The IRS Scandal: A Nixonian Approach?

Screen Shot 2013 05 22 at 8.03.19 AM The IRS Scandal: A Nixonian Approach? The Obama administration continues to do itself no favors in the controversy involving the Internal Revenue Service. The scandal has already prompted the resignation of Acting IRS Chief Steven Miller and spawned both Congressional hearings and a Justice Department criminal inquiry.

In this week’s installment, administration officials offered contradictory information about when they found out the IRS was targeting politically conservative groups for additional scrutiny. On Sunday, a White House representative told the Sunday talk shows the issue hit the presidential radar the previous week.  A day later, however, White House spokesman Jay Carney revealed that several senior aides, including President Obama’s chief of staff and a senior White House attorney, knew about the matter more than a month ago, but chose not to tell the president.  Certain senior U.S. Treasury officials knew about IRS activities last year. IRS official Lois Lerner shed no additional light in her testimony before Congress: she pleaded the Fifth Amendment, invoking her right against self-incrimination.

Fair or not, the progression of events has begun to draw comparisons to another political era: that of Richard “Tricky Dick” Nixon. Prior to the Watergate scandal that ultimately swamped his presidency, Nixon wielded the IRS as a bludgeon against those on his “enemies list”. It was also during the congressional inquiry into Watergate that Senator Howard Baker, a Tennessee Republican, posed the now famous political question: What did the President know, and when did he know it? When it comes to the current scandal, the answer to that question seems far from clear.

THE PR VERDICT:  “F” (Full Fiasco) for the Obama administration. At best, the administration looks confused and inept; at worst, bullying and devious.

THE PR TAKEAWAY:  The buck always stops at the top. A school of thought exists wherein keeping bad news from senior management is believed to provide protection from fallout. That’s the wrong approach. Whether president or CEO, an organization’s leader is always held accountable for its behavior. When things go awry, the best plan is to move quickly to apprise leadership, sort out the facts, take remedial action if necessary and be prepared to speak knowledgeably about the matter if needed. Anything less is asking for trouble.

Pelosi Makes Old News, New News

Screen Shot 2013 05 20 at 7.14.18 AM 139x150 Pelosi Makes Old News, New NewsNot everyone likes Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives. That much is clear. She is described by the Financial Times as “a kind of liberal piñata for Republicans,” and “a ready-made hate-figure for conservatives.” She recently gave an interview to the paper in its informal weekend format, Lunch with the FT.  Was this interview an attempt to set the record straight? An informal make over?

There are many reasons to give interviews to the media. Sometimes it’s to make an announcement, to launch and idea, or to set the record straight. Sometimes it is to simply make your case again. Nancy Pelosi, at the age of 73, gave her lunch interview to the Financial Times with one key message: business as usual.

What’s noteworthy about the interview is that there is no new PR messaging and no real news. Given her age and her congressional seniority the key takeaways were that she remains a defiant and unapologetic liberal (“proudly so”) and that she continues in her role as the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, a task of endless complication. Described as “brutally effective” in her role, the FT claims Obama’s “signature legislative achievements such as healthcare reform would have never become law” without her. At this point in her tenure, the need to establish a base and to outreach with new messaging now seems to be behind her.

The PR Verdict: “B” (Good Show) for Nancy Pelosi and an interview that was more of the same.

The PR Takeaway: Simply staying on track can be the message. What’s noteworthy about this article is how little new ground it breaks. Pelosi’s messaging is exactly as one might have expected but packaged in an interview format that revolves around an informal lunch, makes the messaging sounds less political and self promotional. In PR, if you want to make your point but don’t have anything new to say, change the venue and the format and keep the messaging on track. What is old news can pass as new news.

