Char This...

Fallout: What Happens When Companies Deviate from Their Core Mission

admin — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:49:53 +0000

Recent events involving Google and the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation have raised important reminders about embracing a core mission and what happens when an organization decides to stray away from it. Both Google and Susan G. Komen deviated from their core mission, and as details emerged and public debate intensified, both organizations were forced to confront the unanticipated fallout.

What Went Wrong

Google created an uproar when it began injecting Google+ into search results without providing similar results from rival social networks like Facebook and Twitter. Google’s entire business was founded on the mission of “don’t be evil,” aiming to provide the best, most relevant, unbiased search results. Yet this move broke its promise to users, delivering deliberately biased results. The blogosphere erupted with criticism of Google, and current and former employees expressed dismay with the company’s actions.

Susan G. Komen, the nation’s largest breast cancer organization, found itself at the center of a controversy when it cut off funding to Planned Parenthood clinics for free breast cancer screening. Planned Parenthood provides needed preventative health services to 20% of American women, and its pro-female contingency could not grasp its decision. Susan G. Komen responded by saying it was fulfilling a fiduciary duty to donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. (Planned Parenthood is being investigated by a Congressional committee instigated by a staunch anti-abortion activist on claims that it illegally used taxpayer money to fund abortions.) The organization faltered again when it started giving differing explanations for why they cut funds. The fallout: high-level resignations (and threats of resignation), a tsunami of online protests and complaints, boycotts of the organization, and boycotts of its sponsors. This pressure quickly caused the once-revered organization to reverse its earlier move and reinstate Planned Parenthood funding.

Brand Integrity at Stake

Much of the damage to each organization stems from the fact that neither appeared credible once the smoke cleared and the dust settled. Google claims that it lacked access to content from rival social networks was widely debunked, and Komen’s decision to cut Planned Parenthood funding appeared highly politicized despite its assertions to the contrary.

From a strategic perspective, the issue isn’t about good and bad – it’s about brand integrity. Google did not keep in mind the best interests of its users. Furthermore, the company is no longer a startup whose actions go unnoticed, but a large enterprise competing with the likes of Apple and Microsoft. For its part, Susan G. Komen diverted attention, good will, and money away from its core mission – breast cancer activities – by wading into explosive abortion politics.

MG Siegler of tech site PandoDaily summed up this dynamic perfectly. Although he’s writing about Google, the point applies equally to Susan G. Komen or any other organization whose mission has been breached:

“Many of us are stuck arguing the details. The details don’t actually matter. Who has access to what data doesn’t actually matter. What deals are struck behind the scenes doesn’t actually matter. Whether Google is hurting competition by using their position of power doesn’t actually matter. The destruction of the product is all that matters.”

Google may be large and established enough to emerge from this controversy with little more than a black eye. It may also decide to let its search engine take some knocks in the interest of pursuing a long-term-plan that will strengthen its competitive position against the company’s formidable foes.

Susan G. Komen, however, doesn’t appear to occupy such a strong market position nor did its missteps serve a broader strategic purpose. Its sponsors, which had supported a “safe”, apolitical cause, have been put into an awkward position, one they will undoubtedly revisit when it comes time to renewing their sponsorship. Indie band The Decemberists pulled its support from Susan G. Komen, routing its donations for breast health directly to Planned Parenthood. Will other sponsors and donors distance themselves as well?

Understanding Your Core Mission

Google and Susan G. Komen could have potentially avoided the situations they found themselves in. However, it’s easy to play armchair quarterback and pontificate about organizations that got things wrong, when getting things right can sometimes be difficult. As companies grow, core values and missions may change. This happens a lot, particularly at startups, which may need to reshape their brand – sometimes drastically or repeatedly – as their target markets, business model and products evolve. At a minimum, though, companies should take note of others’ experience and make their strategic decisions with a full understanding of what’s at stake: brand integrity, reputation and loyalty. Fully anticipating potential fallout with a bulletproof rationale and communications plan is a good way for companies to protect their brand and more successfully weather change.

What happens when an organization decides to abandon its core mission that it originally embraced? via @IgnitePR ow.ly/9oRuo
— Ignite PR (@IgnitePR) March 2, 2012

Corporate Philanthropy: Putting Your Money where Your Mouth is

admin — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:32:47 +0000

Ignite’s last couple blogs discussed PR mishaps and missteps but we now want to highlight examples of great marketing and PR. Evaluating things that have gone awry is definitely worthwhile, but what can companies do to really shine with good PR? Corporate philanthropy is one activity that stands out and several businesses, both tech and non-tech, have done a great job over the last year with their approach to corporate giving.

