FUMBLE – ELECTIONS CANADA IS ANTI-SOCIAL

This week's perspective from Jess Bennett: 2011 has been deemed Canada’s first-ever social media election as candidates actively incorporate social media platforms into their campaigning strategies. This is significant for Canada because, relative to our population size, we are some of the most avid users of social media in the world. A study from comScore Inc. released earlier this week found that Canadians spend more time watching online videos than people in any other country. This study also found that Canada ranks fourth in the world for LinkedIn penetration and sixth in the world for Twitter penetration. In a strangely ironic twist, Elections Canada declared that an archaic law from the 1930s would be applied to Canadians using social media platforms to disclose election results. Section 329 of the Elections Act decrees that "no person shall transmit the results" from one riding to another before the polls are closed. Persons doing so can be fined up to $25,000 or spend five years in prison. The original purpose of the law was to prevent radio stations from prematurely broadcasting polling results from the east coast that could influence votes on the west coast. If we’ve learned one thing about social media in the past five years, it’s that angering the masses can have unforeseen and dramatic consequences. When Motrin created an ad campaign for mothers about the trend of wearing your baby, mom bloggers banded together and demonstrated their discontentment with the ad, as well as the impact the online world can have on corporate decisions. When BP spilled oil off the Gulf of Mexico, online masses unleashed a tidal wave of fury that resulted in a defaming parody BP Twitter account and the development of an application that simulated oil spills on any website. There are rumblings of a digital protest to Section 329 on May 2nd, using hashtags such as #tweettheresults and #elxn41. Depending on the scale of this movement, it could impact the election in the exact way that section 329 intended to avoid. When was the last time your organization examined its communication policies to ensure they captured the reality of today’s communications channels? Don’t let outdated policies put you out of touch.

Jess Bennett works with the Corporate and Public Affairs practice at Veritas, providing strategic counsel on digital communications strategy and execution. She is immersed in social media from blogging to exploring new trends and platforms.

TOUCHDOWN: WILLIAM AND KATE PLUS TWO BILLION

This week's perspective from Joe Chidley: Killjoys that they are, Republican protesters at the Wedding of the Century called it a “PR stunt” for the monarchy. Now, we don’t necessarily think that’s an insult – as long as the PR is done well. And in the case of the Royal Wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, it most assuredly was. We were particularly impressed with William’s performance. From shaking hands with well-wishers the night before the ceremony to driving away in an Aston Martin with his new wife – and the nice common-man touch of the vanity plate that read “JUSTWED” – William struck just the right balance between royal tradition and breaks from that tradition. (For instance, he had a best man, his brother Prince Harry. ) After all, he’s not just Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, Baron Carrickfergus. He’s also the leader-to-be and visible face of a global brand and a major financial, political and cultural organization – the British monarchy. Under the intense scrutiny of an estimated two billion TV viewers, he pulled off his first major appearance as a future king with aplomb - a prince and a husband for modern times. That’s a PR stunt we have to admire.

FUMBLE - THE DONALD GETS TRUMPED

This week's perspective from Bob Reid: Donald Trump couldn’t wait to get in front of the media cameras Wednesday morning, to crow about how he was the one who finally got the White House to release U.S. President Barack Obama’s full birth certificate. And for that brief, shining moment, Trump was leading the news agenda and dominating the message: he was the guy. But he was very soon under fire from the assembled reporters as to what he had really won, other than re-confirmation of the fact that Obama was, in fact, born in the USA (Hawaii, to be precise) as the president had always said, and as he had previously proven with other documentation. So it was even more perfect timing when CNN and other news channels would break away from Trump in mid-bluster, to a relaxed Obama in the White House press briefing room, joking about how it’s the first time in a long time he could get the networks to cut away to him for darn near anything. Then he went on to dismiss Trump’s grandstanding on the “birther” issue as the work of a “carnival barker” whose goal is to distract people from critically important issues to matters of trivia. By the time he was finished, Obama had done two things: buried the “birther” thing once and for all (and well ahead of the 2012 presidential campaign), and shredded Trump’s credibility as a serious potential Republican candidate. Trump was re-positioned as essentially saying “Aha! There’s the proof that I’m completely and utterly wrong!” The communications lesson in all of this: if you’re going to engage in a high stakes, high-wire gambit in the media, best have a net underneath you somewhere. War-game the contingencies, and be prepared to account.