The PRV Report Card: Winners & Losers

Screen Shot 2013 05 16 at 7.16.52 PM 150x150 The PRV Report Card: Winners & LosersPR Winner: “A” (PR Perfect) for the Republicans who have turned up the heat on the Obama’s second term. If true that life comes at you in threes, then this week was the triumvirate of PR gifts. Obama found himself on the back foot regarding the IRS/ Tea Party scandal, the Justice Department/AP phone record snooping, and finally the ongoing thorn in the side of the Administration that is Benghazi. No matter the merits, the concerted drum beating has been an effective PR attack. Objective one: change the news agenda and place the Administration on the defensive, unable to talk about what it wants to talk about. For this week at least, mission accomplished.

Screen Shot 2013 05 16 at 7.17.58 PM 150x150 The PRV Report Card: Winners & LosersPR Loser: “F” (Full Fiasco) to Barbara Walters and the media reaction to her announcement that she is stepping down. In what will be her long goodbye to broadcasting, America’s famous interviewer announced that she would be phasing herself out during a series of programmed appearances and TV specials over the next twelve months. Online and columnist reactions to her career were astonishingly scathing. Slammed as lightweight, fawning and inconsequential the reaction could have only made unhappy bedtime reading for Babs’ PR team. A couple more glowing endorsements from journalists who think Babs paved the way for other women might have given the coverage some more balance. For Babs and her team, this might be a tough twelve months.

Screen Shot 2013 05 16 at 7.19.58 PM 150x150 The PRV Report Card: Winners & LosersTHE PRV “THERE’S NO ‘THERE’ THERE” AWARD TO Kylie Busutti, a former Victoria’s Secret model currently touting her book I’m No Angel. In her sad tale, Ms. Busutti recounts being shocked – shocked! – to find out that models are required to be absurdly thin and that Victoria’s Secret apparel is sexy, apparently too sexy for Busutti’s Christian faith. We’re not sure what deserted island this young woman grew up on, but these are hardly revelations. There is something rank, too, about claiming a moral high ground that wouldn’t let her continue in such a tawdry profession but does, apparently, permit trying to capitalize on it.

The PRV Report Card: This Week’s Winners and Losers

 The PRV Report Card: This Weeks Winners and LosersPR WINNER OF THE WEEK: “A” (PR Perfect) to French authorities for pursuing criminal charges against those responsible for last year’s topless photos of Kate Middleton. The photos, which not only infuriated the Royals but also privacy advocates, were taken from afar, then published in French magazine Closer, owned by Mondadori, and eventually in several other European publications. If convicted, Mondadori CEO Ernesto Mauri and the as-yet-unnamed photographer could spend up to a year in jail, be forced to cease business for five years, and/or face a fine of 45,000 euros. Yes, this may be a little over the top, but given the long term abuses of the tabloids (as seen in the hacking scandals in the UK), the charges send an unmistakable message: Invasions of privacy will not be tolerated ici.

 The PRV Report Card: This Weeks Winners and LosersPR LOSER OF THE WEEK: “F” (FULL FIASCO) to KPMG Chairman Michael Andrew, who told the Financial Times that a recent insider-trading scandal involving a former partner was a ”one-day wonder” that generated coverage only because it was a “slow news week.” We love keeping calm and carrying on, but in cases like this, too much sang-froid just looks downright careless. If JP Morgan regrets CEO Jamie Dimon’s comments about a “tempest in a teacup” regarding the $6 billion London Whale trading loss, then Andrew’s equally cavalier comments may end up haunting him. In the new age of corporate contrition, this was a misstep. Both clients and staff must have been wondering: What was he thinking?

 The PRV Report Card: This Weeks Winners and LosersTHE PRV “THERE’S NO ‘THERE’ THERE” AWARD TO the George W. Bush Library dedication ceremony. Timing is everything, and whether this was a good week or a bad one to dedicate the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum was debatable. The event was a patriotic photo op for sure, with all five living presidents – Bush father and son, Carter, Clinton, and Obama – there to open the center. But the same event was candy for detractors, who pondered whether the Bush legacy of war and financial foundation for the recession was grounds for commemoration, and if a library was really the most apt choice for Dubya. Considering the past two weeks of North Korean missiles at the ready, ricin-laced letters to politicians, and a terrorist attack in Boston, this celebratory move seemed somewhat oddly timed.