It’s common for brands to espouse their belief system and engage in related charitable activities or campaigns. Dove, the maker of soap and beauty products, contributes a portion of its proceeds to “provide inspiring self-esteem programming for girls” and supports partnerships with after-school programs, self-esteem-building events and educational resources. Kaiser Permanente sponsors marathons and farmer’s markets in their push to be associated with healthy living. Through its “Home 4 The Holidays” program, pet food company Iams partners with organizations such as pet adoption centers, shelters and rescues to help find homes for pets.

The tech industry has also produced philanthropists, both large and small. It used to be that the vast majority of foundations and philanthropic assets were in New York. Today, “Silicon Valley has become the epicenter of philanthropy in the U.S., if not the world,” according Bradford K. Smith, President of the Foundation Center, a research organization for philanthropy, fundraising, and grant programs.

In the tech world, Salesforce.com is renowned for philanthropy, spearheaded by Chairman and CEO Marc Benioff, a generous philanthropist in his own right. From its inception, Salesforce.com instituted a “1-1-1” philanthropy model, contributing one percent of its profits, one percent of its equity and one percent of its employees’ hours to charitable efforts. Meanwhile Ignite’s online luxury travel client, Zicasso, a startup that offers a free online travel service connecting travelers with the best travel agents, emulates the 1-1-1 model to support sustainable tourism education and development, volunteer travel, and nature and wildlife conservation. A company doesn’t have to be huge, or necessarily even profitable, to embrace a social mission.

In an interview with Kym McNicholas of Forbes, Benioff named Michael Dell as his greatest philanthropic mentor. According to the Michael & Susan Dell Foundation website, Michael Dell and his wife have given more than $700 million in grants to help transform the lives of children. Similarly, Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen and his wife Laura Arrillaga, started the Marc and Laura Andreessen Foundation, with Laura also founding a philanthropic organization, SV2, that finances early-stage nonprofits. The Omidyar Network, started by the eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife, Pam, gives grants to nonprofits, while nonprofits like Kiva, DonorsChoose.org, and Causes use the Internet to connect people in need with donors, jobs or supporters.

Companies communicate their values in other ways as well. Patagonia, a company consistently at the forefront of corporate philanthropy, created a stir this past Black Friday with a bold newspaper ad stating “Don’t Buy This Jacket.” In the ad, Patagonia announced their Common Threads Initiative “to build useful things that last, to repair what breaks and recycle what comes to the end of its useful life.” Notably, the ad asks readers to eschew voracious consumption. It may sound ironic that a business trying to sell something would ask such a thing but, in a time of where overconsumption has contributed to a host of ills, we like Patagonia’s hutzpah and tip our hat to their non-product centric, philanthropic approach.

Do values-based campaigns help companies attract and retain customers? We believe that a company’s values can be just as significant to customers as its product or services, and it certainly appears that corporate social missions are being driven by rising consumer and investor demands for socially responsible companies. Corporate values are also key to recruiting talent and building an organization’s work culture. Case in point: if you think that climate-change is a hoax, you may not want to work for a company that donates funds to this cause.

Whether you believe that corporate charitable activities reflect deeply held values or are simply thinly veiled marketing ploys, it’s hard to argue with corporate giving in a time of shrinking government budgets. Does it ultimately matter why a company engages in philanthropy as long as it does? Sure, values-based marketing campaigns with little real substance or dollars behind them seem shady. No matter how bright and shiny a company may seem on the surface, it behooves us to do our homework about them and the old adage “buyer beware” still applies. Nonetheless, we see much evidence for optimism and give two thumbs up to any company that manages to combine success in business with a broader social mission.

"Corporate Philanthropy: Putting your money where your mouth is" Good examples by Patagonia, Salesforce, Zicasso, etc. ow.ly/8qad2
— Ignite PR (@IgnitePR) January 11, 2012

5 PR Cherry Bombs of 2011: What Went Wrong & What it Teaches Startup Entrepreneurs, Corporate Executives and PR Reps

admin — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:13:17 +0000

This past year saw a number of innovations across consumer and enterprise technologies. The tech IPO, funding and M&A markets were lively. And we saw big changes and personnel moves unfold across the blogosphere and news outlets, such as Michael Arrington leaving TechCrunch. As a result of all this activity, 2011 boasted plenty of big news stories about everything from the cloud and Big Data to social networking, mobile apps and tablets. Nonetheless, some of the biggest tech stories were born out of poor PR. Let’s take a look back at some of this year’s biggest players in the tech community – and the PR Cherry Bombs they dropped. With the benefit of hindsight, we’ll discuss what can be learned from all this. We’ll dissect what these companies did, and didn’t do, to diffuse and transform their situations into good PR.