TOUCHDOWN – “MONTREAL PIZZA”

This week's perspective from Bob Reid: Gotta love this. Full disclosure up front: Boston Pizza is a personal guilty gastro-pleasure. There. I said it. But that notwithstanding, it’s an easy Touchdown to call for the Canadian-based (who knew?) franchise, for temporarily re-branding their 26 Montreal-area restaurants as “Montreal Pizza” in light of the Habs-Bruins playoff series. The logo shows “Boston” crossed out as if by a giant black marker, with “Montreal” written underneath in fluid script. Betcha they do some good business with Habs fans coming in to watch the games. Gotta love a good sports rivalry – and at TD&F we especially love brands that are savvy enough to leverage events around them for maximum media play.

NO FUMBLES, NO REAL TOUCHDOWNS – LEADERS’ DEBATE ROUNDUP

This week's perspective from Bob Reid: For most observers, the leaders’ debate in any election campaign tends to be all about the so-called “knockout punch” – even though they tend to be about as rare as Toronto Maple Leafs Stanley Cup Rings. But I always keep watch for two things: the potential for a disastrous mis-step, and/or who leads the day-after highlight reel. In this week’s debate, the disaster potential was highest for Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff. If the Conservative leader had lost his cool or been left flat-footed by the combined attacks of the others, it would have been a major setback for his campaign. Had his Liberal counterpart made a gaffe which gave Harper a made-in-heaven clip to use against Ignatieff over and over until voting day, it would have been crippling. Neither man dropped the ball, however. Harper kept his cool and was laser-like in his message focus, bringing every single issue back to that of the economy, and his appeal to voters to give his party a majority government so that it can fully execute on its economic agenda amid a still-fragile global recovery. Ignatieff performed without trouble, and challenged Harper strongly on integrity/ethics/character issues, i.e. the contempt of Parliament finding etc. Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe had solid outings as well. So no disasters, no devastating Fumbles. Game-changing Touchdowns? Nope. The morning-after clips and headlines – which is where most Canadians will get their view on what went down – were all over the place, which shows no one served up the killer clip to lead the coverage. So on we go, let Act II continue …

FUMBLE – FLETCHER PARROTS “POVERTY PIMP”

This week's perspective from Bob Reid: It was the ever provocative Sue-Ann Levy, city hall columnist for the Toronto Sun, who dubbed Toronto councillor Paula Fletcher (and two others) a “poverty pimp,” for being prone to grandstanding on issues featuring some of the city’s less fortunate individuals. At issue was the move by interim Toronto Community Housing Corporation board chair Case Ootes to liquidate the city’s stock of 22 single-family homes it owns in various neighbourhoods, and to use the proceeds to improve the state of TCHC apartment buildings. The specific issue is not our focus here, but rather the classic communications Fumble committed by Fletcher in the wake of the Sun column. In our Veritas Media Coaching sessions, we always warn of the danger of “parroting” back negatively charged words, phrases or descriptions posited by reporters or critics. It doesn’t matter if someone else put it to you first; if YOU say it, YOU own it. Case in point: the next-day headline on a follow-up news story, which read “Not ‘poverty pimp,’ Fletcher says.” “I am not a poverty pimp as has been said in one of the newspapers today,” was the direct quote. Does it get any clearer than this? If you don’t want the newspapers (and the radio stations, and the TV newscasts) calling you a “poverty pimp,” for crying out loud, don’t go stand in front of reporters and use the title yourself. It doesn’t matter that the word “not” is in there. The end result was Fletcher gave the Sun (and any other outlet which carried it) a direct quote that let them reiterate the same story all over again, headed by exactly the descriptor that Fletcher had taken umbrage to – and all because she let it cross her own lips. The solution, when faced with a situation like this? By all means, refute the suggestion – but keep the radioactive language out of your rebuttal. “Not at all” is good. “On the contrary” is even better, as it opens the door to you re-defining the issue at play in language that you would actually LIKE to see in print or on the air. But whatever you do, don’t use the same offending word or phrase in your own response … unless you really want to see that headline all over again.

