continue to focus not on baseless rumor and conjecture, but on the quality and depth of the broadcast – which is second to none.”
Wow – that’s a big change from the more traditional “we’re very proud of…” and “we have no plans for any changes regarding…” statements reportedly issued earlier.
Alas, the Post didn’t report whether a name was attached to the more recent statement, so I don’t know the identity of the verbal sharpshooter. But whoever you are, I applaud your courage and candor. I’d be delighted to buy you a drink.
Something tells me you could use one.
Share This Post
April 10, 2008 1:13 pm : Comments 001
One of the great frustrations for any profession is to be defined in the public’s collective mind by the unethical or scandalous antics of a handful of individuals whose behaviors or values don’t mirror the majority of those in their industry. Just ask any reputable lawyer, car salesman, mechanic, or real estate agent.
Or ask someone in private equity. That sector is most often associated with the likes of Blackstone’s Stephen Schwarzman, who has reaped billions of dollars by buying healthy companies, crippling them with debt and massive layoffs, and then selling them at a huge profit. Although there are countless private equity firms who have contributed mightily to the economy and the public good, the average Joe or Jane steadfastly identifies the industry with greedy individuals who pillage companies and feast on $40 crab claws.
The PR profession certainly isn’t immune to public misperceptions either, which is more than a tad ironic. Indeed, we are the proverbial shoemaker’s children when it comes to our own reputation management. Our public credibility gap has, sadly, only widened lately thanks to the headline-generating missteps, blunders, and ethical breaches of some high-profile practitioners. While these individuals may occupy corner offices, I am loathe to use the term “industry leader” to describe any of them for they have shown via their actions, words, or values that they do not represent the trail-blazing people in the PR industry who truly deserve professional respect and admiration.
Mark Penn, the CEO of Burson-Marsteller, is the industry’s embarrassment du jour. While the mainstream media has been highly critical of Senator Hillary Clinton’s decision to allow Mr. Penn to keep his day job while serving as a key advisor on her presidential campaign, Burson-Marsteller has largely been given a free pass on its equally problematic decision to allow Mr. Penn to continue on as its CEO.
As someone who has generated a significant amount of new business through referrals from people with whom we work, I appreciate the value of having a CEO who is so connected as to have the ear of someone who could very well be the next president. But one of the cardinal rules of reputation management is that you should never act behind the scenes in a way that would prove to be embarrassing or detrimental if it was covered on the front page of the newspaper.
Mr. Penn’s decision to meet with officials from Colombia, which hired Burson no doubt in part because of Mr. Penn’s connection to Senator Clinton, and subsequent apology after his meeting became public, was an insult to the firm’s employees who dutifully uphold the firm’s published commitment to avoiding conflicts of interest and to all the clients who were taken in by the firm’s grandstanding about its ethical approach to business. It also demonstrated that Mr. Penn’s greater loyalty is to the Clinton campaign rather than to Burson’s clients.
But the Colombia incident isn’t the only instance of ethical malfeasance at Burson under Mr. Penn’s leadership. The Wall Street Journal in September reported that Burson was aggressively waging a campaign advocating against Google’s planned acquisition of DoubleClick. But in its outreach to reporters, Burson representatives failed to disclose to reporters that it was working for Microsoft, a major Google competitor. According to the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), such subterfuge is wholly improper and a significant ethical breach.
Harold Burson, an industry luminary and the co-founder of the firm that employs Mr. Penn, also has ethical problems with PR firms not disclosing their vested interests. “I’m totally opposed to front organizations that do not disclose where their funding comes from and to my knowledge – we’re a big company – we have never started or organized a group where the funding sponsorship was unknown,” Mr. Burson said in a 1999 interview that was first cited by PR blogger Mark Rose. Things have clearly changed at Burson since Mr. Penn assumed the leadership.
Further, Mr. Penn reportedly has been actively involved in Burson’s representation of troubled mortgage lender Countrywide Financial. For an inside look at one of the most dubious reputation management campaigns ever waged, this article in the Wall Street Journal and this one in Salon is must reading.