PR Cherry Bomb #1 – GROUPON
The company’s CEO and PR rep are both culprits in this Cherry Bomb. In June, Groupon filed its IPO, officially entering the SEC’s mandatory quiet period that prevents companies from promoting its own stock. Over the course of the next two months, Groupon was criticized in the media for pre-IPO financial losses, prompting the CEO to write an internal memo debunking these claims that was subsequently leaked to the press. Meanwhile, the company’s PR rep was caught lambasting a journalist for her reporting on Groupon’s pre-IPO financials, directing her to review the “leaked memo.” Press and the SEC came down on the company for violating its quiet period.

Perhaps they were feeling anxious about their IPO, but the CEO and PR rep should have been familiar and in compliance with pre-IPO communication rules. With regard to how they handled some of the negative press on the company: they could have served as a resource and provided third-party references to help the reporter get the facts straight rather than blasting her for purportedly misquoting sources. It’s better to build and maintain a positive, ongoing relationship with media, because if anything, a carefully cultivated relationship greatly increases the likelihood of them writing favorably about a company going forward.

PR Cherry Bomb #2 – PAYPAL
One of the most recent PR Cherry Bombs occurred just a few weeks ago. Regretsy, a blog spotlighting handcrafted items mostly from Etsy.com, organized a gift drive for needy kids in the Regretsy community. Just as Regretsy’s owner had done many times before, she set up a PayPal account customized with a “donate” button. Because donations came in so fast during the first few days, PayPal’s internal system triggered a review of Regretsy’s account. Different PayPal reps deemed Regretsy in breach of an existing policy, froze its account, and demanded the company refund all the money, but that it was keeping the transaction fees.

From an outsider’s viewpoint, PayPal’s response appeared rigid and it negatively impacted how people viewed their customer loyalty and service – very important qualities in today’s taxing economic times. Regretsy’s owner immediately blogged about what was happening, setting off a social media firestorm. The backlash was immense, with some saying “PayPal Stole Christmas.”

As it turns out, Regretsy did nothing wrong; PayPal policies were so ambiguous that even its own agents assigned to review the account misunderstood them. In the end, PayPal recognized its mistake and moved quickly to publicly apologize and do the right thing for its longstanding customer. Within 24 hours, a PayPal executive called Regretsy to apologize, unfreeze the account, eliminate any fees for the rest of the year and very generously offer $200 gift cards to each family in the fundraiser.

PR Cherry Bomb #3 – AIRBNB
Airbnb faced one of this year’s biggest PR nightmares. The online housing rental company was fast-becoming a media and tech darling. Then a blog post surfaced by an Airbnb user named EJ who rented out her apartment through the service and came home to find it ransacked and vandalized, her valuables stolen and possessions burned. Although the blogosphere didn’t get wind of the incident until a month after it happened, the details became known about how Airbnb handled the situation and it set off an immediate negative reaction.

The CEO issued what some called a “mild” apology on TechCrunch and the Airbnb user EJ rebutted the apology instantly, stating Airbnb had not been in contact with her in a month, that the agent who helped her transact the rental went silent three days after her initial report of the incident, and – most condemning – the CEO was making veiled threats for her to whitewash her posts since they were damaging to the company. These claims really put Airbnb in the hot seat.

Startup entrepreneurs, corporate executives and PR reps can all learn a lot from this particular incident about how to best handle a crisis. For starters, it’s best to proactively address an incident publicly rather than letting it surface on its own, forcing a company to later assume a defensive, reactionary position. Also in this case, the company had little to say about how it helps keep customers safe. In times of crises, customers appreciate hearing from the company what they are doing to give their users peace-of-mind. Lack of contact and radio silence tends to only incite more anger and disappointment.

On the bright side, the young company took a hard look at itself and started making substantial improvements to gaps in its offering. To be more responsive to customers, Airbnb established a customer service department, improved security procedures and introduced an insurance guarantee program. In the face of controversy, it’s applauding to implement new measures to demonstrate how the company is committed to dealing with any customer problems.

PR Cherry Bomb #4 – GODADDY
This PR Cherry Bomb comes from a company known for pushing the envelope that finally went too far. GoDaddy.com’s CEO triggered international outrage when video and photos surfaced of him hunting big game in Zimbabwe and boasting about “bagging an African elephant.” The CEO’s public response was that his participation in this kind of hunt was to aid local villagers, who were being harassed and pushed to the brink of starvation by elephants eating local crops.

