PR Fail: Drake University Scores D+ with Horrid Campaign

In the midst of one of the worst economies in history, universities are reassuring students and parents that they are the best at preparing junior for the job market. So it would seem bizarre and perhaps insane that a school would instead seek to position itself as hip and "ironic." It would look even crazier if that same college was marketing itself as barely above a complete failure. Enter Drake University and their woefully misguided "D+" marketing campaign. Drake is apparently a real school (we thought it was one of those things like "Chubb" or "ITT Institute" that advertise on the subway) with real ambitions.

We became aware of this PR trainwreck via one of our favorite sites, PR Newser, and we really couldn't have said it any better than they did:

Wow. Drake University has launched a new marketing campaign in which the school touts the value of its educational offering by promoting the "D+ Advantage." According to Yahoo! News, students and faculty have pointed out that a D+ really isn't the image a university might want to project. One would think the school or its outside PR help (!) would've thought of that. Nevertheless, the school is sticking with it. Good luck with that. 

The Gawker-esque snark is not misapplied in this case. It is pretty much incredibly shocking that ANYONE would think this was a good idea (the university "marketing" people or the PR agency that is helping them).

The Yahoo News story goes on to say:

However, Drake officials are standing by the D+ campaign -- which college officials crafted with outside PR contractors. Defenders of the ad blitz described it as "edgy and intriguing" in a letter to faculty and staff this week. The letter explained that the campaign "was designed to catch the attention of high school students who are bombarded with college and university materials to the point that they are often in information overload and unable to differentiate among the many institutions that have contacted them." The letter didn't explain just why an educational institution would want to attract a corps of students lacking the ability to distinguish among institutions of higher learning, but that presumably is the research domain of an equally edgy focus-group team.

The letter referred to is a desperate rationalization/damage control piece:

The Drake Advantage alone is not unusual, but the D+ graphic is distinctive because it's surprising and intriguing to prospective students. The D+ was not designed to stand alone or represent a grade. Instead, it was designed to be paired with prose and draw attention to the distinctive advantages of the Drake experience. 

Admission counselors using Drake Advantage materials in the field have reported that the campaign is generating extremely positive feedback from prospective students.  Our experience in the survey and in the field suggests that the kind of students whom we want to attract to Drake easily understand and appreciate the irony of the D+, and that it is having the intended effect of encouraging students to find out more about what makes Drake so special.

The school wants to stand out, we can understand that. BUT, to try and stand out by looking "edgy" (as defined by a university marketing committee and a PR firm, not the real world) is so far removed from sensible it's not even funny. In this economy, new world order and job market, shouldn't you maybe try to stand out by offering something reassuring from students about to dedicate 4 years of studies and countless piles of cash to your school? How about standing out by doing the best damned job preparing students to have successful adult lives? Or maybe that's just not cool and edgy enough for the geniuses at Drake.

Drake says they are looking for students who appreciate irony. All we can say is we hope current students/graduating into the job market students appreciate that the whole world is laughing at their school. Nice branding, indeed!

Thanks for reading.
Jonathan Gardner

Foxconn's Rx for Suicide Prevention: Try PR!

Foxconn, maker of iPhones, iPads and Dell Computers is notorious for its ghastly treatment of its workers in China, to the extent that at least 12 laborers have killed themselves this year. So, what do you do if you want to save lives and prevent suicides? If you answered "treat workers humanely every day" or "show you care" or "end sweatshop conditions" you'd be wrong. The answer, according to Foxconn: hire a PR firm! That's right, instead of fixing a problem, you can just pretend it's been fixed, all through public relations.

Under pressure from Dell, HP, Apple and world opinion, Foxconn, a Taiwan-headquartered company with 900,000 employees in China, decided to clean up its act. It has provided modest wage increases to staff to try to end the spate of suicides. The company has installed suicide-prevention nets around buildings to try stop the preferred method of death. And, they hired Burson Marsteller, a US PR company.