Regrettably, Burson isn’t the only global PR firm causing the industry considerable embarrassment. It was reported on Gawker, a media-focused website, that Edelman, which also made pledges about its ethical approach to business and commitment to honesty, tells clients that it is okay to lie to the media. CEO Richard Edelman denies the story, of course.
I’ve met Richard Edelman and even once entertained thoughts of joining his firm (heck, we once cheekily considered calling this blog “5:45 a.m.” as opposed to his own “6 a.m.” blog to suggest we were at work before the Big Boys of the industry). My take from afar? Mr. Edelman is decidedly one of the most decent, personable, trusting, and gracious senior executives in the PR business. But his trust has repeatedly been misplaced. In recent years he has increasingly chosen to surround himself with political operatives, including Leslie Dach, who worked at Edelman for nearly two decades, albeit with some sabbaticals to work on various political campaigns.
Mr. Dach, the subject of an extremely damning profile in The New Yorker, formerly oversaw Edelman’s Wal-Mart account and he has since joined the giant retailer. During Dach’s leadership, Edelman initiated the “Wal-Marting Across America” blog, supposedly penned by a couple of customer enthusiasts who turned out to have been bought and paid for by the PR firm. That campaign was one of the most egregious communications frauds in recent memory. Edelman still retains the Wal-Mart account, which suggests the controversial retailer wasn’t too chagrined after being outed for the deception.
Then there is the issue of Ronn Torossian, the CEO of 5WPR, which claims to be one of the fastest growing PR firms in the industry. Mr. Torossian has a penchant for threatening litigation (see Strumpette’s Torossian Lawsuit countdown clock), a brash style, and a rather skewed perception of where he fits in the pecking order of industry giants (To wit, he reportedly said this a few years ago with respect to legendary PR man Howard Rubenstein: “5WPR are the new kids on the block to challenge him as the leading PR person in NYC.”). I will let the folks at Gawker fill you in on a major reason why Mr. Torossian comes to mind while writing this particular post.
Finally, there is Michael “The-Flack-When-You-Are-Under-Attack” Sitrick. As I’ve noted before, I admire Mr. Sitrick’s willingness to rough up reporters who write negative stories about his clients (although some of the reporters he has taken on are among the smartest and fairest in the business) and I salute Mr. Sitrick for his ability to dupe 60 Minutes into doing an uncritically sympathetic story about his controversial client Biovail being an unjustified victim of short sellers. Yet his outrages and messianic attacks on short sellers for their dubious activities loses some of its steam when you read that his firm has apparently engaged in some highly questionable practices itself.
(Full Disclosure: I briefly was retained by an attorney to assist in a matter involving Spyro Contogouris, a hedge fund researcher who was a prime target of Mr. Sitrick’s attacks)
Over the years I have been frequently criticized by PR people for being “extremely naïve about PR” and “thinking too much like a reporter.” I’ve been told that PR is an inherently dirty business that often requires the use of dishonesty and deception to get the job done. But I don’t buy that, nor do the people who work here. At the end of the day, our reputation for integrity and transparency is our most cherished corporate asset, and no client, project, award, or piece of business is worth its sacrifice. These values have served us well.
The PR industry has no shortage of practitioners who are quick to advise others how to manage their reputations. It’s high time we did something about our own.
Share This Post
March 20, 2008 10:43 am : Comments 001
Some people are movie buffs, while others are into the theater. Me? I’m a big radio fan.
When I was 12, my uncle Specs Howard (then the top-ranked morning man at WKYC in Cleveland) used to take me to work with him whenever I came to visit. I was in awe of him and his job, and soon dreamed of being a DJ myself at CKLW, a Detroit radio station well known to anyone living east of the Mississippi who came of age in the late 60s and owned a transistor radio. In those days, radio was fun and was dominated by zany and distinctly local personalities such as Cousin Brucie (New York), Larry Lujack (Chicago), Dick Purton (Detroit), “The Real” Don Steele (Los Angeles), and Brian Skinner (Toronto).
