2008 Primaries, Views on News, public relations • July 3rd, 2008

Children of the corn

by Chris Lato

In the corn-growing Midwest, members of Congress are picking sides over ethanol. This is shaping up to be a serious campaign issue, but one presidential candidate is walking a tricky line that will be tough to maintain as anger over high gas and food prices grow, and the public gets restless and demands solutions.

To set the stage, U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner recently sent a piece out to his constituents with the headline: “Ethanol Mandate Must End.” He makes the argument that record prices for gas and groceries can be traced back to a great extent to the mandate, which subsidizes the ethanol industry and gives incentives for farmers to grow more corn to use in fuel.

Sensenbrenner points to studies that contend ethanol is actually bad for the environment in a number of ways – causing more carbon emissions, prompting poor land use decisions, and requiring a huge amount of water to produce ethanol.

Now, consider this bit from a long interview with Barack Obama in the current issue of ‘Rolling Stone’ (I know, I got a lot of column fodder from this issue). The interviewer is the fair-and-balanced Jann S. Wenner, who actually makes a half-hearted attempt to pin Obama down on this one. Wenner actually sounds a little like Sensenbrenner – talk about strange bedfellows.

Jann S. Wenner: You’ve been a big supporter of ethanol. But studies show it doesn’t do anything to reduce global warming, it’s actually a less efficient way to produce energy than gasoline, and it’s contributing to growing food shortages worldwide. Are you going to continue backing it?

Barack Obama: Corn-based ethanol I see as a transitional technology. We’ve got to invest in alternative fuels.

Wenner: This one is ranked as pretty bad.

Obama: I understand, which is why we’re going to have a transition from corn-based ethanol to cellulosic ethanol, not using food crops as the source of energy.

Wenner: So you foresee this coming to an end.

Obama: What I foresee is us transitioning into other ways of developing these energy sources. The fact that we had corn-based ethanol, and that industry has matured, provides us with distribution networks and infrastructure that can ultimately be used for other ethanol sources.

Wenner doesn’t touch on why Obama has been a big supporter of ethanol, and notice Obama is carefully refusing to explicitly bash ethanol. He has his reasons – read this fascinating New York Times story to get the scoop on why this is.

For starters, I’m not a scientist but I have to think it’s not as easy as just flicking a switch to make such a massive change in the production of ethanol. Will the government be funding such a massive changeover? How long would it take? What about farmers being pushed to make a big change in what they grow, such as switchgrass, which Obama has said could be used to make cellulosic ethanol?

Also, Obama is a Senator from a corn-growing state. He has voted for the ethanol mandate in the past. Does he now repudiate that vote? Will he continue to support corn-based ethanol, of immediately push in a new direction? What will his friends in the ethanol industry think?

No one asked me, but I would suggest Obama rethink his campaign structure when it comes to those he is relying on as energy advisors, and make a stronger effort to advance his energy agenda specific to ethanol. The public is moving past rhetoric and looking for answers every time they put $80 in their gas tank and pay ever-rising prices at the local Piggly Wiggly.

Obama and John McCain both have energy plans out there for all to see. But as the cliché goes, the devil is in the details. And when it comes to politicians, it’s what they do, not what they say, that is always the most telling. Speeches may dazzle, but voting records are far more telling.

No Comments »

Leadership, Views on News, public relations • June 27th, 2008

Surveying the landscape

by Chris Lato

The weekend is almost here, and my short attention span won’t allow me to focus on any one topic – a few things grabbed my attention this morning.

First, were you listening to Wisconsin Public Radio at 8 this morning? If not, shame on you. Catch the Week in Review in the archives here. Thanks to Joy Cardin, her staff and Matt Rothschild for a fun and enlightening hour.

Next….is there any doubt that Scott Walker is going to veto this thing? It’s the tax idea that simply won’t die in Milwaukee County- and great timing to boot, what with the economy and all.

Supporters say the money will go to aid parks and mass transit, while cutting back on property taxes…whenever politicians start talking about tax shell games such as this, alarm bells should start ringing and you should put one hand on your wallet at all times.

