Promotions, Q & A, public relations • March 31st, 2008

Stepping into the lion’s den

by Chris Lato

Fellow Wispundit Karl Robe tipped me off to a fascinating interview segment on WISN-AM’s morning program today with state Sen. Lena Taylor, who’s looking to unseat incumbent Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker in tomorrow’s election.

It’s painful but worth a listen. (Scroll down to hour two, part two – it aired today). Things go downhill quickly due to a confrontational host who tries to step on Taylor’s answers, and Taylor swinging away, basically accusing the host of reading off the Walker campaign’s talking points.

Who thought this was a good idea? Obviously Taylor’s campaign was approached to appear on the program in the interests of providing equal time to both candidates. In general, WISN listeners are not part of Sen. Taylor’s support base, to put it charitably.

But most importantly, I took nothing away from the interview. What is the point of Lena Taylor running for this office? What does she want to do? What is her vision for Milwaukee County? I have no idea. Sen. Taylor had a prime opportunity to potentially connect with a group that normally wouldn’t be in her camp, and instead she took the bait and went rabid by trying to out-yell the host. If that was a voter’s first impression of Lena Taylor…not good.

I’m of the mindset that one should rarely, if ever, turn down media opportunities. Just about any mainstream media opportunity presents a potentially positive and even valuable outcome for a campaign…IF you are properly prepared for the appearance. If I was Sen. Taylor’s campaign advisor, I definitely would have told her to appear on WISN. And I would have advised her to handle herself in the exact opposite fashion, and extensively rehearsed her for that appearance.

Would she have listened? I don’t know, as I don’t know Sen. Taylor and how well she might have responded to media coaching. I can say that if she does pay for a media coach, that coach ought to refund her money.

Back in the day, I used to book media appearances for a top Wisconsin Republican who never looked forward to appearing on Wisconsin Public Radio programs, saying it was akin to stepping into the lion’s den. However, he recognized the value of taking on one’s ‘enemies’ head-on, not shying away from the challenge of confrontational callers who disagree vehemently with you.

Be disciplined, on-message, assertive when you need to be, clear-headed, and don’t let anyone bait you into losing your cool. If you are well-prepared in advance and feel secure in your answers, you should be able to handle yourself and get out of the lion’s den in one piece.

No Comments »

Messaging, Strategic Blueprints, public relations • March 28th, 2008

Spreading the Big Lie

by Chris Lato

Charles Krauthammer has a great piece about how a fairly straightforward statement made by John McCain on the campaign trail will be used to bludgeon McCain on foreign policy over the next several months.

This is an excellent illustration of how Big Lies take root and blossom. You’ve probably heard this already, the idea that McCain wants us at war in Iraq for the next 100 years. Well, it ain’t true, but that’s not going to stop his opponents from twisting it around.

Now, this is nothing new. Candidates at all levels take statements out of context, give it their own twist and try to turn it into gospel.

What are the lessons to be learned? For starters, candidates are ALWAYS on. Whether it’s a phone call, an email, a public appearance, or just shaking hands in a crowd, there is never a moment that can’t be captured and used against the candidate. Proceed cautiously at all times. You are never off the record.

Which leads to my next point, which I hammer on regularly: message discipline. By extension, how is that message conveyed? When a small fraction of an answer can be taken and turned into the linchpin of an opposition campaign, what does that tell you? Minimize your exposure by carefully considering your answers. Don’t be afraid to think before speaking. Your opponents hope you don’t … so do everything in your power to not give them the ammunition to take you down.

No Comments »

Branding Politix, Messaging, wispundits • March 27th, 2008

Issue ads in the crosshairs

by Chris Lato

The new Government Accountability Board is flexing its muscle, rolling up its sleeves and planning to start cracking down on those horrid issue ads that will be the downfall of our democracy. That darn Gableman-Butler Supreme Court race ruined it for everybody.

The Wisconsin State Journal breaks it down here. But here is the passage that should raise a few eyebrows:

Deborah Goldberg, the director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center who urged the board Wednesday to regulate issue ads, said the board could consider:

- Requiring disclosure of all individuals, corporations and groups that fund issue ads.

- Declaring that ads discussing the character and qualifications of a candidate don’t fit the definition of issue ads and instead advocate for or against a candidate.

- Declaring all ads in state Supreme Court races are advocacy ads, thus requiring the disclosure of donors for ads in those races only.

OK, I’m no legal expert, but here are a few questions:

· Who determines the definition of an issue ad? I thought those rules were written already?

· Literally, how will the disclosure thing work? Will the end of each ad have an announcer that rattles off names like he’s reading the rules and regulations at the end of one of those Wisconsin Lottery ads?

· Why declare that only Supreme Court ads are advocacy ads? Isn’t that kind of arbitrary?

I have no idea how the GAB plans to negotiate through the minefield of existing state and federal court rulings on this very topic. But it doesn’t take a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.

The GAB issues crackdown potentially runs afoul of the law. The self-appointed good government types either hail it as a step in the right direction or damn it for not going far enough. A court challenge ensues. It drags on for many months, if not years. Wash, rinse, repeat if necessary.

