THAT’S THE WAY THE COOKIE FUMBLES

This week's perspective from Joe Chidley:

What on earth was Stephen Duckett thinking? Faced with a public relations mess over emergency room wait times, the CEO of Alberta Health Services was button-holed by a gaggle of reporters as he was leaving a meeting on Nov. 19 – and munching on an oatmeal raisin cookie. To the journalists’ queries for comment, Duckett consistently replied “I’m eating my cookie” – not once, but several times over the course of more than two minutes as he made his way to his car, and as the cameras were rolling. Days later, Duckett was relieved of duty by Premier Ed Stelmach, who said the CEO’s comments were “offensive.” Well, that might be a stretch, but Duckett’s handling of the media interest was certainly ill-advised. In advising clients on how to deal with reporters, we here at Veritas make it clear that there are plenty of ways to field and deflect unwanted questions, often by blocking undesirable lines of inquiry and bridging to messages that you really do want to talk about. I’ve said myself many times that there’s nothing worse than saying “No comment.” But I was wrong: “Can’t you see I’m eating a cookie?” is, actually, a lot worse. Not to mention bizarre. Duckett’s refrain became a joke in Alberta, the subject of a viral video on YouTube, and (according to Graham Thomson’s cogent analysis in the Edmonton Journal) the inspiration for a parody remix of the Cookie Monster classic “C is for Cookie.” Fumble.

FUMBLE – ICAO OFFICIAL’S SPECULATION CATCHES HOMELAND SECURITY OFF GUARD

This week's perspective from Kathy Barnett:

We always advise clients to avoid speculation when dealing with media and this week’s example is no exception. Speaking to reporters at a United Nations meeting on global aviation standards, International Civil Aviation Organization Secretary General Raymond Benjamin claimed that his experts were developing technology that would see liquids and gels back on planes within two years. The statement caught U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano off guard, though, causing her to refute Benjamin’s remarks and assert that his commitment was premature. “The technology isn’t ready,” said Napolitano. Setting a deadline for a decision that is not yours alone to make can only lead to trouble down the road, and failing to align your stakeholders before staking a claim can seriously harm both your progress and your reputation. Benjamin jumped the gun and, in doing so, forced a key stakeholder to publicly contradict him.

“TOUCH” DOWN – AIRPORT SCANNER EVP BARES IT ALL

This week's perspective from Kathy Barnett: You don’t need to be a frequent flier to hear about the full frontal assault (pun intended) being waged against full body scans and pat-downs taking place in airports across North America. As evidenced by “Don’t touch my junk!” campaigns and organized protests during the busy U.S. holiday this week, new security procedures are not exactly being welcomed by travellers. Colourful anecdotes and tearful retellings of uncomfortable encounters are getting plenty of ink and airplay, largely because the pat-downs are an inexact science and, as a result, leave plenty of room for scrutiny and criticism. Enter Peter Kant, EVP at Rapiscan, the company that makes the full-body scanner that made headlines for its revealing technology. In an interview with Slate magazine, Kent offered fact after fact to underscore the precision of his company’s technology. More importantly, he pointed to it as the preferred alternative to the more invasive pat-downs, offering polling that shows 99 per cent of passengers would rather go through the Rapiscan machine than be patted down, and that more than 80 per cent of Americans approve of the use of the scanners in airports. In doing so, Kent effectively turned the spotlight away from scanners as the enemy and changed the channel, as we like to say, to one of support for technology over the human touch.

TOUCHDWON-TIGER'S PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE

You can quibble with the messaging in Tiger Woods’ recent media blitz, which involved an op-ed in Newsweek, a new Twitter presence and some select appearances on radio shows (no TV yet, however). Granted, some of it is the stuff of self-help TV, as the National Post’s Scott Stinson points out: “I still have the same drive to get better… That’s an each-and-every-day process,” Woods said on radio. And yes, we’ve heard some of this before – like the mea culpa in the Newsweek piece about how “even beyond accepting the consequences and responsibility, there is the ongoing struggle to learn from my failings.” Now, of course, here at TD+F we wish anyone well on his or her earnestly expressed path to recovery. But more than that, we think Tiger’s timing is spot-on, from a strategic point of view. As the anniversary of Tiger’s fatal (from a reputation perspective) encounter with a fire hydrant, a three-iron and the ensuing laundry list of licentious encounters draws near, it makes sense for Tiger to try to stake a position out in the inevitable retellings of the story, if only to ensure that his side of the story remains part of the dialogue. At the very least, by getting out in front of the one-year-on onslaught, he’s providing new fodder for the scribes to quote. Smart play. Good course management.