Granted, this has a long way to go before it would get before the voters as an advisory referendum. One thing’s for sure: if this ever did go before the voters in Milwaukee County, it’s safe to say this would go down in giant, red-hot flames.

A suggestion: if revenue is needed, consider such moves as outlined in the story – privatizing Mitchell Field, competitive bidding for transit services, concessions at the parks, etc. Consider trying something new and different. Imagine the points that could be scored if some of the tax-supporting supervisors got together and put some new thinking on the table, instead of beating their collective head against the wall with this notion of raising the sales tax.

Next, we travel to UW-Parkside, where a PR nightmare is brewing over the selection of a Chancellor with a highly controversial past. Turns out Robert Felner had received a ‘no confidence’ vote back in 2006 from another university, and has a criminal fraud investigation pending against him. Oops! I know, I know, innocent until proven guilty, but really, let’s be real: this can’t be the best choice to lead UW-Parkside. If it is, then it doesn’t bode well for the UW System.

You can read all about it here, here and here. Felner has handed in his resignation already, but the common theme from the school’s muckety-mucks is troubling: a defensive posture, a ‘what, me worry?’ stance, a refusal to take responsibility, and concern over what this means to Felner’s career instead of trying to remedy this big blunder in future hiring moves. Not the course of action I would recommend.

This properly raises questions about the process of selecting these top dogs for the UW. One spokesman for Parkside says this presents an opportunity for a ‘teachable moment’ and that officials will take ‘a moment’ to review the process. That observation earns the Understatement of the Week award. Hopefully they spend a bit longer than that and reconsider their public approach to this flap.

And, last but not least, WMC is paying the price for its spending in the recent state Supreme Court races. This is hardly surprising, given the bitterness that surrounded this contest and the political leanings of those involved. Something tells me WMC weighed the pros and cons here, and decided it could survive. After all, Shirley Abrahamson’s race is right around the corner.

And, with WMC under heavy ongoing fire, will WEAC continue to get a free pass on the criticism? Hmmm….

No Comments »

Messaging, public relations • June 13th, 2008

“Aldi” it takes is 3 minutes or less … to damage reputation

by Erika Duelge

The other day a client asked, “How much damage could I do in three minutes.” To which I replied, “a lot.” I know three minutes sounds like a short amount of time, but when I read an article on BrookfieldNOW’s Website about how the town of Brookfield rejected Aldi’s attempts at setting up shop in Bluemound Plaza, my response was validated.

The headline read, “Officials say they’re concerned about the grocer’s reputation and the type of customers the store would attract to the community.” The negative slant to this message creates potential for numerous consequences. Carefully selecting words and messages that communicate one’s position in positive terms can go a long way to avoiding or at least lessening the fallout.

more »

Comment (1) »

Messaging, Views on News, public relations • June 9th, 2008

MMSD dodges feces fiasco?

by Karl Robe

Listening to talk radio this afternoon, I found the lack of hostility toward the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District particularly interesting. Granted, reports of how much raw sewage dumps into Lake Michigan typically hit the airwaves days after storm events. But Jeff Wagner, host of AM620’s Department of Justice, has already declared a temporary truce on MMSD for what certainly will total large amounts of sewage being dumped as a result of our recent deluge of rain.

“The record rainfall for the entire month of June for the state is like 9.5 inches,” Wagner said, noting we received that much in the last few days. “Others may criticize as these reports are released, but there will be no criticism from this corner, ‘The Department of Justice.’” more »

No Comments »

Events, public relations • June 3rd, 2008

Riversplash shots blur future

by Karl Robe

This just in … man shot in downtown Milwaukee … too many drinks lead to drunken brawl.

Could be any Saturday night in our fair city of beer and brats, right? But this donnybrook has drawn extraordinary attention for its proximity to Riversplash, the unofficial kickoff to Milwaukee’s pride- and revenue-producing festival season.

Organizers of Riversplash, which takes place on the Milwaukee River, have a window of opportunity to ensure the event sees its 20th anniversary in 2009. More than anything, they must take immediate, public and ongoing action that demonstrates how things will work differently moving forward.

