Martha Stewart Cooks Up a New Image

 Martha Stewart Cooks Up a New Image

The PR Verdict: “A” (Gold Star!) for Martha Stewart.

Martha Stewart was very busy over the Thanksgiving – and not just cooking up a feast. The guru of home entertaining was featured in both The New York Times and The Financial Times. Both  articles were presumably designed to calm investor nerves about her company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, which recently announced layoffs and financial losses.

The NYT glowingly described Martha as the new “patron saint” of the hipster entrepreneurial class while the FT gave Ms. Stewart multiple opportunities to talk about planned and current business initiatives (good for the stock price). And neither failed to mention her time in the clink.

Martha gave the FT passing acknowledgment of her prison sentence for lying to prosecutors about a stock sale, while the NYT asked her fan base for its opinion. Luckily, the responses were consistently positive. One fan, who referred to Martha as “The Jesus of the craft world,” said, “I heard that she just took some bad advice. Anybody can make mistakes.” Martha, from what she told the FT, takes a similar view.

The PR Verdict: “A” (Gold Star!) to Martha Stewart for putting a tough period behind her. It’s even given her street cred!

The PR Takeaway: Set the tone, and others will follow. While prison time might have theoretically ruined the image of the perfect homemaker, Martha Stewart has been able to successfully move on. Parting with the traditional PR strategy of public atonement, Martha instead describes her prison time as “a hole I fell into; luckily it wasn’t a very deep hole,” while adding that the experience didn’t teach her much. From the outset she has been unrepentant, and now her new followers are taking the same line of indifference. In the age of labored public apologies, this is one strategy that  is breaking the mold. And Martha’s expanded fan base seems to like it.

Click here for Martha’s FT interview and New York TImes feature.

What’s your opinion of Martha Stewart’s strategy? Give us your PR Verdict!

Barclays CEO Admits He Was Dazzled by Diamond

 Barclays CEO Admits He Was Dazzled by Diamond

The PR Verdict: “C” (Distinctly OK) for Martin Taylor, former CEO of Barclays.

What to make of the recent mea culpa from Martin Taylor, the former CEO of Barclays? The Financial Times published his opinion piece, provocatively entitled  “I Too Fell for the Diamond Myth,” in which he describes his time as CEO of Barclays during the late 1990s.  Back then, Bob Diamond was running Barclays Capital, the investment banking arm, and reported to Taylor. Judging from the article, we can safely assume they don’t exchange holiday cards.

Taylor gives an insider’s view of boardroom dysfunction and a deliberate effort by traders within Barclays Capital to work around trading limits. The traders exposed the firm to massive risks by window dressing and reclassifying bets to get them past agreed internal controls. This was the late ’90s, after all.

Russia subsequently defaulted, and the markets went into freefall. Describing Barclays’ experience as “worse than most,” Taylor says the “failure to respect the internal control system” precipitated the fire sale of key assets. Traders were dismissed, and Diamond maintained that he had known nothing. Diamond offered to resign, but Taylor, concluding that the business was still in its infancy, said his direct report should stay. Taylor concludes by saying, “I deserve blame for being among the first to succumb to the myth of Diamond’s indispensability.” Ouch!

The PR Verdict: “C” (Distinctly OK) for Martin Taylor. After more than a decade, he has come clean with some insight. Trouble is, we’re still missing some basic information.

The PR Takeaway: Personal reflection wins people over, but ignoring key questions undoes the gain. If Bob Diamond wasn’t asked to leave, was he at least given a zero bonus for the year? Was anything else done to send home the message that the CEO running the business had bottom line responsibility? Without a full explanation, it’s hard to get past the sneaking suspicion that Taylor’s mea culpa might have been more of an effort to rewrite history than a more profound and insightful contribution.

Is Taylor’s article an explanation, or an excuse? Give us your PR Verdict!