The big PR firms are of course notorious for not being so choosy about who they wind up in bed with. Burson Marsteller has (not sure if they still do) worked with tobacco giant Phillip Morris/Altria for years in Asia. One of my former employers was doing PR to try to clean up the image of deposed Thai Prime Minister (and fugitive from justice) Thaksin Shinawatra. PR companies are constantly working for the wrong side (like Brunswick PR and Ogilvy, who work for BP), so this should come as no surprise. We explored their lack of ethics overseas in an earlier post.

Instead of working long-term to change their company culture, treat workers decently and show the world how they've changed, Foxconn is now resorting to PR stunts. As a colleague used to say "it's just pink paint" (as in, don't fix a problem, just paint over it in a pretty color).

So we get word that the company is forcing its staff to trot out for "motivational rallies" reminiscent of something in Pyongyang.  The Huffington Post has the story and shockingly Mao-esque photos (here). Forget that it looks absurdly stage managed and the workers mostly look bored or miserable, but who is this for? Is this for the "Terry" on the signs they are forced to carry ("Terry" Guo, the president of Foxconn)? Is it a big show to impress "dear leader" with the "spontaneity" and joy of his people?

One activist said Foxconn's Wednesday rally was unlikely to boost morale and does not replace the need for more thoroughgoing reforms."I don't think today's event is going to achieve anything except provide a bit of theater," said Geoffrey Crothall, spokesman of the China Labor Bulletin, a labor rights group based in Hong Kong. "Basically what Foxconn needs to do is treat its workers like decent human beings and pay them a decent wage. It's not rocket science. They're still tackling this from a top-down approach, they are organizing the workers. They're not allowing the workers to organize themselves."

 This story has been burning up the internets, and a commenter on Gizmodo had a good point:

Invite a friend to comment

It's sad how many companies think that a "Team Building" party alone can raise morale. It's actually an insult if the rest of their actions stink. If you beat your wife all week but buy her a dozen roses on Friday afternoon expecting sudden happiness you're likely to get a smack on the face. Treat your employees well every day, provide them with a decent work environment, encouragement, purpose, inspiration, and room to grow and THEN once you've proven to them that you actually care, THEN throw a party. And for the love of Justin, don't call it a "Team Building Party".

This kind of managed media event for the domestic China market (surely that's who this is aimed at, with the younger, make-up spackled young women front and center in photos) plays very well. While, we in the West tend to mostly be VERY skeptical of what we see in the press, in Asia, and especially China where most media is still state controlled or constricted, what you see in the media is taken as gospel by most everyone. The average newspaper reader (or factory worker) in China would have no idea that these "rallies" are fake PR events and the workers neither participated enthusiastically nor do they worship the cult of "Terry" Guo.

So, for PR effect, Burson Marsteller may have given its client some good service in the local China market. But Foxconn and their PR counselors should be aware: here in the US (you know, where Apple and Dell are) we are not buying this load of bunk. You should be REALLY cleaning up your act, not just going through some phony motions. You can't spin me, baby!

Thanks for reading.
Jonathan Gardner

UPDATED: Wired has a great piece on this whole fiasco here (good comments too!)

President Obama on 'The View,' Next Stop 'Celebrity Rehab'

To the annals of "great" moments in political/statesman communications -- FDR's Fireside chats, Nixon's Checkers comments, the Nixon/JFK debates, "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall" -- we can now add President Obama on "The View." Next stop is sure to be "Celebrity Rehab" or "Intervention" as his communications team needs an intervention and his presidency and his image need a complete rehabilitation.

When we talk about "great" we can mean significance, as in I think this may significant and be remembered as one of the lowest points in the Obama administration, which has seemed to be flailing about more than ever recently.

This "tea summit" I viewed only because I was in my doctor's waiting room. I don't regularly watch "The View" (nor do I know anyone who does).

I sat there with my mouth agape and just laughed and laughed. I chuckled at the awkwardness of the situation (OK ladies, we just sit here and try to stay awake while he recites talking points) and the incongruousness of these hosts "interviewing" someone not famous for making bad movies or reality TV. They seemed as surprised as me that he was sitting there with him.