Here’s what gnaws at me about this. All this hand-wringing condescendingly assumes that voters are dolts who do no homework on their own, and can be led by the nose by some negative ad. Sure, maybe that’s true for some people, but I’d rather believe voters are generally smart and engaged enough to pay attention, do a little digging if necessary, and come to their own reasoned conclusions…especially if they’re going to bother to vote in a spring election. I mean, all this talk is generating a lot of attention on a race, and that may help drive turnout, and that’s a good thing…right?

And, yes, plenty of folks will be voting along ‘partisan’ lines in Tuesday’s Supreme Court race, even though the races are officially non-partisan (wink wink, nudge nudge).

Also, candidates sweat about losing control of their campaign, but they can use this as an opportunity. Decry the ads, pass on the opportunity to comment, turn the reporter’s question about those evil issue ads immediately back to your campaign, your platform, your agenda. You can still steer things back to your campaign and gain control. Put things in perspective and enforce strict internal message discipline, and all will be right with the world.

Comment (1) »

Views on News • March 26th, 2008

Frankenstein unstitched?

by Chris Lato

This issue has received almost zero attention this election cycle, what with all the hot air surrounding the state Supreme Court race, but this is significant: Wisconsin voters have the chance to kill the governor’s so-called ‘Frankenstein veto’ power on April 1.

Voters will consider a proposed constitutional amendment limiting the governor’s power to do things like this.

Props to the Wisconsin State Journal, in particular, for being all over this issue and pressuring the powers that be, like Senate President Fred Risser, to get off the dime. The WSJ has a good summary of the history of the Frankenstein veto here. And you can read the legal-ese version of the proposed constitutional amendment here.

Right now, Wisconsin’s governor enjoys one of the most powerful veto pens in the country. Jim Doyle, much like Tommy Thompson before him, hasn’t been shy about using it to an extraordinary degree. And some say that even if this amendment is approved by voters Tuesday, the governor will still have a whole lot of ink in the ol’ veto pen.

While the Frankenstein veto has been upheld by the state high court, it clearly subverts the will of the Legislature, and that is a big part of the problem. It opens the door to a governor making changes to a budget that actually increase spending and borrowing, instead of using the veto pen to cut spending, and that is another problem.

Both parties were obviously offended by the steps taken by Governor Doyle in recent budgets. Credit must be given to the Legislature, Democrats and Republicans alike, who showed overwhelming support for sending this issue to voters. Democrats always used to complain that Republicans were MIA on the Frankenstein veto back when Thompson was in office. Well, everyone has stepped up now, and both sides should be acknowledged for that.

If people take a moment to understand what this issue is all about, I’d be shocked if the Frankenstein veto ban didn’t pass by a big margin on Tuesday.

No Comments »

Leadership, Speeches, Views on News • March 25th, 2008

Oops!

by Chris Lato

Wow, Hillary Clinton really stepped in it this time. This video is positively damning.

I have no idea what Senator Clinton was thinking when she made these claims, but in a race this tight you have no margin for error - especially the kind of error that can be easily fact-checked.

No Comments »

Leadership, Promotions, Strategic Blueprints • March 25th, 2008

Bucks for the Bucks?

by Chris Lato

So the Bradley Center is among the oldest facilities in the NBA, and the Bucks are worse than bad this season.

So what’s the solution? Build a new arena with taxpayer dollars, of course!

Steve Jagler sounds off on the issue and comments on how the powers-that-be refuse to play nice in coming up with a cohesive plan for downtown Milwaukee. It’s a shame, because it sounds like the potential is there if everyone could just get along.

I’m not going to claim to be some expert on sports (and if I did, those who know me well would call me out on it and embarrass me terribly), but here’s my take on new stadiums for teams. This will sound simplistic but it makes perfect sense to me.

If you’re winning, let’s talk. If you’re losing, go away until you’ve shown a commitment to winning. Then, let’s talk.

The Packers did things the right way. The Brewers, not so much – although last year was incredible. Unfortunately, the wheels fell off the Brewers’ season but it showed that Milwaukee can and will support a pro baseball team that has at least a reasonable shot at success.

But initially, things were a bit rough for Miller Park after the shiny new ballpark goodness wore off. Once a better team started taking the field, interest spiked once again.

A winning team puts butts in the seats. Go figure!

As for the Bucks, well, this season has been an unmitigated disaster. Talk about building a new arena has been churning out there for a while, but who’s going to want to back this loser team?

Playing devil’s advocate for a moment, perhaps the last best way to sell the idea of a new arena under these grim circumstances is to find a way to unite the various forces controlling downtown Milwaukee, design a state-of the art arena that will attract top-shelf live shows year-round, sell the economic benefits to the many skeptics who will control the purse strings, and systematically make the case that this will be a long-term jewel in the city’s crown. All marketing and positioning should seek to strike a balance: the big-city feel of a beautiful new arena with an intimate community connection.

Also, the Brewers have done a fantastic marketing job, making going to the ballpark fun even when the team is tanking. The Bucks need to find a way to capture some of that magic in their marketing and promotions.

This is a lot of work. It would not be easy.

