FUMBLE – GREENPEACE TACTICS TRUMP MESSAGE

This week's perspective from Bob Reid: Any time your tactics trump your message, it’s a communications Fumble – and that’s my call on Greenpeace for its stunt this week at a hearing by Ontario Power Generation into plans for new nuclear power generation in Ontario. Greenpeace says it’s a bad idea given the situation still playing out in Japan – but that message was lost when four activists chained themselves to a table and ended up shutting down the hearings altogether. The story was about the protest and the stunt, and not about any substantive positioning Greenpeace might have on the issue. It got loads of media play, but it was all about the tactic, not the message. Fumble.

FUMBLE – CHRIS BROWN GETS SHIRT-TAKING-OFF ANGRY

This week's perspective from Joe Chidley: Goodness! Those hip-hop stars! Chris Brown, the singer who is arguably more famous for abusing his once-girlfriend than for his talent – and who has produced precisely zero songs that we here at Touchdowns & Fumbles have heard – appeared on Good Morning America this week to talk about his new album F.A.M.E. (And no, we don’t know why there are periods in there….) Unfortunately, interviewer Robin Roberts wanted to talk about what Brown would like to put in the past – namely, his beating-up Rihanna. So Roberts asked questions accordingly, and Brown responded with terse replies about not wanting to talk about things that happened two years ago. General discomfort ensued. Brown reportedly returned to his dressing room and proceeded to trash it, then stormed out of the GMA studio in a rage (and out of his shirt – again, don’t ask us why he felt the need to disrobe). The conversation among gossip-site followers centred on whether or not Roberts staged a media ambush of Brown. In response, GMA and Roberts were adamant that they had vetted the interview questions with Brown’s staff beforehand. Our take: it doesn’t matter. When you’re the subject of an interview, especially a live one, whatever deals you’ve pre-arranged can quickly be thrown out the window – either by the reporter or by events. Interviewees need to be prepared for not only the questions that are on the script, but the ones that might come out of left field too. Surely, it couldn’t have surprised Brown that Roberts would ask tough questions about Rihanna – he should have been ready to do more to answer them than mumble about ancient history and trash a dressing room. That is just so cliché.

ELECTION CALL ROUNDUP

This week's perspective from Bob Reid: I love the smell of diesel in the morning … fire up those campaign buses. We’ll have lots to say about the communications plays flowing out of the federal election campaign, so let’s start off with a quick round-up on the spin efforts of the three national party leaders out of the gate. Touchdown to the Conservatives for their two-pronged strategy. First, it was Prime Minister Stephen Harper on the high road, denouncing “political games” for an “unnecessary election” all couched in the context of a still fragile global economy and the need for a steady hand on the tiller where Canada’s fiscal course is concerned. Then, on the flip side, were stalwart spinners John Baird and former Harper Chief of Staff (now Conservative campaign chair) Guy Giorno raising the spectre of a Liberal-NDP-BQ “coalition” at every turn. Together, both prongs played up Conservative strong points and opposition vulnerabilities. The “coalition” question was quickly put to Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, who punted – refusing to engage on it, talking instead of the “red door or blue door” choice facing Canadians. It’s a good example of reframing the question, but it shows how effective the Conservatives have been on the “coalition” issue and it’s a question Ignatieff will need a better way to handle going forward. Finally, NDP Leader Jack Layton has been consistent in pointing the finger back at Harper in terms of who’s really to blame for sending Canadians to the polls, saying his party tried to be cooperative but it was Harper who “made the choice” to have an election instead. Get comfortable, folks – it’s going to be a busy month.

