Seat at the Table

Source: New York Times - Economist Obama v BP Cover

The Economist is taking a lot of flack for putting an edited picture of Obama on the front cover.  The picture shows Obama alone whereas the original picture had Obama with several other people of prominence.   The Economist seems to think it was a small infraction as they were simply trying to convey an idea – that Obama was alone vs. BP – and not the fact that Obama stood alone.  Had they done a drawn illustration this would have been fine as an illustration, by definition, means it’s not a factual image.  However, they choose to use an image without disclosing it was edited from a different picture.  Many people, including myself, assumed this was a picture of Obama standing by himself.  

Now The Economist is on the defensive and trying to explain the picture instead of simply saying they messed up and will never again show an edited photo without disclosing that it was edited.   Generally, I like to trust The Economist with the facts. But unless they get their apology and photo disclosure rules in order, how can I trust them the next time they try to convey a fact with a photo?

Lesson to PR Pros (and clients) – there are bad apples everywhere, I do commonly see public relations professionals (starting with our team) always making sure communications are transparent and disclosure is up front.  The purpose is to make sure communications help engage and inform an audience…and never mislead.   And we always counsel to err on the side of too much vs. too little disclosure.   Because even a perceived misleading statement or piece of information means an organization

Here’s a good review of the situation from Business Insider./
http://www.businessinsider.com/busted-the-economist-photoshops-obama-to-make-him-look-more-depressed-and-alone-2010-7

And the article the photo refers to (the article photo seems to be simply cropped)
http://www.economist.com/node/16377269?page=2

The next time I get into an “advertising vs. PR” debate, I’ll have this commercial handy to show why it’s not an either-or situation.    Just watch it this great story with a strong message – told only the way a commercial format can tell it…and then leveraged by PR the way only PR can leverage it. 

Click here for the press release.

Spirit Airlines has been pummeled by everyone from consumer groups to news commentators to Senator Charles Schumer for announcing carry on baggage fees.  Surely they saw this coming.  But perhaps their problem was not announcing the fees, but not being aggressive enough in doing so…with a twist (or, yes, a spin).

Spirit Airlines is aiming to charge some of the lowest ticket prices.  I have found them to be consistently low priced compared to other airlines for comparable routes.  The problem is that instead of keeping everyone focused on leadership low ticket prices, they are quickly gaining a reputation for leadership in fees.  The exact opposite.    My advice, don’t fight with a Senator Schumer type complaint directly, but fight the message by changing the conversation.

First, lay the groundwork – Make it clear via editorial (earned) media, social media and paid media that Spirit Airlines core mission is to get people from point A to point B for the cheapest ticket price possible by stripping away all extras.  If you want extras, that’s also an option and the ticket price is then comparable to other airlines (it is, I checked).

Second, change the conversation about fees into one about passengers only paying the part of the flight they use.  Why should I pay for someone else that wants to use more of the airlines space (overhead) and time (staff time for boarding is longer with more overhead luggage).  These aren’t fees for carry on baggage, this is higher ticket price for people that want to use more of the airplane’s (and, annoyingly, my) time and space. 

Third, counterattack and challenge the critics.  Use the above points to make it crystal clear that people trying to kill their model are really trying to kill the cheapest ticket prices.   Challenge the critics to show if they can deliver a business model with the same ticket prices, the same level of service and the same level of fairness in paying only for the airline resources you use.   Let the critics know if they can meet this challenge – complete with technical, financial and proof of maintaining good service (e.g., no annoying carry on baggage), you would happily sit down and see if you can implement their models.

And if this debate goes on, make the challenge more public.  Make the Web site message clear that you are the fairest airline by not only charging the lowest basic ticket price, but by charging for the space and time you use, not what other people use.  After all, what beats both cheap and fair.

The popularity of the iPhone has actually resulted in an ongoing reputation problem for AT&T – that of having an unreliable network that often drops calls.  The typical response I’ve seen in this situation is to listen to the complaint and promise, with an outline plan, to fix the problem.  Then, hopefully, fix it and problem is solved.

As this problem won’t get fixed overnight, how can AT&T do more than just make a promise?  Get customers involved in fixing the problem.  AT&T is doing this by launching an app for the iPhone – iPhone users seem to be the most vocal in complaining about this issue.    The app to the right shows how people can quickly log on to the app and report the problem complain.  AT&T will then use the data to beef up the network and stop dropped calls.

Time will tell if it works but I do think that customers are more forgiving when they truly believe a company is working on a solution.  Involving them in the implementation of the solution itself is a great way to rebuild trust.

Read more at

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/12/iphone-app-reports-dropped-calls-poor-voice-quality-to-att/

A few days ago I called an office supply store looking for a specific item.  After dealing with multiple, transfers, wait times, mumbling personnel, lack of “please” and “thank you” and zero apologies after explaining that I’d been on hold a while, I gave up.  Of course, I then starting thinking about an old favorite topic – customer service and corporate reputation. 

I’ve always believed that reputation can be shaped (and word of mouth driven) by great customer service.  Just look at Jetblue or Zappos as examples of building phenomenal brands selling commodity items but with great customer service. 

To back this claim up a bit more, I took a survey of 60 professionals on LinkedIn.  First I asked them what had the greatest impact on their opinion of a company.    When the choice was “what people say” versus news, search engine results and customer service, then “what people way” was the overwhelming choice.  This makes sense as a bad experience might be chalked up as the exception if ten friends say they love it. But when this option was dropped, then customer service was the overwhelming winner for what impacts the opinion of a company. 

Why is this important?  In the end, companies have a lot more control over their customer service than word of mouth.  So perhaps instead of focusing resource on WoM and other PR related tactics, they should start seeing customer interactions as a primary PR tool.