Regretfully, radio took a really bad turn some 20 years ago. The FCC relaxed restrictions on the number of radio stations that media companies could own in individual cities. That sparked a massive wave of consolidation and the advent of generic radio formats that plague the industry today. No matter where you live, chances are there is a “Lite” radio station on your FM dial that drones on just like the one we have here in New York.
It is no secret that radio has been suffering a decline in listeners over the last 20 years or so. Everything but the real culprit – vapid programming – has been blamed, from the advent of MTV and VH1 to personal cassette players, CD players, MP3 players, iPods, and even alternative personal entertainment devices like home-based video games. Personally, I point the accusatory finger at the bland, cookie-cutter approach to programming.
Thankfully, there remains one station that still harks back to the glory days of radio. It’s K-Earth 101 (ok, technically KRTH, 101.1 FM), a Los Angeles radio station that sounds as unique and vibrant today as it did 35 years ago when it debuted as Southern California’s “oldies” station.
Even if you’ve never left the East Coast, chances are strong that you’ve heard some of the stentorian voices that have crackled through the airwaves from that station over the years as many of them enjoyed nationally syndicated shows or did commercial voiceover work on the side. In addition to Mr. Steele, they included Charlie Van Dyke, whose God-sounding voice is quite fitting since he left full-time radio to become an ordained minister (and who also lived my dream of being the morning man at CKLW), Robert W. Morgan (”a good Morgan to you”), and Charlie Tuna. Sadly, Messrs. Steele and Morgan have since passed on to that great DJ booth in the sky, but Mr. Van Dyke still does K-Earth’s station identification spots and Mr. Tuna, who has a Star on the Walk of Fame, recently rejoined the station and sounds as great as ever.
I’ve been listening to K-Earth online for a while now. Some of the station’s personalities seem like family. I often fantasize about living in southern California and listening to an LA radio station allows me to live there vicariously. Admittedly, it can be frustrating to hear about their 70 degree temperatures as you bundle up to head out into NYC’s freezing cold, but then again, there is something to be said about listening to news of interminable freeway tie-ups knowing you won’t have to experience them.
One of my favorite personalities is Gary Bryan, a former bass player in a Seattle rock band who subsequently morphed into one of America’s top DJs. In addition to being quite funny with a Count Dracula-like laugh, Mr. Bryan strikes me as a modern-day Ward Cleaver: he frequently talks about his wife and three daughters, and judging by his comments, he’s quite the family man. Mr. Bryan also isn’t afraid to take on controversial issues – for weeks he waged a campaign lobbying for The Monkees to be inducted in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Mr. Bryan’s sidekick is entertainment reporter Lisa Stanley, an effusive and quite likeable woman who sometimes comes across as the stereotypical bleach-bottle blonde. Whether it’s an act or not I don’t know, but either way, Mr. Bryan has great fun at her expense. Once, during a discussion about the incoming Santa Ana winds, Mr. Bryan suggested to Ms. Stanley that she stick her head out the window so she could get a refill. That’s the type of all-in-good-fun banter that goes on during their morning show.
Also accompanying Mr. Bryan is a seemingly soft-spoken producer named Samantha Stander, newscaster Bob Malik (who has a classic 60s news voice), and someone generally referred to as “Timmy the Cabana Boy”, who I assume is the show’s engineer. The ensemble works well together and they seem to genuinely like each other.
Although all the K-Earth announcers are quite talented and all have very distinctive personalities, my other favorites include “Shotgun” Tom Kelly, Dave Randall – unquestionably the hardest working all-night guy in the history of radio– and Christina Kelley, one of the top female personalities working in radio today.
Although oldies formats are fast disappearing round the country, KRTH does surprisingly well in the local ratings. According to K-Earth’s program director Jhani Kaye, the station ranks number four in the highly coveted 25-54 demographic, which underscores there is still a strong market for personality-driven radio.
So thank you Gary, Lisa, Bob, Charlie, Tom, Christina, and all your colleagues at K-Earth. In a world that sometimes moves too quick, is sometimes too impersonal, and is sometimes just too downright mean, it’s comforting to know there are still a few folks left in radio who are fun, civil, and a delight to listen to.