 

 

Weiner Reveals More for a PR Comeback

 Weiner Reveals More for a PR ComebackWhat ever happened to Anthony Weiner? The New York congressman shot to fame when he mistakenly tweeted a photo of his namesake (no, not his kid) to thousands of followers, thinking it was going to one flirtatious admirer. He denied all at first, then resigned shortly thereafter. It was a sudden ending to a promising congressional career, made all the more complicated as his wife, Huma Abedin, was one of Hilary Clinton’s closest lieutenants and pregnant with their first child at the time.

Little has been heard from Weiner since his embarrassing resignation. Earlier this year, he and Abedin announced the birth of their son in a soft-focus feature in People magazine. Several months of silence followed. Now, the New York Times Magazine has given the former congressman and his wife a long and detailed cover story outlining his journey to redemption – and his possible mayoral ambitions for New York.

The article’s narrative? Anthony Weiner has been doing some reflecting. He and Huma have worked through their issues. Yes, he still feels paralyzed with guilt about the humiliation he brought onto their family. He lives with the embarrassment and pain. His wife has emerged as a tower of strength and understanding. Being out of the  spotlight has helped him revaluate his life. He now understands the true meaning of humility and the danger of hubris. Is that enough to pave his way to the New York mayoral race?

THE PR VERDICT: “A” (PR Perfect) for Anthony Weiner and his PR reinvention. Let the show begin.

THE PR TAKEAWAY: Break for an interval before the second act. The Times article asked all the right questions: Why did Anthony Weiner do it? What did he learn? How has it changed him? With his wife ever-present in the article, and joining him on the magazine cover, critics now have little PR mileage to make out of the infamous tweet. While Weiner will undoubtedly face more questions, the definitive answers have been given. The Weiner camp can plan its political march forward toward the campaign office.

To read the full article, click here.

Margaret Thatcher’s PR Legacy

 Margaret Thatchers PR Legacy

THE PR VERDICT: “A” (PR Perfect) for Lord Bell and Margaret Thatcher for consistent PR packaging that made a political icon.

The passing of Margaret Thatcher was announced yesterday by none other than her trusty PR adviser Lord Timothy Bell, the man who packaged Thatcher for an electoral win. It was a fitting end to an astonishing PR trajectory – the PR man who transformed the grocer’s daughter into a global figurehead ended up publicly drawing the curtain on the former Prime Minister’s final act, and possibly his greatest PR achievement.

To realize quite how successful Lord Bell has been in creating a myth and icon, one only need look at the media coverage announcing Thatcher’s death. Blanketing most news outlets on both sides of the Atlantic, the consensus on both political sides was that Thatcher had genuinely transformed economic policy and foreign policy with her relentless prescription for free markets and hostility to the Soviet Union.

Bell’s PR packaging served Thatcher’s messages well. Yesterday’s coverage made endless references to the deepened voice loaded with gravitas, as prescribed by her PR team, while her signature handbag portrayed an impatient common sense. Though her politics are what made her famous, her clever photo ops and bon mots made sure that even those who weren’t fans felt compelled to listen, watch, and acknowledge her achievements.

THE PR VERDICT: “A” (PR Perfect) for Lord Bell and Margaret Thatcher for consistent PR packaging that made a political icon.

THE PR TAKEAWAY: Consistency trumps inventiveness. Thatcher’s genius was to begin working with a PR team at the outset of her political launch (as portrayed in the film The Iron Lady) that took every opportunity to demonstrate qualities that she later traded on. From her famous “This lady is not for turning” speech to her impeccably groomed persona, her packaging over the years rarely strayed or experimented with doubt or ideological uncertainty. Bell found for Thatcher a PR formula that, once firmly established, simply improved with age.