While every situation is different, damage control typically starts with taking steps to identify what went wrong, what will be changed and what will be done in the future to prevent Riversplash from becoming “Thugland by the Riv.”

For politicians, event organizers must give them the cover they need with their constituents to once again support Riversplash. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV, summarizes constituent relationships very well.

“Convince my constituents,” he says. “If they’re for you, I’m for you. If they’re against you, there isn’t a way on God’s green earth I’m going to support you.”

Part of this constituency includes media and talk show hosts. Event organizers must demonstrate why the story line and commentary should focus on organizers’ ability to hold a safe, fun, family event over the past 19 years and what is being done to ensure another 19 years of prosperity.

Sponsors of events like this also are part of the constituency. As of this posting, event sponsor Miller Beer has not yet pulled the drain plug on its support for Riversplash. But rest assured, if steps are not taken to reverse the perception of how this festival “devolved over the years into a drunken brawl,” as some have described it, activist groups and other people with an axe to grind will come out against continued sponsorship.

Mayor Tom Barrett and Ald. Bob Bauman, according to a Journal Sentinel editorial, said they will be taking a closer look at similar street festivals this year and, in particular, area bars.

If you are an event organizer within a splash of Vermouth of Milwaukee, you, too, will be wise to recheck your policies and procedures, as well as your crisis plan.

No Comments »

Views on News, public relations • May 28th, 2008

Scott squeals

by Chris Lato

Maybe that’s not a fair headline, but I have really mixed feelings about the news that Scott McClellan, a former member of the Bush inner circle, has written a highly critical tell-all about his time as the President’s press secretary. Heck, the Drudge Report had ‘Scott the Snitch’ as its giant headline today.

My objections are not necessarily what you may think at first.

For starters, will I read the book? You betcha. I’m a big fan of the modern political memoir, particularly from someone who handled communications for the president. It’s coming from a guy who made it to the top of my profession, and I also think it’s unfair to dismiss what the guy has to say without actually reading it first.

The book isn’t coming out until next week, but based on initial press reports, some of McClellan’s writing rings true. As someone who did partisan political communications in a previous life, I absolutely buy into his assertions that sometimes he was lied to and/or kept in the dark to ensure he delivered the right spin on behalf of the White House.

Yet the opportunism on display here is unseemly. It strikes me as piling onto President Bush to make a buck. And, perhaps sensing which way the political winds are blowing, this is McClellan’s attempt to stay professionally viable once the Democrats take over the world in the 2008 elections.

But who’d want to hire Scott McClellan? That’s one of my problems here – he taints it for others responsible for handling public relations for sensitive, high-profile clients. It’s a matter of trust.

Maybe McClellan’s conscience got the better of him. Fair enough. I’d have an easier time buying that line if McClellan had quit, instead of getting pushed out of the White House. Writing a critical tell-all memoir is the ultimate ‘up yours’ when you’re mad at a former boss. It may pay well, but how could anyone trust him with sensitive media relations matters in the future?

It’s not unreasonable to expect a code of honor to be adhered to when one is responsible for handling sensitive issues like, oh, I dunno, the inner workings of the White House. To not even wait until after President Bush is out of the White House is tacky and invites hard questioning, which McClellan should answer to.

I hope he’s getting paid well for this. Perhaps the DNC can have McClellan speak at their convention this summer. That would be some ‘get’ – having President Bush’s former press secretary bashing the evil Republicans! Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman would have nothing on Scott McClellan.

The McClellan flap reminds me of when David Brock, a onetime right-wing hatchet man, turned around and suddenly decided to come out as an ardent critic of the right. Christopher Hitchens dismantles Brock far better than I ever could, but suffice it to say that this sort of self-serving flip-flopping reeks of a dishonorable ability to head whichever way the political winds are blowing.

No Comments »

Leadership, public relations • May 22nd, 2008

Pistol-packin’ pitchman

by Chris Lato

I have long held Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in fairly high regard. As a former reporter, I admire his willingness to shoot straight and call them as he sees them. Sometimes that lack of a filter causes him to step in it, but I get the sense through his public persona he is a no-nonsense, law-and-order guy who surely rubs some people the wrong way and doesn’t tolerate insubordination – that’s part of his appeal.