FUMBLE – THE BORDER AGENCY BLAMES THE CUSTOMER

This week's perspective from Joe Chidley: The Toronto media were all over the story on March 16 when a reported backlog of 1,000 arriving air passengers lined up at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport, waiting to be processed by Immigration. Some of the passengers said they waited a whopping three hours to get through the line, without adequate bathroom facilities and no place to sit down. Some passengers claimed that there were fewer than 10 Customs booths opened at Pearson’s Terminal One. But the Canada Border Services Agency was having none of it. Instead of taking its medicine and simply vowing to do better next time, a spokesperson for the CBSA dismissed the complaints and told the Toronto Star that “the longest wait time was 90 minutes” – hundreds of passengers just had their facts wrong. And the claim that there were less than 10 booths opened? “Those numbers are way off,” responded the CBSA. This is not an approach we here at Veritas would generally advise. (Can we say it any more nicely?) When you’re in a crisis and people are complaining, it doesn’t really matter what the details are: people are mad as hell and telling them they can’t count or tell time is hardly going to make them feel – or your organization look – any better. To put it bluntly, the CBSA’s response was insensitive and out-of-touch with the public mood. And it’s the kind of thing reporters love to jump on. Granted, the CBSA acknowledged that even a 90-minute wait was unacceptable, and it worked hard to fix the problem the next day. But once it had questioned the veracity of the people waiting in line, it was far too late. The Star ran its piece on the long lineups and the CBSA’s nitpicking on the front page, with a photo of hundreds of waiting passengers and the headline: “How many of these people are lying?” Ouch.

TOUCHDOWN – HARPER ANGERS MEDIA BUT PRESERVES HIS MESSAGE

This week's perspective from Bob Reid: As a former reporter – and a former political press secretary – I can tell you that it’s never a happy time for either party when a politician refuses to take media questions at a public event. The reporters get angry, and the flak has to take the heat. But at the end of the day, it’s the broader communications strategy – and, ultimately, how the story plays out – that really matters. Case in point: yesterday in Brampton, Prime Minister Stephen Harper gave a speech that was entirely focused on the economy. He summarized the efforts of his government’s stimulus measures during the global economic crisis, and announced a new coming tax credit for parents. If they had been given the chance, the reporters who were there might have asked questions about some of that, but they most certainly would also have sought fresh comment on allegations of influence peddling by a former aide, and on the potential for Harper’s government to be found in contempt of Parliament. By refusing to engage at all, Harper ensured that there were no fresh quotes from him to fan the flames of those “off- message” stories. Sure, it’s still front-page stuff, but Harper’s not amplifying it further (at least in today’s papers). And what’s also in the papers are clean accounts of his speech and the economic message he wanted to deliver. Harper did what all smart communicators should: assess the story in play and ask yourself, do I really want to engage on this and add more fuel to it? Or is it better, as it was in this case, to take the much less painful hit for not being available for comment? You’ve always got to take the longer view of how your actions will ultimately play out in the story, and then choose your communications strategy accordingly.

FUMBLE – TRUDEAU SINKS IN SEMANTICAL SWAMP

This week's perspective from Bob Reid: MP Justin Trudeau was at the centre of a semantical storm this week, after taking exception with the use of the word “barbaric” in a federal government publication describing practices tolerated in some other countries, such as “honour killings, female genital mutilation, forced marriage or other gender-based violence.” Discover Canada is the publication at issue, a booklet given to new immigrants to help educate them about Canadian society and to prepare them to take the citizenship test. Trudeau felt that “barbaric” had too much of a tone of moral superiority to it, and thinks “absolutely unacceptable” would be more appropriate verbiage for a government publication. It came as absolutely no surprise to me that the subtlety of the semantical debate got completely lost in the resulting spin-driven reaction. The Conservatives pounced on it, with a spokesperson for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney saying “Despite Trudeau's opposition, we make no apologies for letting immigrant women know their rights. We won't turn a blind eye to the abuse of immigrant women, even if the Ignatieff Liberals prefer we err on the side of political correctness.” By objecting to the word “barbaric,” Trudeau set the stage for people to hear/conclude that he doesn’t believe the acts in question are, in fact, “barbaric.” Regardless of the validity of what he was really saying, his message got strangled in the weeds around this one – and that’s a Fumble.