FUMBLE IN THE MAKING – ROB FORD SNUBS REPORTERS (AGAIN)

This week's perspective from Joe Chidley: Normally, this would be an easy one to call. This week Toronto Mayor Rob Ford invited reporters to a carefully orchestrated photo op of him water-blasting graffiti off a wall in the West End – his only media availability of the week. The whole thing was designed to depict Ford as living up to his campaign promise to clean up the city. But reporters being what they are – i.e. people who ask questions – they just wouldn’t stick to script, and took the opportunity to ask the mayor about other issues, like city councillors’ expenses and the federal election. Ford declined. “To tell you the truth I’m going to talk about what I want to talk about,” he said. “Right now, I’m going to talk about cleaning up the city.” A few things here: First, for just about anybody else, this would be a huge and immediate mistake – when you’re mayor of a major city, talking to reporters (even about things you don’t want to talk about) comes with the territory. But for Rob Ford, being more or less contemptuous of the media is part of his personal brand. Even after his election victory, he appeared in interviews as if he couldn’t care less (what mattered, by implications, was what voters cared about). So this isn’t an outright fumble – for now. The question is, how long can Ford’s free pass last? It’s true that every new leader defines his or her relationship with the press, and consistency is important. But at a certain point the rubber will hit the road – and not only the media, but Torontonians themselves, might start expecting him to show he can handle the tough questions. And we suspect that when that time comes, the media will do their best to make sure those questions are as tough as possible.

TOUCHDOWN – CRISIS COMMUNICATIONS CO-ORDINATION SURROUNDS EMAIL DATA BREACH

This week's perspective from Bob Reid: Hey, did you hear about the big ta-doo involving email data belonging to customers of Air Miles and Best Buy? Maybe. Or maybe not. Even though the data breach was being described by some as “the biggest of its kind in U.S. history,” it didn’t exactly seem to cause cyber-panic in the streets. And I submit that a lot of that had to do with some solid crisis communications by three of the firms involved – the aforementioned Air Miles and Best Buy, along with Dallas-based database manager Epsilon, where the actual hack attack took place. All three companies moved quickly to disclose the situation to media, and to issue statements reassuring clients that only their first and last names and email addresses may have been accessed – but absolutely no other personal information. Swift and reassuring – all good. Plus, the two consumer-facing businesses reminded their members that they never send emails asking for personal information, and that anyone receiving such an approach should either delete it, report it, or both. The speed, co-ordination and consistency of the messages from all three parties went a long way toward keeping the temperature and scope of the media stories down – and that’s what effective crisis communications is all about.