Share This Post
February 15, 2008 4:01 pm : Comments 001
Let’s face it, most airlines are indifferent about public relations. Although the major ones were once ranked among the most creative and effective brand marketers, today they are more concerned with trying to figure out how to cram more people on the plane than with making sure passengers are happy. United’s friendly skies are no longer quite so friendly, Delta is hardly ready when you are, and few travelers would say that American Airlines is still something special in the air.
But there is hope. I have found a smart, engaging airline public relations executive who is quite remarkable not only for her media smarts, but also for her savvy ability to permanently disarm one of her company’s critics. I’m talking about Abby Lunardini, director of corporate communications for Virgin America.
My dealings with Ms. Lunardini began last month when I contacted her for comment on an item I was considering about Virgin America. Without going into details, suffice to say that it probably wouldn’t have been a blog post that Ms. Lunardini or her bosses would have treasured.
As you know, I had already written some critical things about my experiences with this upstart airline, and had exchanged emails with senior management in the past. I wasn’t sure what type of reception I’d receive from Ms. Lunardini, but I assumed she knew the history and would, accordingly, hardly count herself among the blog’s biggest fans.
Ms. Lunardini defied my expectations. There was no cold shoulder, no blatant or subtle hostility, no Target-esque brush off of a mere blogger, and no tersely worded official statement or tight-lipped “no comment” in response to my less-than-favorable inquiry. Her professionalism, sincerity, and responsiveness were quite impressive.
But what really stands out is the way she subsequently used the opportunity provided by our dialogue to follow up on a request I made months ago to a Virgin America flight attendant for an autographed photo of Sir Richard Branson for my colleague Jackie Condie, who absolutely reveres the guy for his business acumen and PR smarts. Ms. Lunardini let me know that the photo request had not been forgotten and that she was hoping to get the photo signed when she saw Sir Richard at a party the company was throwing to celebrate the launch of service to San Diego.
Now here’s where I must confess to having an utterly shameless moment: I couldn’t help but ask Ms. Lunardini if it might be possible for Jackie to attend the San Diego celebration and meet Sir Richard in person. Not only did she oblige, she insisted that I come to the party as well. And so Jackie and I briefly found ourselves in southern California this week enjoying weather that should be considered sinful in mid-February.
Let’s just say Ms. Lunardini throws a heck of a party.
With help from an impressive group of representatives from the D.C. and Beverly Hills offices of Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, the flawlessly executed party at a trendy San Diego hotel was done in real style and class. Everything was to the king’s taste.
The party was filled with interesting people, ranging from Chamber of Commerce folks to Virgin America vendors. We also met a woman who made a critical video of Virgin America after her flight was delayed for some five hours. She, too, had been invited to the party.
Despite all the pressure Ms. Lunardini was clearly under, she still found time to make good on her promise. When we gave our names at the door, a representative from Ogilvy without looking at the list attentively said to Jackie, “Oh yes, you’re the one we need to make sure meets Mr. Branson.” You would have thought we were VIPs.
Just after 9 p.m., we were instructed to go to a quiet area upstairs. A few minutes later, we were introduced to Sir Richard who shared a few words and graciously agreed to pose for a photo with Jackie. Later we learned he was actually rather sick with the flu. You’d never have guessed it.
I’ve worked with Jackie for more than 10 years and I don’t recall a time she’s ever looked quite so thrilled. Ok, well, maybe at her wedding. Some people have asked us if spending a few minutes in his company was really worth the hassle and aggravation of making a cross-country trip in two days. Seeing the look on her face as she shook the man’s hand, there is no question about it. Definitely yes!
So many thanks Ms. Lunardini for an experience Jackie and I will never forget, and for changing this blogger’s perception of airline PR people. Like Virgin America itself, you are clearly a standout in your crowd.
Share This Post
February 5, 2008 12:05 pm : Comments 001
Update: The New York Times claims that the Portfolio piece was “inaccurate”.