PUNT – HARPER KICKS BALL TO OPPOSITION

This week's perspective from Bob Reid: Not unlike the NHL situation, the actions of some wings of Stephen Harper’s government (i.e. Bev Oda and the I-don’t-know-oh-wait-it-was-me changed document) set a broader issue in motion which now has the focus squarely on the leadership and overall culture of his administration. This week’s ruling by Commons Speaker Peter Milliken on the Oda affair and the withholding of information from a parliamentary committee (on the cost of anti-crime agenda items) could set the stage for the government being found in contempt of Parliament. That would be a first, and the spectre has handed the opposition parties a fresh spin weapon in advance of an expected election campaign. Harper’s course is locked, evidenced by his refusal to sack Oda and dismissing the whole thing as opposition politics. But the other parties are leveraging the situation to their maximum communications benefit, re-positioning the upcoming “ballot question” as one of confidence in the integrity and ethics of the Harper administration.

FUMBLE – NHL TAKES SHOT TO THE HEAD

This week's perspective from Bob Reid: Setting aside any argument about whether Boston Bruin Zdeno Chara’s hit on Montreal’s Max Pacioretty was clean, excessive or criminal, let’s look at the communications situation it has caused. What began as an incident between two members of an organization with many, many members has now mushroomed into a critical issue for the top leadership of the NHL. A hockey check is now the subject of a Quebec criminal investigation, a threat by Air Canada to pull its sponsorship of the league, a critical public letter from Habs owner Geoff Molson and even concerned comments from Prime Minister Stephen Harper . The reaction from the NHL – and Commissioner Gary Bettman in particular – has been underwhelming at best. He has defended the call, rejected the idea of further action, and even told a U.S. Congressional panel that the league doesn’t want to “over-legislate” in the area of head shots. Again, setting aside the specifics of the hit at issue, from a broader communications standpoint, Bettman isn’t doing enough. If he was, he wouldn’t be facing the revolts that he is. Any organization under fire needs to demonstrate that it “gets it” – that it understands there is an issue at play, and that it takes it seriously, whether it agrees with the opinions being expressed by critics or not. Usually, establishing some sort of process to at least “examine” the sore point is a wise move – it demonstrates the “we get it” factor and becomes a repository for future complaints until such time as it completes its work, makes recommendations, or says we think everything’s fine. Whatever the form, the NHL needs to step up its game in this highly contentious issue area.

FUMBLE – AGENCY STAFFER DROPS THE F-BOMB ON CHRYSLER CLIENT

This week's perspective from Joe Chidley: The social media world and the marketing mavens who circle it were all a-twitter this week over one of the biggest gaffes in the brief history of tweeting. The incident occurred when a staffer at New Media Strategies, an online brand promotion agency that did work for Chrysler , tweeted this tidbit of vehicular observational comedy: “I find it ironic that Detroit is known as the #motorcity and yet no one here knows how to f[---]ing drive.” We’ll leave it to people more familiar with Detroit to say whether the observation is accurate. But the real problem here is this: the NMS staffer posted the tweet using Chrysler’s twitter account. Compounding the error, the automaker’s new-ish marketing campaign is all about celebrating Detroit as “Motor City,” and the staffer (who apparently thought he was tweeting on his personal account, but whose job involves tweeting on behalf of clients) also didn’t bother to edit the f-bomb, as we have done above so as not to offend the tender sensibilities of Touchdown and Fumbles’ loyal readership. In response, and perhaps not surprisingly, Chrysler has announced it is not renewing its contract with NMS, and the agency fired the staffer. What’s the lesson here? Well, this seems to us to be more than your garden-variety major mess-up, or an object lesson in the value of not hiring idiots. It also speaks to the need for any entity dabbling in social media to pay strict attention to protocols, clearances and approvals. How many people have access to branded social media accounts? Who vets their postings? And what’s the approvals process before anything goes out to the big wide world? It might be for some clients these aren’t pressing issues – but for any large, complex organization with a fully fledged social media effort, they are questions that need to be answered. The social media space might be free, but it is not a free-for-all. As with any communications effort, adult supervision is always required.

