Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Celebrity Beware: The World is Watching You

During the past year celebrities have shown themselves to be prone to saying and doing dumb things that have taken a heavy toll on their reputations - to the extent that some of their closest associates and friends have distanced themselves.  From French soccer supremo Zinedine Zidane’s much discussed and lampooned head butt of Italian player Marco Materazzi during the final of the World Cup; to Tom Cruise’s laughable couch jumping episode on the Oprah Winfrey show; to Mel Gibson’s pitiful anti-Semitic outburst during a drink-driving incident in Los Angeles; to, most recently, the racist slurs shouted by the comedian Michael Richards during a stand-up comedy routine; there has been no shortage of celebrities making asses of themselves in  2006.  With so many celebs going down this year the question is what can they do, if anything, to repair their tarnished reputations.


The Mark of “Z”

The toll for these celebrities has been enormous.  For Zidane, probably the greatest soccer player since Pele, the head butting incident will never be forgotten, overshadowing everything he has achieved in his illustrious career.  Even if Materazzi did make racist comments about Zidane’s Middle Eastern background no amount of explanation can undo the violent reaction.  Since the incident Zidane has tried to explain his actions and has expressed regret because of his position as a role model to children (but interestingly he has refused to apologise).  None of this matters.  Long after Materazzi and his alleged comments have been forgotten, Zidane’s actions will be remembered.  Commented on by bloggers and pilloried on You Tube and other v-log sites, Zidane’s career is marred possibly beyond repair.

Cruising with Eyes Wide Shut

Tom Cruise has been slipping into the mire for some time and the couch jumping incident on the Oprah show was but the last straw for many of his fans and supporters.   Whatever one thinks of Cruise’s chosen religion of the Church of Scientology, his outbursts at press conferences when quizzed about his beliefs did little to help Cruise or Scientology’s image.  Then there were rumours that he was spending much of his time on the set of the movie War of the Worlds proselytizing for Scientology, much to the annoyance of the film’s director Steven Spielberg and other crew members.  Cruise then lashed out on the NBC’s “Today” show at psychiatry and the use of drugs to treat various psychological conditions (Scientology opposes both), taking a swipe in the process at actress Brooke Shields who was treated with anti-depressants during her recovery from post-natal depression.  By the time Cruise started jumping on the couch to profess his love for Katie Holmes, he was knee deep in a quagmire of his own making. 

In an attempt to salvage his flagging image Cruise even changed public relations agents during the year; but that did little to help when bizarre behaviour continued to dominate public appearances and media coverage.   He was soon dismissed from his US$10 million per picture deal with Paramount Studios and attempts to spin it as Cruise moving on to revive MGM’s United Artists studio didn’t help given the rather public firing.   The head of Paramount Studies, Sumner Redstone, citing Cruise’s erratic behaviour as one reason for his dismissal was the killer blow.  No amount of PR spin worked while the world’s press focused on the tight leash Scientology apparently placed around Katie Holmes, her pregnancy and the birth of their child.  The question some PR gurus have been asking is whether Cruise’s sex appeal and talent as an actor can overcome the personal image crisis he has created for himself.  A tough situation for the former top gun of Hollywood.

Lethal Weapon to the Head

But Cruise’s bizarre behaviour didn’t leave him the most untouchable actor in Hollywood.  That distinction in 2006 has gone to the once “sexiest man alive” Mel Gibson for his anti-Semitic comments when arrested for drink driving.  Gibson was named as the top “least-powerful, least-inspiring, least-intriguing” of Hollywood stars by the influential website Film Threat.  (Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes came in at 10th place.)  Gibson’s boorish behaviour while under the influence wasn’t helped by the fact that his father’s anti-Semitic views have been public knowledge for years.  Worse, Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ was criticised by many in Tinsel Town for having anti-Semitic overtones.  And Gibson’s public mea culpa and decision to enter treatment for alcoholism have not helped revive his position as one of Hollywood’s big draw cards.  The patriot continues to wallow in a swamp of distrust.

