Author: Jim Horton

Jeff Bezos of Amazon is finding out.  Stephen Colbert has taken him to task for blocking access to a book publisher with whom Amazon is negotiating.  The TV sequence is funny and angry (Look at the whole segment.)  Amazon has remained silent because it is in the middle of negotiations with Hachette, which coincidentally publishes Colbert’s books.   Should Amazon defend itself?  It should.  Boycotting books is a direct strike against the firm’s reputation of being the world’s most complete bookstore.  It also smacks of arrogance.  If Amazon can throw its retail weight around, what happens to publishers?  They become a vassal of the merchant.  It would not necessarily be dangerous for that to happen.  Publishers can still select manuscripts to usher into print, but there is a risk that Amazon will eventually dictate what they can sell.  That would gag new and innovative voices looking to be heard for the first time.  Whatever the reasons for Amazon’s boycott, it should end it as quickly as possible before the company’s reputation is marred permanently..

Netflix has started leveling blame publicly at internet service providers whose downloading is slow.  Verizon is not amused.  This raises an issue of the risk of taking on vendors openly.  It is no guarantee that the vendor will change its ways and the bad relations one has fostered against the vendor might come back to hurt the company.  Perhaps Netflix can get away with criticism because it is one of the largest pipeline users in the world with its multi-gigabyte downloading of movies to millions of customers.  Netflix might be frustrated and tired of hearing customer complaints over an issue about which it can do nothing.  One can say this much for its public warning.  It caught ISPs’ attention.  One will now have to see if anything is done about download speeds or whether Netflix’s PR move has backfired.

As this article relates, memory can be altered in a number of ways, and one never knows it is happening.  That is why in journalism as well as in PR that one fact checks constantly.  There is rarely a time when one dare trust recall to be entirely correct.  What did that executive actually say?  How did those events unfold?  Memory under stress is worse.  One holds on to a particular point but forgets the rest.  The first rule of PR is accuracy, accuracy, accuracy.  That rule remains unchanged because journalists think we lie for a living.  The way to gain their credibility is to be more correct than they are..  Hence, we take notes.  We document.  We check everything repeatedly before publishing it.  We don’t trust memory to get it right., even if our memories are good.  Such fact-checking becomes part of institutional memory.  When successors check back into the files years later, they can trust what they find because of the careful work that went into making the files in the first place.  

One lesson a scientist should learn is not to announce too loudly a discovery.  Future facts might humiliate.  This is what is happening now to the gravitational wave study that was bruited globally earlier this year.  Doubts are creeping in about the meaning of the data.  Did the astronomers see polarization in the cosmic microwave background or in cosmic dust?  If it was dust then the discovery was not so earth-shaking.  Scientists may have to change the experiment to allow for the fine particles of deep space then try again. Meanwhile, news of their discovery becomes an embarrassment.  One can’t blame scientists for being excited and convinced of what they have detected.  Years of instrument building, searching, and interpretation of data prepare one for finding something.  It is hard to stand back and examine evidence objectively, even with safeguards built in.  How will the searchers answer the argument that what they have seen is dust?  We shall find out in the days to come, but we’re seeing now peer-review in action and doubt growing.  Science should, but often does not, confer humility.

Sometimes PR is a zero-sum activity.  One might win respect and reputation from one audience but lose it with another.  That happened over the weekend with President Obama.  His Taliban prisoner swap for an American POW was looked upon positively by many Americans but not all. Several senators and congressmen considered it a bad deal, and the president of Afghanistan is miffed.  One rarely can please everyone, but Obama took a decision based on a moment’s opportunity, showing that he is capable of rapid action.  Now the issue is the former POW himself. There is rumor that he should never have been caught in the first place had he stayed where he belonged.  Some say he deserted, but the circumstances are unclear.  If the President knows, he isn’t talking.  If it turns out to be true that the young man was derelict, the President will earn a black eye for turning over five top leaders to get him back.  And, as one critic pointed out, the Taliban now know an American prisoner is valuable. Expect them to try to capture another.  Should they do so, the net result will be negative and not zero sum. 

Misinformation like this is not PR.  There is no body of scientific fact that links autism with milk.  Other than protecting free speech, there is no excuse for publishing what clearly is not true.  PR is based first and foremost on facts and persuasive presentation of them. Accuracy is the first rule because the media expect PR practitioners to shade the truth.  By not doing so, we earn credibility and a hearing time and again.  The in-your-face statement of something that has no basis in fact is propaganda.  The theory here is that if one says something loud enough and long enough, he will gain followers.  That worked for some of history’s worst dictators, but the falseness of their position caught up with them.  PR is focused on building relationships through an honest presentation of organizations and individuals.  One wonders if PETA understands that.

Sometimes creative media ideas go wrong.  When they do, you get an incident like this. The publicist for a computer gaming company went to great time and expense to assemble a package that could pass for a safe — or a bomb.  How was a newsroom to know?  After the building had been evacuated, the device was pried open to reveal “a copy of Watch Dogs, a baseball cap and a beanie.”  There are those who say that any publicity is good no matter how you get it.  That theory is disproved in a case like this. Imagine the reception that the company is going to get in the newsroom going forward. Reporters and editors will remember the stunt gone awry and the first task of the company will be to overcome hostility.  File this case under “it seemed like a good idea at the time.”

This is an example of a brick thrower, a person trying to influence events by making things up, fomenting trouble and twisting facts.   There are brick throwers on both ends of the political spectrum and they have existed since the beginning of the country.  They are lamentable and anti-PR, which concentrates on fostering relationships.  That  so many brick throwers have filtered from Washington DC into the corporate world is sad.  It indicates that company executives still don’t understand the communications function. Noise isn’t PR and never has been.  That is publicity, but even in publicity, brick throwers are a special class and not much appreciated.  One could wish these people would disappear but that will never happen.  Partisanship births new brick throwers every day. They last a while, perhaps make a few headlines then disappear as others take their places.  Mostly they talk to those of their own persuasion.  The rest of us know better.

One might not expect a Third World country to be adept in communications, but this is poor PR.  The military should not have been speaking without the approval of the President.  Announcing that it has found the girls also is unwise because the rebels will now move them again.  One can understand a need to tell the people that the government is working to rescue their children, but not at the peril of the ones being rescued.  Instead, the military should be working behind closed doors to figure out ways to reach the girls and the probabilities of getting them alive.  Nigeria is a focus of international attention over the abduction.  Every day that goes by without a solution increases the burden and tension on government officials.  Letting it be known that the country is helpless to get the young women out of bondage is a testimony to the weakness of the central authority.  No good can come from this.

Have a memorable Memorial Day and think of those still serving.