Of course they had to read questions their staff researchers prepared, to be vetted by White House communications, off of index cards. Of course I could barely understand what Barbara Walters was saying (something about why can't we just get out of Afghanistan?) Can anyone?

Our friends at HuffPo give a pretty good recap of the appearance.

So, now for our thoughts:

1. It's an embarrassment that this is the level of public discourse in our country.
2. It's quite possible this PR stunt by Obama's team is only setting the president up for ridicule (I'll be watching the Daily Show tonight fo sho).
3. From a comms perspective, it's sometimes good strategy to put the spokesperson (in this case, the President) in a friendly, non-threatening environment. Surely they made deals about what questions were going to ask and what topics would be covered. "The View" is certainly not a serious news organization with "journalistic" standards. Therefore, they would seem to be a flexible partner in getting your message out.
4. Not a bad play to try to appeal to women.
5. The Sherrod mess is a distraction from what has been a troubled agenda that needs the White House's focus more than ever. But, the story was going away on its own. He could have done this last week if the goal was really to get past that story. But of course, that isn't why he went on "The View."
6. Obama went on The View because:

A. His presidency is in serious trouble (as the mid-terms are all but certain to show): and

B. His strategists have simply run out of ideas: First it was "you're the hopey/wonky president" who's going to save the economy and end all wars. Then it was "more stimulus more stimulus and 'peace with honor' (or some variation of the Nixon trope)." We've heard about green energy economics and healthcare. None of these themes and their messages have had any permanent sticking power to help define this presidency. One can only imagine what the communications staff's message calendar must look like (if they even have one!).

I've worked in communications for a long time (including for senior elected officials) and we rarely see an administration that is SO ALL OVER THE PLACE. 

It is time for this president to define himself but I'm very afraid he's done it already: the Talk Show President.

Thanks for reading.
Jonathan Gardner

Weber Shandwick Says PR is Worthless

One of those big PR companies, Weber-Shandwick (no, not "Sandwich," but their name is making me hungry) has surprised absolutely no one by announcing that there is still no way to determine the value of PR. Measuring PR is hard, so it must be worthless, right? Or, maybe it's priceless? Who the f--k knows!

For years, the agencies have sent out these retardtastic reports, usually accompanied by a stack of clips or whatnot, that struggle to determine an "ad equivalency value" for all the media placements. Of course, everyone and their mother on both sides of the client wall has ALWAYS known that these claims were garbage ("This two-line mention in USA Today would be worth $450,000 if it were an ad. But it is EVEN MORE valuable because it is not paid media, so it has CREDIBILITY." Please disregard the fact that only the homeless, people waiting for their test results in VD clinics and dead-end mid-level business travelers read USA Today. Surely this placement is spot-on target for your desired stakeholder audience. [Sorry, I digress]).

We've all known FOREVER that there is no good way to measure PR "value." They even alluded to this on last night's season 4 premiere of "Mad Men" (Pete Campbell says, “It’s a PR stunt. We don’t do that?” When asked why not, he replies,”Because we can’t charge for it.”)

Media Bistro's PR Newser, a site that covers some PR stuff, had this report of people saying what the rest of us already know about these "ad equivalency" reports:

Today, Weber Shandwick endorsed the "Barcelona Principles" for PR measurement, which include a rejection of the reports.
The seven fundamental principles were published last week after being adopted in mid-June by 200 delegates from 33 countries at the 2nd annual European Summit on Measurement. We've listed all seven principles after the jump.

Some are vague, but the rejection of ad equivalency reports is included:
1. Importance of Goal Setting and Measurement
2. Measuring the Effect on Outcomes is Preferred to Measuring Outputs
3. The Effect on Business Results Can and Should Be Measured Where Possible
4. Media Measurement Requires Quantity and Quality
5. Advertising Value Equivalency (AVE) is not the Value of Public Relations
6. Social Media Can and Should be Measured
7. Transparency and Replicability are Paramount to Sound Measurement.