Kramer versus Kramer

But Gibson could have some stiff competition next year for the prize as Hollywood’s most untouchable ass.  Michael Richards, an actor in the long-running sitcom Seinfeld, may take the honour next year because of his recent anti-black comments during a live comedy routine.  Richards’ abuse of disruptive members of the audience was one thing but his resort to racist comments, including the “n” word, may prove an irreparable blow for his career.  Even old friend Jerry Seinfeld has said he was “sickened” by Richards’ comments.  Mel Gibson and Michael Richards could find themselves starring in the Dumb and Dumber sequel for their erratic behaviour.  And if someone wants to make a Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest film, Cruise could join them.

The question every good PR practioner should ask is how can these errant celebrities extract themselves from the bogs they have got themselves into.

Bravehearts and Risky Business

Richards’ offense is possibly the easiest to address.  He is not known as a racist and much of his comments could have been taken out of context as he may have been making at least some of the comments tongue in cheek.  Other comments may have got out of hand in the heat of the moment.  Richards has apparently apologized privately to the heckler but should consider a public apology.  His refusal to be interviewed by the media thus far is the equivalent of a “no comment” comment in the heat of a crisis.  Richards could do much to get back his sheen by perhaps teaching comedy to under-privileged black school children or even taking an anger-management course.  Some TV show appearances could help and Oprah is always looking for entertaining guests; but Richards should resist the temptation to jump on the couch, as it appears he has on the Letterman show.

Gibson might need to do a bit more to repair his image.  At least his sin - sorry Mel, but as a Catholic you should realize it was a sin - was committed under the influence of alcohol and we all know what that is like.  Who has not been embarrassed and even truly sorry afterwards for acts committed while inebriated?  Aristotle even asked whether the drunk man and the sober man are indeed the same person; and some of the worst crimes committed in drunken states have resulted in acquittal or lesser punishments given the “mitigating circumstances” under which they were committed.  Despite the comments of some critics, Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ is not anti-Semitic and he cannot be held responsible for the views of his father.  In all fairness, as Gibson has never uttered anti-Semitic statements previously, he should be given the benefit of the doubt here.  But, beyond apologizing and going into rehab, what can Gibson do to improve his reputation?  There are probably a few things; like donating money to a Jewish charity or making a movie about the life of Moshe Dayan or Golda Meir or Anne Frank.  Either way, it is probably going to cost Gibson money - but Mad Mel needs to put his wallet where his apology is.

Finally, spare a thought for poor Zidane.  There’s not much he can do as his moment of disrepute came at the end of his brilliant career, in what should have been his greatest glory.  Regret does not an apology make and after months of refusing to apologise, it is probably too late for Zidane to do so.  And, of course, the vlogosphere more than the blogoshphere has killed all possibility of redemption because of the videos of the incident.   The video of the famous head butt is out there for all of history to see.  It was bad sportsmanship and will not be let go.  And part of the reason is that too many youngsters openly say that Zidane was justified in taking the action he did to address the racist slurs thrown at him.  Why?  Because that has been Zidane’s appalling rationalization for the violence.  What chance is there for peace in the playground now?  Zidane’s only hope of redemption demands a complete backflip.  But is he man enough for that?

And Tom?….  Cruise is still young and a good actor and movie draw card to boot.  But he’s going to have to do more than make a few more good movies.  And indulging in PR spin and activities like letting Vanity Fair take photos of the family at play is not sufficient.  People see that for what it is - propaganda, PR spin.  Cruise needs to relate more to his public.  Stop the erratic behaviour and certainly stop slamming individuals for taking medication prescribed by their doctors.  If Cruise wants to be accepted as a member of society he needs to do more than a bit of PR gloss.

A Few Good Men Needed

The one thing all celebrities could and should start doing is being more responsible about their words and actions.  As celebrities they are in the public eye and any wrong word, every false move is going to be reported on and commented on from the mainstream media to the blogstream.  And in the world of democratic journalism, where every mobile phone is a camera and everyone with access to the Internet a potential reporter and opinion-maker, you have to be even more careful about guarding your image and reputation.   Reputation management is important for celebrities - and now also for their children, the celebraties - as it is for public institutions.  Reputations must be handled with care lest they fall into disrepute.  Celebrities need PR managers who can do more than just put spin on their crimes and misdemeanours - they need true reputation managers amongst their coterie.