Once the video went viral, though, the damage was done. Anger and rallying cries to protest GoDaddy.com were rampant, with individuals canceling their accounts and PETA amassing several thousand signatures in only a couple of days to boycott GoDaddy. Boycott GoDaddy websites and Facebook pages began to crop up. Even a competitor, Namecheap.com, ran an entire PR campaign and promotion to get people to dump GoDaddy and switch over, with 20% of the proceeds donated to savetheelephants.com. GoDaddy’s CEO seemingly didn’t anticipate the emotional response and professional fallout that his actions would cause.

Our personal and work lives are blurred more than ever because of social media and an always-on, connected world. Personal Facebook profiles are tied to professional brand pages; Google+ circles and 1+s are publicly visible; Twitter is a firehouse of permanent public remarks; YouTube and Flickr are easily tagged and searchable. All of these social media channels usher in a new way of conducting our professional and personal matters online, and careful thought needs to go into how we behave, lest the brands and companies we’re tied to suffer the consequences.

PR Cherry Bomb #5 – SONY
It started in the spring for Sony – a security breach where the names, addresses and credit card numbers of 77 million PlayStation Network (PSN) accounts were hacked. It took Sony a whopping seven days to alert the public about the massive security breach. Then in the fall, Sony’s PSN was hacked again, affecting about 93,000 accounts. And then while already under scrutiny for ongoing security flaws and weak links, Sony was blasted for surreptitiously updating its PSN terms of service with a clause prohibiting people from suing the company without first obtaining its consent to do so.

Any security breach involving stolen personal and financial information is a grave matter, as is the amount of time a company takes to report a breach to its affected customers. In the spring hacking incident, Sony took a full week to confirm rumors that were already swirling around on the Internet. It was bad enough that PlayStation users couldn’t log on to their PSNs without even a peep from Sony as to why, but failure to notify PSN users that their personal and private information was stolen (and likely subject to criminal activity) certainly didn’t help matters.

Companies facing a data-hacking incident should alert their customers immediately about the security breach, explain how the company is handling it, and inform customers what they can do to protect themselves. Even under the best of circumstances, it is important for companies to anticipate customer needs, and clearly and transparently communicate changes to their terms of service, pricing, products/services, etc. The poor timing and communication of Sony’s updated TOS led many to believe – right or wrong – it was still tackling security holes.

In Closing
As we move into 2012, we can learn from these PR Cherry Bombs before us, and also take a page from some of the good PR tactics we saw come out of them such as with PayPal and AirBnB. Some of our upcoming blogs will likewise examine good PR practices and highlight examples where companies got things right from the get-go.

Which incident profiled above do you think stands out as the most deserving of this year’s Cherry Bomb award? And what are some other PR strategies and actions companies could have employed to better handle the bad PR situations they were facing? Let us know what you think!

5 PR Cherry Bombs of 2011 ow.ly/8eew8 #entrepreneurs, #corp comm, #startups
— Ignite PR (@IgnitePR) December 30, 2011

Hard Times for Netflix: Lessons Learned in the Wake of a PR Disaster

admin — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 20:45:55 +0000

A Thin Line Between Love and Hate
As you’ve probably heard, the last few months have been rough for Netflix as the company tried to raise prices and then spin off its mail-order DVD business and Internet streaming business into two separate companies. The fallout from Netflix’s recent changes has been swift and severe, with hemorrhaging subscribers and a noticeable decline in its stock price.

In response, Netflix abandoned its decision to separate its DVD-by-mail and streaming services, even though industry pundits agree streaming video over the Internet is clearly the wave of the future. All the data seemed to indicate Netflix customers were ready to migrate to streaming — so why is everyone so upset?

It’s Not Just What You Say, But How You Say It
It’s difficult to know what was most responsible for Netflix’s customer exodus – the price increase or spinoff. What we do know is that Netflix was woefully out of touch with its customers and absentminded in communicating change. Contrary to what events suggest, there should have been a comprehensive communications plan in place, and customer surveys or focus groups would have helped Netflix determine how to navigate the way forward. It also took Netflix roughly two months after its price increase before it finally apologized to customers – an anemic response that, right or wrong, smacked of irreverence and may have fanned the flames of discontent. Some even argue that Netflix should have announced a return to their old pricing model rather than blindsiding already-angry customers with their decision to split the company in two.

While Netflix’s business decisions may have been unavoidable, its failure to listen and respond to customers was not. Netflix PR missed an opportunity to engage with customers in a way that leveraged their brand loyalty. As noted in a recent New York Times article, Netflix “underestimated the unquantifiable emotions of subscribers who still want those little red envelopes, even if they forget to ever watch the video.” Consumers sometimes have strong emotional attachments to products that go far beyond their practical utility. Remember “New Coke” and Coca-Cola Classic?

