Guest blogged by Nick Harrison

According to Friday’s TechCrunch article, The New York Times Kindle subscriptions are increasing by 46% to $19.99. And they are charging 17.29 for iPad subscriptions.

It is old news that beginning in 2011, The New York Times will be charging for online content. More than a week ago it was also reported that News Corp’s UK times would charge, according to Reuters, 1 pound ($1.49) per day or 2 pounds per week. It would be complimentary to print subscribers. Continue Reading »

What a shame that Lehman Brothers employees found out the bankruptcy protection filing through the media.  The New York Times earlier this week reported that, while Dick Fuld tried to the very last minute to save the company, he ended up issuing a news release at 12:30 on Monday morning announcing the filing.

Where is his PR team?  Do they not have a seat at the table?  Is the internal communication run by their HR department?  Where is their senior HR person?  Not at the table?

The Times reported, “Some Lehman employees wondered whether Fuld, who many inside the bank now view with deep anger, would address workers and explain what they could expect.”

In today’s age, how is it that employees still receive devastating news via the media?  I thought the days of going to work and finding the doors padlocked or receiving a voicemail at work saying the company was bankrupt were over.  Am I being naive to think they know better?  I don’t get how a 158-year-old company doesn’t talk to 25,000 employees AT ALL.

Have you seen the New York Times article about using “striking words” in your news releases to gain the attention of reporters, especially on slow news days? Oh yes! It’s true. The article, titled “Need Press? Repeat: ‘Green,’ ‘Sex,’ ‘Cancer,’ ‘Secret,’ ‘Fat’” ran last week and quotes, GASP!, PR people who support the notion that if you sensationalize a headline, the story will run in most major publications. Continue Reading »

Blog Written by Maggie Hassler

When there are so many examples of spin in today’s media, it’s refreshing to see publicity picking up on an inspiring story. On May 23, Greensburg, Kansas citizens’ lives were turned upside down, literally, when a tornado swept through destroying their community. Rather than be defeated by this tragedy, the city has embraced new opportunities, some say as an homage to their town’s name. Today, Greensburg is in the early stages of developing “the nations first platinum city” with the highest green certification available.

Continue Reading »

Blog written by Morgan Smith

Governments are engaged in a constant battle between taxing and spending. The battle is waged each year, dating from when taxes were first levied by governments, as a means of paying for services needed by their constituents.

Elected officials are always struggling to come up with new ways to not alienate constituents, keeping everyone moderately happy enough to ensure their re-election. This is especially true when it comes to the subject of taxes. How many times have you witnessed campaign rhetoric announcing “candidate X raised taxes XX times, hurting working families,” or “candidate Y, cut services for (insert large issue group here, i.e. seniors, children, working mothers, etc.)”

The truth is, constituents want the services they depend on without having to pay for them. So what is an elected official to do?

Increasingly, you find a way to heavily tax items, products, or services which are used by a minority of your constituents. 

Enter cigarettes, gambling, and other “unsavory activities”

While I think cigarettes are terrible for you, and I don’t smoke, I think government is getting a little out of control, relying on raising the price of cigarettes $1 per pack to fund critical state programs.

Take, for example, the proposed tax increase on cigarettes in Massachusetts.

Gov. Patrick wants to raise the price of cigarettes $1 per pack to help stabilize the state’s new mandatory health insurance plan.  As stated by the New York Times, “Supporters emphasize that in addition to providing revenue, increases in tobacco taxes are proven to drive down smoking rates, particularly among youths who may find that they cannot afford to start.”

But if the new taxes discourage smoking, where do the taxes come from to pay for the programs when there are no longer enough smokers to foot the bill?

The governments are using spin to justify the reason for levying the new taxes and, frankly, doing a great member of their constituents a disservice by unfairly shifting the tax burden to smoker’s shoulders. Effectively the government is are talking out of both sides of its mouth, saying they don’t like smoking and people shouldn’t do it on one hand, but then making smoking a necessary component of funding government programs. If lawmakers really wanted to stop smoking, they would invest that money in anti-smoking programs. That way, the program would phase itself out as people quit.