Posted by AC Capital Strategic Public Relations at 03:46:01 | Permalink | No Comments »

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Modern Dress and the Working Girl

by Uma Li*

One of the hottest issues in the
US this past summer – next to global warming – was the issue of appropriate clothing for women in the workplace.  It seems that this year more than most as the weather warmed up so did the attire of many young women in the workplace.

As jean cuts went lower and tops went higher to reveal more midriff, the debate also hotted up and even America’s former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright weighed in. Albright was incensed that female staffers working on both sides of Congress were compromising their professional reputations for the sake of keeping pace with the fads of today’s fashions.  She opined that the political masters of Washington’s female policy wonks were less interested in the sisterhood’s knowledgeable advice than they were in seeing their belly-buttons and other unmentionables.  Ms. Albright, who as Clinton’s Secretary of State made the world’s dictators quake in their boots, warned young women, as quoted in July in the British Sunday Times: “If you dress like a sex object then you will be treated like one.”


A visit back to China this summer demonstrated that the issue is not restricted to the US either.  It seems that young Chinese women have similarly become slaves of fashion and thrown caution to the wind when it comes to dress in the workplace.  Many career minded women don’t seem to realize how much damage they are doing their professional reputations by showing more and more flesh during working hours.

While your male bosses and colleagues might be giving the impression they like it – and they probably do like to see pretty young things bobbing about the office in revealing clothes – the unfortunate truth is that they simultaneously also lose respect for you as a professional.  Men are strange creatures that see women as either princesses or prostitutes.  In the end you as eye candy for the boys at work will impact your reputation in the office and will limit your career advancement.

Ever wonder why men don’t come to the office in the latest casual fashion for men?  Why do they maintain a professional look no matter what the Fashion Fascists dictate is hot for men?  Why don’t men wear baggy jeans that show their boxer shorts to the office or open neck shirts that show the hair on their chests?  Because men get it – they get how important professionalism is and that they must at all costs maintain their reputations at work.

Girls we need to learn this from the boys.  If we are going to be respected as professionals and move forward in our careers we have to take note of how they do it.  Learn from the enemy!

So how can we career women dress to impress in a professional way?  Wear dark suits to start with.  They can look and feel feminine, even sexy, but they must also be professional.  That means the less meat you have showing the better.  Keep it sensible, like mother used to say.  Wear a light coloured blouse – white or light blue – to contrast with the dark suit.  A brooch or discreet earrings, or a scarf or a shawl can help set it off.  The end result – you look good, authoritative, professional, yet feminine and even sexy.

Leave the low-rider jeans for Saturday night’s rave party.

Come on sisters – this is what our mothers and grandmothers fought so hard for: our chance to get ahead on our intellectual merits.  Let’s not throw it away by pandering to the sexual whims of the weaker sex – men.  The operative word for dress in the office should be stylish not sluttish.


* Uma Li is a human resources development consultant living in the United States.  She previously worked in public relations in China.

Posted by AC Capital Strategic Public Relations at 08:50:54 | Permalink | No Comments »

Reality Shanghaied by Propaganda

A good friend of this author once told him “PR is fine and well so long as you don’t start believing your own propaganda”.  The Shanghai Municipal Government which is trying to position the city as an international business and financial centre equal to the best in the world should heed this advice.

The city has a long way to go before propaganda and reality are aligned.

Included in Shanghai’s value proposition is that it has good transportation and communication links.  Shanghai-ren will even tell you that the city is swimming in wifi hotspots.  They say every Starbucks outlet in the city is now fitted with free wifi connectivity for patrons.  Not so - this author is typing this article in the Starbucks adjoining the Portman Hotel precisely because there is “limited or no connectivity” according to my laptop.  Unable to get online I have to vent my spleen.


This is not the first time that I have experienced difficulties getting online at Shanghai’s much touted wifi hotspots.  This would suggest a gap between the city’s propaganda and reality.

The other gap is in terms of transportation.  Try getting a taxi during rush hour, lunchtime or a rainy day in this city and you will have an idea what I am talking about.  (Trust me: drying off in a Starbucks with no Internet access does not seem very sophisticated.)  One Maglev train does not make a city the size of Shanghai quick and easy to navigate.  Here’s a tip city regulators, either increase the number of taxi licenses for the city or put the fares up.  It’s called market economics.