FUMBLE – HARPER’S 2+2+1

This week's perspective from Bob Reid: Just recently I gave Stephen Harper a Touchdown for not taking media questions after a speech on the economy, because on that particular day he knew that the only thing the scribes would want to get fresh comment on were negative issues unrelated to his message. I noted that the move would invariably cheese-off the press gallery, but that ultimately it served his communications objective best. We’ve seen more of this command-and-control approach to media engagement by Harper on the campaign trail this week, but I won’t be so kind in my call. Harper reportedly takes exactly five media questions per day out on the hustings: two in English, two in French, and one from a local reporter wherever the campaign stop happens to take place. It’s driving the campaign media nuts and, predictably, it has become at least a sidebar story unto itself (with the notable exception of the Toronto Star, where it is today’s above-the-fold front page headline story!). Keeping scrums to a reasonable length is not a bad strategy – it keeps the focus on the message of the day by limiting the engagement on other matters. But having a defined hard number of questions one will take, regardless of the tenor of the day or the circumstances at hand, sets a double-edged precedent. It gives the media something to grouse about when you stick to it; but if there comes a day or an issue that suddenly makes you want or need to go deep with them, your break from the formula will be even more a part of the story. As a major political party leader (not to mention incumbent Prime Minister), Harper has an obligation to avail himself to the media covering his campaign – but I say putting a set hard number on the questions he will take not only looks bad, but it also frames a box that he might not want to have to live within at some point down the road.

FUMBLE – FORD STAFFER FANS THE FIRE

This week's perspective from Bob Reid: So NOW Magazine ran a story with a couple of doctored images that look like a semi-naked Rob Ford. Within hours, media reports said the mayor’s office had ordered the offending issue removed from racks within city hall and at other City of Toronto facilities, driven by the fact that a city custodial supervisor emailed her colleagues saying that she had received a request from Ford’s office to have the papers removed and trashed. That city staffer subsequently refused comment, leaving it to Ford press secretary Adrienne Batra to say that it was a misunderstanding, that an upset staff member had called just to ask what the policy was around such matters, and that there was never an edict given to have the newspapers removed. “By no means was there any directive from the mayor’s office to censor anybody. That’s not something we’d even consider,” Batra said. Good message, but the damage was already done by her colleague – which is the lesson at play here. Whoever made that initial inquiry wasn’t speaking to a reporter, and probably didn’t expect to end up initiating a major news story, but that quickly became the case because the issue at hand involved a media outlet. If you’re going to go after the folks who buy ink by the barrel, you’ll probably end up getting stained. U.S.-based Gawker.com blogger Maureen O’Connor nailed it: “Good job, Office of the Mayor: You just turned a mildly embarrassing local event into an international story about freedom of the press, thereby giving bloggers worldwide an excuse to republish the pictures that so offended you.”

FUMBLE – THE WEIRDEST CSR VIDEO EVER

This week's perspective from Joe Chidley: I don’t exactly know what Bob Parsons, the CEO of Internet domain-name registrar GoDaddy.com, was thinking when he posted a video of himself shooting an elephant in Zimbabwe, and I probably don’t want to. The video – which followed Parsons as he tracked and shot the pachyderm, and then showed the villagers butchering the beast in requisite graphic detail – became an Internet sensation this week, the subject of countless YouTube views, tweets and an online boycott campaign. In response, Parsons (whose company is no stranger to controversy - its racy TV ads were pulled from the 2010 Super Bowl broadcast) stuck to his, umm, guns. He reiterated the claim he made in the video that the elephant in question was destroying villagers’ crops and ergo the villagers were hungry - so shooting the poor beast was a form of charity. He characterized his critics as a fringe group of animal-lovers who don’t know where their steak comes from and weren’t his customers anyway. (Animal rights group PETA is, in fact, one of GoDaddy’s customers – or rather it was. PETA cancelled its account in protest.) And finally, he made the most desperate justification of his Call Me Bwana routine: it was good PR. “When they see this, people who are not familiar with GoDaddy will check us out,” Parsons told CBSNews.com. “It'll be a good thing.” We’re not so sure. Sometimes “bad-boy” PR like this can serve an insurgent brand well. (Hello, Charlie Sheen.) But not here. The impression of GoDaddy’s leadership gained from the video is not one of an energetic plain-speaker who bucks the conventional wisdom; rather, it suggests a wealthy crank with a God complex. More to the point, anytime we at TD&F hear someone suggest in their own defence that “any PR is good PR,” we usually disagree. That old bromide is a bad excuse for bad behaviour.