And THAT, sum total, is it. There is ZERO mention of any suggestions for something to replace these meaningless exercises in lying to the client. So, brilliant job, WeberSandwich, you've just repeated the same complaint we've all been making for years: the reports are worthless, we need something better. So, WHERE IS IT? 200 FRICKING "delegates" (VPs and "account supervisors" in "social media and measurement" or some wankworthy title, I would guess) from 33 FLIPPING countries couldn't come up with ANY ideas? And we go round and round. Don't even get me started on this "Barcelona Principles" b.s. REALLY? You're gonna be so grandiose to give this a title that sounds like a disarmament treaty or something?

So, you wanna know the true value of PR, kiddies? I think maybe you're having so much trouble measuring it because it truly is WORTHLESS. Or maybe just all those delegates are, I'm not sure.

Thanks for reading!
Jonathan Gardner

LG Admits Defeat with New Branding Campaign

Hiya sports fans! We're back after a long hiatus. Sorry for being gone, I'm sure we were missed.

Today comes news that LG, Korean maker of just about everything (a chaebol that has department stores, mini-marts, chemical companies and of course a consumer electronics division) has finally acknowledged that it can't compete with the likes of Sony or Samsung. At the same time, they've given up on trying to market their products as being technologically sound, decent or even remotely non-crappy. That's right, LG has decided to don the velvet sweatpants ("You know the message you're sending out to the world with these sweatpants? You're telling the world 'I give up.'") and launch a $100 million "emotional" branding campaign.

Said an LG spokesman:

“Although we don’t spend as much as Samsung or have the brand heritage that Sony has, there is a good opportunity for the LG brand,” he said. “We are addressing the market with a different strategy with an emotional approach, instead of focusing on picture quality or this function or that function.”

So there you have it, global business as an exercise in low self-esteem. Based on my experience back in the day at LG's Seoul HQ, this isn't surprising. This type of thinking is inherent in the business culture of  a Korean chaebol. Remember also, this is a country where Samsung is spoken of in reverent tones usually reserved for the almighty and they can basically do no wrong. The mid-level suits at the other companies such as LG go through their lives with a serious "second-class citizen" mentality due to never having made it into the ranks of the Samsung elite.

In the new "campaign," LG will talk about "‘Life’s Good’, freedom and infinite possibilities, all those kind of emotional attributes, for a broad range of products.”

This "emotional" approach may work for an established company that already has a brand image and solid profile (in the rest of the world, not just Korea), like a Coke or a BMW. Will it work in the outside world (read: the intended real market for such a campaign) where we don't have much of an idea, image or brand consciousness of LG at all?

Perhaps the bulk of the $100 million will be spent at home in Korea where the company leadership will see the branding everywhere and assume the campaign is working and LG's image has changed (the Westmoreland-in-Saigon form of blinkered leadership). Anyway, that really is not much money for a company that sells its products in 90 countries. How much impact will the velvet sweatpants campaign really have anywhere?

Thanks for reading.
Jonathan Gardner

Polishing Turds: Your Personal Shame for 2009

The year end is a good time to reflect on what we've "accomplished." Also ideal to prepare for what lies ahead. I'm sure during 2009 you spent some time promoting, publicizing, marketing, selling a product/service/person that was "less than special." We're talking about turds, about dogs, about whatever moniker you want to use. These work projects are the ones that make you hate yourself when you look in the mirror in the morning (that's if you can even drag yourself out of bed), cause you to loathe your job and cause you unending personal shame.

What were your "2009 Turds?" Do you have outstanding "Turds of the Decade?"

Throughout my marketing life, I've been asked to belly up to the table and massage a great number of steaming, stinking turds. Back in the way early days, I regularly enjoyed massive turd helpings when I was an intern/entry level AE at a communications firm.

The turds (clients) I was handed were some of the following:

A snack treat for dogs
A kitchen cleaner
A paper manufacturer

Why do I call these "turds" and not "wonderful, fulfilling, exciting client experiences?" Because they weren't, but also, MAINLY because in the marketing arts, a "turd" that needs to be polished is a "crappy, uninteresting client/product service with no USP to speak of."