While we expect to encounter difficulties with such advanced economy infrastructure in Beijing or Guangzhou, we do expect better of the New York of the East.

For this hopeless optimist who does love the charms of this city, hope springs eternal that Shanghai soon will match reality to propaganda.  Stay tuned.

Posted by AC Capital Strategic Public Relations at 08:45:45 | Permalink | No Comments »

Friday, November 10, 2006

The Propaganda Wars: What PR and Propaganda have in common and don’t

By William Hilton-Thorp*

A cynic might say public relations is nothing more than propaganda with a fancy sounding name, and what’s more that propaganda by any other name smells as bad.  Indeed, Edward Bernays (one of the fathers of the public relations industry in the United States) has said,

“When I came back to the United States, I decided that if you could use propaganda for war, you could certainly use it for peace. And propaganda got to be a bad word because of the Germans  using it. So what I did was to try to find some other words, so we found the words Council on Public Relations”.

He seems to be suggesting that the term PR was coined to distract attention from the negative connotations associated with the word propaganda.  Put simply, those in charge of American propaganda needed a more palatable label for what they did and they found it - public relations.

Is that still true today though, is PR simply propaganda labeled differently?


I’d like to suggest that all propaganda is a form of PR, or at least a tool that can be used in PR.  However, and this should be stressed, not all PR is propaganda and that on a good day PR can be something quite different indeed.

I’m going to start by looking at propaganda because I think it is perhaps a less elusive term, one that can be more easily pinned down, and then discuss the cavernous and collective “public relations”.

The dictionary says propaganda is

The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

The just mentioned Edward Bernays said it was

the consistent, enduring effort to create or shape events to influence the relations of the public to an enterprise, idea or group.

Adolf Hitler, the man whose Nazi regime became synonymous with the term said, in Mein Kampf,

Propaganda attempts to force a doctrine on the whole people… Propaganda works on the general public from the standpoint of an idea and makes them ripe for the victory of this idea.

All of these definitions have one thing in common and that is the notion of taking an idea and willing or coercing a public into accepting it.  Importantly, the transfer of information, the movement of ideas is unidirectional.  From those who possess power or knowledge to those who do not.  Propaganda can therefore best be thought of as a one way conversation, a lecture where the public sits in the bleachers, mute, instructed from above.

Throughout history propaganda has been a major tool in the dissemination of ideas, and coercion of publics.  Propaganda can come in many forms - a book, a picture, a song, a speech.  But, to be effective propaganda requires the existence or creation of a public that is little more than a reactive sponge absorbing ideas as they are dictated.  Whatever mechanism is used - be it pictures, words, music - the public is simply a receiver of ideas, the transfer of information is in one direction.

Perhaps the most obvious and, some might argue, most successful examples of propaganda can be found in Nazi Germany during the 30s and 40s - led by the infamous Josef Goebbels who said a lie that is big enough and told often enough will in time be believed.  Without wanting to be too simplistic about things, convincing a public to accept and adopt a violent, xenophobic fascism is surely a demonstration of the power of propaganda at its best. Demonstrating that propaganda can take many forms, the Nazis used a wide range of tools to coerce their public - children’s books, movies, songs, youth groups, powerful oratory to name a few.

However, following from my definition other, less sinister, examples of propaganda abound.  Any press release that is simply copied into a newspaper is propaganda; all advertising is propaganda even if it is creatively deployed.  Anytime information or ideas are simply thrown at the public to be apathetically consumed, you’ve got propaganda.

Therefore, it’s important to note, that propaganda is not an intrinsically evil thing, as it is often assumed to be.  Propaganda is a means for the dissemination of ideas, it has no relation to the ideas themselves be they good, bad, or just plain ugly. Whether the idea is the superiority of the Aryan race or that NIKE makes the best sneakers money can buy, propaganda is simply a means to gain the idea’s acceptance by the public - uni-directionally.

What then of public relations?