Of course, his fellow Democrats don’t like him much. He’s a Republican in Democrat clothing, they say. Eh, whatever. Both parties have plenty of those. It is what it is. If I lived in Milwaukee County, he’d have my vote.

At the same time, I can’t imagine working on one of his political campaigns or being in the position of handling his communications – he seems like the type who knows exactly what he wants and isn’t open to guidance. That can be disastrous. Sure, he headed successful campaigns for sheriff, but the less said about his run for Milwaukee Mayor, the better.

With that in mind, if Clarke had any advisors with a lick of sense, they would have urged him not to do a radio ad for Valvoline oil change shops, under the guise of sending out a safety message before the big Memorial Day holiday weekend. And apparently, Clarke wouldn’t have listened.

You can see the story here, courtesy of my friends and former employers at WTMJ-AM.

I heard the ad this week while listening to Mark Belling. At first, I thought, “No big deal.” He’s talking about ways to make sure your car is safe to drive. Then, toward the end of the ad, Clarke says, “Visit any Valvoline instant oil change, your car care expert.”

And with that, the sheriff crosses the line from concerned public official to pitchman. He claims he thought it would be edited out, but come on. Is the sheriff really that much of a rube? And if what he claims is true, why hasn’t he demanded the ad be changed?

I recall hearing an on-air version of the WTMJ story that indicated Clarke wasn’t paid to do the spot - that it was strictly in exchange for the opportunity to get out the safety message.

I don’t know that this is unprecedented, and I’d like to hear any examples of public officials doing something similar, but Clarke’s move opens a big fat can of worms.

Does Sheriff Clarke have any standards when doing the ads? How can he say no to anyone who approaches with a script that offers some sort of safety message? What’s next, Clarke telling folks to enjoy delicious Miller Lite as long as the spot has an anti-drunk driving statement? Will Clarke be telling listeners to head down to the local gun store, as long as the ad contains a bit about trigger locks?

Also, the argument can be made that Sheriff Clarke is potentially compromised if any wrongdoing tied to Valvoline has to be investigated by his office. There are ways around that, but why put yourself in that position in the first place?

Sheriff Clarke continues to blaze his own trail – good for him. But that independent streak also leads to some head-scratching moves – and when it’s coupled with a bull-headed unwillingness to listen to advice or admit to misguided decisions, potential PR disasters are always lurking.

No Comments »

2008 Primaries, Branding Politix, Creative, Global Concerns, public relations • May 14th, 2008

McCain goes green and conservatives see red

by Chris Lato

This guy just can’t catch a break with conservatives.

The John McCain campaign has unveiled what it calls eco-friendly campaign items for sale on its website. And some conservative commentators are apoplectic about it.

Geez, settle down, people. Some of these guys are looking for something, anything, as a reason to tear McCain a new one. To those people, the question remains: would you really rather have Barack Obama? Seriously? This is hardly a case of high treason against the conservative cause.

I think it’s absolutely ingenious. From a pure marketing standpoint, the ‘green’ movement is white-hot. Heck, the whole issue is hot, and there is room for everyone to get into the debate over whether the climate change folks are right-on, or are alarmists blowing a lot of, ahem, hot air. People are talking about it, people care about it. To simply dismiss it out of hand is short-sighted and out-of touch, and McCain recognizes this.

McCain is making a move to steal a key issue the Dems claim to dominate on, and make it his own. He is working to defuse the rhetoric that he will aid and abet the big polluters, who of course are all Republicans who sleep on beds of hundred-dollar bills.

McCain’s ‘green’ collateral is a great example of brilliant thinking when it comes to campaign promotional items. On the flip side, this reminds me of a couple of minor brouhahas that erupted back in the day. Great examples of how bad choices in collateral can totally ruin your day.

Brouhaha #1: The sale of Republican-themed shirts at a GOP booth at the Wisconsin State Fair a few years back. Turns out the shirts were made in, I believe, Mexico. A local TV station was tipped off by a Democrat operative, and things took off from there.