So, is this good or bad for public relations departments?  If they can quickly develop capabilities and influence in training and measuring (from a reputation perspective), customer service and other customer facing interactions, then I believe it can be a huge boost.

PS NOTE: Unlike previous posts, I’ve chosen to leave out the company name.  I’ve decided that the point of this blog is not to bash companies publicly (there are plenty of others that do that) but to learn lessons from the action of others. 

Every company makes mistakes.   How those mistakes are handled can shape a company’s reputation.  See Jeff Bezos and the great Amazon Kindle 1984 deletion or the Jet Blue stuck on a runway apology for serious big company examples.    But a mistake and apology can make a customer feel better about how a company handles customer service.   Poll Everywhere shows how.

Here’s the apology I got after they sent out a messed up mass email.  I did not even notice the original email but the apology caught my eye, starting with the subject line.  And I came away thinking that this is an honest, transparent, customer oriented company with a great sense of humor.

Subject: Poll Everywhere – We’re Boneheads

Hi Ephraim,
Just wanted to apologize and say that we know your name is not "FNAME"   Oops.
We’re so bad at this spamming thing… We don’t even know how to do a proper mail merge!
Jeff

I wasn’t thinking happy thoughts about Poll Everywhere before this email.  I am now.

Companies issuing statements about mistakes often pull punches and blame unseen forces.  The result are apologies that do little to protect, let alone build reputation.  Then there’s Amazon’s Jeff Bezos.  He (and his PR team) shows how to address a major mistake in a way that can actually strengthen reputation. 

The brief background:  Amazon got into a bit of reputation trouble last week when they deleted books from people’s Kindle e-reader without notifying them (including, oddly enough, 1984).  This was the result of the books being bought from an Amazon seller that did not have the right to sell it.  However, consumer sentiment was that this was a personal violation by Amazon and one that highlighted that you don’t really own them the way you own physical books (people asked if Amazon would have raided houses to take back books illegally sold?).

But then Mr. Bezos comes out with an apology so straightforward, it would be hard to doubt both the sincerity of the apology or of the commitment to doing better for customers:

This is an apology for the way we previously handled illegally sold copies of 1984 and other novels on Kindle. Our "solution" to the problem was stupid, thoughtless, and painfully out of line with our principles. It is wholly self-inflicted, and we deserve the criticism we’ve received. We will use the scar tissue from this painful mistake to help make better decisions going forward, ones that match our mission.
With deep apology to our customers,
Jeff Bezos
Founder & CEO
Amazon.com

The apology was issued on the Kindle forum and customer feedback on the forum was overwhelmingly positive.  You can see it here.

This is a great example of what makes a great customer service reputation – a combination of the right communication and business action..  It’s not that the service is perfect as that is rare, it’s that the company is honest about their mistakes and aggressive about fixing them.

Nielsen’s new global consumer survey provides interesting food for though into what people “trust” in terms of information sources. 

For example, from a PR point of view its notable that keyword ads on search engines are lower down on the trust level.  But they can still work well for advertisers.  On the other hand, brand web sites and sponsorships were high up next to consumer opinions and editorial content.  I’ve seen PR use a lot of brand material/web sites and sponsorships (e.g., CSR, trade sponsorships in the B2B world) for getting the information.  It’s may be interesting to note that the trust level of those sources is at the same level of editorial content.  

I recently gave a presentation a the Bulldog Reporter’s Measurement Summit on how to show PR’s contribution to the business’ bottom line to the C-suite.  Here were some key points (the presentation that served as the backdrop is below).

1. Do you want to be seen as drivers of PR campaigns (after decisions are made) or PR counsel (as a part of decisions) – Presenting measurement data is often a historical look at campaigns.  However, it can also be a forward looking process that shows how PR can play a critical role in making better business decisions.
2. Three rules to follow  – Take an audience research based approach to presenting to your CEO (it’s harder to ignore the audience than it is the PR executive’s advice), use business language and provide business counsel.
3. Make your counsel actionable – Don’t wait for the CEO to ask what to do; let your data show what the options are to consider and why.
4. Present data driven business counsel – Valued PR counselors are that because they are presenting business (not just PR) counsel backed up by data (not opinion).   In the idea situations, business decisions consider the PR impact as part of the decision making process.
5. Focus on audience data – Even for CEOs that love to see their name in print, it’s the audience data that is critical to business decision making and, by extension, draws you closer to them as a trusted business counsel.
6. Look forward, not back – Measurement systems and presentations often focus mostly on what has been done.  CEOs, however, are always looking forward.  So be sure to measure what has been done, but then quickly and substantially focus on what the company can learn from the measurement data and how that data can help steer better future decisions (and communications).
7. Let the visuals present a data driven story – Measurement dashboards should not simply be some dials reflecting PR metrics but a series of charts that tell the CEO a data driven story – one that can be used to make business decisions.  As an example, I showed a dashboard that started with news share of voice and ended with data on what search terms consumers were increasingly using.  This showed an upward trend on what topics people were interested in (and what language and brands they used to look for those topics).  This type of information can be used for anything from product development to marketing decisions.

Bulldog PR Measurement Summit_Translating PR Results to Business Results

Researchers at Hebrew University put together some interesting data showing how local social networking can be (article is here).

The research looked at 100,000 Facebook users as well as the location 4,500 e-mail messages received.  As noted by the chart below, the more local the sender-receiver, the higher the density of messages. 

This is consistent with what I’ve seen in every day life.  People connect online with those they know offline – and people tend to know people locally.  Not to say there are not global benefits as the tale of lower density of messages may reflect that valuable global reach we did not two decades ago.  However, this type of data is an important reminder that when reaching many audiences, having a local, geographic focus is an important part of being targeting the demographic.