Moving Forward
It will be interesting to see if Netflix learned its lesson on the communications front. Reed Hastings, co-founder and CEO of Netflix, recently attributed customer anger to the restive mood of the nation, calling out the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movement by name. If Netflix has learned anything from the past few months, it should be not to alienate but rather take its customers seriously when they have something to say.

Netflix’s jumble is a cautionary tale for companies that need to transform or combine new and legacy businesses. How can they learn from this experience and avoid a similar public relations backlash? With so many social media channels to tune into what your customers are saying, companies are not short of ways to listen carefully to customers, gauge perspectives and enter the conversation slowly.

Lessons Learned in the Wake of Netflix's PR Disaster: bit.ly/lessons-learne… via @IgnitePR #pr
— Ignite PR (@IgnitePR) December8, 2011

You Make the Call: Top Social Media Stinkbombs of 2011

admin — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:10:07 +0000

The opinions you express – and how you express them – can spread like wildfire in social media channels such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. That’s great, if that was your intention. However, irreverent remarks or photos can just as quickly come under scrutiny and bring unimaginable repercussions. This past year, as more people and brands than ever brought social media into play, several notable stumbles happened along the way. Here are some real doozies; You make the call; tell us which one do you think takes the cake as the top 2011 Social Media Stinkbomb of the Year?

Kansas Governor and staff bullied teen, demanding letter of apology for unfavorable tweet. Teen won public support, a lukewarm apology from the Governor and 16,000+ new Twitter followers.
PR agency gets canned after threatening via Twitter to withhold future product reviews from media for any negative reviews of a client’s game.
Springboarding off major social uprising in Cairo, Kenneth Cole pushed insensitive tweets to help drive store sales, but instead triggered a landslide of criticism.
A social media marketing agency, self-billed as the “Social Media Pioneer,” gets axed by Chrysler after inadvertently dropping the F-bomb using the client’s Twitter handle.
Anthony Weiner-Gate. Never a good idea to take racy pictures of yourself and push them onto a social channel … especially if you happen to be a public figure like a congressman or senator.

You Make the Call: Top Social Media Stinkbombs of 2011 bit.ly/skDLKo via @IgnitePR
— Ignite PR (@IgnitePR) December7, 2011

7 Key Considerations for Planning a Successful PR Launch

admin — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 20:29:52 +0000

Our sweet spot here at Ignite is helping unknown tech startups get on the map and build a leadership position. Our agency has successfully launched a wide range of technology-based companies, products and services in B2B and B2C industries. Startup entrepreneurs should keep in mind that achieving a leadership position likely won’t happen overnight; leadership has to be earned and is often a long-term journey for many successful market leaders.

Right now, we’ll focus on taking a closer look at some key considerations for startups to understand in order to plan a successful company or new product launch. It’s important to recognize that each launch comes with different objectives and requires tailored, strategic planning and diligent execution, along with company performance, progress and proof points. There are many marketing, public relations and social media activities that must be carefully addressed; here are some things Ignite often works through with clients to help in planning a successful PR launch:

How much time is needed? Timing is really critical yet often overlooked or discounted by startups. Having ample time allows the company to strategize, plan and coordinate critical marketing elements of the launch. The PR team and the client need to collaborate to prepare and secure numerous items including: positioning/messaging, third-party market validation such as benchmarking reports, analyst/press presentations, online product demo, artwork, screencasts, customer qualification/references, early community development, etc. After all these details are buttoned up, then there needs to be a critical runway of time required for key influencers to consider whether they have time in their schedule to meet or speak to the company. We advise our clients to allow for a minimum of 3 weeks for this process (if the stakes are higher then factor in more time). For a brand new company/product launch, we recommend a minimum of 8-12 weeks for overall pre-planning and collaboration.
Does your product work and is it ready for primetime? It may seem obvious, but it is important for a company’s product or service to work well and offer a baseline level of features and functionality to meet the specific needs of its target customers. Make sure your product or service works well enough to either delight users now or demonstrate its future promise. If the product falls short, disgruntled users may quickly turn away or spread the word via social media. Similarly, journalists will not put their reputation on the line by recommending a faulty or buggy service to their readers and can easily write a negative review.
How to engage your target customer? Identify your target customers and develop applicable messages tailored to address their specific needs and pain points. PR reps and their clients should look to engage with members of their targeted communities, whether on Facebook, Twitter, forums or blogs, to gain first-hand perspective about the challenges that matter most to them. The market is too competitive and unforgiving for a ‘me too’ product, so understanding what makes your product truly compelling for your target customer is pivotal. What problem does it uniquely solve? And is it a “nice-to-have” or “must have” solution for customers? This will help you build key functionality that meets their needs and will help you better tailor messages so users self-identify with your offering.
Should we build buzz before we launch? There may be opportunities to carry out viral pre-launch campaigns to help secure beta users, generate early word of mouth awareness or seed market interest in an emerging technology and product category. When deciding whether to build buzz prior to launch, you should consider several factors such as the market opportunity, product development stage, competitive space, and target customer. Readying your product to for the market should take priority over early buzz. Building your product to meet the baseline level the market requires is what matters most at this pre-launch stage. You can, however, conduct selective, early tests of different channels to identify the most effective ones for user acquisition — before you start heavily investing in scaling the business via Sales and Marketing and PR.
Do you have customer references? Reporters and bloggers are typically skeptical about claims companies make about their own products and services, preferring to speak directly to users, not company executives, about what makes a product compelling. Even if you only have one or two customer references who can share positive feedback with press, they are immensely valuable and can significantly validate your claims, show momentum and increase the likelihood for news coverage. While it is possible to launch a new company or product without them, positive customer references are PR’s Holy Grail of critical success factors.
Are there any third-party references familiar with your company/product? Industry analysts can validate a company’s position in the market, as can performance benchmark reports – especially for enterprise-type product offerings. Consider pre-briefing industry analysts who track your space, particularly if you’re launching without customers. Nonetheless, industry analysts, by and large, will always be a key constituent that companies have to court.
What else should you tell your PR team? What you think is inconsequential may actually be a very important element for your PR team to consider when devising strategy. Open communication is a must so disclose everything – the good, bad and ugly – from the very start. Your company’s background, positives and negatives are useful for your PR team to know so they can appropriately position and differentiate your company vis-à-vis competitors – especially when launching in a crowded space. Remember to put everything on the table.

7 Key Considerations For Planning a Successful #PR Launch ow.ly/7PpFU
— Ignite PR (@IgnitePR) December5, 2011

Tips on Dealing with Unfavorable Press Coverage

admin — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:45:31 +0000

Earlier this month, Connie Loizos of peHUB wrote a post about her recent conversation with Michael Buckley, a partner at the Brunswick Group, a corporate communications firm employed by Groupon. It started when Buckley contacted Loizos about her recent piece on Groupon, claiming it was “inaccurate” and “silly.” He disputed quotes by third-party sources and asserted she would find more favorable information about Groupon had she done better research. Buckley tipped her to a “leaked memo” by Groupon’s CEO, a big no-no as Groupon is in its pre-IPO quiet period, and ended it by asking Loizos to please call him the next time she plans to write “another nastigram” about his client.

It’s not uncommon for companies to feel frustration toward the media, if they believe inaccuracies or half-truths were published. However, this type of hasty response in light of unfavorable press coverage surely doesn’t make the article go away – and as it happened in this case, bad PR incited a follow-up article that painted Groupon in a far worse light than the original.

Reporters are only human and they sometimes make mistakes. It’s perfectly legitimate for a company to contact a reporter in order to correct a glaring inaccuracy, but there’s no benefit to insulting the person or questioning their journalistic integrity. Here are some tips on how to – and how not to – deal with unfavorable press coverage.

PR should serve as a resource for the media, providing information they need to get the facts straight or steering them to outside resources that could be of use.

Instead of blasting reporters for purportedly misquoting sources, work directly with third-party sources to clarify the company’s position.

PR agencies with clients that are pre-IPO should be familiar and able to advise clients on how to remain in compliance.

In the “Groupon nastigram” case, inaccurately referencing what the reporter had written, and worse, misquoting his own client’s memo, PR failed to get the facts straight. This not only impedes the company’s ability to convey their message but it undermines the PR rep’s credibility.

Think long term and strive to maintain and build a cordial relationship, particularly if the writer is someone that tracks the company or its sector. It’s better to invest in an ongoing relationship with a reporter than to burn bridges because of one negative article. If PR manages the relationship successfully, the reporter may write favorably about the company in the future.

And if all else fails and the company is really truly convinced the reporter is ignorant, lazy, or biased, seek to cultivate relationships with other contacts at the publication, news site or blog.