Brouhaha #2: When I was a radio news reporter in Madison back in the late 90s, Wisconsin celebrated its 150^th year of statehood with a special ceremony that included handing out small bells to ring. Only problem: the bells came with a small “Made in China” sticker affixed to each one. Oops!

The moral of the story, if you’re doing anything even remotely political: consider ‘buying American.’ Yes, I know, Americans are involved in design, production, sales, etc. of products that are ‘made’ overseas, but what it says on the label will make a symbolic difference. Let’s face it, you don’t want to be put in the position of trying to explain the nuances of global commerce.

Bottom line: The McCain campaign seems to get the messages it needs to send out. The underlying McCain policy will be what tells the real story, but for now this is a clever, funny and audacious move. I’ll recycle a plastic bottle in their honor today.

No Comments »

Messaging, Views on News, public relations • May 5th, 2008

Opportunity Missed

by Greg Batiansila

Some of the best public affairs centers around timing. If something you represent or advocate is getting assailed publicly, you must act quickly, succinctly and directly. Did I say quickly?

So when the head of a major corporation in Milwaukee comments on Milwaukee’s “anti-business” attitude…if you work for City of Milwaukee, you must act quickly, succinctly and directly.

From a public affairs perspective, my first call wouldn’t be to the Journal Sentinel or any media outlet. Why bother getting into a media contest? My first call would be to John Shiely. I want him to know we’re listening. I want him to know my cell number. I want him to realize that we’re humans, that we can work together. I want Shiely to think he has advocates working for the City of Milwaukee.

Then I’d call the media. I’d let them know exactly what we’re doing to make Milwaukee a haven to business. Let them know that I’ve had an open and honest conversation with John and that he’d be included as we move forward.

Instead, according to JSOnline, I see the City of Milwaukee has responded with a yawn.

Now, some of these suggestions may already have been implemented behind the scenes to no avail. But bringing opinion leaders together as part of the solution is a great first step if it has not happened yet.

No Comments »

Branding Politix, Messaging, Speeches, public relations • May 1st, 2008

Mission accomplished?

by Chris Lato

I bring this up not to argue about Iraq – plenty of bloggers across the political spectrum do that daily.

This is a question of communications, public relations, and event management – an example of a colossal misfire that really could have been avoided had cooler heads prevailed.

I’m talking about one of the less illustrious anniversaries for the Bush administration. Remember the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner flown five years ago today on the USS Abraham Lincoln? President Bush made his dramatic entrance on the aircraft carrier and declared that “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”

Oops.

Again, I’m not arguing Iraq here. But let’s break down the communications missteps.

#1 - That damn banner. The administration’s opponents have embraced it as a sign of arrogance and hubris, and rammed it down their collective throat for five years now. It’s hard to argue the point. It was an overreaching PR blunder on an occasion that called for restraint.

Was it a bad decision? You betcha. An administration that generally understands and adheres to message discipline really stepped in it, with the perception being that the war was over way, WAY before it really was. It was politically tone-deaf.

#2-The post-banner mangling. The White House offered a string of reasons for the banner, none of which rang true. The more excuses and contradictory reasons you offer, well, the less truthful and forthcoming you appear - especially if you can’t offer a definitive response ASAP and be done with it.

That won’t stop your enemies from frothing at the mouth, but at least you have put your response out there, quickly and on the record, and can point to that every time the issue comes up again. You have the force and clarity of your argument on your side.

#3-The speech. What can I say? I’m sure President Bush didn’t write it, but clearly his staff was all charged up over what they saw as a big victory and overreached wildly.

Again, considering the setting and what should have been a fairly solemn occasion, it was treated as a rah-rah moment that, to this day, we’re still talking about in a less-than-favorable light.

One poorly conceived press event that resonates for years. You could make the argument that no one could have predicted where things would be five years later, but good PR consultation offers a sense of where things may go, the positives and negatives behind what you do to engage the press. For whatever reason, that apparently didn’t happen here, but the price for that shortsightedness is still being paid.

No Comments »