Update 2: Alex Berenson admits some truth on NPR and The New York Times‘ comments had an element of spin.
More about Alex Berenson.
The New York Times‘ pharmaceutical industry reporter Alex Berenson scored a heck of a Page One scoop last week when he revealed that Eli Lilly was looking to reach a settlement with federal prosecutors over the company’s alleged inappropriate marketing of antipsychotic drug Zyprexa. A staggering “mea culpa” settlement figure of $1 billion or more was mentioned.
This was a big story, no question about it. Eli Lilly is a publicly traded company and the $1 billion settlement would be the largest ever paid by a drug company for improper drug marketing (so said the Times).
In the piece, reporter Alex Berenson cited sources who requested anonymity “because they have not been authorized to talk about the negotiations.” He also included a statement from an Eli Lilly representative saying, in part, “…we regularly have discussions with the government. However, we have no intention of sharing those discussions with the news media and it would be speculative and irresponsible for anyone to do so.”
So how did Mr. Berenson get the scoop? It turns out that it wasn’t through any tried-and-true gumshoe reporting techniques taught at j-school. He simply had the fortune of having the same last name as one of Eli Lilly’s attorneys.
According to a story posted today on Portfolio.com, one of the drugmaker’s outside attorneys at Philadelphia-based Pepper Hamilton had mistakenly emailed detailed, highly confidential information on the settlement talks to the reporter instead of Bradford Berenson, the intended recipient (co-counsel at another law firm).
The email gaffe, unquestionably one of the greatest fears of everyone handling sensitive information, is apparently the result of very similar email addresses: Mr. Berenson, the reporter, simply goes by berenson in his email address while Mr. Berenson, the attorney, goes by bberenson.
We can’t honestly fault the Times or its reporter for breaking this story. I would have done the same thing back in the day. But Mr. Berenson mislead by omission. He should have been upfront with readers about how he learned of the settlement talks. Since there was no official confirmation from either side, doing so would have gone a long way toward letting readers judge the credibility of the story for themselves. Mr. Berenson quotes Nina Gussack, a Pepper Hamilton lawyer representing Eli Lilly, as saying she couldn’t comment on the case. Judging from Eli Lilly’s own statement, it doesn’t appear that anyone alerted the company’s spokesperson as to how Mr. Berenson got the story.
Mr. Berenson’s earlier reporting on this topic has been called into question before. According to a respected federal judge, Mr. Berenson was “deeply involved” in an “illegal” scheme that effectively amounted to “stealing” documents. (Neither the Times nor Mr. Berenson have ever publicly explained the extent of his involvement.)
Eli Lilly is reportedly sticking by Pepper Hamilton, and I applaud the company for its loyalty. That said, I can’t help but wonder why an attorney at Pepper Hamilton had Alex Berenson’s email address in her email database in the first place. As I’ve argued before, reporters and attorneys are best left in separate corners. Especially when the latter specializes in high-profile, high-stakes crisis work. By any measure, Eli Lilly’s PR handling of allegations of wrongdoing regarding its Zyprexa marketing has been a debacle. If its attorneys are driving the media relations strategy, it’s easy to understand why.
Share This Post
January 29, 2008 1:01 pm : Comments 002
Earlier this month, I talked about the potential peril of looking to lobbyists for media relations counsel. Coverage this week in the New York Post reminds us to add attorneys to that list.
Throughout my career as both a journalist and PR guy, I’ve witnessed (and cringed) countless times as well-intentioned attorneys grabbed the reins in an eminent domain-like maneuver to “oversee” their client’s media relations strategies. Almost without exception, they ended up causing considerably more damage than they sought to avoid. Engaging the media, particularly in the midst of a scandal or high-profile litigation, is a highly specialized expertise that most attorneys don’t appreciate, let alone possess.