Tips on Dealing with Unfavorable Press Coverage: ignitepr.com/blog/?p=288 #pr #badpr #press
— Ignite PR (@IgnitePR) December 14, 2011

Extend Your Public Relations Footprint into Facebook

TR — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 23:08:56 +0000

Traditionally and in the simplest terms, public relations was defined as getting positive news coverage for a company, product or service in business or trade press, radio or TV. It’s clear the times have changed drastically. No longer can traditional public relations tactics cut it alone, but rather now must be blended with a range of tailored social media activities. And no longer are feature articles in key trade press and interviews on the front page of the business section daily newspaper the only place companies want to be highlighted. Today, brand activity and engagement needs to happen across a broad range of blogs, social networks and social media channels.

It may be surprising that Facebook is one channel businesses can no longer afford to overlook. A late 2009 study by Razorfish found that 40% of users become fans of brands on Facebook. Facebook counts more than 500 million active users worldwide; those numbers and audience are hard to ignore, nor should they be!

Establishing and maintaining an active Facebook Fan page gives companies and brands a broad palette of ways on how they can engage and communicate with their customers, prospects and market in general. For example: consumer brands can push promotions and deals. Musicians can share tour schedules, enable their fans to purchase chotchkies and schwag and encourage fans to post comments and pictures from concerts. Celebrities can champion non-profits and charities to help fundraise amongst fans, etc. The list of possibilities is unbounded.

Let’s consider a few ways companies, whether startups or big brands, can leverage a Facebook Page. Any company wants to maximize how they use the open real estate on their company homepage; they don’t want to clutter the important company and product information. With a Page, this opens up how and what you can share. In addition to some of the basic things a business might include such as blog posts, relevant market reports and white papers, product details, etc., businesses can add tabs and applications to post and share YouTube and Vimeo videos, presentations, Flickr photos, upcoming events, and so on. Essentially you can turn your Facebook Page into a one-stop shop and display case for all of your business’ online content.

Check out one of Cisco’s most excellent Facebook pages. They use it to raise employee donations, promote the CEO’s blog post and show demos, among many of the other activities they are doing to engage their fans and constituents. On Booz Allen Facebook’s page, users are guided on where to find the company on Twitter, YouTube, etc., but can also view their latest videos and upcoming forums, employee-focused or industry events, for example, without having to leave the fan page.

To underscore the importance and value of having a Facebook Page to expand your company’s brand engagement, consider this: Google recently started crawling Facebook Pages made public in efforts to expand its real-time search results. This means now people can more easily find streamlined results for businesses’ media assets that are strewn across the social media universe, such as Booz Allen’s Facebook page and Twitter handle coming up on page 3 of a random Google search. It’s never to late to set or spruce up your company’s presence and extend its social media footprint starting with a corporate Facebook identity, so jump in and start engaging with your customers and prospects where they are present.

Online Reviews Come into Question Again

TR — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 20:10:06 +0000

I didn't buy it, read it or see it....

When Monica Lewinsky wrote her tell-all memoir, online reviews started showing up on Amazon despite one small fact — the book had not yet being published. One reviewer admitted to making up a positive review “out of thin air.” Surprisingly Amazon ended up pulling the fake reviews, but not without a spokesperson defending the company’s “open policy” for the way reviews are submitted.

Fast forward to today and Amazon should rethink their free-for-all policy. In a recent Techcrunch post, blogger Paul Carr points out how bogus, negative reviews are unfairly affecting authors’ new book releases. Case in point: Michael Lewis’ latest book reflects more than 50% of reviewers giving only 1 star out of 5. That would be fine ….if these “reviewers” had actually read the book. Instead these “reviewers” have been quite open about their ax to grind, which evidently they believe is more important than the welfare of each hardworking author, who undoubtedly toiled to write and bring a new book to market. What also is quite clear is Amazon’s support behind the bogus reviews underscores their financial conflict of interest. Evidently, the online e-commerce giant is enabling these phony reviews because of one primary reason: they are Kindle customers. Amazon has opened the floodgates of Kindle owners to post bogus reviews, which really amount to “collective bullying,” for the purpose of trying to strong-arm publishers to release a Kindle version simultaneously when the hardcover hits the shelves (never mind that the author and publisher would take a huge financial hit.) That’s like demanding Hollywood release a new movie, ie: Avatar, in DVD rental the same day it debuts at theaters. The fact that eBook owners are receiving a huge discount on having access to the book content digitally is no different than people who choose to wait for a movie to be released on DVD; they save money because they don’t have to spend full ticket price for seeing the movie immediately.

So Amazon’s revenues and Kindle owners’ satisfaction should take precedence over all? The bogus reviews are negatively impacting countless authors who have nothing to do with Amazon’s distribution deals for its eBook product. In effect, Amazon is duplicitously enabling collective bullying by Kindle owners against authors by pummeling them with poor reviews from people who have never ordered the book, much less read it. The phony reviews harm each book’s overall rating and undoubtedly hurt each author’s personal pocketbook.