TOUCHDOWN-DUBYA'S CANDOUR GOES A LONG WAY

He’s still a tremendously polarizing figure, but George W. Bush has been doing a great job out on the book tour media circuit, sitting down with everyone from Oprah to Matt Lauer to Jay Leno. In talking about the seminal moments of his presidency, Bush has shied away from neither admitting mistakes nor defending decisions, giving us a remarkable candid perspective on what he was thinking at those moments and why he took the actions he did. Freed from the mantle of the office, Bush – like so many other “formers” – has come across as remarkably much more human and, by extension, I would submit more credible, than when he was speaking from the Oval Office. And with a double-digit spike in his approval rating over the past couple of weeks, apparently I’m not alone.

TOUCDOWN-THESE AREN'T YOUR PARENT'S ROYALS

It’s easy to get gushy about the engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton. A young, attractive, engaging pair, both of whom (despite his life of privilege) have come across in their media appearances this week as being very much like any other pair of vibrant contemporary twentysomethings. William was especially down to earth in his comments to the BBC in the couple’s exclusive interview, talking about how daunting the act of popping the question can be “as any guy knows” and laughing at his own tales of trying to impress Kate by cooking her elaborate meals which routinely turned to disaster. And although surely prepped by Buckingham Palace communications staff, Kate was both confident, warm and occasionally vulnerable, responding to the inevitable Diana question by calling her an inspiration and lamenting that she wished she’d had the chance to meet the late Princess, mother of her fiancée. All around, the interview framed William and Kate as the royal couple most of us would like to hang out with best – and that’s a Touchdown for the House of Windsor.

TOUCHDOWN- FEDS FINESSE FLOW OF AFGHAN MISSION STORY

Governments are always reluctant to change course on matters of policy – it opens the possibility of being denounced as “indecisive” or “flip-flopping.” So it was an especially tall communications order for the Harper government to manage the announcement that, despite its adamant declarations of a complete end to Canadian military operations in Afghanistan by next summer, some Canadian troops will remain in place to further assist with training the Afghan National Army. The challenge was to manage the story such that it started with a trickle and percolated gently into the media, rather than come out hard and fast as “breaking news of a dramatic reversal.” And on that score, it was a Touchdown. It started with strategic leaks that a change was under consideration, which led to Defence Minister Peter MacKay on the Sunday talk shows confirming that something was coming, culminating with the official word from Prime Minister Stephen Harper later in the week that a training-only role would continue for the Canadian Forces beyond July. Harper himself massaged it nicely, telling reporters that it wasn’t his first choice but it’s clearly the right thing to do, and further saying that it won’t be put to a Parliamentary debate or vote because it is NOT a combat mission, but a training role – again creating an opportunity to stress that, in his view, the two are very different animals.

FUMBLE –MCDONALDS GETS PRICKLY OVER POPPIES

I think Joe Warmington put it best in his Toronto Sun column when he said “sometimes you have to throw out the rule book.” After a 16-year old Brantford McDonalds worker was told she couldn’t wear a poppy on her uniform because it somehow presented a health and safety danger, the fast food giant found itself under fire for being the Grinch who stole Remembrance Day. Head office issued a statement saying the right things about honouring our veterans their sacrifices, but it stuck by the policy – which, to the average person, doesn’t make logical sense. How is one pin (the poppy) a danger, when employee name-tags (also held on by pins) are just fine? Every organization – especially one so public-facing as McDonalds – needs to think about the possible media/PR ramifications of every policy decision it makes. I’m sure they feel they have solid grounds for the poppy ban, but the optics are absolutely terrible.

FIRST DOWN – OBAMA ADMITS “SHELLACKING”

 This week's perspective from Bob Reid: 

U.S. President Barack Obama’s description of the Democratic losses in this week’s midterm congressional elections became the headline: “a shellacking.”  Pretty accurate, I’d say.  But it was his subsequent – and, some would say, inevitable – comments about wanting to sit down with the leaders of both parties to try and find a way forward that all could live with that I thought set the tone well for moving on.  And kudos to the Chief for making clear that he gets it, as evidenced by this comment from Sunday’s forthcoming one-on-one with 60 Minutes:  “Over the course of two years we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn’t just legislation, that it’s a matter of persuading people and giving them confidence and bringing them together and setting a tone and making an argument that people can understand,” Obama told interviewer Steve Croft.  Indeed.  If people can’t get their heads around what you’re selling, you’re sunk.  Clarity is essential, especially in the context of political communications.