The past four issues of the New York Post provide a textbook example of what I’m talking about. On Saturday, the Murdoch-owned tabloid took the NYPD to task for its handling of Heath Ledger’s death. The paper demanded to know why the police had not yet questioned actress Mary-Kate Olsen, who various media reports have suggested was called numerous times by those in Mr. Ledger’s home before 911 was dialed. The gossip going around the grapevine is that Ms. Olsen had instructed the caller who found Mr. Ledger to immediately call private security guards rather than emergency services. According to the Post, “…questions loom over whether the Police Department came under pressure from Olsen’s considerable legal machine.”
And while the police may not have heard from Ms. Olsen, the Post reportedly heard from her legal team:
Olsen’s attorney, Michael Miller (law firm affiliation not identified), immediately responded that if a reporter were to write ‘anything that is false or defamatory about Mary-Kate Olsen, in connection with Heath Ledger’s death, you and the New York Post will be sued.’
My guess is that hardly a day goes by when Post editor Col Allan doesn’t receive at least one call or a letter from an attorney threatening to sue him and his paper for some story that’s been printed or is rumored to be in the works. Not only does he probably take those threats in stride, he probably quite enjoys receiving them as they serve as confirmation that he’s still got “it” – the ability to get under powerful people’s skin. If ever there was a talent valued among tabloid journalists, that’s got to be it.
Indeed, threatening the New York Post with a lawsuit, particularly on behalf of an entertainment client with a resplendent history as gossip column fodder, is tantamount to warning a schoolyard bully that you will “tell on him” if he keeps stealing your milk money. You’re practically begging him to call your bluff. Newspapers, particularly tabloids, are ever mindful of potential lawsuits. Rest assured, they have some pretty high-priced lawyers of their own to advise them when a story crosses the line and opens them up to litigation that would be tricky to defend against. While it is fair to say that an aggressive lawsuit threat could work to introduce a bit more care and fact-checking into the editorial process, it can really backfire when the media outlet’s lawyers determine that there’s no real exposure. Instead of just getting your milk money stolen, to keep with the earlier analogy, you’ll get a heck of a wedgie as well.
Don’t believe me? Well, first check out Saturday’s Post. Under a large red-and-white “Heath Ledger Mystery” banner, the cover screams:
The cops are afraid to ask Mary-Kate Olsen some simple questions.
WE ARE NOT!
WHY
1) DID you fail to call 911? 2) DID you send bodyguards?
In case Mr. Miller missed the Saturday edition, the newspaper raised the issue again in its Sunday edition, rerunning the Saturday cover as an accompanying photo. This time though, Mr. Miller is quoted as telling the Post that he’d call them back with the number of Ms. Olsen’s spokeswoman – ok, so he’s a quick study – but apparently never followed through. Being that Ms. Olsen has appeared more than a few times within Page Six, the Post unsurprisingly already had her number, not that it mattered. The spokeswoman apparently never called them back either.
The Post again raised the issue of Ms. Olsen not being interviewed in Monday’s edition and in today’s edition. Although rival publications have snickered that the Post’s reporting has been wrong, the newspaper remained undaunted. Whether or not the Post has good cause to carry on with their self-styled crusade is immaterial to its readers. They’ll just assume that something is driving Mary-Kategate, such as a credible inside source who has been whispering in their ear, and assign it validity.
While it is saddening to see the death of a young person, famous or not, turned into such a media circus, I must admit that the PR guy in me is interested to see how the story ultimately plays out with Mr. Miller et al. Something tells me it won’t be the Post that blinks.
Share This Post
January 10, 2008 12:12 pm : Comments 000
A story in today’s Wall Street Journal brought to mind a former client who appreciated the benefits of having me accompany him to appointments in Washington that his high-powered lobbyist had arranged for him. The meetings, typically with Congressional staffers and trade group leaders, never really accomplished a whole lot beyond the initial exchange of business cards. The client would give his spiel; the policy wonks would nod appreciatively, ask a few cursory questions, and then thank us for coming.