Raising taxes on smokers is just a short fix for a problem plaguing governments for centuries. All we need to do to fix the problem is elect legislators who aren’t afraid doing the right thing will get them voted out. After all, aren’t we supposed to hold our elected officials to a higher standard?

Blog written by Brigitte Lyons

Politicians, economists, and business leaders are spending a lot of time debating our current economic state. Are we in a recession or a slowdown?

The New York Times, however, is asking whether our economy was really ever booming at all.

I recommend you check out the article, but if you want the cliff notes, I’ll copy the a few passages here:

“…The now-finished boom was, for most Americans, nothing of the sort. In 2000, at the end of the previous economic expansion, the median American family made about $61,000, according to the Census Bureau’s inflation-adjusted numbers. In 2007, in what looks to have been the final year of the most recent expansion, the median family, amazingly, seems to have made less — about $60,500.

This has never happened before, at least not for as long as the government has been keeping records. In every other expansion since World War II, the buying power of most American families grew while the economy did…”

Take a second to let that sink in: While the economy grew, the American median wage decreased.

So why aren’t the American middle class seeing the fruits of their labor? Is it because we’re lazy?

No. Productivity is still rising and beating estimates, while labor costs rose less than forecasted, according to a recent Labor Department report.

Not only are we more productive, but also we’re working longer hours and losing vacation time.

I may not have a degree in economics, but it seems to me that, for the average American, the recent boom was a bust.

Blog written by Morgan Smith

I was upset and shocked earlier this week to learn that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, made an announcement about his alleged involvement in a prostitution ring. Normally, If I hear breaking news about something such as this, the information is from Drudge or some similar outlet, so it must be taken with a grain of salt. However, this information was on the front page of the New York Times Web site, and all over it at that.

As I waited for news about the Governor’s announcement, I was able to read into the case more deeply and was disappointed to learn what I did.

I first learned of Governor Spitzer in 2002 or 2003, when he was serving as Attorney General of New York. At the time, he was going after big corporations and Wall Street firms who broke the law, which in the early years of the Bush administration (and now frankly) was admired by many people, including myself.

I thought at the time, and up until he became governor, that he was as straight a shooter as they came, beholden to no one and ready to stand up for what was right in our country. He was put in the category by many people of someone who, with time and experience, could become a contender for the Presidency of the United States.  I had heard about a scandal in his administration seeking to discredit and damage the reputation of one of the Republican leaders in New York, but didn’t pay much heed to the news and passed it off as typical partisan bickering.

That is why I was so appalled to hear him admit he indeed was not only involved in a prostitution ring, but was a return customer who had an account.

As Attorney General he broke up prostitution rings, as Governor, he patronized them?

During his campaign for Governor, Spitzer pledged to bring ethics back to Albany. As Attorney General, he prosecuted at least two prostitution rings, and was even said to have spoken with revulsion and anger about one of them, saying “it was a sophisticated and lucrative operation with a multi-tiered management structure. It was, however, nothing more than a prostitution ring.”

I guess we can all see that his quote was nothing more than spin, using the facts of a case for his own gain, when clearly he did not act as the laws he enforced suggested he should.

Blog written by Shawn M. Kahle, APR

Target, one of America’s darlings of retail hip, is rethinking its long-standing policy of not talking to “non-traditional media” such as trade titles and blogs.  They’re increasing the number of corporate spokespeople and getting a better understanding of the current news sources of their core guests.

I must admit I was surprised to learn their policy was still in effect.  Though, I could empathize with their comments to PR Week that “our policy was due to the limited number of resources we’’ve had previously… we just don’t want to make any decisions we can’t follow up on.”

How’’s that for honest! Not overly defensive, not positioned to spin but a realistic comment that says: ““Times are changing and we need to change with them – we just don’t know if we can keep up!””