As marketers, we always PRAY that the clients/colleagues of the world will recognize not only our genius, but the tremendous power of marketing and bring us in at the VERY BEGINNING of the product development process. This personal sacred wish of marketers has us envision being brought into the boardroom to consult and weigh in on the creation of the product/service and help to inform and guide the development of a HIGHLY MARKETABLE product. Of course, this is mere fantasy and it is only rumored to happen at very evolved corporations. We know that progressive companies do often have the marketing people involved FAIRLY early. Apple, for example, does this very well.

BUT, for most of us most of the time with most assignments, we are brought in to share our EXALTED wisdom way after everything has been said and done. The product has launched, the designs are finished, the building has been completed, the deed is done.

The unfortunate PR people are sometimes not even brought in until the original marketing plans have failed or there is some other problem.

What does this all mean and how does it create TURDS?

Well, honestly some TURDS that need to be polished will simply always be turds, no matter when marketing people are involved and/or if they have any input whatsoever. The dog snacks and kitchen cleaner were NEVER going to be interesting, fun accounts. And, honestly, the % of people who make purchase decisions for these products based on ANYTHING besides traditional above the line is woefully small.


A TURD has no redeeming marketing value and therefore no organic raison d'etre. Nothing special to say. It is not the "biggest," "first," "cheapest," "trendiest" or launched by a special company like Apple, or designed by Frank Gehry.

So there is nothing inherent to the product that lends itself to a story, to buzz, to press coverage, to ANYTHING.

So you try to attach said product to trends: "this is an example of what companies in X sector or doing to try to succeed in a recession," "this is the pioneer in a new neighborhood," "this is part of trend X." Most of these TREND/feature lines of talk are completely invented, just look at the criticism the NY Times gets when its reporters invent trend stories.

ALL that invented trending only lasts so long. But you STILL have this TURD laying there in front of you, it needs to be polished, it's still your project. So, next up are the gimmicks: "the grand opening had people on pogo sticks," "we will give free apartments for a week at Christmas to people named Jesus," etc.

The problem is that these gimmicks are disconnected from the ACTUAL product. They do nothing to promote the true brand elements and tell the public nothing about a USP (because there really is none to speak of). ALL THESE DO is get a bit of buzz in the 'nets and the media and keep the product's name out there for a bit longer until the TURD gets flushed with all the others flowing along in a sewer-pipe of global unconsciousness. It's all there in the background, all these undifferentiated products and services.

There is no magic polish for TURDS. As mentioned, bringing marketing people in early, especially in the case of completely generic products, will maybe help the process of MAKING products more marketable. The WHOLE POINT of creating something for sale is so you can sell it, how about allowing some experts in to help you create a product that WILL SELL MORE? For product development people who work with marketers, I propose the following New Year's Resolution: Make something interesting together in 2010, not just more turds.

So, as we look forward to 2010 I hope you will help lead the fight to have marketing play a greater role in all levels and forms of product development and promotion, no matter how discouraged you may already be.

Thanks for reading.
Jonathan

What we are doing here

I am a lifelong marketer. What this means is that I have eat and slept (if that's possible) marketing since I can remember. I am ALWAYS interested in new marketing, good marketing, bad marketing, poo marketing. Whatever.

I've worked in PR/marketing/communications/branding for 15 years or so. I have done this mostly in a consulting capacity, advising companies on how to better communicate their messages, sell their products, achieve their goals, etc.

A large part of my career has been outside of the U.S. This means I am interested in some things going on beyond the borders of our United States. I hope you are too.

Now, I live back in my native New York City. I work as a consultant and also have a gig doing social marketing. So I have some free time to scour the web, give my opinions, and bore you.

I'll be writing about advertising, marketing, communications, branding, PR, consumer behavior, sales techniques and tactics. It goes without saying that I'll be especially interested in "new" stuff in the realm of digital communications, social media, etc.

While in Asia, I was a also blogger for a couple of years for CNET, where I commented on technology and media marketing issues and news. You can find my old blog posts archived here: CNET.

I hope you'll enjoy our time together. Please make any comments on posts, send me suggestions, link to this blog and tell your friends.

Best,
Jonathan Gardner