Vogue Fashions a (Too) Perfect First Family

 Vogue Fashions a (Too) Perfect First Family

The PR Verdict: “C” (Distinctly OK) for Vogue’s cover feature on the First Family. (Pictured: First Lady Michelle and President Barack Obama.)

Can planned PR be too effective? That might be the inevitable question when reading the latest edition of American Vogue, featuring First Lady Michelle Obama on the cover.  Photographed elegantly by Annie Liebowitz, the magazine offers an interview with the Obamas at home in the White House, with a particular focus on the First Lady’s views on raising a family. To the Obamas’ supporters, it’s inspiring; to the cynical, it makes for decidedly unedifying reading.

In the article, America’s First Couple talk about “their life as parents, their marriage, and their vision for America’s families.” This is an article that details the rigors of running a household just like any other and the stresses a demanding job can have on any parent. While most working couples find it hard to have an evening meal with their children, Mrs. Obama tells Vogue that the President is home by 6:30 pm to have dinner with her and their two daughters.

The article goes on to emphasize the importance of family, grandparents, and discipline, and the Obamas talk in a good-natured way about coming to terms with technology that teenagers understand as second nature. The PR sound-bite that sums up the article?  This is not the First Family, but rather the “Family First Family.”

THE PR VERDICT: “C” (Distinctly OK ) for the Obamas and their Vogue profile. The ring of authenticity may have sounded a bit tinny coming from this very Obama-friendly publication.

THE PR TAKEAWAY: Authenticity gives credibility. This article has all the hallmarks of being quote checked, pre-approved, and negotiated every step of the way. (Important to mention: Vogue editor Anna Wintour raised funds for the Obama campaign and was rumored to be in the running for an ambassadorship.) The result? Some of it just doesn’t ring comfortably true. Though the Obamas may be, in some respects, like ordinary Americans, the magazine’s description of the family sitting down to dinner together seems almost perfectly scripted. The end result is that the reader feels vaguely manipulated. Next time, opt for telling a less 1950’s version of suburban family bliss and opt for something more modern. Sometimes it’s better if PR gets out of its own way.

To read the article, click here.

Republicans Face Harsh Realities, Rebranding

 Republicans Face Harsh Realities, Rebranding

THE PR VERDICT: “B” (Good Show) to Priebus and the RNC.

“Scary,” “narrow-minded,” and “the party of stuffy old men.” Those are just some of the ways the Republican party  describes itself in an unvarnished 100-page report released by the Republican National Committee (RNC) this week. Commissioned by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus following the 2012 presidential election, the so-called “autopsy report” identifies the party’s major flaws in attracting voters and recommends big cultural change to help Republicans win the next time around.

The candid nature of the report makes it interesting reading. One of the major issues identified is the party’s failure to appeal to younger voters and minorities, two of the largest growing voting demographics. “Public perception of the party is at record lows,” the report notes. “Young voters are increasingly rolling their eyes at what the party represents, and many minorities wrongly think that Republicans do not like them or want them in the country. When someone rolls their eyes at us, they are not likely to open their ears to us.”

This public soul-searching is unprecedented for a national political party. While some Republicans are bristling at the release of the report, others laud the RNC for taking such a dramatic step. One thing everyone should be able to agree on it is that change is needed: Republicans have lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, a seismic shift from the prior two decades. Perhaps this report is the blueprint for the Republican party’s future?

THE PR VERDICT: “B” (Good Show) to Priebus and the RNC. Acknowledging failures is never easy, but every turnaround needs a first step.

THE PR TAKEAWAY: True rebranding is an inside-out job. The invasive nature of a well-done rebranding process sometimes comes as a surprise to corporate leaders, who falsely assume they are simply signing up  a new logo, not a massive corporate  rethink.  A rebrand is a major undertaking that involves the acceptance of harsh truths and a commitment to making fundamental changes. A new name or logo change may be an important part of the equation, but they’re not the end result. Fortunately for companies (unlike political parties), the dirty linen can usually be examined more privately.