The way NOT to sell the notion of a new arena is to threaten for the Bucks to pull up stakes and move out of Milwaukee. The lingering resentment surrounding mega-rich owner Herb Kohl will only intensify if those who will be asked to foot the bill feel like they’re being steamrolled on behalf of a wealthy owner throwing a tantrum.

But again, let’s see some winning first. A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down - and will put some smiles on the faces of those who will be asked to pony up later.

No Comments »

Messaging, Strategic Blueprints, public relations • March 24th, 2008

Who wants to be a chancellor?

by Chris Lato

I saw this article on the front page of the Wisconsin State Journal Sunday and thought to myself: someone’s working overtime to put a positive spin on the UW Chancellor salary issue.

The President of the United States is paid $400,000 a year, with another $50,000 a year for expenses. (When the president travels to meet with foreign dignitaries, does he have to pick up the check a lot?)

The next UW-Madison chancellor will be paid between $370,000 to $452,000. Yup, more than the leader of the free world. Am I crazy, or does that seem awfully high? (Full disclosure alert: I’m a UW-Madison graduate, and yes, it was generally a fine education.)

No doubt the chancellor is a busy guy. It sounds like a big job with long hours, etc., etc. But still…there has been criticism of the pay level that sounds valid to me.

In addition, numerous articles cite UW-Madison’s difficult relationship with the state Legislature, and Wiley is blamed for some of those problems.

Now, before going any further, I should point out that this is not intended as a hit piece. But the article got me thinking about how to navigate the choppy PR waters in a case like this. Fences need to be mended with lawmakers who control the purse strings for the UW System. The public needs to understand just what the job entails, and how important UW-Madison is to higher education in Wisconsin - because that salary will undoubtedly cause sticker shock. Justifying the price tag when Wisconsin is in a budget hole and the economy shows signs of heading into the tank is the biggest challenge. If you can’t do that, you’d better re-think your strategy. Just saying “The chancellor works really hard” won’t cut it.

At any rate, the deadline to apply for the chancellor’s job is Friday, so if you think you have what it takes, get your resume together and good luck!

No Comments »

Leadership, Strategic Blueprints, Views on News, public relations • March 21st, 2008

The SEWRPC squabble

by Chris Lato

The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) has picked a new executive director.

So what, you say? Plenty of area politicos have been wringing their hands, and not without good reason, over the way the taxpayer-financed public planning group handles the selection process for the six-figure job. In addition, blogger James Rowen thoroughly dismantles the group here.

Sounds like a group in need of an image makeover, no?

The selection process used by SEWRPC is fair game for criticism, as it smacks of back-room cronyism. How about a more open process, with the participation of local politicians, the public, even (gasp!) your critics? If the decision you are making is sound, then it can withstand some heat, and openness goes a long way toward erasing the feeling that something fishy is going on.

Be prepared for the negative questions. Have someone play the devil’s advocate and ask you the tough questions, taking the time to think through your justification for the process you use. Know your critics – take the time to understand what they say and where they are coming from. That helps prevent surprises and prepares you for the worst that can be thrown at you.

The group’s function and purpose are different matters (critics like Rowen clearly have their issues with SEWRPC’s role). I could lay out a detailed plan to help SEWRPC turn things around, but then someone would have to pay me.

No Comments »

Leadership, Messaging, Views on News, public relations • March 20th, 2008

Eliot’s greatest err: his response

by Karl Robe

To err is human, to forgive divine. But Eliot’s greatest err, his crisis response, might not allow for forgiveness.

Most politicians and executives, I believe, think of the potential for a crisis as a low-probability, high-impact event. In fact, if they took five minutes to list potential vulnerabilities that could sink them, the list would lead them to a different conclusion. The probability of crisis is high, regardless of profession. The probability of survival is low without being prepared and understanding how to deal with the different stakeholders during a crisis. A few points to consider — with your attorneys and public relations counsel present — if faced with a crisis:

• Admit wrongdoing and apologize.
• Fix the wrong.
• Communicate plans to avoid it happening again.
• Execute on those plans.
• Provide stakeholders with progress reports along the way.

Spitzer, a.k.a. Mr. Clean, steamrolled many people during his ascent to power. Because of his persona, the slightest whiff of impropriety spelled certain, irreversible doom in his public life. If, however, Spitzer was able to follow the steps above, he could prevent the story from continuing to make headlines every time a morsel of information surfaces.

For the sake of his family, who might provide the only possible source of forgiveness, these steps could be worth their weight in public relations fees.

No Comments »

2008 Primaries, Messaging • March 19th, 2008

Obama speaks out

by Jon Tingley

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama yesterday gave what some people are calling a landmark speech, addressing comments made by his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In his speech, Obama denounced Wright saying his statements “expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country,” and were “not only wrong, but divisive.” Obama goes on to explain the history of his relationship with Wright and says that he cannot disown his pastor for a few minutes of sermon over 30 years of service. Obama asserts that he never once heard Wright talk about these subjects before they appeared on YouTube and in the broadcast media.

Regardless of whether you believe Obama, he astutely distanced himself from the radical portrayal of his pastor while illustrating his ability to remain loyal.

more »

No Comments »