Although the desired policy impact our client wanted never materialized, his enthusiasm for them never waned. As an aside, I can’t help but note that his patience for a measurable result was not as abundant when it came to media relations. Any meeting with a reporter that failed to result in immediate favorable editorial coverage was a source of disappointment. Hmm… maybe we should go into the lobbying business. We could have set up those meetings – or even better, productive ones – at half the cost. But, alas, our collective pedigree sports no “unparalleled connections” or “enviable roster” of contacts on the Hill. And so it goes, and I digress…
Although we never trespassed or trampled on the turf of our client’s lobbyist, he never failed to do so on ours. He was always quick to suggest media ideas and the names of reporters we should contact. Most of the ideas and recommendations were pretty lame, but we respectfully kept our thoughts and snide comments to ourselves.
That lobbyist popped into my head as I read the Page One piece in today’s Wall Street Journal about foreign governments investing in Wall Street firms. A few paragraphs in, an unidentified lobbyist is quoted saying, “Our goal is to get a [page] B6 story in The Wall Street Journal and have no one mention it.”
I’m astounded that a Washington lobbyist could naively think that a significant investment by a foreign government in a major Wall Street firm would be covered on page B6 of The Wall Street Journal (and not just because the newspaper’s money and investing coverage is in the C-section).
Companies that rely on their lobbyists for media counsel clearly do so at their own peril.
Share This Post
December 3, 2007 7:42 am : Comments 000
My mother used to say that, when we were all a lot younger, she never worried about what my five siblings and I were doing as long as there was noise coming from upstairs. Our silence was apparently the dead giveaway that we were being mischievous. I must admit, more often than not, that was probably the case.
Fortunately, that’s not the case here. Although we have been “silent” on our blog for a wee while, it is not because we were up to no good. Quite the opposite. The truth is we’ve actually been focusing our energies on expanding our ranks again. We’ve been reviewing résumés, conducting candidate interviews, and talking to colleagues in the industry about possible job candidates for the entry- and mid-level positions currently available here.
The good news for public relations job-hunters is that we are still meeting with compelling candidates. If you’ve got what it takes to thrive in our roll-up-the-sleeves, intensely client-focused environment, we would very much like to hear from you. In addition to your résumé and cover letter, we ask that you also submit one or two writing samples as we are particularly eager to speak with candidates with impressive editorial skills.
Starkman & Associates is an equal opportunity employer offering competitive salaries, benefits, and above-average bonuses. We are located in midtown New York, near Grand Central and the NY Public Library. If interested in applying for a position with us, please mail or messenger your materials to:
Jacqueline Condie
Starkman & Associates
292 Madison Avenue, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10017
Questions? Feel free to use the contact form, to email me:
Share This Post
October 31, 2007 1:59 pm : Comments 001
It’s ok to be a Yankee fan. I’m not talking to you fair-weather fans who are wearing day-old baseball caps, but the true diehards who rooted for the Yankees in the hot summer sun even when they were 14+ games out of first place; the true fans of baseball. Yes, the Yankees had yet another post-season collapse, but it’s not the team’s on-field exploits that caused me to question my faith as a fan, despite what Red Sox Nation will have you believe.
This post-season featured another episode in the annual Torre saga: a high payroll, superstar-laden team having a round one failure, George Steinbrenner issuing an ultimatum, and Yankee management still tendering another contract. The difference this year? Joe Torre turned down the Yankees. My entire world tilted.
While the Yankees have seen better days, the fault lines (such as starting pitching) were there well before Game One played out in Cleveland; remember they had to have one of the best regular season comebacks in baseball history just to make it to the playoffs. If they were going to fire Torre though, which I was against, I wanted to see it done quickly and with the respect he deserved. Sadly, this was just wishful thinking
Keeping the Yankees in the national news is a guaranteed money maker, and Yankee management knows that. Baseball is currently in a golden age (despite the steroids abuse scandal), and the Yankees are its fussy diva. They are the team you love to hate or hate to love, but either way, you pay attention. The Yankees have an entire sport divided on their every move; is it any wonder that the Yankees cable network is worth twice as much as the team itself?