GOP: OK With Sequester, or Not?

 GOP: OK With Sequester, or Not?

THE PR VERDICT: “F” for the GOP and Republicans for their post sequester messaging.

What, no triumphant headlines or gloating from the GOP? Has it suddenly discovered a new level of modesty? Days after the sequester debate has reached the end of its life cycle, the GOP and Republican politicians seem remarkably low key about their latest political triumph. Puzzling, to say the least.

From the get go, President Obama has been clear: He hated the sequester. A bad and clumsy mechanism to reduce spending that would only hurt middle and low-income earners. Bad for the economy, bad for the recovery. In PR terms, his case was an easy read.

Republicans, on the other hand, made it clear that spending needed to be reined in. This showdown was going to highlight their resolve to cut spending and bring the deficit back in line. But since then, the triumphant tone in Republican communication has been increasingly limp and muddled. House Speaker John Boehner said, “I didn’t like it anymore than anybody else liked it,” while other Congressional peers including Jim Jordan said: “The sequester should happen… That is good.” Sen. Lindsey Graham told the media, “The cumulative effect of sequestration is bad for defense.” So, is the GOP  happy with the cuts or not? What is the official party line – or is there one?

THE PR VERDICT: “F” for the GOP and Republicans for their post sequester messaging. Confusing at best.

THE PR TAKEAWAY: Don’t air your doubt in public. Just weeks ago, GOP messaging was clear: Government spending was out of hand, and the American electorate had handed them a mandate to rein it in. Now that the cuts are in place, the PR messaging is confused and contradictory, playing straight into concerns that the cuts are iron-fisted and potentially damaging to the fragile recovery. What changed in the space of a couple of weeks? Now is the time for the GOP  to revisit and unify its messaging. Public displays of ambivalence in moments like this rarely offers any protection against public reactions of hostility. Without a change, the GOP and Republican Congress is unintentionally poised to take the blame for a later slow-down. Of course, if that was their intention, well, mission accomplished.

 

Mr Cruz Goes to Washington

 Mr Cruz Goes to Washington

THE PR VERDICT: “B” (Good Show) for Sen. Mark Cruz.

The latest storm to descend on the U.S. capitol is Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who blew into town two months ago and has stayed on the front pages ever since. A freshman to the Senate, Cruz’s brash behavior has rankled colleagues on both sides of the political aisle and caught the attention of the press. The New York Times called him “an ornery, swaggering piece of work” , while the New Yorker is asking “Is Sen. Ted Cruz Our New McCarthy?” More Republican-friendly venues, such as the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard, have lauded the 42-year-old’s unconventional starting term.

Freshmen senators traditionally begin their terms quietly, sitting practically unnoticed on committees and casting votes, lemming-like, along party lines. Not so Mr. Cruz. In the news most recently for spitting fire over former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel’s nomination as Defense Secretary, he successfully stalled Hagel’s nomination for several weeks. The Texas upstart is creating waves.

Media outlets are divided on their opinions of Sen. Cruz, but they’re all talking about him. During his campaign, the Texas Republican told constituents he was going to shake things up in Washington. So far, that’s one campaign promise he’s kept.

THE PR VERDICT: “B” (Good Show) for Sen. Ted Cruz. At the beginning of the year, almost no one outside Texas (and even many in the Lone Star State) knew who he was, and now everyone has something to say about him.

THE PR TAKEAWAY: Make a splash at the outset. Congress is a big, noisy place and it can be hard to distinguish oneself amidst 535 people intent on doing the same. Unlike the more raucous House of Representatives, the Senate is considered a thoughtful and well-mannered chamber, and it’s too early to tell whether Mr. Cruz’s strategy will serve him well. Ultimately, the junior senator from Texas will need to form alliances to get votes to go his way, but so far his PR impact has been substantial enough to make his colleagues realize one thing: ultimately, they will need to court him as much as he needs to court them.