TOUCHDOWN – MCGUINTY LAUGHS OFF POLL

This week's perspective from Bob Reid: Sometimes a little humour goes a long way. Premier Dalton McGuinty showed that this week when questioned by reporters about new polling data showing him with a lowest ever approval rating, akin to where Gordon Campbell was when he decided to resign as Premier of British Columbia. “You know things are bad when I was walking (his dog) Mikki this morning and she refused to stay at my side. She said I was holding her back,” McGuinty quipped. Making light of a bad news situation can be a clever communications move, under appropriate circumstances. By being self-deprecating, the Premier showed he still has a sense of humour and also suggested he’s not greatly troubled by the data, going on to note that polls always go up and down and that his standing in them is not among the issues that voters ask him about. Again, you have to pick your spots with humourous responses – an ill-timed joke can be disastrous – but in this case I think it worked out very well.

TOUCHDOWN: LADY GAGA FINDS HER PRINCESS ARAGON

This week's perspective from Joe Chidley: Maybe it’s just us, but the phrase “warm and fuzzy human being” doesn’t spring to mind when we think if Lady Gaga. And yet the queen of schlock pop has managed to make everyone believe that a big heart beats beneath all those sequins, with her mentorship of Maria Aragon – a cute little 10-year-old from Winnipeg. Gaga “discovered” Aragon in a video of the cherubic ‘Pegger performing the anthem “Born This Way,” which went viral on YouTube – attracting more than 17 million views. Gaga tweeted about the kid to her followers, saying she “can’t stop crying watching this” and proclaiming young Aragon to be “the future.” Then, for her Toronto concert this week, Gaga invited Aragon to join her in a special duet performance of the song, after which the superstar dutifully choked up with tears. Genuine? Forced? Who cares? By showing herself interested in her young fans and committed to showcasing young talent, Lady Gaga has another hit (of the PR variety) on her hands.

TOUCHDOWN – FORD FINDS HIS GRAVY

This week's perspective from Bob Reid: The whole Toronto Community Housing Corporation expenses fiasco brought with it a host of communications Fumbles for the organization itself, but the communications opportunities it provided to Mayor Rob Ford were something else entirely. When the world hands you lemons, you make lemonade. When the city auditor handed Ford a boat full of gravy in the form of a damning report of wanton disregard for taxpayers’ money, the mayor happily loaded up on biscuits and mashed potatoes. And dine out Ford did, denouncing the findings, demanding the resignation of all involved, all the while reinforcing his brand as the guy who came to clean house and show “respect for taxpayers.” Smart communications is all about taking advantage of opportunities to advance your message, and this one came gift-wrapped. And it was a welcome turn of events for Ford as well, given that just a week ago, he was under fire for deciding to bring in outside auditors to root out waste at city hall. What a difference a few days can make.

RECOVERY: NELLY FURTADO GIVES BACK

This week's perspective from Joe Chidley: In the music world, corporate gigs occupy a kind of shadow world – hardly ever publicized, rarely even publicly acknowledged. And you can see why: regular fans these days pay so much for concert tickets to see their favourite stars, the idea of private performances for the ultra-rich seems a little, well, undemocratic. And then there’s the “fit” problem – the well-heeled executive-and-potentate scene doesn’t jibe with the vaguely anti-establishment of your typical pop star. Recently, some particularly unwelcome light has been shed on corporate gigs, with revelations that a slew of celebrity acts had given private concerts to now-disgraced Libyan tyrant Moammar Gadhafi . Among them: Canada’s own Nelly Furtado , who performed in front of Gadhafi’s family at a hotel in Italy in 2007, for which she was paid the tidy sum of $1 million. There’s no honour in that, of course – but we think there is at least some in the way Furtado has handled herself in light of the violent crackdown Gadhafi has waged on his own people this winter. Using her own Twitter account, Furtado took the initiative and revealed the news of her herself. Then she promised to donate her fee to charity. Of course, the move opened Furtado up to charges of “too little, too late,” and she is still being criticized for taking money from Gadhafi in the first place. But the Victoria native could have been far worse off if she had waited for the news to surface independently – or if she hadn’t chosen to give the money away. Any way you slice it, that was a class act.