TOUCHDOWN – LIVING LARGE

This week's perspective from Joe Chidley:

 Everybody who’s worked in journalism has at one time or another found himself defending the entire profession for the endless onslaught of bad news with which it inundates hapless citizens. “What,” journalists are often asked, “is wrong will telling some good news now and then?” Well, we here at TD&F have an answer for that (usually, “good” news ain’t “news” at all), and if anything our complaint would be that there’s too much fluff, not enough substance in today’s media mix. But once in a while the journalism profession serves up a truly inspirational, even meaningful story that melts even our crusty old hearts—and defies the widely held view that all news media are thirsty for blood, sex and sensationalism. Case in point: the story of Nova Scotia couple Allen and Violet Large, who won $11.25 million in a lottery last year only to give it all away to family and charity. The story got play across the country this week, including a front-page photo in the Friday Globe and Mail (above the fold!) and a great quote in the inside story from the 78-year-old Ms. Large, who recently underwent chemotherapy. “We haven’t spent even one penny on ourselves,” Globe reporter Oliver Moore quotes her as saying. “Why spend money when you already have everything you need?” Great story, even if it’s not about scandal and mayhem. And good on the press for covering it—well.

FUMBLE – WHAT’S THE SOURCE?

This week's perspective from Joe Chidley: The foodie twitter-sphere was aghast this week at allegations of plagiarism leveled at Cooks Source magazine, which according to a writer named Monica Gaudio reprinted a story she posted online in 2005 called “A tale of two tarts”—but without her knowledge, permission, nor any payment at all. What makes this a communications misfire is the response from the magazine’s managing editor, Judith Griggs, who in response to Gaudio’s complaint retorted that content found on the Web is public domain, and that the editorial process vastly improved the story—so basically, Gaudio should be thanking her, not complaining. Later, on Facebook, Griggs boasted that the controversy had boosted the magazine’s Facebook fan base from 110 to 1870—prompting one reaction that called the post “smug, arrogant and tone-deaf.” It’s hard to disagree. And it seems that Cooks Source in its response broke a couple cardinal rules of crisis communications. First, don’t attempt to minimize the impact of alleged wrongdoing—that just makes you look more concerned for your own skin than for the damage that’s been done. And second—and it’s a big one—get your facts straight. In this case, it’s just not true that what’s posted on the Web is public domain—it’s protected by the same copyright laws as any other form of content. Now, the magazine has become the target for a slew of allegations of ripping off stories (including from The Food Network)—and Gaudio’s complaint might just be the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

FUMBLE RECOVERY – KKK COSTUMER GUY FINALLY GETS IT

This week's perspective from Bob Reid:

“What were they thinking?” was the question on everyone’s mind following news that two goons showed up at the Campbellford Legion Hall Hallowe’en party, one dressed as a Ku Klux Klan member, dragging the other (a white guy with his face painted black) around by a noose.  It was utterly distasteful and utterly embarrassing for all involved, including the mayor of Campbellford and senior officials with the Royal Canadian Legion.  So it was entirely appropriate that Klan-sheeted Blair Crowley would say “I apologize if I offended anybody.”  Trouble is, he didn’t quit there, but rather continued on to tell a reporter that “that stuff (slavery) has been gone for years and years and years. I don’t see why the reaction is the way it is. That’s so past tense. It’s a piece of history from long ago … People need to worry about something other than that.”  Fumble!  Much like last week’s incident with Ontario cabinet minister Glen Murray, this is another “I’m sorry, but …” kind of apology.  When you’ve done something publicly stupid, and especially when others have taken offence, you end up undoing any gains from the apology if you then try and suggest that people really oughta lighten up.  It took another 24 hours for Crowley to get it right, telling Toronto Sun columnist Joe Warmington “I didn’t see it as a big thing and thought it was just a Halloween costume but after the fact I realize it’s just stupid and was extremely poor judgment.  I am sorry for what I have done and take 100% responsibility.”  That’s more like it, and the sincerity of both Crowley and his partner warrants calling this one a Fumble Recovery.