Amazon could easily implement measures to provide reviews that are void of bogus opinions as much as possible (see an earlier Ignite post making this argument). The company could easily segregate bogus reviews from people who never purchased the book through Amazon.com, while ensuring customers can indeed rely on genuine reviews from people who have actually purchased and read a book. Maybe Amazon should introduce 2 different rating systems: a star rating for bona fide readers of a book posting a real review and an ax rating for all others who have another gripe, dislike the author’s viewpoints, politics, gender, etc. In the Techcrunch post, some complained that if they rent a book from the library, they should still be allowed to post a review on Amazon. They could consider posting a tweet or note elsewhere about their opinion of the book. However, in the interest of keeping online reviews genuine, we believe that this smaller majority should not take priority over ensuring Amazon’s online reviews can be trusted.

Consider the impact online reviews are having on consumers:

More than half of consumer adults said reviews affect their online transactions, as reported by Harris Interactive.
Deloitte found 53% use social media to research potential gift ideas. Put into Lewis’ perspective, gift givers unfamiliar with his work who may just glance at the overall rating of his new book may opt to purchase another title.

As such, vendors that enable online reviews should aim for bona fide, trusty-worthy feedback and recommendations. The notion of genuine online reviews has once again come into question with Yelp under fire for purportedly having its own staff pad the service with questionable reviews. TripAdvisor also suffers because the company offers no safeguards, enabling anyone (hoteliers, restaurateurs, etc.) to post reviews—good, bad and ugly.

It is awfully refreshing when you can find vendors that are approaching trusted reviews in a smart way. Ignite client Zicasso, an online travel site that connects discerning travelers with pre-screened, select travel specialists, is the only online travel site that provides a trusted rating & review systems. Only travelers who have purchased and completed travel using @Zicasso, can post a rating or a review about their trip, on-the-ground travel experts used, hotels, sites visited, etc. The company also imposes strict criteria (3.5 out of 5 stars) that their travel partners have to maintain in order to remain in Zicasso’s trusted network. This is a great example that qualifying reviews can be done without manipulating the integrity of the review itself.

How do you weigh in on online reviews?

Portland: The New, New Black (Tech Scene Taking Root)

TR — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:43:33 +0000

In this month’s issue of Fast Company, there is an interesting article highlighting why Portland, OR is fast becoming a tech startup hot spot. We’re not surprised as we’ve taken notice of this last summer. Wedged between Silicon Valley and Seattle, Portland is increasingly becoming a magnet for entrepreneurs to lay down roots and set up shop.

Portland attracting tech entrepreneurs

Portland offers affordable living, an abundance of outdoors activities, college and professional sports, and within the last few years has earned a new nickname, “Beertown” for its 28 local breweries, which also helped spawn the country’s microbrew revolution. Full Sail Brewing pint aside, entrepreneurs can also tap into added benefits that Portland has to offer, including a new $500,000 seed fund to incubate startups and small businesses, a DIY mentality that churns out scrappy can-do entrepreneurs, a growing talent pool of engineers and developers to draw from, and with nearly 10 colleges and universities, Portland is home to a young, smart and energetic demographic. The city’s attributes have not gone unnoticed; here’s a list of different accolades it has racked up recently.

One Ignite client, open source data automation company Reductive Labs (since renamed Puppet Labs), pulled up stakes from Nashville, TN to drop anchor and call Portland home base. The company wanted to take advantage of the area’s strong roots in the open source movement (Ubuntu started here). Another Portand-based client, mobile app infrastructure startup, Urban Airship recently landed its Series A funding.

And while it certainly rains a lot in Portland, it’s increasingly raining apps — mobile app development more specifically. Portland is also drawing in mobile app and smartphone developers of all flavors; in particular iPhone and Android app developers are proliferating. With the proliferation of mobile app stores and new devices, such as the Kindle and iPad, the market for mobile app developers has never been rosier. Mobile app developers are no longer at the mercy of having to win over the approval of some big handset manufacturer or wireless carrier. Because the industry has opened up considerably, VCs are once again bullish in the mobile/wireless arena, spurring Portland’s swing from tech manufacturing more toward mobile software development. Given the predictions of smartphones and mobile app consumption over the next few years, the outlook for this region holds a lot of promise.

New York is seeing a strong tech renaissance, as is Austin. What other regions outside of Silicon Valley are you seeing emerge as a budding tech scene, SoCal, Atlanta, where else?