First, what public relations isn’t - it isn’t marketing and advertising, it isn’t cocktail parties and product launches, it isn’t publicity, news releases and press conferences. All these things and many more can form part of a successful PR programme perhaps, but none of them individually defines what PR is.  Nonetheless, if you asked someone on the street what comes to mind when they hear the term PR they would very likely say one of the things just listed.  So what is PR then?

According to Bernays, PR is

the attempt by information, persuasion and adjustment, to engineer public support for an activity, cause, movement, or institution.

The Public Relations Society of America says “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.”

Franz Jefkins in his book PR Techniques says the “purpose of PR is to create understanding”

Winter Wright, writing on public relations in China, that “PR is simply about gaining influence”.

Influence, understanding, mutual adaptation and engineering.

Public Relations is the conversations that occur between organizations, institutions and so on and a public. The practice of Public Relations, therefore, is the creation and management of those conversations.

It is through conversations that we gain understanding, that we influence, achieve adaptation or even the engineering of the public.

These conversations can come in many forms and styles, some are more effective than others.  Some are more appropriate than others. And this is where the art and/or science of the practice of public relations sits.  The ability to determine the most appropriate conversation, and then creating it.

These conversations at one extreme are nothing more than propaganda.  However, at the other extreme they are something quite different, the genuine two-way exchange of ideas and thoughts.

So propaganda in all its forms (advertising, press releases and so on), blogs, market research, surveys, complaint hotlines, public debates, podcasts.  These are tools in the creation of the conversations that are public relations.

Despite this most public relations professionals would squirm or at least feel uncomfortable about being connected with the term propaganda.  This feeling, if its exists, is unjustified, as propaganda has been and probably, in some contexts will continue to be, an effective way of conversing with the public.

However, the public is constantly changing and therefore so too are the conversations that effectively lead to the acceptance of ideas.

Common to all successful, all positive, relationships is trust.  With trust can come understanding, and with understanding comes a genuine and fulfilling relationship.  Public relationships can be and should be no different to private relationships and hence good PR is about trust, and therefore it’s about understanding.  Following from this, good PR is that which creates the conversations in which trust and understanding can emerge.  These have to be two way conversations, a conversation where it is possible for all parties to talk and all parties to listen so that eventually we all end up somewhere we want to be, together.

One way conversations are unsustainable. There’s a reason why the obnoxious bore who loves the sound of their own voice tends to end up by themselves at the party.  No one likes to be talked at, we like to participate in a conversation, to share ideas, not be spoon fed them.

The CEO of global PR firm Edelman, Richard Edelman, once said on his blog,

We are eschewing the role of PR person as spokesman, replacing it with dialogue and conversation. That implies our new role encompasses listening, counseling and allowing discourse without control.

I would say PR has always been about conversations, just not always very good or very interesting ones.

So back to the original question, the differences between propaganda and PR?  Public relations is the conversations an organisation has with its various stakeholders and most probably tailored for each stakeholder.  Propaganda is one such conversation, but it is only a one way conversation, we talk, you listen and accept.  While public relations is sometimes propaganda - and it certainly was only that in its early days following WWII - it isn’t always just propaganda.

As time goes on, less and less of public relations will be propagandistic.  Increasingly, public relations will be about creating the spaces in which genuine two-way conversations between the public and an organisation, that lead to mutual trust and understanding, can occur.

People are too aware of propaganda, people are less willing to be dragged along on a leash, regardless of how beautifully presented today’s advertising firms can make that leash; people are less willing to be spoon-fed dogma; there is an increasing desire to be accurately informed or at least people are increasingly dismissing the information that is available to them; there is a lack of trust in large organizations because of the numerous instances where people, accepting their leash, have been misled - but what is more, and most importantly, there is a willingness on the part of the public to participate in conversations, to speak as well as listen. Look at the thousands of NGOs and activist groups, the emergence of the blogosphere.  These are the signs that the conversations between the public and the organizations that feed off it, the conversations that PR professionals create and manage, are changing.

All propaganda is PR, but not all PR is propaganda.

* William Hilton-Thorp is an Account Executive at AC Capital Strategic Public Relations.

Posted by AC Capital Strategic Public Relations at 01:31:26 | Permalink | No Comments »