For companies, like individuals, change rarely comes without a moment of truth, – a crisis, an event that grabs headlines, or kicks us in the gut. 

Target caught the wrath of the blogosphere and the New York Times after sending a youth marketing blog a standard statement — “we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with nontraditional media outlets.”

Doing media relations for a national retailer is an intense, high-volume endeavor that is unrelenting and calls for the best of talent and stamina.  There are corporate issues – financial, civic, strategic, competitive, governance, legal – as well as myriad product inquiries crossing multiple categories and industries.  Celebrities bring amazing opportunities and quirks of their own.  Thousands of local “NIMBY” or labor issues grab headlines quickly and frequently without much warning.  Nature’s rage can wipe out a store in moments or convert it to a refuge for survivors.  Guests come first yet sometimes service falls short.  And then, there are just the crazies and criminals – who walk through the doors of Lane Bryant or Von Maur and kill clerks and shoppers in a blood bath of anger.

One of the most amazing professional opportunities I enjoyed was leading a team of media relations and communication professionals for Kmart Corporation.  Every day someone said, “We ought to write a book!”  I wish we had.  There were many weeks that we fielded hundreds and hundreds of calls every day – and that was when the Internet and ecommerce were in their infancy.  National nameplates draw big interest and present huge challenges that either kill you or make you stronger.   

In times when too many media relations departments are denying the power and reach of social media, Target deserves a lot of credit for recognizing it’s time to change – to figure out how to do it all and do it well.  

Blog written by Morgan Smith

It was discovered last weekend that an employee of the French bank Societe Generale, had made some bad bets on stocks, and then while trying to cover them up, worsened his position even farther.

To the tune of $7.2 billion. Yes, that’s billion, with a B.

$7.2 billion is a lot of money, even for one of France’s largest banks. What may be most interesting about this, is how the story is being laid out for the media. The news was posted in the New York Times Thursday, almost a week after it was discovered by the bank. A week is a long time to wait and announce that you have been defrauded of $7.2 billion. The bank used this free time to sell off many of its positions Monday, before allowing the world to know what was going on.

The other interesting part of the story is the bank and French authorities are saying the trader, Jerome Kerviel, was the sole perpetrator of this vast financial crime. With all the security, auditing, reporting, and accounting large financial institutions must do, it is hard to believe this was not the work of more than one person. Even financial experts are saying it is highly unlikely this is the case. For example, Howard Davies, former chairman of the Financial Services Authority of Britain and now director of the London School of Economics, was quoted in the New York Times as saying “I don’t think we’ve had the full story.” Some were more blunt about their opinions, C. Ricardo Esteves, executive director of Banco Hipotecario of Argentina told the Times, “It is not credible. One person responsible for this? I just don’t believe it.”

It seems the bank is using spinning by omission to distort the fact of the case. This is especially bad, due to the current volatility of the markets and the state of the U.S. Economy in general. It is odd an institution that must be so forthcoming about its financial data would be using spin to distort what happened. You would think that transparency here would be what is needed. Tell investors what happened, regain their trust, put them at ease, and show them how you plan to fix the problem. That makes sense to me. But, then again, maybe that’s why I’m in public relations and not a banker.

1. Thinks, as PR people, we are flacks?

2. Thinks it’s our job to be biased and provide only select information to reporters about our client’s products or services?

3. Thinks it’s our job to provide the best information with the most transparency?

4. Thinks it’s okay to be called “spin doctors”?

5. Isn’t embarrassed by the recent articles from Wired and the New York Times about our profession?

6. Thinks it’s ridiculous that even though Wiki acknowledges PR professionals can provide the most accurate information about clients, products, and services, won’t let us post to their Web site?

7. Would be willing to walk away from money if it meant you didn’t agree your client’s product or service really was the best out out there?

8. Wants to do something about the perception? 

9. Is willing to advocate for PR professionals?

10. Wants to join in on doing PR for the PR profession?