It’s hard to admit, but Boston pitcher Curt Shilling touched a nerve when he stated the obvious that the Yankees were “making sure we were updated every 15 minutes about when they were actually going to name their manager.” This was after more than 2 weeks of constant coverage on Torre’s fate. Sure New York’s rabid media plays a large part in the firestorm, but someone has to feed the beast, and no one else in baseball has done that better than Steinbrenner & Co. Ray Ratto of CBS Sports sums it up perfectly:
New York, though, throws its drama at you whether you want it or not, and demands that you be interested far beyond your capabilities, which is why the Torre story has so run its natural course.
Who else but the Yankees could turn a managerial job change into such high-stakes drama? At least four other MLB managers have moved on this season, yet none of them have had the relentless coverage of the Torre saga. Watch the national news and be hard-pressed to find any team in any sport coming close to the Yankees for coverage. A Google Trends search of George Steinbrenner shows that its not just people in the New York metro area who are curious about him. Call me na�ve, but is the team that I’ve loved since my childhood become nothing more than a “brand?”
Since their last World Series win in 2000, I’ve watched the “House that Ruth Built” being torn down for a new ballpark, the team consistently overpaying for “superstars” who lose in the post-season, Yankee heroes insulted by team executives and now Torre treated like an interim manager. Any one of these alone is a staggering hit to the hallowed legacy of the Yankees; collectively, they are near fatal blows. But it is this same legacy that sustains me as a fan.
DiMaggio, Gehrig, Mantle, Jeter, Torre – they all have their faults as people off the diamond, but there was no mistaking that they truly believed in what the Yankees stood for and they showed it nearly every day on the field. It is the players and pride that make the team and ultimately derive its value, not the other way around. This is what being a Yankee fan stands for.
While other fans may chide me for supporting a team that “buys” its victories, and forces out one of the greatest managers in the history of baseball, I still wear my pinstripes without hesitation. No matter what obstacles are thrown in its way, know that the Yankees will always be a team of history and heritage, as it always has been.
I have no doubt that Joe Girardi, the new Yankee skipper; will guide the Yankees into the next chapter with great class and success. After next season though, he’ll be doing it across the street, in the “House that Torre Built.”
Share This Post
October 29, 2007 11:54 am : Comments 000
The biggest advantage for any company with a monopoly is the freedom to pretty much throw out the customer service manual. Sure, you may have to do a dog-and-pony show to appease regulators every now and then, but at the end of the day you pretty much have free rein to dictate the rules of pricing and service, consumer be damned. AT&T Corp. before its court-ordered breakup in 1984 serves as a textbook example of the hazards when a company is allowed absolute domination of a market. That company’s attitude was best captured in a bumper sticker bearing the Bell logo and the following caption: “We don’t care. We don’t have to. We’re the phone company.”
Cable companies until just recently enjoyed such monopolistic freedoms, though their industry is probably better defined as an oligopoly. Individual cable providers long-enjoyed exclusive contracts to provide service to entire communities and apartment buildings, which has allowed them to raise prices more than a whopping 90 percent over the past 10 years. The ensuing monopolistic mindset is best reflected by their rigid pricing approach and broadly bundled channels, uniformly bad customer service, and appalling practice of expecting their customers to put up with a three- or four-hour time estimate of when a technician will be on-site to provide installation or maintenance service. Imagine a restaurant or your local pizzeria delivery joint trying to get away with that approach…
The Federal Communications Commission appears poised to serve the cable industry its just desserts. The New York Times reports today that the agency is preparing to invalidate all contracts that give individual cable companies exclusive rights to provide service in apartment buildings. The decision will likely prove to be a big boon for consumers, as studies show that when an alternative cable service is made available, prices can drop as much as 30 percent.
Verizon Communications and the new AT&T (not to be confused with the old, “Ma Bell” monopolistic one) are still in the process of rolling out their fiber optic services, but they do seem inclined to make an aggressive play for marketshare. Unfortunately for consumers, these two companies are also notorious for bad customer service, so I doubt we’ll find much relief on that front. But hey, if the increased competition drives down service costs across the field, that will be a small victory enough.
The cable industry has signaled it will challenge the FCC’s rule in court. No doubt the hearings will be scheduled to start sometime between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m.
Share This Post
top of page